Nightlight, Pink Slips

Do you still harbor some notion that the FCC’s cold-eyed zombie-like insistence on keeping analog service alive everywhere for as long as possible makes sense?  Consider this.

On March 20, a TV station which has been providing “enhanced analog nightlight service” went to the Commission with a simple request: could it please be relieved of the final three weeks of its analog service commitment so that it could turn off that service as soon as possible?  (The station had previously committed to enhanced analog nightlight operation until April 17, but only so that it could qualify for the right to terminate conventional analog service on February 17.)  The station pointed out that there did not appear to be any significant public concern about continued analog service, since the station had received a total of 20 inquiries about the DTV transition from the public between March 1-17 (six of which came on March 2).  So it’s not like the viewing public would be seriously threatened.

But, the station noted, keeping the analog in operation would seriously threaten some people.

Specifically, three station staffers whose positions would have to be terminated if the station were required to keep its analog nightlight service going.  As the licensee explained to the Commission, the substantial cost of that operation was unforeseen and unbudgeted, since the station had been planning to turn off the analog as of February 17.  (You remember February 17 – that was the absolutely final-and-for-sure-don’t-even-think-about-changing-it analog termination date, a date you could take to the bank . . . until, that is, late January, when Congress, um, changed the date – cue Emily Litella – thereby putting both the FCC staff and the TV industry in a bind.) 

Now, suddenly, stations had to deal with substantial unexpected costs during a time of dramatic economic upheaval.  If you’re going to make the monthly analog nut, and advertising revenues are down,other costs will have to be cut.

So the Commission was given the choice: (a) three more weeks of “analog nightlight” service of apparently minimal (if any) utility, or (b) continued employment for three real live people.

There was doubtless not a dry eye in the Commission when they authored their touching and sensitive email response, which we reproduce in its entirety:

Based on the information provided and an FCC map study that shows a significant portion of [the station’s] analog service area that will receive no analog network service, [your] request to be relieved of enhanced nightlight obligations, IS DENIED.

That’s it.  That's the list.  No attempted explanation of the overriding benefits of continued analog service, no acknowledgment of the seemingly sparse concerns about analog demonstrated by the public so far, no effort to justify the result at all.  And not even a suggestion that the enhanced analog nightlight requirement, applicable only to Big Four network affiliates, is both plainly inconsistent with the DTV Delay Act and of dubious constitutionality.

And not a hint of recognition that, by insisting on continued service, the Commission was putting three more people on the unemployment lines.

Referring (in an admittedly different context) to the collective hysteria that afflicted colonial Salem, Justice Louis Brandeis once remarked that “men feared witches and burnt women.”  Of course, no one is dying here, so the witch trials are by no means a perfectly apt analogy. But it’s still hard to miss the regrettable parallel: significant harm inflicted on innocent citizens by a government in the throes of an irrational fear of a purely imaginary evil.

The FCC and the Congress, all fearing some imagined DTV catastrophe (and, perhaps more importantly, the imagined political repercussions of such an imagined catastrophe), have pressed television operators into increasingly ridiculous measures supposedly designed to avert disaster.  (Does anyone seriously doubt that the incessant DTV “educational” announcements, pounded into TV viewers’ consciousness over and over and over for the past year, have lost any effectiveness they might once have had?  Does anyone seriously think that, by increasing the number of such announcements, their efficacy might be restored?)

Like the townspeople indulging the emperor’s imaginary new clothes, we can all indulge the Commission’s fixation on the supposed salutary effects of DTV education and nightlight service and the like.  In fact, we have to, since the Commission is driving the bus and, with no way to grab the steering wheel, the rest of us are along for the ride, hoping to get to our destination in one piece.

But when the FCC’s fixation crashes into reality, leaving real people jobless in the Real World, somebody really ought to say something.

There is some basis to hope that the Commission may snap itself out of its DTV trance if confronted with at least a glimpse of reality.  Recently, Acting Chairman Copps was quoted in a Bloomberg report as being open to revisiting newspaper-broadcast ownership restrictions because those restrictions don’t meet “the needs of the industry, the economy or the public.”  But wait.  Isn’t that the same Copps who, just 15 months ago, expressed outrage at even a modest and limited relaxation of those same rules?  According to Copps (circa December, 2007), that relaxation “would make George Orwell proud”.  The Commission was “shed[ding] crocodile tears for the financial plight of newspapers – yet the truth is that newspaper profits are about double the S&P 500 average.” It appears that, despite his derisive tone just months ago, he may have had an epiphany.

Such an epiphany is, of course, welcome, particularly when it bespeaks a governmental official mature, or wise, or simply flexible enough not to let himself get trapped by his own rhetoric. But why now?  Perhaps it was the recent, Real World failure of several major newspapers, coupled with reports of others teetering on the brink.  Confronted with actuality – as opposed to facile, self-serving rhetoric – could it be that Copps has recognized that his earlier posturing was misguided?  Think Ebenezer Scrooge, a character transformed when confronted by the real and plainly undesirable consequences of his conduct.

