[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60025-60034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29346]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 21 and 74
[MM Docket No. 97-217; FCC 97-360]
MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), the
Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendment of its rules to
enable Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Instructional
Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'') licensees to engage in fixed two-
way transmissions. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals to
enhance the flexibility of MDS and ITFS operations through facilitated
use of response stations, use of booster stations with program
origination capability in a cellular configuration, and use of variable
bandwidth (``subchanneling'' or ``superchanneling''). Comment is sought
regarding the technical, procedural and economic effects of
implementing the proposed rule changes.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 9, 1997, and reply
comments on or before January 8, 1998. Written comments by the public
on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are due December 9,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Jacobs, (202) 418-7066 or
Dave Roberts, (202) 418-1600, Video Services Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 97-217, adopted October 7,
1997, and released October 10, 1997. The full text of this NPRM is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on MDS and ITFS Two-Way
Transmissions
1. This NPRM was issued in response to a petition for rulemaking
filed by a group of 111 educators and participants in the wireless
cable industry (collectively, ``Petitioners''), comprised of MDS and
ITFS licensees, wireless cable operators, equipment manufacturers, and
industry consultants and associations. In this proceeding, Petitioners
are asking that we implement a series of technical rule changes that
would give MDS and ITFS licensees the needed flexibility to fully
exploit digital technology in delivering two-way communications
services. Currently, MDS and ITFS licensees are authorized to use
digital technology in order to increase the number of usable one-way
channels available to them, leased ITFS frequencies and MDS channels
may be used for asymmetrical high speed digital data applications so
long as such usage complies with the Commission's technical rules and
its declaratory ruling on the use of digital modulation by MDS and ITFS
stations (``Digital Declaratory Ruling,'' 11 FCC Rcd 18839 (1996)), and
MDS licensees have been permitted to provide two-way service on a
limited basis. While 125 kHz response channels are currently allocated
for use in association with most MDS and ITFS stations, Petitioners
anticipate that many MDS and ITFS licensees and wireless cable
operators engaging in two-way transmissions will require more capacity
for return paths than is available through such 125 kHz channels.
Moreover, because these 125 kHz response channels must be individually
licensed under the
[[Page 60026]]
Commission's existing rules, Petitioners argue that the existing rules
are too cumbersome and impose too great a financial burden on licensees
seeking to implement two-way wireless services. Instead, Petitioners
propose a system under which MDS and ITFS licensees would be permitted
to utilize all or part of a 6 MHz channel for return path transmissions
from subscriber premises, to cellularize their transmission systems to
take advantage of spectrally efficient frequency reuse techniques, and
to employ modulation schemes consistent with bandwidths either larger
or smaller than 6 MHz, all while providing incumbent MDS and ITFS
licensees interference protection equivalent to what they currently
receive.
2. Petitioners emphasized that they are not seeking a reallocation
of spectrum, but instead are seeking to modify the technical rules
governing the spectrum already allotted to MDS and ITFS. We placed the
petition for rulemaking on public notice, and received comments and
reply comments from wireless cable industry participants that generally
supported Petitioners' proposals. While many ITFS commenters expressed
concern over the details of Petitioners' proposals, the comments and
reply comments reflected a consensus in the MDS and ITFS communities
that the concept of two-way offerings would greatly aid both services.
We believe that several of Petitioners' proposals may be in the public
interest in that they would enhance the MDS and ITFS services by
providing licensees additional flexibility in order to implement two-
way services. Such flexibility would be facilitated by changing certain
of our technical rules, amending some of our programming rules, and
modifying some of our current application procedures for MDS and ITFS
facilities. The NPRM seeks comment on the various issues raised by
these proposals, and puts forth some counter-proposals to those
proffered by Petitioners.
3. Revised Definitions of Service. The ITFS/MDS spectrum is used
primarily for the provision of either one-way video service to
students, in the ITFS context, or, in the MDS context, wireless cable
service to subscribers, which likewise historically has constituted
primarily the provision of one-way video services. While our Rules
already permit MDS licensees to provide non-video services, under our
current regulatory scheme, MDS operators typically only provide two-way
service to subscribers using telephone return links or individually
licensed subscriber premises stations. This is an outgrowth of the
basic one-way approach to MDS transmission from which our current rules
originated.
4. We propose changes to MDS and ITFS service definitions to fully
incorporate the concept of two-way transmission and which reflect the
reorientation of the regulatory approach to a flexible service, from
that of an essentially one-way service. A regulatory system would be
created authorizing the use of response stations and response station
hubs to enable the two-way operation of wireless cable systems. We
solicit comment on this new service paradigm.
5. Specifically, we propose to amend the definition of a ``response
station'' to indicate that licensees may use all or part of any of
their 6 MHz channels as a response channel. Response stations would be
the means of transmission from a subscriber's premises, and could use
either separate transmitting antennas for return paths or combined
transmitting/receiving antennas. The concept of a response station hub
is added, and these hubs would serve as the collection points for
signals from the response stations in a multipoint-to-point
configuration for upstream signal flow. Thus, response stations would
not need to be licensed individually, and they could operate at lower
power because the response station hubs would be located closer to
subscriber premises than are current transmitter sites. Commenter
Caritas Telecommunications, Inc. (``Caritas'') proposed that we limit
the availability of response channels to MDS channels 1, 2 and 2A,
converting those channels from their current use for point-to-
multipoint transmissions to subscribers' homes to use for transmission
return paths. We tentatively decline to adopt this counter-proposal and
agree with Petitioners that it would both artificially limit the amount
of spectrum that could be used for return paths and unnecessarily
prevent ITFS licensees from using their own channels for return paths.
We solicit comment on the response station hub concept and its
implications. We also solicit comments on our proposals regarding the
expanded definition of response stations, including provision for
transmissions on all available MDS and ITFS channels, and on Caritas'
counter-proposal.
