Telecommunications: Many Broadcasters Will Not Meet May 2002 Digital Television Deadline
Published: 2002-04-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U. S. broadcast television stations are now switching from analog to digital television (DTV). The transition to digital technologies was sought by many broadcasters and was mandated by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC established 2006 as the target date for ending analog transmissions---a deadline later codified by Congress. At least 24 percent of all commercial television stations are now broadcasting a digital signal. However, these stations report little interest in receiving DTV. Transitioning stations reported that funding was one of the most prevalent problems. Seventy-four percent of transitioning stations indicated that the problems they are facing are so significant that they may not be able to begin broadcasting a DTV signal by May 2002, as required. Sixty-eight percent of transitioning stations said that a realistic extension for them would be one year or more. Thirty-one percent of the transitioning stations that said they might miss their May 2002 deadline reported that, if the transition were driven by market forces such as competition, technology, and consumer demand, they likely would not be on the air with a digital signal until after 2010. Another four percent of these stations reported that without a government mandate, they likely would never transition to digital.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The transition of broadcast television stations throughout the United States  from analog to digital television (DTV) technologies is under way.  DTV  technologies enable broadcasters to offer their viewers clearer, sharper  pictures and a wider range of broadcast services than are possible with  traditional analog technologies.  This transition to digital technologies was  sought by many broadcasters and was mandated by Congress and the  Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Pursuant to statute, FCC  (which administers radiofrequency spectrum for nonfederal government  use) is temporarily providing each broadcast station with additional  spectrum on which to begin broadcasting a digital signal.  For several  years, during which time it is envisioned that consumers will begin to  purchase digital television sets and other equipment, broadcasters will  transmit both digital and analog signals.  At some point, the analog signals  are to be discontinued, leaving television stations to continue broadcasting  only in digital format.  FCC established 2006 as the target date for ending  analog transmissions and this was later codified by Congress.  Spectrum  that broadcasters vacate is to be returned for other uses.  Some of the  returned spectrum has been reallocated for public safety uses and some for commercial uses.  After September 11, 2001, reassigning the spectrum for  wireless uses, such as public safety communications and mobile phones,  has become a higher priority and greater emphasis has been placed on a  timely completion of the DTV transition.
To move the transition along and more quickly reassign the spectrum, FCC  established staggered deadlines by which broadcasters must build their  DTV stations and begin broadcasting a digital signal.  Generally, larger  stations in major television markets were required to begin broadcasting a  digital signal by May or November 1999, while all remaining full-power  commercial stations were required to begin broadcasting a digital signal by  May 1, 2002.   Additionally, all of the nation’s public broadcast stations are  to begin broadcasting a digital signal by May 1, 2003.
According to a commercial database that contains information on  broadcasters, there are currently 1,240 full-power commercial television  stations in the United States.  As of April 12, 2002, according to FCC, 298 of  these stations had begun broadcasting a DTV signal.  Although some  stations are on the air with a digital signal and others are close to launching  their DTV stations, some stations are still investigating what funds and  equipment they will require and have much work remaining before they can  broadcast a digital signal.  Concerns have been expressed by industry  officials that many commercial stations will have difficulty building their  DTV stations by the May 2002 deadline.  Because of your interest in the  DTV rollout and the ultimate reassignment of the broadcast radiofrequency  spectrum for other uses, you asked us to provide you with information on  the following: (1) broadcasters’ progress in building DTV stations, as well  as broadcasters’ perceptions of consumer interest in DTV and  broadcasters’ plans for developing and marketing DTV content; (2) the  experiences among broadcasters who have and have not completed the  building of their DTV stations, including any key problems that may have  arisen; and (3) the extent to which there are concerns about meeting DTV  deadlines among broadcasters who have not completed building DTV  stations.  This report provides information on these broadcaster-specific  issues.  Later in 2002, we plan to provide an additional report on other  issues affecting the DTV transition, including digital content production,  copyright protection, cable carriage of DTV channels, and consumer  knowledge about DTV.
To respond to your request for information about the progress in building  DTV stations, we conducted a survey of all full-power commercial and  public broadcast television stations operating in the United States.  We  developed two versions of the survey: one was sent to stations that are  already on the air in digital, and one was sent to stations that are not yet on  the air in digital.  The survey asked a variety of questions about the stations’  transitions.  The survey questions and detailed survey results for  commercial stations are contained in appendixes IV and V, and the  questions and results for public stations are contained in appendixes VI and  VII.  To supplement and better analyze the broadcasters’ responses to our  survey, we purchased a commercial database with information on  broadcast stations, which included information such as annual revenues,  market size, and parent company or ownership information.  Throughout  this report, percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.  A more  detailed discussion of our overall scope and methodology is provided in  appendix I.  We conducted our review from May 2001 to April 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In total, we received 1,036 of 1,554 surveys (a response rate of 67 percent).   We received 135 of 168 surveys (80 percent) from commercial stations that  had gone on the air with a digital signal as of September 2001, hereafter  referred to as “current DTV stations.” We received 727 of 1,014 surveys (72 percent) from commercial stations that were still in the process of  building their DTV stations as of September 2001, and that had not yet gone  on the air with a digital signal, hereafter referred to as “transitioning  stations.”  We also received 174 of 372 surveys (47 percent) from public  stations; 15 of these responses were from 37 public stations that were  already on the air in digital as of September 2001 (41 percent).  Because all  public stations are under a deadline to be on the air in May 2003—1 year  later than most commercial stations—we report separately on our survey  results for public stations in appendix III.  This letter discusses only the  survey results for commercial stations.
Lastly, we did not mail surveys to 8 New York City stations that had  broadcast towers located atop the World Trade Center, and that were  directly affected by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  Instead, we  directly spoke to a representative from each of those stations to gather  information about how the events of September 11 affected their station  operations generally and affected their DTV plans in particular.  A  discussion of the current situation of the New York stations is provided in  appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Free over-the-air television broadcasts have been available to Americans  for more than 50 years.  According to the National Association of  Broadcasters, the average television market includes over-the-air signals  from at least seven local broadcast stations. Commercial stations may get  their programming content through an affiliation with one of the top seven  television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PAX, UPN, and WB) or they may  be an independent broadcaster.  Some commercial television stations are  owned by large media companies or other corporations; others are owned  by individuals or small companies.  The United States also has 380 public  television stations that receive funding from a variety of sources, including  federal funding, state funding, commercial grants and donations, and  private donations from individuals.  Public stations tend to show more  educational and arts programming, and many of these stations are affiliated  with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).  In addition to over-the-air  availability, most broadcasters are carried on local cable television systems  along with numerous cable programming channels.  Also, satellite  television providers now offer subscribers the signals of local broadcasters  in approximately 40 television markets.  In fact, according to FCC, more  than 86 percent of television households nationwide now subscribe to  some type of multichannel video programming service, such as a cable or  satellite provider, rather than relying solely on over-the-air broadcast  television.
