Markets that don't have full power or OTA PBS affiliate stations

[IM42A]

Yes. See 73.621(j) of the FCC's rules.

- Trip

I see, thanks for the good information.

But how does it work the other way around? Is there any specific prohibition against commercial stations making one of their subchannels available to PBS or another noncommercial entity? From the example given (KCWT), the answer would appear to be no, but I do have to wonder if there was some kind of special exception made, for whatever reason.

And, just got to wonder, did KCWT get some kind of tax break, special consideration in getting or renewing their license, or both, in return for making a PBS subchannel available to an otherwise unserved community?

 

[alg2468]

That's interesting, a PBS subchannel on a commercial station (albeit LPTV). Is this the only place in the US that has this sort of arrangement?

And I may have asked this question before on this forum (forgive me if I did), but would it be possible for a PBS station to allow one or more of its subchannels to be used for commercial purposes? Something like this already exists, where commercial and public stations share a channel (WZME and Connecticut PBS in Bridgeport, etc.), but I have in mind a public TV station actually allowing one of its subchannels to be used by a commercial broadcaster. Or does that run afoul of separate and distinct commercial and noncommercial channel allocations?

This situation also exists in the Boston and Providence areas, namely on the following PBS stations:
WGBH-TV 2 Boston has the BIZ TV network on subchannel 24.1;
WGBX-TV 44 Boston has WBTS-CD, the NBC O&O station on 15.1 and Cozi on 15.2;
WSBE-TV 36 Providence has WRIW-CD, the Telemundo affiliate on 51.1, Cozi on 51.2,and Oxygen on 51.3.

 

[Mr Tony]

This situation also exists in the Boston and Providence areas, namely on the following PBS stations:
WGBH-TV 2 Boston has the BIZ TV network on subchannel 24.1;
WGBX-TV 44 Boston has WBTS-CD, the NBC O&O station on 15.1 and Cozi on 15.2;
WSBE-TV 36 Providence has WRIW-CD, the Telemundo affiliate on 51.1, Cozi on 51.2,and Oxygen on 51.3.

technically those commercial stations are on a separate license that just happens to share the same RF station. so while they are on a "subchannel" it isn't a subchannel of the PBS station...make sense?

Lets look at ti another way...if say NBC in Boston goes out, its WBTS to deal with it, not WGBX. Its kinda the same way now with ATSC 3.0 where subchannels are being hosted by someone else. So as example
WAXN in Charlotte, NC is the 3.0 host. Its 1.0 version (64-1 Independent) is on WBTV CBS now. If something happens to it technolical wise, Terrier Media (the owner of WAXN) deals with it, not Gray (WBTV owner)

 

[gr8oldies]

Yes. See 73.621(j) of the FCC's rules.

- Trip

This happened temporarily due to a major transmitter outage at WHIO-TV, Dayton. They used WPTD's 16.2 from November 16-21, 2019.

 

[tripinva]

This happened temporarily due to a major transmitter outage at WHIO-TV, Dayton. They used WPTD's 16.2 from November 16-21, 2019.

That was a temporary channel share under STA from the FCC. Legally speaking, it was not on WPTD's subchannel, but on a temporary WHIO license.

Licensing and Management System

Licensing and Management System

enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov

I see, thanks for the good information.

But how does it work the other way around? Is there any specific prohibition against commercial stations making one of their subchannels available to PBS or another noncommercial entity? From the example given (KCWT), the answer would appear to be no, but I do have to wonder if there was some kind of special exception made, for whatever reason.

And, just got to wonder, did KCWT get some kind of tax break, special consideration in getting or renewing their license, or both, in return for making a PBS subchannel available to an otherwise unserved community?

Nope, a commercial station can operate non-commercially if it chooses.

As long as the rules are adhered to (like E/I requirements), the FCC doesn't base its decisions on the content of stations' programming.

- Trip

 

[fybush]

Here's the best way I know to explain how channel-sharing deals like WGBX/WBTS work:

You have to now think of the license as a separate entity from the transmitter. The licensee is always responsible for its own EAS, E/I requirements, public files, retrans negotiations and FCC regulatory fees, regardless of whose transmitter its programming goes out on.

In today's post-repack, ATSC3 transition world, a single licensee can have its programming spread out over multiple transmitters. It's still considered to be a single license, and it's either commercial or noncommercial - it can't be both.

My understanding is that in most channel-sharing ATSC1 situations, the host station (WGBX, for instance) takes all responsibility for keeping the RF plant up and running, and the guest station (WBTS) pays an ongoing fee for access to the transmitter. In most ATSC3 situations so far, it's a trade - the ATSC3 host carries streams from multiple licensees and in exchange each of those stations carries one ATSC1 subchannel from the host station, without money necessarily changing hands.

Eventually, I imagine we could get to a situation like Europe, where the transmission companies are completely separate from the licensees, who all pay for bandwidth on a national network of transmitters.