6. We further propose to amend the definition for ``signal booster
stations'' to allow such stations to originate transmissions, as well
as to relay transmissions from other stations. Booster stations would
be used to cellularize wireless cable operations, which now may operate
in areas too large to be served by a single station. Permitting
boosters to originate as well as relay programming would facilitate
frequency reuse cellular configurations and two-way high speed Internet
access and other services. We seek comment on the proposal to expand
the role of booster stations in this manner. Flexible subchannelization
(i.e., the division of a channel of a particular bandwidth into
multiple channels of smaller bandwidth) also would be permitted to
allow more efficient channel reuse within a given service area, and
superchannelization (i.e., the combining of more than one channel into
a single, wider channel) would be allowed and could be used for the
transmission of high data rates and/or the use of spread spectrum
emissions. Superchannels also would be licensed to multiple entities in
many instances, due to the fact that the interleaved, non-contiguous
channels in this band generally are licensed to different entities.
Subchannels and superchannels would be limited to digital
transmissions with uniform spectral power density across the bandwidth,
in order to make possible the use of spectral density analysis as part
of the interference analysis process. We seek comment on these
channelization proposals.
7. Finally, as noted above, 125 kHz channels are currently
allocated as response channels for use in association with most MDS and
ITFS stations, and as such they would provide further capacity as
return paths in the cellularized two-way scheme. In their Comments,
Petitioners add that the Commission should also permit the use of the
125 kHz channels for point-to-multipoint transmissions. Petitioners
explain that for systems using digital technologies, there is a need to
transmit downstream control signals over side channels that require
less than a full 6 MHz channel, for instance for control over digital
set top decoders or control over two-way communication systems.
Petitioners maintain that use of the 125 kHz channels for such
applications is beneficial in that it preserves the 6 MHz channels for
transmissions that require greater bandwidth, and it can lead to
reduced equipment costs. Petitioners also propound that to further
offer flexibility to create channels with bandwidths exceeding 125 kHz,
the Commission should remove the current rule provisions which require
that the 125 kHz channels only be used in conjunction with their
associated 6 MHz channels. While also proposing that the 125 kHz
channels be used for additional point-to-multipoint spectrum, Caritas
goes a step further than Petitioners, advancing that the Commission
should
[[Page 60027]]
reallocate the 125 kHz channels to be combined into one continuous
piece of spectrum to be used for such purposes. We are proposing rules
in accordance with the most flexible framework ultimately requested by
Petitioners for use of the 125 kHz channels, including allowing
superchannelization or subchannelization of these stations regardless
of whether they are used as response stations or for point-to-
multipoint transmissions. We believe that these changes are sufficient
to derive the benefits explained by Petitioners, and that a
reallocation and the complications associated with that is not
necessary. We solicit comment on these proposals regarding use of the
125 kHz channels.
8. Interference Considerations. In the Digital Declaratory Ruling,
we waived our rules with respect to out-of-band emissions and permitted
the use of a somewhat relaxed spectral mask for digital transmission
modes. This action was taken because the Commission concluded that the
application of the current analog emission mask to digital emissions
would be unnecessarily restrictive and could increase the cost of
digital equipment while providing no benefit. In addition, the results
of laboratory tests submitted in connection with the Commission's
consideration of this issue demonstrated that a digital station using
the relaxed mask is less likely to cause interference than an analog
station using the existing, more restrictive, mask.
9. In the NPRM, we propose to permanently incorporate into the
Rules the spectral mask waiver provisions of the Digital Declaratory
Ruling, specifically for primary system transmitters and single channel
booster transmitters with a power greater than -9 dBW EIRP; masks are
further specified, albeit with certain modifications, for sub-and
superchannels, response stations, and booster stations transmitting on
multiple non-contiguous channels carrying separate signals and with an
EIRP greater than -9 dBW (``broadband boosters''). As an exception to
the spectral masks for the 125 kHz channels, discrete spurious
emissions above the upper and below the lower authorized channel edges
would be permitted under certain conditions. And Petitioners request
that no spectral mask whatsoever be applicable to booster stations with
an EIRP of -9 dBW or less. Petitioners argue that such low power
stations have only a very limited potential for interference, and that
applying strict emission limitations to them would significantly
increase the price of equipment with no benefit to the user or nearby
licensees in terms of added interference protection. We seek comment on
whether the degree of attenuation proposed for these various schemes is
sufficient to provide adequate adjacent channel interference
protection. We also request comment on whether eliminating a spectral
mask for low power boosters presents an undue interference risk, and,
if so, which additional interference safeguards should be adopted.
10. As in the Digital Declaratory Ruling, all spectral mask
calculations involving digital emissions will use the average power of
the emission across its bandwidth, and steps must be taken to ensure
substantially uniform power density across the bandwidth in use,
including constant power per unit of bandwidth for sub-and
superchannels. We also propose to place a limit of 18 dBW EIRP on
response station transmitters in cellularized systems, and that higher
power facilities be authorized separately and require a site specific
interference analysis. Given the extremely complex interference
situation attendant to cellularized operations and the heavily
encumbered nature of MDS and ITFS environments, we do not believe that
it would be prudent to permit essentially unlimited numbers of response
station transmitters with 2000 watts (33 dBW EIRP) of radiated power,
as Petitioners requested. However, while current MDS and ITFS rules
limit booster power to 18 dBW EIRP, we propose to allow boosters to
operate up to 33 dBW EIRP, the maximum power level for MDS and ITFS. We
seek comment on this approach to transmitter power within the two-way
scheme. We also seek comment on rule proposals with respect to
frequency tolerance requirements for digital transmissions, type
acceptance of response station transmitters and boosters, and radio
frequency (``RF'') emissions for MDS/ITFS return path transmissions.