Since its inception, the broadcast television industry has relied on “analog”  technologies to transmit over-the-air television signals.  During the last few  decades, however, media of all types have been transitioning to “digital”  technologies.  Because digital technologies can provide greater versatility  and higher quality pictures and audio than traditional analog technologies,  the broadcast television industry supported, and Congress and FCC  mandated, a transition of broadcast television stations from analog to  digital technology. This decision was based on the notion that a transition  to digital television would bring the broadcast television industry into the  21st century with current and competitive technology, and would help to  preserve for consumers the benefits of a healthy free over-the-air television  service in the future.
Traditional television broadcasting uses the radiofrequency spectrum to  transmit analog signals—that is, signals in which motion pictures and  sounds have been converted into a “wave form” electrical signal.   Traditional analog signals fade with distance, so consumers living farther  from a broadcast tower will experience pictures that are distorted or full of  “snow.”  With digital technology, the analog wave form is converted into a  stream of digits consisting of zeros and ones.  Although digital signals also  fade over distance, because each bit of information is either a zero or a one,  the digital television set or receiver can adjust for minor weaknesses in the  signal to recreate the zeros and ones originally transmitted.  Pictures and  sound thus remain perfect unless significant fading of the signal occurs, at  which point the transmission cannot be corrected and there is no picture at  all.
Digital technology also makes it easier to offer high definition television  (HDTV).  With HDTV, roughly twice as many lines of resolution are  transmitted, creating a television picture that is much sharper than  traditional analog television pictures. Another advantage of digital  television is that “digital compression” technologies allow for more  efficient use of the radiofrequency spectrum than analog technologies.   Using digital compression, broadcasters will have the opportunity to use  the 6 megahertz of spectrum required to broadcast one analog television  show to transmit four or five different digital “standard definition”  television shows simultaneously. This process of using the digital  spectrum to show multiple programs at once is known as multicasting.  To  enjoy HDTV broadcasts or to be able to see multicasts of digital signals,  consumers must own a television monitor that is capable of displaying  these features and a digital tuner that is capable of receiving the  broadcasts.
The DTV transition involves a substantial overhaul and replacement of the  stations’ transmitting and studio equipment as well as the eventual  replacement of consumers’ analog television sets or the attachment of  “digital converter boxes” to those analog sets.  Thus, building DTV stations  involves a large outlay of capital and effort by the broadcast television  industry.  Sometimes a new broadcast tower or significant modifications to  an existing tower are required for the digital antennas.  Broadcasters must  purchase digital transmission equipment, obtain digital programming, and  acquire equipment for converting analog programming to digital.  One  station representative with whom we spoke noted that broadcasters must  then incur the costs of running two stations simultaneously during the  transition period, even though viewership and advertising revenues are  likely to remain roughly the same.
To facilitate the transition, Congress and FCC temporarily provided each  full-power television station (both commercial and public) with another 6  megahertz of radiofrequency spectrum so that they could begin  broadcasting a digital signal.  A transition period was established during  which broadcasters would build their DTV stations and simultaneously  transmit both analog and digital signals.  In 1997, FCC established a  timeline for this transition period.  By May 1, 1999, the affiliate stations of  the 4 largest networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) in the top 10 television  markets in the country were to have a digital signal on the air. By  November 1, 1999, the affiliates of the 4 largest networks in the top 11 to 30  television markets were to have a digital signal on the air. By May 1, 2002,  all full-power commercial television stations across America are to have a  DTV signal on the air.  By May 1, 2003, all public stations are to be  broadcasting a DTV signal as well.
The few stations that missed the earlier 1999 deadlines were granted  extensions by FCC.  In March 2002, FCC closed an application period for  stations that have May 2002 deadlines to file for extensions.  FCC said it  will not issue any type of blanket waiver of the deadline, but it would allow  extensions on a case-by-case basis.  According to FCC, it also has the  authority to sanction stations that do not meet their deadlines.  FCC said it  is currently considering what those sanctions might be and under what  circumstances the sanctions might be imposed.
The goal is for the transition period to end in December 2006.  By that time,  the analog signals presumably are to be shut off, and Americans are to be  watching DTV broadcasts on either a DTV set or on an analog set with  some form of a digital converter box.  The government is supposed to  “repack” the digital stations within channels 2 to 51. The federal  government has reallocated some of the spectrum in channels 52 to 69 for  public safety needs and some for commercial uses (such as mobile phone  services).  The public safety spectrum is currently being licensed, and the  spectrum set aside for commercial uses will be auctioned later this year.
However, Congress created exceptions to the 2006 date.  In the Balanced  Budget Act of 1997, Congress stated that no analog television station  license was to be extended beyond December 31, 2006, except in cases  where (1) one or more of the top four network affiliates in a market is not  yet on the air in digital, (2) digital converter technology is not generally  available in the market, or (3) 15 percent or more of the households in the  market cannot receive DTV signals.  The last exception—often referred to  as “the 85 percent rule”—has the potential to significantly delay the cutoff  of analog signals and the turnback of some spectrum beyond 2006.  This is  because the 85 percent rule might rely on consumer adoption of DTV  equipment, which is currently market-driven (i.e., based on consumer  demand, rather than on a government mandate) and does not appear at the  present time to be progressing at a rate that will reach 85 percent in the  next 4 years.
section_title: Almost One-Quarter of Commercial Stations Are Broadcasting a Digital Signal, Although Many Stations Perceive Little Consumer Demand
paragraphs: In this section, we address several issues related to the progress of  broadcasters to date in getting digital signals on the air.  In particular, we  discuss (1) the status of broadcasters in building the DTV stations; (2) the  amount of digital, high definition, or multicast programming that stations  are showing or planning to show; and (3) the stations’ perceptions of  consumer interest in DTV and how broadcasters are promoting or planning  to promote DTV to consumers.
subsections: section_title: Broadcasters Are in Various Stages of Building DTV Stations
paragraphs: As of April 12, 2002, 24 percent of commercial television stations (298 of  1,240) had completed construction of DTV stations and were broadcasting  a digital signal.  Most Americans now have available to them an over-the-air  signal from at least 1 DTV station, and many Americans living in larger  television markets have several DTV signals available to them.  Only 119 of  the 298 current DTV stations were mandated to be broadcasting a digital signal before May 2002. Thus, some stations have elected to build their  DTV stations and begin broadcasting a digital signal before they were  required to do so.  As for the progress of transitioning stations, we  conducted interviews with representatives from a few transitioning  stations and found them to be in various stages of building their DTV  facilities.  For example, one station had just begun planning for the  construction of its DTV station and was currently analyzing its tower and  equipment requirements, while another station was almost ready to start  broadcasting a digital signal, several months before the deadline.
section_title: Transitioning Stations Have Plans for Less High Definition Content than Current DTV Stations
paragraphs: Once on the air with a digital signal, broadcasters have been given some  flexibility in determining how to structure their DTV services.  A station  can simply duplicate the programming shown on its analog channel by  “converting” it to digital, or it can provide programming actually filmed in  digital, which can include HDTV.  A station also can choose to multicast or  to take advantage of the ability of DTV to transmit text or data, such as  stock quotes or electronic newspapers.  There are concerns that if  broadcast stations use their digital channel largely to duplicate the  programming from their analog channel, consumers would have little  incentive to purchase digital televisions sets and cable systems would have  little incentive to carry broadcasters’ DTV channels.  This lack of DTV  adoption could delay the goal of having broadcasters vacate the spectrum  in channels 52 to 69 by the end of 2006 to make the spectrum fully available  for public safety and other uses.