 

[Mr Tony]

St Joe, MO
cable imports KCPT from Kansas City
Dish gives them KCPT...Directv is national feed

Glendive, MT
cable imports from Billings (Montana PBS)
Dish gives them the national feed...Directv does not carry locals from Glendive

 

[IM42A]

That was a temporary channel share under STA from the FCC. Legally speaking, it was not on WPTD's subchannel, but on a temporary WHIO license.

https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/d...&id=25076f916e61ed4c016e6fe5ac0e33d6&goBack=N

Nope, a commercial station can operate non-commercially if it chooses.

As long as the rules are adhered to (like E/I requirements), the FCC doesn't base its decisions on the content of stations' programming.

- Trip

That was the case with WTSF-61 Ashland KY before they went with Daystar. Strictly speaking, they were (and are) a commercial station, but after they went to 100% religious programming, they did not run advertisements, rather, they had ongoing pledge drives. They could have run commercials if they had wished, they just chose not to. Even now, with being pretty much 100% passthrough for Daystar, either they or Daystar could run ads, and you can make the case that these "send a love offering of $20 and receive this book/CD/whatever" promotions are a form of commercial advertising. (In their defense, they can't send that stuff out for free.)

 

[gr8oldies]

Here's the best way I know to explain how channel-sharing deals like WGBX/WBTS work:

You have to now think of the license as a separate entity from the transmitter. The licensee is always responsible for its own EAS, E/I requirements, public files, retrans negotiations and FCC regulatory fees, regardless of whose transmitter its programming goes out on.

In today's post-repack, ATSC3 transition world, a single licensee can have its programming spread out over multiple transmitters. It's still considered to be a single license, and it's either commercial or noncommercial - it can't be both.

My understanding is that in most channel-sharing ATSC1 situations, the host station (WGBX, for instance) takes all responsibility for keeping the RF plant up and running, and the guest station (WBTS) pays an ongoing fee for access to the transmitter. In most ATSC3 situations so far, it's a trade - the ATSC3 host carries streams from multiple licensees and in exchange each of those stations carries one ATSC1 subchannel from the host station, without money necessarily changing hands.

Eventually, I imagine we could get to a situation like Europe, where the transmission companies are completely separate from the licensees, who all pay for bandwidth on a national network of transmitters.

I thought that was coming when Vertical Bridge started buying towers. It's not a big step to having Vertical Bridge own towers to them owning the licenses while iHeart, Sinclair, etc are providers that lease the facilities on a long term basis (I realize a lot of laws would have to change).

 

[DavidEduardo]

Eventually, I imagine we could get to a situation like Europe, where the transmission companies are completely separate from the licensees, who all pay for bandwidth on a national network of transmitters.

I recall a session at NAB decades ago where the European digital model was discussed. There was considerable objection by the major groups and "big station" owners.

Because all digital stations would be "created equal" on shared transmitters, that meant that the 1kw daytimer on 1570 would suddenly be at parity with the 50kw fulltimer low on the dial and the Class A that did not cover all the metro would be made equal to the grandfathered Class C.

The effect on the station values of owners of the existing best facilities would be a total decimation of owner assets. This affected everyone, from the biggest owner of stations nationally to the local couple who owned the only B or C in a more rural market.

Obviously, the owner of a major facility had more money to campaign against the DAB concept than the guy or gal with the little suburban daytimer.

I'm trying to find the documentation of this, perhaps in the NAB engineering conference summaries... but I think this was a "general membership" session and, unless you bought the cassette (remember that process?), I don't think that there was a written record or transcript.

Scott: do you recall any discussion / dialogue / debate about a possible US adoption of DAB with shared transmitter facilities? (Someone ought to save that stuff...)

 

[fybush]

I recall a session at NAB decades ago where the European digital model was discussed. There was considerable objection by the major groups and "big station" owners.

Because all digital stations would be "created equal" on shared transmitters, that meant that the 1kw daytimer on 1570 would suddenly be at parity with the 50kw fulltimer low on the dial and the Class A that did not cover all the metro would be made equal to the grandfathered Class C.

The effect on the station values of owners of the existing best facilities would be a total decimation of owner assets. This affected everyone, from the biggest owner of stations nationally to the local couple who owned the only B or C in a more rural market.

Obviously, the owner of a major facility had more money to campaign against the DAB concept than the guy or gal with the little suburban daytimer.

I'm trying to find the documentation of this, perhaps in the NAB engineering conference summaries... but I think this was a "general membership" session and, unless you bought the cassette (remember that process?), I don't think that there was a written record or transcript.

Scott: do you recall any discussion / dialogue / debate about a possible US adoption of DAB with shared transmitter facilities? (Someone ought to save that stuff...)

I was referring to TV, not radio. In most markets, the major DTV signals are generally at pretty good parity already, so a move to a joint transmission system wouldn't be as disruptive as it could be with radio.

 

[DavidEduardo]

I was referring to TV, not radio. In most markets, the major DTV signals are generally at pretty good parity already, so a move to a joint transmission system wouldn't be as disruptive as it could be with radio.

Yes, I should have noted that I was adding a radio sidebar to the concept of sharing transmission facilities or even having a non-broadcast entity operate the transmitters and provide the service to licensees.