11. The Commission's current regulations in ITFS and MDS for
interference protection were designed to minimize the potential for
destructive cochannel and adjacent channel interference between systems
located in proximity to each other. The specific criteria for
protection are of two forms, namely, (1) cochannel and adjacent channel
desired-to-undesired signal (D/U) ratios and (2) limits on the
magnitude of a station's free space field as measured at the edge of
the station's protected service area. For cochannel interference
protection, an applicant must configure its system so that the signals
from each of its transmitters are at least 45 dB weaker than the
signals of the existing licensee's transmitters within the licensee's
protected service area and/or, in the case of ITFS licensees, at the
licensee's protected receiver sites. For adjacent channel protection,
the ratio must be at least 0 dB. In order to meet the second form of
protection, an applicant generally must be able to demonstrate that the
magnitude of the free space radiated field from each transmitter does
not exceed a particular limit (i.e., a power flux density -73 dBW/
m2) at the boundary of the applicant's service area.
12. Petitioners propose to apply the existing interference criteria
in essentially unchanged form, and to supplement them with similar new
criteria to be applied to hub, booster, and response stations.
Petitioners further propose to aggregate the power from a primary
station and all associated booster stations for one set of interference
calculations, and that a separate set of interference calculations be
performed using the aggregated power from response stations. However,
we counter-propose that a calculation of the combined field produced by
the primary station transmitter, all boosters, and the aggregated power
from response stations within a system be utilized to determine
compliance with interference standards. We seek comment on the relative
merits of Petitioners' proposed approach and our counter-proposal. We
also emphasize that where an interfered-with receive antenna meets the
antenna characteristics set forth in our MDS and ITFS rules, the
station causing the harmful interference is responsible for curing it.
13. Interference Prediction Methodology. In order to predict the
interference potential of response stations in the proposed
cellularized scheme, Petitioners seek to employ a three-step process
using statistical analysis and worst-case assumptions. In step one, the
hub station response service area (``RSA'') is defined and a grid of
points is located within this area representative of the expected
actual distribution of response station transmitters within the area.
Regions within the area are defined so that an adequate population
uniformity exists for purposes of predicting interference from a
distribution of response station transmitters. Population uniformity is
determined using a complex formula involving evaluation of the
population density within each ZIP Code within the planned boundaries
of a region. Population uniformity is an important facet of each region
because Petitioners assume, a priori, that the distribution of response
station transmitters will be
[[Page 60028]]
closely matched to population distribution within each region.
14. In step two, Petitioners propose to identify the technical
characteristics of response stations which will be associated with each
point in the RSA grid. One or more classes of response stations would
be identified within the RSA and its regions, with each class being a
function of several variables, such as transmitted power (EIRP),
antenna height, frequency, bandwidth, and maximum number of assumed
simultaneously operated response stations in the regional class; these
characteristics and others would be specified in the response hub
application. Differentiating between classes is asserted by Petitioners
to be essential for accurately calculating the interference potential
of the response stations within an RSA, because differentiable
technical characteristics between classes likely will lead to
differentiable potentials for causing interference to neighboring
systems.
15. The final step in calculating response station interference
would require combining the radiated fields of all response stations of
all classes, regions and RSAs within the primary station's protected
service area. In order to simplify this calculation, the statistical
population uniformity within each region would be used as a basis for
grouping response stations of all classes in proximity at the grid
points laid out within each RSA; multiple classes could share the same
grid points. For each class of response stations assigned to a grid
point, a set of worst-case assumptions would be made concerning the
transmitting antenna radiation pattern, transmitter power (EIRP) and
antenna height. Several complex calculations, including procedures for
checking the initial calculations, combining the radiated field for all
of the transmitters for each class of response station at each grid
point from all RSAs would then be used to evaluate compliance with the
interference criteria. Thus, whereas under current rules such
compliance is calculated on a per-transmitter basis, Petitioners'
proposed system would necessitate that it be calculated on an
aggregated basis, covering hundreds or thousands of transmitters and
their combined interference potential to neighboring systems.
Petitioners argue that licensees should be free, upon notification to
the Commission, to continue adding response station transmitters within
their systems until calculations indicate that permissible interference
values would be exceeded, and that using worst-case assumptions in
their methodology has built in an interference protection buffer for
situations where more stations or a different mix of stations than
anticipated are activated in an RSA.
16. In the NPRM, we caution that the interference prediction
methodology is based solely on assumptions, thus leading to a
statistical picture of response station interference potential which
gives an uncertain approximation of the operating environment, although
Petitioners also claim that this approximation is conservative. In
addition, we discuss how the small scale test conducted by Petitioners
in the flat and relatively unimpeded terrain of Tucson, AZ, while
useful, may not be generally applicable to the very diverse
geographical and interference environments in which MDS and ITFS
systems operate. We also express concern that the proposed methodology
is so complex that it may be very difficult to implement and enforce,
and may lead to numerous filings updating system configurations, which
would present severe burdens upon existing licensees and operators
needing to analyze these filings in order to verify that no harmful
interference will result to their systems. Notwithstanding these
reservations, however, we express our belief that Petitioners' overall
goal of facilitating cellularization of the services is very forward-
looking, and warrants an opportunity to proceed despite the
complications and uncertainties which could arise. Thus, we propose to
adopt the methodology and seek comment on it, but we also specifically
solicit suggestions for alternative methods for prediction of
interference to and from cellularized systems. For example, we ask to
what extent ``worst case'' analysis could serve a sufficient
approximation to a more exact analysis, such as a determination of
noninterference based solely on terrain shadowing, and to what
geographical extent individual response station areas should be
aggregated in large BTAs.