We asked current DTV stations what services they were offering over their  digital spectrum, and they responded as follows:  Seventy-four percent of current DTV stations are providing some  amount of HDTV content on their digital broadcast channel.  These  stations reported an average of 23 hours of HDTV content per week.
Affiliates of CBS—one of the biggest supporters of HDTV—reported  providing more HDTV programming than affiliates of other networks.   CBS affiliates of current DTV stations reported an average of 33 hours  per week of HDTV programming.
Affiliates of the smaller television networks (PAX, UPN, and WB)  reported broadcasting no HDTV.
Twenty-eight percent of current DTV stations said they are producing  some of their own content in digital format, either in standard definition  digital or high definition.
In addition to offering high definition content, 22 percent of current DTV  stations said that some of their programming included the multicasting of  two or more programs simultaneously over their digital channel.  We  contacted a number of these stations to learn precisely what they were  doing with their multicasting.  We were told by several stations that they  are providing a second 24-hour local weather channel or showing a local  weather radar picture.  Another station told us that they broadcast live  feeds from several traffic cameras throughout the state to give current  traffic and weather information.
Our survey showed that within the first year of broadcasting in digital,  commercial transitioning stations plan to do the following:  Forty-three percent plan to show nothing more than content that has  been converted from analog to digital.
Thirty-four percent plan to provide some HDTV content.
Eight percent plan to do some multicasting.
Our finding that transitioning stations expect to show less digital content  than current DTV stations are showing is likely because many of the  current DTV stations are affiliates of the top four networks and are in major  television markets.  By contrast, transitioning DTV stations are more likely  than current DTV stations to be unaffiliated with the top four networks or  to be in smaller television markets.  Unaffiliated stations have less access  to the increasing amount of HDTV or other digital content that is provided  by the major networks.  Smaller stations sometimes rely more on  syndicated shows—such as game shows, talk shows, or reruns of popular  network programming—that are less likely to have been filmed in digital or  high definition.  Smaller stations also have fewer resources to buy the  equipment necessary to film and produce their own digital content.  In fact,  only 10 percent of transitioning stations with annual revenues less than  $2 million said that they expect to produce any digital content of their own  within their first year of digital broadcasting.
section_title: Many Current DTV Stations Perceive Little Consumer Interest in DTV
paragraphs: We asked current DTV stations to describe the overall interest level in  digital broadcasts by the consumers in their markets.  According to these  stations, few consumers have a high interest in DTV.  Seven percent of the  stations said that consumers in their markets had no interest in DTV, and  another 56 percent of the stations described overall consumer interest in  their digital broadcasts as “low.”  Stations that reported providing more  high definition content did not report higher consumer interest than  current DTV stations as a whole.
Despite broadcasters’ perceptions of low consumer demand for digital and  high definition television, only some of the current DTV stations reported  undertaking promotion activities that have significant cost in order to  promote or market their digital broadcasts.  The two most prominent ways  stations chose to promote their DTV channel—methods that do not involve  great expense—were through a digital or high definition identifier running  at the beginning of the program (52 percent) and by making information  about digital programming available on the stations’ Web sites (50 percent).   In addition to these methods, current DTV stations reported the following:  Thirteen percent said they use advertising spots or promotions for  specific shows available in high definition, and 22 percent said they  advertise their DTV channel.
Twelve percent said that their DTV channel is mentioned in the local  television listings.
Twenty-three percent said they do not promote their DTV channel.
Compared with current DTV stations, only 6 percent of transitioning  stations reported that they do not plan to promote their DTV channel.   Thirty-five percent of transitioning stations said they plan to use  advertising spots or promotions regarding their digital channel, 16 percent  plan to advertise their high definition programming, and 33 percent said  they plan to have their DTV channel mentioned in the local television  listings.  Transitioning stations answered our survey based on future plans  and may or may not promote their DTV channels to the level they indicated  on our survey.
section_title: The Building of DTV Stations Is Proceeding, but Problems Have Arisen for Many Broadcasters
paragraphs: In this section, we address several issues related to the experiences of  broadcasters to date in building their DTV stations.  In particular, we  discuss (1) the financial costs associated with building the DTV stations,  (2) the problems stations reported experiencing (or the problems they  expect to experience) in building the DTV stations, and (3) the various  government reviews that are involved in building the DTV stations.
subsections: section_title: Stations Report High Costs and Funding Problems Associated with the DTV Transition
paragraphs: Broadcasters must make large capital investments to begin broadcasting in  digital, and many of the stations we surveyed reported problems in raising  the necessary capital.  We asked stations to report or estimate the  approximate total cost they incurred or expect to incur in complying with  the initial requirements for digital transmission—including expenses for a  new tower or construction on an existing tower, transmission line, antenna,  digital transmiters and encoders, consultants, licensing, and other capital  expenditures. Our comparisons of reported costs by station types showed  that the average reported costs per station among different types of  stations were not dramatically different.  Figure 1 shows that current DTV  stations and larger stations on average reported somewhat higher costs  than transitioning stations and smaller stations.  For example, current DTV  stations reported an average cost of $3.1 million per station to comply with  the initial requirements for digital transmission, while transitioning stations  reported an average of $2.3 million per station.
Some of the lower cost reported by transitioning stations may be due to  recent rule changes by FCC that were designed to reduce the amount  stations must spend to meet the initial requirements for digital  transmission.  For example, FCC’s new rules allow stations to build less  than maximum broadcast facilities. FCC staff said they believe that the  costs of meeting the requirements for building DTV stations are  significantly lower than the costs reported in our survey.  The amounts  reported to us may be due in part to stations’ reporting their actual costs of  construction, even where construction exceeded FCC’s minimum  requirements.  At a recent meeting of the National Association of  Broadcasters, one broadcaster said he was able to go on the air for  approximately $125,000 and that most of the equipment he was using could  be upgraded to higher power.  However, another speaker stated that for  some stations, FCC’s minimum requirements are not a long-term solution,  particularly for stations that plan to show HDTV, and that upgrading the  equipment at a later date could be problematic.  Thus, some stations prefer  to spend the money initially to build their DTV stations to exceed FCC’s  minimum requirements for broadcasting a digital signal.
