NAB to FCC: Now is not the time to tinker with OET-69

The association sent a letter today to the FCC, recounting the points made yesterday between upper level NAB staff and FCC personnel about a public notice proposing changes to OET-69.
Changing the methodology underlying OET-69 threatens to create uncertainty and dissuade TV broadcasters from participating in the spectrum incentive auction.

This week’s public notice from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) proposing material changes to OET Bulletin No. 69, which is used to evaluate DTV coverage and interference, will introduce uncertainty into the incentive auction process and undermine its ultimate success, NAB told the FCC today.

In a letter from NAB executive VP of Strategic Planning, Rick Kaplan, to the commission, NAB recounted points made during a meeting Feb. 7 between Kaplan and others from the association with FCC employees, including Renee Gregory from the Office of the Chairman; Julie Knapp, Robert Weller and Jamison Prime of OET; and others. During the meeting, NAB expressed “serious reservations” with the public notice that recommended the changes.

“By making substantive alterations to OET-69 at this stage of the process," NAB explained, "the commission was inviting unnecessary delay into the process and would cause widespread uncertainty for broadcasters who may be deciding whether to participate in the auction and how to go about protecting their viewers in the event they do not,” the letter said.

According to the letter, NAB raised three issues during the meeting and urged the agency to set aside its plan to rework OET-69 at this time. First, NAB pointed out that changing the methodology used in OET-69 appears “to violate Congress’ clear direction in the Spectrum Act,” which authorized the incentive auctions.

The letter recounted the language of the act, which says the FCC “shall make all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television licensee, as determined using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69 of the Office of Engineering and Technology of the commission.”

According to the letter, Congress directed the agency to rely on the methodology in OET Bulletin 69 because it would create certainty for broadcasters about what areas they cover before deciding if they will participate in the auction, as well as what they have the right to preserve if they choose not to participate.

The letter pointed out that revisiting how “flagged” cells in the Longley-Rice methodology are addressed could impact coverage area and population serviced for 25 percent to 30 percent of stations.

The letter also questioned whether changes shouldn’t be made at the commission level rather than by FCC staff. Making such important changes at the commission level will ensure decisions are made at a level where they can be fully vetted by the commissioners and the public.

Finally, the letter said NAB was concerned that making the changes will create little benefit for the auction. Although it might be beneficial to review OET-69 in the future, doing so now “creates substantial uncertainty for broadcasters and the wireless industry.”

“NAB believes strongly, however, that such a review must take place apart from the incentive auction process and as part of a notice-and-comment rulemaking,” the letter said.

Discuss this Article 3

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 11, 2013

Why does the FCC keep tinkering when so many other items are more fruitful.

I own a TV facility & we do 5 SD channels & I am using 17.22 of of my 19.38 mega bits.
I would love to use my remaining capacity for IP or any other valid ( paying) data stream.
But I can't because every time a facility tries to get an experimental license to test new equipment, they are turned down !!!

Greg Herman ( LPTV owner & pioneer) in Oregon has a perfectly good concept but has been turned down ( pretty much flatly).

The commission is hell bent on the auction.

Messing with the OET standard is just another part of the auction snow job, do not fall for it & be sure you
have Greg Walden in your e mail !!!

The fat lady is still singing , so join the chorus !!!

Dan

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 11, 2013

I don't know what OET-69 is but anything that would reduce the area served by many stations in our area could cause a loss of stations for us to view. When the analog to digital switch was made we lost some choices, but the signal from some others vastly improved. I hope the current stations we view now are not
weakened.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 11, 2013

I'm seen to know how to understand the entire spectrum situation. I would take a bet that Daystar, Trinity, Ion and all the other religious and minor broadcast network plus all the diginets multicast networks would round up being regulated to cable only network that would be made available to customers with FTA systems and be made available on all cable systems as well as on both Directv and Dish Network and also be allowed to stream their programming online for internet users at no cost. I like the idea in which NBC stations on 1080 share their channel with Telemundo on 480 in widescreen, CBS stations on 1080 sharing with CW on 1080 in widescreen, FOX stations on 720 sharing with MyNET on 720 in widescreen, Univision and Telefutura share a channel together on either 480, 720, or 1080 in widescreen, and ABC would continue to not have to worry about sharing their stations with another network or another station and still on 720 in widescreen, but could likely share it with other network affiliated channels on either 480, 720, or 1080 in widescreen. PBS stations would likely be forced to merged and share it’s stations on the same channel frequency and still be able to transmit in 1080 widescreen. The stronger PBS stations would end up sharing the channel space with the weaker PBS stations in markets where there are multiple PBS affiliates in the same market. The mid-sized and smaller TV markets could end up carrying 2 to 3 subchannel feeds in widescreen SDTV or HDTV on the same channel frequency. I would recommend that all the TV stations that are now on the UHF 14-51 band in digital that were on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in analog be forced to move on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in digital and all the TV stations that are now on the UHF 14-51 band in digital that were on 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in analog be forced to move back to those channels in digital plus all the TV stations that are now on the VHF 7-13 high band with different RF physical channel numbers on the VHF high band in digital that were on 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in analog to be forced to move back to those channels in digital as the best way to not mess up on frequency assignments in the future maybe by around 2020. I like the idea of all the TV stations be allowed to transmit all HDTV and SDTV as well as mobile programming in the MPEG 4 format in the future maybe by around 2020. I like the idea of both IVI TV and FilmOn HDi be allowed to go in business again and be able to transmit all the local stations to the viewers on the net for free without any interference from the government for violating any copyright laws with benefits for online viewers that want to watch their favorite stations programming such as local news and shows even after the spectrum auction and plan becomes very mandated and very hard for TV stations to be able to stay on the air without being able to stream all their programming online to the viewers online. Me wanting IVI TV and FilmOn HDi transmitting the locals online for free to the viewers on the internet would be very beneficial when it comes to very severe weather outbreaks and breaking news that the viewers would want to be very informed the sooner and the better as a public service to all online users and all television stations in the future. I’m afraid that my take of what channels the TV stations ought to be on with the planning of an spectrum auction. Thank you for my understanding to this crisis in the TV business lately as it relates to the spectrum crunch going on right now. My comment to this matter is not a negative attack but a opinion and theory on my own terns to the spectrum auction in the future.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Broadcast Engineering ID
(optional)

Ads by Google

Watch Broadcast Engineering at NAB

Read the NAB blog for the latest show news

Why Go Digital

Newsletter Block - Editable

Subscribe to our newsletters and get regular updates on the technology that most interests you.

Download Smart Playout Center