17. Modulation Methods. In the Digital Declaratory Ruling, we
authorized the use of Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (``QAM'') and
Vestigial Sideband (``VSB'') modulation. While we declined to consider
the use of other digital modulation methods in the context of that
proceeding, we stated that we would consider future requests for
declaratory rulings where the requesters submit appropriate data to
demonstrate that other modulation techniques could be used in a manner
that would not interfere with MDS and ITFS analog and digital
operations. In the current rulemaking proceeding, Pace
Telecommunications Consortium (``Pace'') commented that the Commission
should immediately grant ITFS and MDS licensees the flexibility to use
whatever digital techniques best serve their needs, with interference
controlled through the use of power spectral density limits and
spectral masks.
18. As in the Digital Declaratory Ruling, in the NPRM we decline to
adopt one or more ``standard'' digital technologies. We will retain or
add provisions for accommodating the use of different modulation types,
as requested by Petitioners. In addition, because we wish to encourage
parties to continue to identify different digital modulation schemes
that could be useful in MDS and ITFS, we emphasize that we remain open
to considering future requests for declaratory rulings in accordance
with the Digital Declaratory Ruling, upon submission of appropriate
data. We further invite comment on whether there is a basis for
concluding that use of particular digital modulation types by MDS and
ITFS stations other than VSB and QAM would not be prone to
interference, based on the current 45 dB/0 dB protection ratios for
cochannel and adjacent channel interference respectively, i.e. that
such modulation formats should be permitted without requiring test
data. For example, one modulation type may be a subset of VSB and QAM
and, therefore, is covered under the industry tests used to support the
Digital Declaratory Ruling.
19. Application Procedures. Petitioners set forth an application
processing scheme, governing the filing of applications for new or
modified response station hubs or boosters, that would substantially
shift review of applications from Commission staff and leave much of
the interference environment to be worked out among licensees.
Petitioners propose that we adopt a rolling, one-day filing window
system. While each applicant would be required to demonstrate
protection of existing or previously proposed facilities, all
acceptable applications filed on the same day would be granted and the
filers left to resolve incompatibilities amongst themselves with little
or no intervention by Commission staff. Specifically, Petitioners
propose that applications would be placed on public notice without
prior staff review of interference studies, and that the applications
would be automatically granted on the 61st day after that notice unless
a petition to deny was filed or the Commission notified the applicant
prior to that date that a grant would not be made.
[[Page 60029]]
20. Petitioners speculate that a large number of applications are
likely to be filed once the new rules become effective and that many of
the applications submitted at that time will conflict with others filed
simultaneously. In order to smooth the transition to the rolling one-
day filing window application processing system, Petitioners propose
that a special one-week window be employed when the new rules first go
into effect, and that all applications filed during this window be
deemed filed as of the same day. Following the publication of a public
notice announcing the tendering for filing of applications submitted
during that window, applicants would have a period of 60 days to amend
their applications to resolve conflicts. During this 60-day period, no
additional applications could be filed, affording those who filed
during the one-week window an opportunity to resolve any conflicts
without fear that, during the pendency of settlement discussions, third
parties will propose facilities that will have to be protected if the
original applicants amend their applications. After this initial 60 day
period, public notice and automatic grant procedures akin to those
proposed by Petitioners for the rolling one-day filing windows would be
implemented. Following Petitioners' plan, on the 61st day after the
publication of the second public notice, applications for
authorizations for response station hubs and for booster stations
henceforth would be accepted and processed under the rolling one-day
filing window approach.
21. Although we tentatively accept Petitioners' proposal to place
the applications on public notice without prior staff review of the
interference studies, we tentatively reject their proposal for
automatic grant of the applications. We believe that placing the
applications on public notice without prior interference analysis will
serve to speed the review process by making the relevant data available
to all interested parties as quickly as possible. However, we believe
that an automatic grant at the end of the proposed 60 day public notice
period will not provide an adequate opportunity for interested parties
or, where necessary, for Commission staff, to review the interference
studies or for the Commission to make a reasoned determination in
complex cases. We solicit comment on our conclusions.
22. In addition, while Petitioners' proposal in this area presents
a promising start, it still leaves a number of concerns and questions
unresolved. Commenter Catholic Television Network (``CTN'') raised the
concern that the one-day rolling filing window will create an undue
burden on ITFS licensees, who may find themselves required to evaluate
a continuing stream of applications. We solicit comment on how such a
concern could be resolved in the context of the one-day rolling filing
window. We also solicit comment on whether we should retain our current
periodic filing window system used for ITFS applications and what
advantages and disadvantages exist between the existing system and the
proposed system. Furthermore, Petitioners' proposal leaves a number of
significant questions unresolved regarding the processing of
conflicting applications. For example what should be the result in the
event that same-day filers of closely-spaced conflicting applications
cannot resolve their differences? Should the applicants be ordered into
binding arbitration for which they will assume the cost and whose
outcome will be finally subject to Commission approval? Should the
Commission simply freeze the applications until the parties are able to
resolve their differences? Should the Commission's staff function as a
referee in such cases and, if so, should it adopt any sort of
comparative criteria to guide its decisions? Should the staff adopt
some type of point system to rate competing applicants? We seek comment
on these questions.
23. We tentatively propose the following processing rules, taking
into consideration the concerns of the various commenters. Under these
rules, applicants would file an original and two copies of their system
proposal and serve a copy of the proposal on any party whose MDS/ITFS
interests may be affected by the proposal. A complete application would
then be placed on public notice for a 60-day initial comment period.
Prior to the expiration of the 60-day period, interested parties could
file comments, petitions to deny or requests for extension of time to
file comments or petitions to deny. Although it is our policy that
requests for extension of time shall not be granted, and we do not
propose to change that policy, we anticipate that the limited resources
available to an ITFS party to review a potentially complex two-way
service proposal will be a factor considered in whether we grant a
request for extension of time. In the alternative, we would consider
adopting a 120-day initial comment period, with requests for extensions
of time considered only in extraordinary circumstances. We seek comment
on these proposals and solicit detailed alternate proposals. We
especially seek comment on what time period parties believe would be
necessary to adequately review a service proposal without unduly
delaying the processing of such a proposal.