Although there were no dramatic differences in the overall costs of building  DTV facilities among various types of stations, our analysis of the reported  overall expenditures as a percentage of station annual revenue did show  considerable differences among various types of stations.  For example,  among current DTV stations the overall expenditures averaged 11 percent  of annual revenues, while for transitioning stations the overall  expenditures averaged 63 percent of annual revenues.  For stations with  annual revenues below $2 million (based on all stations), the overall  expenditures averaged 242 percent of annual revenues.  Thus, the overall  cost of building the DTV stations appears to be more burdensome for some  broadcasters than for others.
Given the significant costs reported for getting a DTV signal on the air, it is  not surprising that survey respondents cited funding as one of the most  common problems they had experienced or expected to experience.   Although the overall costs of building the DTV stations reported by  broadcasters were fairly similar, the annual revenues of stations and the  funding sources available to stations differed.  Thus, the problem of  obtaining funding did not appear to affect all stations equally.  While 14  percent of the current DTV stations said they had experienced problems in  the area of funding, 55 percent of transitioning stations reported funding as  a problem.  This difference raises concerns about the ability of some  transitioning stations to pay for construction of their DTV stations and  meet the May 1, 2002, deadline for broadcasting in digital.
We asked stations what sources of funding they used or expected to use to  pay for the building of their DTV stations.  Almost half of all commercial  stations that responded reported multiple sources of funding.  As shown in  figure 2, the most commonly cited source of funding for both current DTV  stations and transitioning stations was funding from the station owner or  parent company.  Over 79 percent of current DTV stations had relied, in  whole or in part, on their owner or parent company to provide money for  their DTV construction.  For transitioning stations, 62 percent reported  obtaining some amount of funding from the station owner or parent  company.  This difference may be explained, in part, because stations with  earlier DTV deadlines were more likely to have a large corporate parent,  whereas transitioning stations are somewhat less likely to be owned by a  large parent company.
Regarding funding sources, survey respondents also reported the  following:  Transitioning stations were more than twice as likely to rely on debt  financing than current DTV stations. Forty-three percent of  transitioning stations reported that they had borrowed or planned to  borrow money to fund the construction of their DTV stations, while 16  percent of current DTV stations said they had relied on debt capital.
Six percent of the transitioning stations said they were considering sale  of the station as a way to fund the DTV transition.  We met with a  representative of one TV station who said that sale of the station to a  larger ownership group might be the only way for the station to fund its  transition to DTV.  Concerns about a reduction in the number of small,  independent broadcasters serving local communities could arise should  such sales actually take place.
Seventeen percent of transitioning stations reported that they did not  know how they would completely fund the construction of the DTV  station.  This uncertainty raises concerns about whether these stations  will be able to broadcast a digital signal on time, given that our survey  was conducted only 7 months before the May 2002 deadline.
We also asked stations to select the primary funding source from the  funding sources that they reported using.  Both current DTV stations and  transitioning stations most often named funding from the station owner or  parent company as their primary funding source.  However, 72 percent of  current DTV stations said funding from the station owner or parent was  their primary source, while 45 percent of transitioning stations listed a  station owner or parent as the primary source. Eleven percent of  transitioning stations reported that they did not know what would be their  primary funding source.
Some industry executives noted that there are ways to mitigate the initial  costs of the DTV transition.  We asked about some of these methods in our  survey, and the responses showed the following:  Some stations reported sharing a broadcast tower with other stations,  which can be less expensive than having an individual, private tower.   However, we found no relationship between reported shared tower use  and reported lower average overall cost for construction of the DTV  station.
We were told by industry executives that a temporary or “side-mount”  antenna can be less expensive to mount on the broadcast tower and can  be used to delay the construction of a new tower.  Twenty-seven percent  of current DTV stations reported having an antenna in a temporary  location; 26 percent of transitioning stations said that they plan to  temporarily install an antenna.
FCC currently allows a broadcaster to transmit a DTV signal at less than  full power. For the broadcaster, this can save money on equipment  purchases and energy bills.  However, broadcasting at less than full  power can reduce the effective market coverage and mean that fewer  consumers can receive the over-the-air digital signal.  Forty-five percent  of current DTV stations reported that they are operating at less than full  power and full market coverage, and 50 percent of transitioning stations  told us they plan to operate at less than full power when they begin  broadcasting in digital.
section_title: Many Stations Are Experiencing Problems Getting Physical Facilities in Place
paragraphs: One of the key physical facilities that broadcasters must have in place is the  broadcast tower, which supports the digital antenna.  We were told by  industry executives that some broadcasters can mount the digital antenna  on their current analog tower.  However, other broadcasters need to  increase the height of or reinforce their current tower, while still others  must construct an entirely new broadcast tower on which to install their  digital antenna.  We asked stations what changes they required or expected  to require from their existing analog towers.  There was great variance  among the stations in the need for tower work.  While 18 percent of current  DTV stations and 20 percent of transitioning stations reported being able to  use their current tower without modification, 21 percent of current DTV  stations and 25 percent of transitioning stations reported that they needed  to build an entirely new tower.
Once a station determines its tower needs, it can run into various problems  related to constructing the broadcast towers and other facilities needed for  DTV transmission.  One of the most commonly cited problems among all  stations, for example, was weather.  Frozen ground, wind, and snow can  cause complications in tower work, particularly in the northern states  during the winter months, and can lead to delays in DTV construction  schedules.  Of the stations answering our survey, 41 percent of current DTV  stations and 57 percent of transitioning stations cited the weather as a  problem that had arisen or that was expected to arise.  We spoke with  representatives of three tower crew companies who told us that certain  types of weather require tower work to be delayed.   The tower crew  company representatives noted that wind is a particular problem in tower  work because the wind patterns above 1,000 feet can be significantly  stronger than at ground level, making the work too difficult and dangerous  to attempt.  We also asked one of the tower crew representatives if the May  deadline—following winter—created more problems with regard to  weather.  The tower crew representative told us that a fall or winter  deadline may have been better because May through October were the best  months for tower work and tower construction.
Another concern noted by many broadcasters—again related to tower  work—was “manpower availability.”  The digital transition has caused  many stations to be requiring tower work within a short time period.
Broadcasters said that there are a limited number of tower crews in the  United States that are qualified to do the type of work involved in  constructing or reinforcing broadcast television towers and mounting  broadcast antennas.  According to our survey, 30 percent of current DTV  stations and 56 percent of transitioning stations cited manpower  availability as a problem area or expected problem area.  Despite these  views by broadcasters, we were told by representatives of the three tower  crew companies that, although they are currently busy and have a  significant amount of tower worked scheduled for the next few months,  they do not feel overwhelmed by work related to the installation of digital  antennas and are generally able to provide the services requested by  broadcast stations.
Broadcasters reported various other problems with building DTV stations,  as shown in figure 3.
section_title: Various Governmental Reviews Are Involved in the DTV Transition
paragraphs: We also examined whether any governmental reviews were necessary  during the DTV transition process and, if so, whether such reviews had  been the cause of any delays for the stations.  Generally, these issues fell  under the licensing or review authority of various government entities.
