As I said in an earlier post, from what I can tell I think the local stations(that of course includes KET too) for the most part are doing a fine job "policing themselves" to be compliant with FCC rules. Furthermore, I think the local DTV stations are doing a fine job meeting FCC requirements, I certianly have no complaints, not, of course, that I would necessarily have a complaint even if stations weren't in compliance with some of the FCC rules ...
I merely said that I find some, specific -- let's say, "circumstances" which I have seen concerning local DTV stations(in general) + FCC rules "interesting".
For instance, of any of the DTV stations I have received, only WLWT-DT sends EIA-708 captioning in a manner that one of my DTV receiver's(which only supports EIA-708, and perhaps in a bit "different way" than many other receiver models) can properly display captioning. No Other SD, or HD DTV sources. Only WLWT-DT - So far. I'll be using this receiver for a long, long time, we'll see how long it takes(if ever) until I get CC with this receiver from all the stations when "available". My other receiver sees EIA-608 captions from DTV stations just fine(Being a "early" receiver, It doesn't support EIA-708 captions at all), and just about all the stations in the area seem to send 608 captions properly via their DTV stations.
Anyhow, mostly, What I meant to try to illustrate by my previous post concerned instances, in which say, there is a specific circumstance when a station might not be, exactly, say, quite 100% "off the hook" given any very "specific" non-compliance issue if hypothetical station doesn't have a waiver or "agreement" on the issue with FCC/etc. Of course, from what I understand, depending upon circumstances, from my understanding, FCC is often very understanding in these circumstances, and especially so when various "uncontrollable circumstances" may actually be preventing the station from being, completely in compliance with every little "detail" --- As it should be. .............. In other words, What Doc said ......
Some details from the rules In order to hopefully help further clarify most of the comments made in my immediately preceding post:
Follows is an excerpt from FCC report and order concerning adoption of EIA-708 Captioning standard for DTV - FCC # 00-259 - (Full document available here: Http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...0/fcc00259.txt
) ..adopted, July 21, 2000. Under the "compliance dates" section:
"As provided for in the Commission's rules establishing requirements for the closed captioning of video programming adopted in a 1997 Order, programming prepared or formatted for display on digital television receivers before the date that digital television decoders are required to be included in digital television devices is considered "pre-rule" programming. As stated above, this order establishes that date as July 1, 2002. Therefore, programming prepared or formatted for display on digital television after that date will be considered new programming. The existing rules require an increasing amount of captioned new programming over an eight-year transition period with 100% of all new nonexempt programming required to be captioned by January 1, 2006."
Here's some info from an outside source on this issue :http://www.robson.org/gary/captionin...-july2000.html
Concerning my second point in above post. An excerpt From Paragraph 11 of "MM Docket No. 00-39 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION - This order was Adopted by FCC : November 8, 2001" (entire document availalbe here: ( http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Medi...1/fcc01330.txt
" ....Stations that were subject to the earlier construction deadlines (top four network affiliates in the top thirty markets) will remain subject to the previous rule - i.e., they must operate their DTV station at any time that the analog station is operating. This distinction is consistent with our prior treatment of these stations. In establishing earlier build-out deadlines for these stations in the Fifth Report and Order, we noted that "the most viewed stations in the largest television markets can be expected to lead the transition to DTV" and that these stations are "likely to have substantial revenues that may be used to fund the conversion."
Concerning DTV STA's/power levels/etc (I consider a STA granted by FCC as a "operating permit") and current power requirements for DTV stations, This is also from the document referenced immediately above : ( http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Medi...1/fcc01330.txt
It would take too much room here to quote everything I'd like on these issues form this document, so, for those interested I'll refer you to section B+C of document. Also, I believe FCC is planning on addressing "power requirements/replication issues and the "Deadlines" involved more thoroughly in the currently ongoing, 2nd DTV review.
But, here's A short excerpt from "Section III, DTV STA's", Paragraph 34 which pertains to those stations with 5/1/02+5/1/03 buildout deadlines(stations, such as the ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates in Cincinnati(Market #30 at the time) were subject to an earlier Buildout deadline ) :
Licensees must construct at least the minimum initial facilities required to serve their community of license by May 1, 2002 (commercial) or May 1, 2003 (noncommercial).
Also, I won't mention the specifics involved, but I can tell you, on one occasion, I personally have some experience with the last comment I made in my last post. Lets just say, Chief Engineer of "A DTV Station" had told me that against his advisement, he was told by his superiors to reduce power(to 25% of their STA) to save on Utility bills, and for no other reason. Luckily, it didn't last long -- Only a month or so before they returned to the power levels as specified in the STA which they were operating with. Still, This was done without filing for a "new" STA for the new power level, and without contacting/notifying FCC of the reduced power operation. This is not "OK", or in compliance with FCC rules. I have also heard similar stories from others "in the know" in specific cirucmstances, but lets hope this sort of thing is an exception, and exceptions which only occured in the past .....