24. We believe that the adoption of the one-week initial filing
window will lessen the burden on all affected parties, including the
Commission's staff, during the first round of application filing. We
also believe that providing parties with an initial 60-day period
during which they can resolve any apparent conflicts and then amend
their applications without prejudice will provide for quicker and
easier processing. We believe that issuing a public notice announcing
the acceptance for filing of all applications as amended will serve an
important notice function for all potentially affected parties. As
discussed above, however, we do not propose to accept Petitioners'
automatic grant proposal. Rather than adopt Petitioners' proposed
automatic grant, we tentatively conclude that, at the end of any
comment period that we may adopt and following any further staff
review, the Commission staff, pursuant to delegated authority, would
issue a grant or denial of any authorization pursuant to the revised
rules. If no oppositions have been filed in a particular proceeding and
the Commission staff has determined that a service proposal would not
cause interference in violation of our Rules, we anticipate that such a
grant would be accomplished quickly. We seek comment on both our
proposed approach and on Petitioners' proposed automatic grant.
25. We also solicit comment on ways to make information on actual
system operating parameters available to third-party applicants who
need such information for analysis of the interference environment, and
on how to conform our MDS and ITFS rules to provide for amendment of
booster station and response station hub applications. Finally, in
their Comments, Petitioners urge that we adopt a system whereby an
applicant, once authorization for service has been granted, may switch
from common carrier to non-common carrier service and back without
seeking subsequent authorization. We seek comment on this aspect of
Petitioners' proposal, and on whether operators should be required to
give the Commission notice when they are switching back and forth
between common carrier and non-common carrier service, even if prior
approval is not required.
26. Issues Specific to ITFS. Under Sec. 74.931 of the Commission's
Rules, ITFS stations are operated by
[[Page 60030]]
educational organizations and are ``intended primarily to provide a
formal educational and cultural development in aural and visual form,''
to students enrolled for credit in accredited secondary schools,
colleges and universities. An ITFS licensee who leases excess channel
capacity to a wireless cable operator must provide a total average of
at least 20 hours per channel per week of ITFS programming on its
authorized channels. ITFS licensees in such lease arrangements also
retain the right to recapture ``an average of an additional 20 hours
per channel per week for simultaneous programming on the number of
channels for which it is authorized.'' In addition, an ITFS licensee
may shift its required educational programming onto fewer than its
authorized number of channels via channel loading or channel mapping.
The licensee may further agree to transmission of recapture time on
channels not authorized to it but which are included in the wireless
cable system of which it is a part.
27. Petitioners propose changes which would revise the absolute 20
hours per channel per week recapture time requirement to provide that
the ITFS programming requirements constitute a total of 40 hours per
channel per week, including both actual programming and recapture time.
The Petition does not contemplate any changes to the required minimum
of 20 hours per channel per week of actual ITFS programming. Thus,
under the proposed changes, if an ITFS licensee actually provides more
than an average of 20 hours per channel per week of ITFS programming,
reserved recapture time would only need to make up the difference to
achieve a total of 40 hours per channel per week. CTN commented that
retaining the 20 hour minimum actual programming requirement is
inadequate, and insisted that as digital compression increases the
number of channel paths, there must be a proportionate increase in the
number of paths available for education, including data services. In
their reply, Petitioners claimed that many ITFS licensees are finding
it difficult to satisfy the existing ITFS minimum programming
requirements. Petitioners further posed that adoption of CTN's proposal
would create a disincentive for ITFS licensees to introduce the new
technologies contemplated by the Petition. We solicit comment from ITFS
licensees on these comments. In the NPRM, we find no grounds for
retreat from the absolute 20 hour recapture time requirement,
especially at this juncture when several wireless cable systems
currently enjoy or imminently stand to reap the benefits of increased
spectrum capacity through use of digital compression techniques. While
we acknowledge the great value to wireless cable operators of
maximization of spectrum available for leasing, we also emphasize the
primary educational purpose of ITFS and the importance of maintaining
sufficient capacity for programming by ITFS licensees which fulfills
that purpose.
28. In the NPRM, we specifically seek comment on several issues
related to the question of whether to change our ITFS programming
requirements in light of the use of digital technology by ITFS
licensees. Should there be different rules depending on whether the
wireless cable system employs digital transmissions? Should a change
take the form of an increase in required levels of actual ITFS
programming, an increase in ready recapture time, or both? How should
any increased requirements be measured, e.g., additional hours or
additional paths? With the flexibility in implementation of ITFS
programming requirements currently allowed or proposed, such as channel
loading and shifting of required programming onto other channels within
a wireless cable system, should we retain our existing program content
requirements and, if not, how should they be modified? For example,
should data transmission count towards minimum ITFS programming
requirements? Should voice transmission count? If data and/or voice
transmission were to count, how would they be measured with respect to
fulfillment of minimum ITFS programming requirements? Should time-of-
day requirements be instituted for these uses to help ensure that they
are really being put towards ITFS programming? Furthermore, should
counting one or both of them have an effect on the amount of actual
programming or ready recapture time required? We also invite comment on
whether education-related uplink transmissions should be applied
towards satisfaction of minimum ITFS programming requirements. While we
note our initial impression that counting uplink transmissions will be
overly complicated and impractical, given the anticipated multitudes of
response stations and the difficulty in predicting or tracking exactly
when they are being used for educational purposes, we nonetheless
welcome suggestions on how they would be measured with respect to
fulfillment of minimum ITFS programming requirements.
29. Petitioners anticipate that system developers will attempt to
utilize contiguous 6 MHz channels for two-way services in order to
minimize the amount of spectrum that would be lost to the proposed
spectral mask whenever a return path is adjacent to a downlink channel.