Specifically, we asked stations if issues had arisen or were expected to  arise regarding the following: (1) review, permitting, or processing by FCC;  (2) review or permitting by local authorities; (3) environmental review by  state or local authorities; (4) review by the Federal Aviation Administration  (FAA); (5) review by the Bureau of Land Management; (6) review by the  National Park Service; and (7) coordination with Canadian or Mexican  governments.  We also asked stations whether the review took longer or  was taking longer than they anticipated and whether lengthy reviews or  permit processing was considered a problem area.
In general, the stations responded as follows:  Some stations reported needing multiple reviews by various  governmental agencies.  For example, 15 percent of current DTV  stations and 30 percent of transitioning stations told us they required  reviews by three or more government entities.
Stations located near a border with another country may require a  review by Canadian and Mexican governments for coordination.  Of the  stations that reported they required such a review, 50 percent of current  DTV stations and 73 percent of transitioning stations said the process of  getting necessary approvals from Canadian or Mexican authorities had  taken longer than they expected.  Of the transitioning stations needing  Canadian or Mexican review, 65 percent reported they had yet to resolve  the international coordination issues.
Review by FAA—which often must approve changes to the height of an  existing tower or the construction of a new tower, in coordination with  FCC—was noted by 19 percent of current DTV stations.  Of those, 32  percent said the issue took longer than expected.  For transitioning  stations, 25 percent reported having or expecting to have an FAA review.
section_title: Many Transitioning Stations Reported That Problems Might Keep Them from Meeting FCC Deadlines
paragraphs: In this section, we address several issues related to the progress of  transitioning stations in meeting the May 2002 deadline to be on the air with  a digital signal.  In particular, we discuss (1) the number of transitioning  stations that reported they have had problems or expect problems that  might keep them from meeting the deadline; (2) the lengths of extensions  to the deadline that stations reported would be realistic for their situations;  and (3) the dates when stations reported they would have built DTV  stations if the transition were based on market forces rather than  government mandate.
subsections: section_title: Almost Three-Quarters of Transitioning Stations Reported They May Not Meet the May 2002 Deadline
paragraphs: Seventy-four percent of transitioning stations told us that they had  problems or expected problems that might keep them from meeting the  May 1, 2002, deadline for having a digital signal on the air.   In particular:   Eighty-five percent of transitioning stations with annual revenues of less  than $2 million reported that they had problems that might keep them  from meeting the May 2002 deadline.
Eighty-four percent of transitioning stations outside of the largest 100  television markets reported that they had problems that might keep  them from meeting the May 2002 deadline.
Stations that said they might not meet the deadline reported higher  incidences of all types of problems.  Funding was the most common  problem, cited by 66 percent of stations that might not meet the deadline  (funding problems were noted by 26 percent of stations that do not  expect problems with meeting the deadline).  In addition, of the stations  that may not meet the deadline, 64 percent reported problems with  manpower availability, 55 reported problems with equipment  availability, 59 percent reported weather-related problems, and 45  percent reported lengthy permit or review problems.  In contrast, of the  transitioning stations that do not expect problems with meeting the  deadline, 34 percent reported problems with manpower availability, 24  percent reported problems with equipment availability, 49 percent  reported weather-related problems, and 26 percent reported lengthy  permit or review problems.
Station network affiliation and size of the station owner (based on how  many broadcast stations the owner held) had little relationship to  whether a station expected problems with meeting the deadline.
section_title: As FCC Begins Granting Extensions, Half of Transitioning Stations Reported They Could Use an Extension of 2 Years or More
paragraphs: In March 2002, FCC closed an application period for stations with a May  2002 deadline to apply for extensions of time to construct their digital  stations.  FCC is handling the stations’ applications on a case-by-case basis.   FCC allowed stations that applied for an extension to note technical, legal,  financial, or other reasons (e.g., natural disaster) for the extension request.   Applicants had to show support for the reasons given and mention steps  taken to solve or mitigate the problems.  In our survey of broadcasters, we  asked whether stations should be required to show a “good faith effort” in  meeting the deadline before being granted an extension.  Seventy percent  of current DTV stations and 52 percent of transitioning stations thought  that a station should be required to show a good faith effort.
As of April 3, 2002, FCC had received applications for extension from 810  commercial stations and had granted 476 of these stations a 6-month  extension.  FCC granted extensions for more than 200 of these stations on  the basis of technical problems alone (e.g., equipment delays).  Over 180  stations were given extensions that were based on some combination of  technical, legal, financial, or other reasons.  No stations were granted  extensions that were based solely on financial reasons.  The 334 stations  not initially granted an extension were sent Letters of Inquiry by FCC in  order to obtain more specific information.  FCC staff said that many of the  letters sought more financial and technical information with respect to  finalizing DTV construction plans and that most of the letters gave stations  15 days to respond.
In our survey of broadcasters, we asked transitioning stations to estimate a  “realistic extension” if FCC were to extend its deadline for them to be on  the air with a digital signal.  In general, smaller stations were most likely to  believe that an extension of more than 2 years was realistic for them.  Of  the transitioning stations that expected problems with meeting the May  2002 deadline, only 19 percent considered an extension of 6 months or less  to be sufficient, while 54 percent said that an extension of 2 years or more  was realistic for their situation.  Under commission standards, FCC staff  may grant up to two extensions, each not to exceed 6 months.  Further  requests by a station for an extension of its DTV deadline would have to be  granted at the commission level.  From the responses to our survey, it  appears that the 6-month extensions that FCC has granted so far may be  insufficient for many transitioning stations and that additional rounds of  applications for extension appear likely.
section_title: Few Transitioning Stations Would Broadcast Digitally This Year Without a Government Mandate
paragraphs: We asked broadcasters to estimate when they would likely have begun  broadcasting a digital signal—assuming they had been given the spectrum  but were not under any government deadline to transition to digital—on  the basis of market forces such as competition, technology, and viewer  demand.  While many current DTV stations said they would have broadcast  digitally by the end of 2002, most transitioning DTV stations reported they  would have begun broadcasting digitally much later, as shown in figure 4.   A small percentage of stations reported that without a government  mandate, they never would have chosen to transition to digital  technologies.
section_title: Observations
paragraphs: The digital television transition timeline established by FCC included an  ambitious construction schedule for DTV stations.  The level of difficulty in  readying digital broadcasting facilities that was reported to us by  transitioning stations indicates that many stations will have problems  meeting the timeline.  But even after construction of all DTV stations, only  part of the DTV transition will have been completed.  Because of the 85  percent rule (i.e., the requirement that 85 percent of households in a  market be able to receive a digital signal before the analog signals are  discontinued), much of the spectrum is likely to remain encumbered by  analog broadcast stations until consumers adopt the necessary digital  technologies.  According to our survey, however, broadcasters currently  perceive little consumer demand for digital and HDTV programming.
