Do full-power TV stations really want to carry low-power competitors on their digital channels?

I wouldn’t think so. There are all kinds of cool things broadcasters can do with their 19.4 mbps digital pipe, everything from new networks (see our story on the new crop of diginets on Wednesday) to mobile broadcasting.

All are better than giving the local LPTV a free ride.

Yet, there is talk in Washington this week that the NAB may accept just such a condition as part of a deal with the FCC on rules requiring PSAs on the DTV transition. It’s being called the “buddy system.”

Concerned that there will be millions of clueless Americas wondering where their pictures went and calling their congressmen the morning after the analog cut-off (Feb. 18, 2009), the FCC wants to mandate that every TV station air a certain number of PSAs and take other steps to educate the public about the transition.

To soften the impact of such rules, the NAB came up with the idea of a “safe harbor.”

Basically, it’s a good idea.

Here’s how it would work: The FCC would go ahead with its rules, but TV stations that voluntarily participated in the NAB’s much ballyhooed DTV awareness campaign and filed quarterly reports with the FCC would be deemed in compliance.

I don’t quite see the difference between having to adhere to rules and essentially being forced to participate in a “voluntary” program, but I suppose anything is better than rules that could lead to fines and regulatory hassles.

The problem is that the NAB may have made a tactical mistake by bringing the FCC a voluntary plan that actually had substance to it. The requirements of that plan could only get worse as the Democratic lawmakers and commissioners got in on the act.

And, according to other reports and to sources close to the negotiations, that’s pretty much what has happened.

As of late yesterday, the NAB plan would require 16 PSAs per week with 30-second spots counting as one and 15-second spots counting as one-half.

All spots would have to air between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m. with 25 percent during the “evening hours” (6 p.m. to 11:35 p.m.)

The plan would also require a specific number of crawls, snipes and tickers, airings of a 30-minute educational program and the inclusion of a countdown clock in local newscasts in the last 100 days before the analog cut-off.

That’s enough of a chore for any broadcaster. Or you would think.

Now, on top of all that, Martin wants full-power TV stations take care of LPTV stations in their markets by rebroadcasting them on one of their digital subchannels—on a voluntary basis. (When the FCC says “voluntary,” it always means “mandatory.”)

The beauty part for the LPTVs is that Martin would also somehow extend must-carry rights to the LPTVs forcing local cable operators to pick them up, possibly as part of the FCC’s upcoming rulemaking on LPTV.

Throughout much of the decade-long DTV transition, Washington lawmakers and policymakers have ignored or forgotten about LPTV stations and their close cousins, TV translators, even though there are nearly 8,000 of them.

They now find themselves in hot water.

Because most do not have digital channel assignments, they are at risk of being left behind next February. They will still be broadcasting analog signals in a digital world.

Exacerbating their problem is their lack of must-carry rights and the fact that most of the new D-to-A converter boxes being readied for market don’t have analog tuners and would effectively block consumers from continuing to receive analog signals.

But the LPTVs and translators are no longer being ignored.

For some reason, Martin has embraced their cause and has been insisting that the full-power broadcasters help them out whatever way they can.

Indeed, at its meeting in Washington last week, the NAB board adopted several measures aimed at helping out LPTVs.

It agreed to pressure manufacturers to build “analog pass through” shunts in their D-to-A converters and it agreed to include LPTV’s particular problems in its DTV public awareness campaign.

And, then last Tuesday, NAB announced the formation of a standing LPTV Issues Committee.

Certainly, some of the NAB interest in LPTV is self-serving. Some full-power TV broadcasters operate LPTV stations in markets where they can't get full-power licenses and some operate translators to extend their coverage.

But most of the interest is clearly aimed at accommodating Martin.

Why Martin is so gung-ho about LTPV is hard to say.

LPTV's Community Broadcasters Association is represented on the Hill by former Pennsylvania Congressman Ron Klink. He’s apparently doing a good job, getting lawmakers to lean on Martin.

Again, the “safe harbor” is basically a good idea.

But the FCC and the Hill seem to have received the idea as an invitation to rewrite the NAB public awareness campaign and to save LPTV on the backs of full-power stations.

That harbor is getting mighty crowded.