If it’s happening in the cross-ownership context, it could happen on the DTV side as well. Let’s hope that the Commission comes out of its DTV education trance before it does any greater harm – to companies and real individuals – than it already has.

"Analog Nightlight" Update: Comments Are Due January 5

If you are planning to file comments on the FCC’s effort to implement the “analog nightlight” service, you’d better put aside thoughts of a pleasant New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day holiday and start drafting now. The Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published in the Federal Register today, December 31. Since (as we previously reported ) the FCC is providing a whopping five days for comments (following FedReg publication), those comments are officially due on Monday, January 5, 2009. Reply comments are due three days later, on Thursday, January 8.  (Don’t forget the FCC’s cheery seasonal greeting at Paragraph 2 of the NPRM: “Notwithstanding the holiday season, these dates will not be extended.”)  Happy New Year!!!

"Analog Nightlight" Service Standards Proposed

FCC rushes to implement “Analog Nightlight Act” (formerly known as “SAFER Act”) by January 15 deadline

Acting with blazing speed, on Christmas Eve the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) setting out the tentative standards and processes for implementation of the SAFER Act which was signed into law on December 23, just the day before the NPRM was released. The SAFER Act – which the FCC now catchily refers to as the “Analog Nightlight Act” – authorizes continued, albeit very limited, operation of some analog TV stations beyond the previously-established February 17, 2009, termination date of such operation.

Since the SAFER, er, Analog Nightlight, Act left little room – and even less time (the Act requires the standards to be in place by January 15, 2009) – for agency creativity, there are few surprises in the NPRM. The Act permits continued analog operation for 30 days beyond the February 17, 2009, final transition date as long as such operation would not cause interference to digital TV signals (or public safety services) and as long as the content of such operation is limited to emergencies and/or educational/informational matter relating to the DTV transition.

With respect to which stations might be eligible for post-transition “analog nightlight” service, the Commission identifies 300+ stations that satisfy established undesired-to-desired co- and adjacent-channel signal ratio criteria. (The FCC also provides a table of minimum spacings based on those criteria.) In developing those preliminary eligibility criteria, the Commission balanced (a) the desirability of providing “nightlight” service to as many areas and viewers as possible with (b) the statutorily-imposed requirement that such service not cause interference to digital operations.

If you’re on the Commission’s list of “pre-approved” stations, you will be permitted to provide “nightlight” service between February 18 and March 19 as long as you file for a Legal STA (through CDBS) by February 10, 2009. The FCC also requests that stations planning on participating also so notify the FCC in comments filed in response to the NPRM. 

If you’re not on the “pre-approved” list, you can still ask for permission to provide “nightlight” service. To do so, you have to file for an Engineering STA (through CDBS), demonstrating that you would cause no more than 0.1% interference (the standard criterion used by the Commission in the channel election process) – unless you can show that you’re the only station in the area eligible or willing to provide “nightlight” service, in which event you could cause up to 0.5% interference. Such requests are due by February 3, 2009, and will be included on a public notice to be released shortly thereafter. The Commission also suggests that non-pre-approved stations seeking to opt into the program also so advise the Commission in comments in response to the NPRM.

Objections to such requests may be filed, but absent any objection, such stations will be deemed eligible for “nightlight” service. Of course, if any “valid” interference complaints were to be filed, such operation would have to cease immediately.

Note that stations – “pre-approved” or otherwise – opting into the “nightlight” program will also be expected to update their DTV Transition Status Report (FCC Form 387) to reflect that participation. Magnanimously, the Commission has agreed not to charge any filing fee for the Legal or Engineering STA requests that participants will have to file.

With respect to the content of “analog nightlight” service, the Act is very clear: such programming will be limited to emergency information and DTV-education information. No other programming – including any advertising – is permitted under the Act, and the FCC has dutifully proposed to so limit the service. While the Act requires that DTV educational information be (a) made available both in English and Spanish and (b) accessible to persons with disabilities, the Commission appears to extend those requirements to emergency information as well.

The NPRM seeks comment on a variety of questions relating both to station eligibility for “analog nightlight” service and to the content of such service. But in view of the circumstances here, any request for comments seems to be little more than an empty gesture made to comply with the letter of the Administrative Procedure Act. Comments on the NPRM are due within five (count ‘em, five) days following publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due three days later. And anticipating extension requests, the Commission has emphasized that the deadlines will not be extended “[n]otwithstanding the holiday season”. Ho ho ho.

While it’s difficult to predict with any reliability when any FCC item will be published in the Federal Register, it’s probably a good bet that the FCC will push to get the NPRM in as quickly as possible. Check back on CommLawBlog for updates.