Furthermore, entire ITFS channel groups may need to be devoted for
return paths. Thus, Petitioners propose that we allow ITFS licensees to
satisfy their programming requirements on other channels within the
wireless cable system. This proposal would be the next step in a
progression of rule changes, following our allowance of channel mapping
and channel loading, that have afforded ITFS licensees increased
flexibility in the implementation of their minimum programming
requirements. Because this proposal would enhance the two-way scheme,
and because it would not call for any dilution or elimination of
minimum ITFS programming requirements, we are considering implementing
it. The flexibility that the suggested changes would accord to ITFS
licensees to lease their channel capacity, along with the maintenance
of minimum ITFS programming requirements, could also encourage
educators to apply for new ITFS stations and lead to more educational
programming. Several commenters put forth ideas for refinements to this
proposal. Arizona State Board of Regents, et al. (``Arizona'')
suggested that each ITFS licensee be required to preserve at least one
downstream video channel, and that the Commission institute a procedure
whereby it would routinely grant applications by ITFS licensees to
exchange individual ITFS channels between channel groups. Instructional
Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. (``Foundation'') would require that
each ITFS licensee devote at least half of its capacity for downstream
use. Schwartz, Woods & Miller (``SWM'') prompted the Commission to
facilitate the ``trading'' of channels between the ITFS and MDS bands.
30. Several of the ITFS commenting parties expressed concern that
the proposed two-way scheme presents threats to the independence of
ITFS licensees and their future ability to use spectrum capacity for
instructional purposes. Pace, for instance, cautioned that because the
Petition proposes a massive shift towards industry control over ITFS
applications, the Commission must ensure that individual ITFS licensees
``do not lose their freedom of choice'' over the use of their channels,
through coercion by neighboring licensees or strong wireless cable
operators. However, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Broadcasting Authority
(``CMPBA''), an ITFS licensee, took the view that the proposed rules
[[Page 60031]]
adequately protect the interests of ITFS entities, primarily because
the rules do not obligate ITFS licensees to take part in the two-way
system, enter into a lease agreement, file FCC applications, or accept
harmful signal levels. Some of the concerned ITFS commenting parties
focused on the effect that the proposed rules may have on the
engineering autonomy of ITFS licensees. Arizona posed the question of
what would happen if an excess capacity agreement comes to an end, and
the ITFS licensee has previously converted its channels to two-way use
and has shifted some or all of its programming onto other channels in
the wireless cable system. Similarly, CTN asked what the impact of
cellularization of a market would be on one or more ITFS licensees
within it who elect not to cellularize, as well as whether a single
ITFS licensee who strives to cellularize its operations would be
dependent on other licensees in the market.
31. In the NPRM, we emphasize that cellularization by ITFS
licensees would be permissive only, and not mandatory. We particularly
seek comment on the effects of allowing complete flexibility in the
number of channels ``turned around'' for return paths, and in the
shifting of required ITFS programming onto other channels in the
wireless cable system and what restrictions, if any, should be adopted.
We also seek comment on whether we should require ITFS licensees to
retain one or more channels for downstream transmissions and the
ramifications of such a requirement. Further, we seek comment on
whether ITFS channel swaps should only be just between ITFS channels,
or whether ITFS licensees should be able to swap their spectrum for
channels in the MDS band. We seek additional comment on specific
potential threats to the engineering autonomy of ITFS licensees which
could result from institution of the proposed two-way framework; in
conjunction with such comment, we further seek proposed solutions. Some
proposed solutions include channel swapping and reimbursement of costs
of channel changes, upholding that participation of ITFS licensees in
cellularization is not mandatory, and potentially increasing
reservation of ready recapture time for ITFS programming. Do any of
these ideas individually, or a combination of them, provide a
sufficient foundation for meeting the expanding needs of some ITFS
licensees? Commenters are also encouraged to address the general
question of whether the Commission should establish solutions by rule,
or whether solutions should be achieved by contract, as advocated by
Petitioners.
32. Several commenters also addressed the degree of oversight the
Commission should maintain in regulating the wireless cable industry
and ITFS. In the past, the Commission has adopted rules and procedures
to accommodate and protect the special needs of educational
institutions and organizations, believing that educational institutions
should be treated differently from commercial entities in many
situations due to limited financial and staff resources. In addition,
ITFS licensees and applicants are required to file their excess
capacity lease agreements, which are reviewed by the staff for overly
restrictive provisions affecting the licensee's rights and obligations,
and compliance with the Commission's leasing policies.
33. In order to ensure that educators retain control of their
facilities and to protect their interests, the Foundation proposed that
the Commission require that two-way digital applications and
interference consents be reviewed by legal and engineering counsel that
do not represent commercial interests, and that these independent
advisors ``certify that in their professional opinion the submission
will not be harmful to future instructional service.'' We have declined
in the past to require all leasing parties to hire separate counsel,
finding this ``safeguard'' unnecessary and relying instead on the
staff's review and monitoring of leases. We see no reason to change our
position on this issue and seek comment on this issue. SWM also
proposed that in order to protect the rights of incumbent ITFS
licenses, the Commission require that leases approved or submitted
under the previous rules ``be amended to make clear that the wireless
cable lessee and the ITFS licensee have together considered the rule
changes adopted and made any appropriate changes to lease terms, prior
to the commencement of commercial operations on the frequencies using
cellularization, sectorization or differing channelization plans.''
Petitioners opposed this proposal, stating that the parties to the
excess capacity lease agreements, and not the Commission, are best
positioned to determine whether proposed system changes require
contract revisions. Accordingly, we seek comment on SWM's proposal.