Nonetheless, it appears that the broadcasters will move forward—some  more slowly than others—with building the DTV stations.  Other market  participants—cable and satellite companies, content providers, consumer  electronics manufacturers, and others—also play important roles in  influencing the speed of the DTV transition.  FCC recently addressed the  role of these other market participants as well as that of the broadcasters in  a letter from Chairman Michael K. Powell to Senator Ernest F. Hollings and  Representative W.J. “Billy” Tauzin.  In the letter, Chairman Powell proposed  voluntary industry actions to speed the DTV transition by calling for the  provision of more HDTV or other value-added DTV programming, more  cable carriage of DTV channels, the provision of cable set-top boxes that  allow for the display of HDTV programming, and the inclusion of over-the- air DTV tuners into almost all new television receivers by the end of 2006.   If embraced by the industry, these actions could help to keep the DTV  transition on track since their combined effect would be to encourage  consumers to adopt DTV technologies.  We will examine these critical  issues in our next report on the digital television transition, which we  expect to issue in November 2002.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FCC staff for their review and  comment.  FCC staff believes that its Memorandum Opinion and Order on  Reconsideration, which was adopted on November 8, 2001, may have a  substantial impact on certain survey responses made before that date.  In  the order, the commission modified its rules to permit stations to adopt a  more graduated approach to providing DTV service, initially operating with  lower powered—and therefore less expensive—DTV facilities, while  retaining the right to expand their coverage area as the transition continues  to progress.   We added information related to FCC’s order in this report.   FCC staff also provided technical comments that were incorporated  throughout this report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the  date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to interested  congressional committees; the chairman, FCC; and other interested parties.   We will also make copies available to others upon request.  If you have any  questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2834 or  guerrerop@gao.gov.  Key contacts and major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To provide information on the progress in building digital television (DTV)  stations and on broadcaster problems and concerns, we mailed surveys to  all full-power, on-the-air commercial and public broadcasting stations.  To  develop our survey questions, we interviewed officials at the Federal  Communications Commission (FCC) as well as officials of organizations  representing industries affected by the transition to DTV.  We also reviewed  relevant documents, such as FCC orders and proposed rulemakings.  We  then conducted pretests with several individual broadcast stations to help  further refine our questions, identify any unclear portions of the survey,  and identify any potentially biased questions.  These pretests were  conducted in-person and by telephone with stations covering a number of  different metropolitan areas.  Two versions of our survey were developed,  one for stations that had begun broadcasting a digital signal (“current DTV  stations”) and one for stations that had not begun broadcasting a digital  signal (“transitioning stations”).  The survey questions and detailed survey  results for commercial stations are contained in appendixes IV and V, and  the questions and results for public stations are contained in appendixes VI  and VII.
To provide the population information, we acquired the MEDIA Access Pro  database of BIA Financial Network, Inc., which is a private firm that  specializes in broadcast industry data.  This database provided us with the  names, addresses, and other contact information of broadcast stations as  well as information on such things as station size and ownership, station  revenues, market size, and station operating status.  We also used this  database to determine which stations were commercial and which were  public as well as which were broadcasting in digital and which were not.   The digital broadcasting status listed in BIA’s database was combined with  information from the National Association of Broadcasters’ Web site to  determine which version of the survey to mail to each station.  We mailed  surveys to all full-power commercial and public television stations on the  air at the end of September 2001.  We sent a different survey to any station  that indicated that we had misclassified its digital broadcasting status.  As  such, some of the stations that filled out the survey for digital stations  began that service after September 2001.  Our survey was not sent to low- power commercial broadcast stations because these stations have not been  required by FCC to transition to digital technologies.  In addition, the  survey was not mailed to the eight stations in New York City whose  broadcast towers atop the World Trade Center were destroyed in the  September 11 terrorist attacks.  Instead, we spoke directly to a  representative of each of these stations to gather information about how  the events of September 11 affected their operations generally and affected  their DTV plans in particular.  A discussion of the situations of the stations  in New York City is provided in appendix II.  We also adjusted the survey  population to exclude the few stations that (1) had recently gone off the air,  (2) indicated that they were not assigned a digital channel, or (3) were  broadcasting outside of the United States.  The resulting population to  which we sent surveys consisted of 1,182 full-power commercial television  stations and 372 full-power public television stations on the air at the end of  September 2001.
We first mailed our survey in early October 2001.  However, on October 15,  2001, all incoming mail to our headquarters was halted due to the receipt of  letters containing anthrax by several federal agencies in the Washington,  D.C., area.  We received no U.S. mail for more than 2 months.  On  December 27, 2001, we conducted a second mailing of the survey to all  stations from which we had not received a survey response before October  15, 2001.  This time, surveys were mailed from and returned to our Boston  field office.  The second mailing went only to commercial stations due to  time constraints on the research phase created by the mail stoppage.   For  commercial stations that may have completed and returned the survey  twice, only the original survey from the October mailing was analyzed.  We  made a third and last attempt to contact the commercial station  nonrespondents in telephone reminder calls during the first 2 weeks of  March.  These telephone contacts resulted in an additional 237  questionnaires from late respondents (approximately 27 percent of all  commercial responses).
Of the population of broadcast stations, we received 1,036 of 1,554 usable  questionnaires, for an overall response rate of 67 percent.  We received 135  of 168 surveys from commercial current DTV stations (80 percent response  rate) and 15 of 37 surveys from public current DTV stations (41 percent  response rate).  We received 727 of 1,014 surveys from commercial  transitioning stations (72 percent response rate) and 159 of 335 public  transitioning stations (47 percent response rate).
We conducted two types of analyses of commercial stations to evaluate the  possibility that the respondents might differ from nonrespondents.   Although there is some evidence of differences, these are not sufficiently  consistent nor large enough to provide a basis for adjusting our survey  responses.  The first type of analysis directly compared two measures of  the size of the responding and nonresponding stations.   The  nonrespondents tended to be from larger markets and from larger  ownership groups.  For the transitioning stations, for example, 40 percent  of the nonrespondents and 31 percent of the respondents were from the top  50 markets.  The second analysis compared the early responses (sent  between October and February) with the later responses (sent in March).   The evidence was mixed as to whether the earlier or later responding  stations might have more difficulties in meeting the DTV station deadline.   On the one hand, transitioning early respondents were less likely than  transitioning late respondents to give the direct assessment that they might  have problems in meeting the deadline (73 percent and 80 percent,  respectively).  On the other hand, early respondents were more likely than  late respondents to report experiencing specific types of digital transition  problems.  For example, a funding problem was reported by 19 percent of  digital early respondents versus 5 percent of digital late respondents, and  62 percent of transitioning early respondents versus 43 percent of  transitioning late respondents.  No definite pattern emerges from these  findings, and it is unclear whether differences are due to actual differences  in the station characteristics of early and later respondents or to the  differing proximity to the deadline for broadcasting a digital signal.