World-wide, there seems to be a relationship between moving to common transmitter plants and being in a nation where government has much more presence in broadcasting and broadcast content than in the US and most of the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Prescott Joe]

Interesting to find out what, if any, socio-economic factors drive certain areas
from not having local PBS stations.

 

[FairbanksTX]

With Texas being as large of a state as it is, ive always wondered why they have never had a statewide PBS network, two more markets in Texas without a OTA PBS station are Beaumont, TX and Victoria, TX. These days with streaming and the like, it probably wouldnt make financial sense to build out OTA stations in smaller markets.

 

[victorres43]

With Texas being as large of a state as it is, ive always wondered why they have never had a statewide PBS network, two more markets in Texas without a OTA PBS station is Beaumont, TX and Victoria, TX. These days with streaming and the like, it probably wouldnt make financial sense to build out OTA stations in smaller markets.

I also find it interesting that the local cable system (Suddenlink) in College Station carries (or at least it did, if not anymore) KUHT from Houston despite the area already having KAMU, but no other PBS station besides the aforementioned two.

 

[IM42A]

Interesting to find out what, if any, socio-economic factors drive certain areas
from not having local PBS stations.

First of all, you would have to have an area that is economically viable enough to support it via contributions, as well as a state or local government that is able to afford it, and is willing to spend the money. That may be a driving factor behind state networks, especially in historically poorer states --- no way, for instance, could Kentucky support all those KET PBS stations individually, rather than being hubbed from WKLE Lexington with transmitters from one end of the state to the other.

Without KET, all you'd have would probably be local PBS stations in Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, and possibly Paducah. Covington/Newport, Ashland, and Owensboro/Henderson would probably rely upon WCET, WPBY, and WNIN respectively, Lexington PBS might have a satellite station in Hazard or Pikeville, and that'd be it.

In the case of Texas, the Rio Grande Valley has a poverty rate twice the state average. That might have something to do with not having a free-standing PBS station in the RGV.

 

[Route66Fan]

St Joe, MO
cable imports KCPT from Kansas City
Dish gives them KCPT...Directv is national feed

According to some old Broadcasting & Cable Yearbooks, KCPT's owners (Public Television 19) were planning on launching a non-commercial TV station (KMPT-TV, Ch. 22), in St. Joseph, MO. This was in the mid-to-late 80's. The plans for this were dropped, by 1989, due to financial difficulties.
Mention of KMPT in the 1986 Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook.
Another mention of KMPT in the 1986 Broadcasting Yearbook.

 

[vchimpanzee]

WAXN in Charlotte, NC is the 3.0 host. Its 1.0 version (64-1 Independent) is on WBTV CBS now. If something happens to it technolical wise, Terrier Media (the owner of WAXN) deals with it, not Gray (WBTV owner)

WAXN has always been connected with WSOC-TV. Has that changed?

 

[vchimpanzee]

That was the case with WTSF-61 Ashland KY before they went with Daystar. Strictly speaking, they were (and are) a commercial station, but after they went to 100% religious programming, they did not run advertisements, rather, they had ongoing pledge drives. They could have run commercials if they had wished, they just chose not to. Even now, with being pretty much 100% passthrough for Daystar, either they or Daystar could run ads, and you can make the case that these "send a love offering of $20 and receive this book/CD/whatever" promotions are a form of commercial advertising. (In their defense, they can't send that stuff out for free.)

I'm talking about radio here, but for several years WAVO in Charlotte NC asked people for contributions that were considered "gifts" because they couldn't be deducted on the people's taxes. They could have run commercials if they wished, but the standards format wasn't being supported by advertisers, as much as they wanted it to. There was the occasional commercial such as a cleaning service that had a radio station as one of its customers.

Eventually the fund raisers weren't bringing in enough and they returned to a simulcast of a co-owned Christian talk and teaching station. Billy Graham's people own the station now but it's probably because of the translator.

 

[newsmark]

I also find it interesting that the local cable system (Suddenlink) in College Station carries (or at least it did, if not anymore) KUHT from Houston despite the area already having KAMU, but no other PBS station besides the aforementioned two.

A lot of Texas markets don't have their own PBS stations.

Sherman/Denison-Receives KERA Dallas on Cable or KETA Oklahoma City via a translator in Durant, OK over the air (but not a reliable signal)

Wichita Falls-Receives KERA via translator

Tyler/Longview and Lufkin/Nacogdoches-Receives KERA, KLTS Shreveport, or KUHT Houston via cable, depending on which city you're in.

Waco (see the earlier entry. They get KERA or KLRU Austin on cable.) I'm surprised KAMU College Station didn't set up translators in the Waco-Temple area.

Abilene (I think they get KERA via cable)

San Angelo (KERA?)

Laredo (probably KLRN San Antonio via cable)

Beaumont-Port Arthur (gets KUHT or KLTL Lake Charles, Louisiana, via cable and over-the-air in some areas)

Victoria (gets KUHT via cable)