34. We also seek comment on what impact the proposed rule changes
would have on our requirements regarding excess capacity lease
agreements. For example, the Commission consistently has maintained
that an ITFS licensee should be permitted to purchase the ITFS
equipment necessary to maintain its operation in the event the lease is
terminated. In addition, we also require that the licensee maintain
ultimate control over its licensed facilities. Several commenters have
expressed concern that given the complexity and cost of Petitioner's
proposal, ITFS licensees will be unable to sever their relationship
with the wireless cable operator and acquire the equipment to either
continue cellular operations or return to non-two-way transmissions. We
particularly seek comment on this matter and on what type of equipment
MDS lessees of ITFS channels should be required to make available to
the ITFS licensees upon termination of a lease. For example, should it
only be digital equipment comparable to that in use on the system at
the time the lease is terminated or should it be equipment that would
make it possible for the ITFS licensee to restore analog video
operation, if necessary? Furthermore, with respect to Petitioners'
proposal that ITFS licensees be allowed to utilize their entire channel
for return paths and shift their ITFS programming to other channels, we
request comment on whether the parties should be required to file
written agreements governing the ITFS licensee's lease of an ITFS
programming channel, and whether our present requirements for excess
capacity leases, including those dealing with control issues, length of
lease, and rights on termination, should apply.
35. We also revisit our channel loading rules, and propose to
retain them. We request that interested parties comment on whether
these rules have been beneficial to ITFS licensees and wireless cable
operators, or whether they have been detrimental. Because we believe
that they have provided additional much-needed flexibility to ITFS
licensees and wireless cable operators, any parties commenting that
these rules have been detrimental should also focus on solutions to
permit the continued application of them while rendering them more
universally beneficial. Finally, we also consider issues related to
retention of ITFS call sign transmission requirements and
accountability of ITFS licensees.
36. In this NPRM, we propose to amend our rules to give MDS and
ITFS licensees the needed flexibility to fully exploit digital
technology in delivering two-way communications services. Growth in the
wireless cable industry has remained slow despite the increased channel
capacity offered by digital compression and facilitated by the Digital
Declaratory Ruling. Meanwhile, convergence of different information
[[Page 60032]]
delivery systems, including video and Internet access, is occurring in
other industries, such as cable and DBS. Thus, one of our primary goals
in instituting this proceeding is to enhance the competitiveness of the
wireless cable industry. Another of our chief underlying goals in this
proceeding is to provide benefits to the educational community through
the use of two-way services, such as high speed Internet service.
Besides proposing to amend our technical rules to facilitate such usage
over ITFS frequencies, we note that the growth of wireless cable has
led to the continued development of ITFS by supporting and funding
approximately 95 percent of all new ITFS applicants. Thus, we believe
that enhancing the competitive viability of wireless cable service
through maximization of flexibility and service offerings promotes the
underlying educational purpose of ITFS.
37. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
38. For information regarding proper filing procedures for
comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419. To file formally in this
proceeding, participants must file an original and five copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an
original plus ten copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments
will be available for public inspection during regular business hours
in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) at the Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
39. Authority. This NPRM is issued pursuant to authority contained
in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(g) and (r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 154(j),
301, 303(g), 303(r), and 403.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1
the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 97-217 (``NPRM''). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et
seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The Commission is instituting this rulemaking to determine whether,
and if so, how, to amend its rules to promote the ability of MDS and
ITFS licensees to provide two-way digital services. The objective of
this proceeding is to encourage the efficient use of the spectrum
allotted to MDS and ITFS by simplifying our current two-way licensing
system and providing greater flexibility in the use of the allotted
spectrum where such flexibility would best serve the needs of the
public. In addition, we intend to enhance the competitiveness of the
wireless cable industry and the resultant choices available to
consumers, and to increase Internet access for educational institutions
and their students via ITFS frequencies.
Legal Basis
Authority for the action proposed in this proceeding may be found
in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(g) and (r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
154(j), 301, 303(g), 303(r), and 403.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small business concern.'' 2 In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.3 A small business concern is
one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(6).
\3\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3), the statutory definition of small
business applies unless an agency after consultation with the Office
of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after an
opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions
of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency
and publishes definitions in the Federal Register.
\4\ Small Business Act, 15 USC Sec. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDS
The Commission has defined ``small entity'' for the auction of MDS
as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross
annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding
three calendar years.5 This definition of a small entity in
the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.6
The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for
authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (BTAs). Of 67 winning
bidders, 61 qualified as small entities.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).
\6\ See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules
With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--
Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-31 and PP Docket No. 93-253,
Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995), 60 FR 36524 (July 17,
1995).
\7\ One of these small entities, O'ahu Wireless Cable, Inc., was
subsequently acquired by GTE Media Ventures, Inc., which did not
qualify as a small entity for purposes of the MDS auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. The SBA has developed a definition of
small entities for pay television services, which includes all such
companies generating $11 million or less in annual
receipts.8 This definition includes multipoint distribution
systems, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators
which did not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to
us indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that
do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We
tentatively conclude that for purposes of this IRFA, there are
approximately 892 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the
Commission's auction rules, and some of these providers may be impacted
by the outcome of this NPRM. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITFS
There are presently 2032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these
licenses are held by educational institutions (these 100 fall in the
MDS category, above). Educational institutions may be included in the
definition of a small entity.9 ITFS is a non-pay, non-
[[Page 60033]]
commercial broadcast service that, depending on SBA categorization,
has, as small entities, entities generating either $10.5 million or
less, or $11.0 million or less, in annual receipts.10
However, we do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of,
annual revenue data for ITFS licensees. Thus, we tentatively conclude
that up to 1932 of these educational institutions are small entities.
We seek comment on this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 (3)-(5).