Questionnaires were mailed to station managers but were completed by  station managers, station engineers, or officials of the station owner or  parent company.  All returned questionnaires were reviewed, and we called  respondents to obtain information where clarification was needed.  All data  were double keyed and verified during entry, and computer analyses were  performed to identify any inconsistencies or other indications of errors.   Because the questionnaires were mailed to all broadcast stations in the  appropriate population, percentage estimates do not have sampling errors.   Other potential sources of errors associated with the questionnaires, such  as question misinterpretation and question nonresponse, may be present.
section_title: The World Trade Center Attacks Severely Disrupted Over-the-Air Broadcast Television Throughout New York City
paragraphs: This appendix focuses on the special circumstances of the broadcast  television stations in New York City following the terrorist attacks of  September 11, 2001.  We did not mail our survey to the New York City  stations, but instead conducted telephone interviews with the stations in  December 2001 and January 2002.  Since the attacks, the eight local  broadcasters whose antennas and other equipment were located atop the  twin towers of the World Trade Center have struggled to restore over-the- air service to their viewers.  Of these eight stations, six said they had  completed building their DTV stations by September 11 and were  broadcasting digital signals.  All six digital antennas were also lost in the  collapse of the World Trade Center.  All of the broadcasters with whom we  spoke stated that restoration of their full-power analog signals was their  highest priority.
subsections: section_title: Broadcasters Struggled to Restore Service in the Immediate Aftermath of the Trade Center Attacks
paragraphs: The destruction of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11,  2001, also destroyed the antennas, transmitters, and associated equipment  of eight broadcast television stations.  Lacking immediate backup  transmission equipment or other immediate contingency plans, the stations  ceased over-the-air broadcasts entirely on September 11.  Several of the  stations had direct fiber links to some or all of the cable systems on which  their analog signal was carried; thus these stations were able to continue  providing a signal to some portion of their cable viewers on September 11.   In addition, several of the broadcasters were carried on the direct  broadcast satellite (DBS) systems of DirecTV and EchoStar and, although  in some cases the broadcast signals were momentarily disrupted, local  broadcast channel service continued for satellite subscribers on  September 11.
Within 10 days of September 11, most of the stations said they had resumed  over-the-air broadcasting from a temporary tower in Alpine, N.J.  However,  the broadcasters considered the move to Alpine a short-term solution.   Station executives with whom we spoke said that, although they were  pleased that the site was immediately available, they were disappointed to  discover that signal weakness from the site meant that only about  70 percent of their viewers could be reached.  Some stations attempted to  increase coverage by arranging for additional cable providers to carry their signals via fiber links.  However, we were told that large numbers of  viewers—particularly in Brooklyn and Queens—do not subscribe to cable  service.
section_title: The Priority for Station Executives Was Full Restoration of Their Analog Signals
paragraphs: Station executives told us that fully restoring their over-the-air analog  broadcasts was of the highest priority.  It is the analog signal—not the  digital signal—that the stations count on for their revenue stream.  One  executive estimated that his station’s signal is still lost to over 3 million  viewers since September 11.  We were told that it will take up to 3 years to  achieve full analog signal restoration because each station must repair  transmission lines, install new antennas, acquire backup generators, and  negotiate for temporary and permanent space on rooftops and towers.
An immediate need for the broadcasters was to negotiate the terms of  placing antennas, transmitters, and other equipment atop the Empire State  Building, which was the favored temporary location due to its more than  100-story height.  By mid-October, nearly every local TV station had begun  to broadcast from the roof of the Empire State Building.  Although the  Empire State Building seemed initially to be an effective substitute for the  World Trade Center location, unanticipated constraints arose, including  limited physical space, an aging infrastructure, and the lower height (as  compared with the World Trade Center).
First, we were told that space on the Empire State Building’s rooftop is  severely limited.  Many of New York City’s radio stations have broadcast  from the rooftop for decades, and, as the rooftop is currently configured,  there is little room for the TV stations to install new broadcasting  equipment.  Second, the station representatives said that television  broadcasting is limited by engineering constraints related to the Empire  State Building’s aging infrastructure.  Unlike the World Trade Center  buildings, the Empire State Building’s infrastructure is more than 70 years  old.  While considered a safe building for workers, it is nonetheless a fragile  physical plant on which to place the amount of broadcasting equipment  required by eight television stations.   The aging infrastructure also creates  wiring and powering issues.  One station representative said that it simply  may not be possible to wire the Empire State Building to power the  necessary antennas, transmitters, and associated equipment.  Third, the  broadcasters used antennas perched on a 343-foot tower rising from a 110- story base when they were using the World Trade Center.  The Empire State  Building offers either operation from a 200-foot tower atop the somewhat  lower roofline or operation from the 81st floor.  In either case, nearby  Manhattan buildings—even the Empire State Building itself—cause  interference with the stations’ signals and prevent reception for some  viewers.  One executive we spoke with believed that the Empire State  Building would serve more effectively as a backup transmission location.   Another executive noted the importance of this backup role, since the  events of September 11 so dramatically demonstrated the need for  “transmission redundancy.”
Broadcasting at less than their accustomed levels of power and sharing  limited space at and near the Empire State Building’s roof, stations have  continued to experience difficulty in reaching their entire audience.  The  Alpine site also reduces stations’ market coverage.  Reaching Brooklyn and  Queens has been particularly problematic because viewers in these  boroughs must contend with signals that are weakened or blocked by a  variety of Manhattan obstructions.  One station executive told us that he is  currently reaching only about 80 percent of his viewers citywide.
section_title: As They Seek Permanent Broadcasting Space, Stations Are Working to Address Financial Issues
paragraphs: Concomitant with securing temporary tower space at the Empire State  Building is the stations’ need to find a new permanent location for their  antennas.  Currently, industry stakeholders are negotiating to select a location that is acceptable to all parties.  Station executives with whom  we spoke said that their preference is Governor’s Island, which is currently  owned by the federal government and located in New York Harbor near  lower Manhattan.The station executives consider the island to be a  nearly optimal location because it is unused, virtually vacant, and lacks  private residents who might object to the construction of broadcast towers.   In addition, use of the island would allow all stations to be located together,  thus obviating the need for each station to secure its own space in  Manhattan proper.
While station executives attempt to secure permanent broadcasting space,  they must grapple with a range of budget and finance matters.  We were  told that, in particular, stations are dealing with (1) ensuring redundancy in  equipment placement, which requires negotiating twice for building rent,  consulting services, and other key purchases; (2) seeking reimbursement  from insurers for losses directly attributable to the events of September 11;  and (3) retaining high-quality programming so that affected viewers will  return when the analog signal is fully restored.