\10\ See 13 CFR 121.210 (SIC 4833, 4841, and 4899).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
The Commission seeks comment on proposals to amend its rules to
promote the ability of MDS and ITFS licensees to provide two-way
digital services, including implementation of simplified procedures
governing application for, and authorization of, booster stations and
response station hubs. Because the proposed rule changes would enable
licensees to apply for and receive authorizations for new types of
booster stations and for response station hubs, certain commensurate
new reporting and recordkeeping obligations would follow as part of
this process, though the nature of the obligations and the MDS and ITFS
rules directly addressing them 11 would remain the same. At
the same time, however, the proposed rule changes would make the
overall licensing process for two-way digital services much less
cumbersome than the current process, which requires individual
licensing of each response station and booster station. In the NPRM, we
request comment on whether we should increase ITFS programming
requirements, and if so, in which way and to what degree. While the
proposed two-way scheme would result in more complicated interference
analysis requirements for MDS and ITFS entities seeking to establish or
modify service, regardless of whether the entities themselves choose to
engage in fixed two-way transmissions, these interference safeguards
are necessary to promote the objectives of this proceeding. We seek
comment on these conclusions and how we can modify any proposed new
requirements so as to reduce the burden on small entities and still
meet the objectives of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 21.911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
As described in the NPRM, in response to a March 31, 1997 Public
Notice soliciting comment on the Petition, several of the ITFS
commenting parties express concern that the proposed two-way scheme
presents threats to the independence of ITFS licensees and their future
ability to use spectrum capacity for instructional purposes. Pace, for
instance, cautions that because the Petition proposes a massive shift
towards industry control over ITFS applications, the Commission must
ensure that individual ITFS licensees ``do not lose their freedom of
choice'' over the use of their channels, through coercion by
neighboring licensees or strong wireless cable operators. Other
commenting ITFS parties, however, do not perceive such a threat. For
instance, CMPBA believes that the proposed rules adequately protect the
interests of ITFS entities, primarily because the rules do not obligate
ITFS licensees to take part in the two-way system, enter into a lease
agreement, file FCC applications, or accept harmful signal levels.
Nevertheless, in order to find solutions that would allay the concerns
of some ITFS licensees, in the NPRM we seek suggestions on ways to
provide maximum flexibility in usage of ITFS channels while ensuring
that capacity is reserved for downstream ITFS programming, pose the
question of whether solutions should be established by rule or by
contract and what role the Commission or other third parties should
play in reviewing excess capacity lease agreements, and confirm that
cellularization by ITFS licensees would be permissive only, and not
mandatory.
CTN raises the concern that Petitioners' one-day rolling
application filing window plan and automatic grant proposal will create
an undue burden on ITFS licensees who may find themselves required to
evaluate a continuing stream of applications. We solicit comment on how
such a concern could be resolved in the context of a one-day rolling
filing window or whether we should retain a periodic filing window
system. Furthermore, we tentatively reject the automatic grant
component of Petitioners' application processing proposal, and instead
propose a ``comment period'' of 60 or 120 days, after which
applications would be processed pursuant to current procedures. In
proposing the comment period alternative, we acknowledge the complexity
of the engineering information in the response hub or booster station
applications, and the substantial number of affected parties,
particularly ITFS licensees, that frequently have very limited
resources and that often would not be able to file a petition against
an application before the application is automatically granted. Thus,
in the NPRM, we particularly solicit comment from small ITFS operators.
Similarly, we express concern that the proposed interference prediction
methodology is so complex that it may lead to numerous filings updating
system configurations, which would present considerable burdens upon
existing licensees and operators needing to analyze these filings. We
therefore solicit suggestions for other possible prediction
methodologies.
In some instances, a proposed rule will impact different classes of
small entities in different ways. For instance, in considering whether
to increase ITFS programming requirements, including ready recapture
time, we acknowledge in the NPRM the balance which underlies the
existence and substance of the ready recapture provisions of 47 CFR
74.931(e): the great value to wireless cable operators of maximization
of spectrum available for leasing, and the importance of maintaining
sufficient capacity for programming by ITFS licensees which fulfills
the primary educational purpose of ITFS. We decline to retreat from the
current recapture time requirements of Sec. 74.931(e), but we solicit
comment in the NPRM on whether we should adopt any changes to the
number of hours required for ready recapture by ITFS licensees.
Other proposals, tentative conclusions, or questions that we pose
in the NPRM are designed to minimize the impact on all small entities
involved. For example, we tentatively reject Caritas' proposal to limit
the availability of response channels to MDS channels 1, 2, and 2A,
because it would both artificially limit the amount of spectrum that
could be used for return paths and unnecessarily prevent ITFS licensees
from using their own channels for return paths, while providing no
interference protection benefits that cannot be derived in other ways.
CTN and SWM both put forth procedural suggestions for this
proceeding. CTN proposes that rather than proceeding with the instant
rulemaking, we pursue a negotiated rulemaking procedure and convene a
federal advisory committee to evaluate Petitioners' proposals and work
out the most effective method to implement them. CTN asserts that this
would provide substantial, useful information and facilitate the
process initiated by Petitioners. We believe that the instant
rulemaking process will provide us with sufficient information to
adequately
[[Page 60034]]
evaluate Petitioners' proposals. In addition, the need for swift
consideration of these proposals, in order to enhance the
competitiveness of the wireless cable industry and expedite educational
institutions' access to the Internet via ITFS frequencies, may be
defeated by implementing a potentially lengthy negotiated rulemaking
procedure. Thus, we reject CTN's proposal for a negotiated rulemaking
at this time. Should circumstances warrant, however, we reserve the
option to revisit our decision on this issue at a later date.
Conversely, SWM requests the issuance of an NPRM in this proceeding,
and noting that many of the parties which filed comments in the initial
round of this proceeding are ITFS entities, requests an early Fall
comment date in light of the academic schedules which predominate
amongst these entities. The comment period that we establish here,
therefore, should enhance the ability of ITFS entities to file
carefully considered comments and reply comments. We solicit comment in
the NPRM on other substantive and procedural alternatives to adoption
of the proposed two-way digital transmission scheme.
Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Environmental impact statements
47 CFR Part 21
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
47 CFR Part 74
Communications equipment, Education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29346 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