Station executives with whom we spoke emphasized the need for  “redundancy” of their broadcast signal as a precaution against future  terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other calamities.  This redundancy  requires stations to invest at least twice the amount that would be required  simply to replace the equipment that was destroyed on September 11,  contract twice for the services of design and engineering consultants, and  seek permits and negotiate rent at two distinct locations.  In addition,  stations are currently negotiating with their insurance companies to  determine precisely what is reimbursable in the wake of the September 11  events.  One station executive told us that his “complex claim” could  surpass $30 million.  Although some of this amount represents lost  hardware, he said, some of it represents a request for reimbursement of  lost revenue.  The amount of lost advertising revenue is difficult to estimate  and insurers have argued that the events of September 11 are not the sole  cause of lower advertising revenues.
subsections: section_title: Rebuilding the DTV Stations Is an Important Long-Term Goal
paragraphs: Six of the eight stations had completed building their DTV stations before  September 11, 2001, and all six lost their digital antennas.  The other two  stations were in the process of building their DTV infrastructure.  Station  executives with whom we spoke said that restoring full traditional analog  service was their immediate priority.  However, one executive noted the  importance of regaining digital broadcasting capabilities in the long term.   Ultimately, he said, viewers will want high definition content and other  digital services.  Another station executive mentioned that reacquiring  digital capability was essential to recoup earlier financial investments in  digital technologies.  The eight stations’ reported costs-to-date on the  digital transition ranged from $250,000 to $27 million.
The station executives reiterated their commitment to high definition  content, although they acknowledged that the viewers of New York City  had yet to express widespread interest in HDTV.  However, the executives  anticipated that this will change as equipment prices decline and as HDTV  is more aggressively promoted in coming years.  Before September 11,  2001, local stations were broadcasting sports (such as the games of the  New York Mets), cultural programs (such as Live from the Met), children’s  shows, nature shows, and other special programming in high definition  format.  One station had plans for a high definition broadcast of the  Tournament of Roses Parade on January 1, 2002.  Stations with whom we  spoke were unable to estimate precisely when they might have their digital  signals back on the air, although one station was hoping to be broadcasting  a limited digital signal by May 2002.
section_title: FCC Received High Marks from New York City Broadcasters in the Aftermath of September 11
paragraphs: We were told by the station executives that, in the wake of the World Trade  Center attacks, FCC was cooperative, supportive, and accommodating—a  full partner in helping to restore broadcast television service to the New  York metropolitan area.  Specifically, according to the station executives,  FCC offered temporary licenses, facilitated stations’ moves to Alpine and  the Empire State Building, and issued necessary waivers.   One station  executive said that FCC acknowledged and approved requests “in minutes,  rather than days or weeks,” while another expressed appreciation that FCC  had granted it temporary permission to file requests electronically.  This  executive expressed satisfaction with the proactive nature of FCC’s  involvement, noting that an FCC official called him within a day of the  World Trade Center attacks to ask how the agency might facilitate the  rebuilding process.  The executives felt that other federal, state, and local  government agencies have been similarly cooperative, including the U.S.  Department of Commerce, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,  the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Port Authority of New York &  New Jersey.
section_title: Public Broadcasting Stations Also Report Experiencing Problems in Their Transition to DTV
paragraphs: The federal mandate that all full-power broadcast television stations must  transition to digital technologies also applies to the nation’s 380 public  television stations.  FCC has ordered that these stations have a digital  signal on the air by May 1, 2003.  We mailed surveys to all full-power, on- the-air public stations.  Public stations were sent the same survey as  commercial stations.  Just as with the commercial stations, they were sent  one version of the survey if they were already broadcasting a digital signal  (“current DTV stations”) and another version of the survey if they had not  begun broadcasting a digital signal (“transitioning stations”).  We did one  mailing to the public stations in early October 2001.  For more information  on our response rates, see appendix I.  Our survey responses from public  stations were often similar to the responses of commercial stations.  In this  appendix, we report mostly on areas where survey results differed from  those of the commercial stations.  See appendixes VI and VII for complete  results from the public stations.
As of April 12, 2002, according to FCC, there were 60 public stations on the  air with a digital signal.  Costs reported for the digital transition were  $3.0 million for public current DTV stations and $2.6 million expected for  public transitioning stations.  Again, the costs are not dramatically different  (the costs for commercial stations having been $3.1 million for current DTV  stations and $2.3 million for transitioning stations).  One of the biggest  differences between public and commercial stations was the reported  funding sources for building the DTV station.  Commercial stations often  relied on funding from the corporate parent or owner.  For public stations,  the most reported funding sources were state government funding, station  cash reserves, federal funding or grants from the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration, and fund-raising or  private grants.  Both public current DTV stations and transitioning stations  reported that they relied heavily on state government funding sources.   Current DTV stations also reported relying heavily on station cash reserves.
The public stations that had already gone on the air with a digital signal— all of which chose to do so ahead of the schedule set by FCC—reported  that they were often providing their viewers with high definition content.   Eighty percent of public current DTV stations said they were offering some  HDTV programming.  Many had their digital signal on the air constantly; the  stations averaged 50 hours per week of HDTV content and 66 hours per  week of multicasting.  Two-thirds of current DTV stations said they were  producing some of their own content in digital.  Of the transitioning  stations, most had various plans for their digital channel, including 84  percent that said they planned some amount of HDTV and 73 percent that  said they planned some amount of multicasting.  Fifty-three percent plan to  produce their own content in digital.
As for problems that the public stations were experiencing or expecting,  funding ranked as the most reported problem.  Similar to the commercial  stations, funding was said to be a problem by 76 percent of transitioning  stations.  Weather was reported as a problem by 57 percent of transitioning  stations, and lengthy permit reviews were reported by 30 percent of  transitioning stations.
Another difference from the commercial stations was the number of public  transitioning stations that said they might not make the deadline for  broadcasting a digital signal.  While 74 percent of commercial stations said  this, 45 percent of public stations said this.  It is likely that the additional  year given to public stations in the FCC’s schedule partly explains the lower  number of public stations that think they will fail to meet their deadline.   There were also differences in the extensions that public stations felt they  might need from FCC.  Thirty-eight percent of public stations said they  would need an extension of 2 years or more, compared with 54 percent of  commercial stations that said this.  Lastly, public stations were more  optimistic about when they would have had a DTV signal on the air had  they not been given a timeline.  Fifty-two percent of public transitioning  stations said they would have been on the air in digital by 2006 (compared  with 46 percent of commercial transitioning stations).
section_title: Survey Results for Commercial Current DTV Stations
section_title: Survey Results for Commercial Transitioning Stations
section_title: Survey Results for Public Current DTV Stations
section_title: Survey Results for Public Transitioning Stations
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Naba Barkakati, Jason Bromberg, Aaron  Casey, Michael Clements, Michele Fejfar, James M. Fields, Rebecca  Medina, Christopher Miller, Emma Quach, Kevin Tarmann, Thomas Taydus,  Madhav Panwar, Mindi Weisenbloom, and Alwynne Wilbur made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs