[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26863-26872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13394]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26864]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC: 96-207]
Broadcast Services; Television Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to require digital broadcast
television licensees to use the digital television (``DTV'') system
described by the ATSC (``Advanced Television Systems Committee'') DTV
Standard and recommended to the Commission by the Advisory Committee on
Advanced Television Service. The Commission also proposes to adopt one
or more method of assuring that at some future time the Standard does
not inhibit innovation and competition. The intended effect is to
ensure that all affected partieis have sufficient confidence and
certainty in order to promote the smooth introduction of a free and
universally available digital broadcast television service while
encouraging technological innovation and competition.
DATES: Comments are due by July 11, 1996, and reply comments are due by
August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,
Policy and Rules Division (202) 418-2134 or Saul Shapiro, Mass Media
Bureau, (202) 418-2600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Fifth
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268 , FCC
96-207, adopted May 9, 1996, and released May 20, 1996. The complete
text of this FNPRM 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 Service,
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Introduction
1. In this proceeding we consider adoption of a digital television
(``DTV'') broadcast standard. This action has been recommended to the
Commission by its Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service
(``Advisory Committee'' or ``ACATS'').1 We have the following
objectives with regard to the authorization and implementation of a DTV
standard.2 We seek to ensure that all affected parties have
sufficient confidence and certainty in order to promote the smooth
introduction of a free and universally available digital broadcast
television service. We seek to increase the availability of new
products and services to consumers through the introduction of digital
broadcasting. We seek to ensure that our rules encourage technological
innovation and competition. And we seek to minimize regulation and
assure that any regulations we do adopt remain in effect no longer than
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ACATS Report at 19. The Advisory Committee was formed by the
Commission on October 16, 1987, pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (86 Stat. 770, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec. 1 et
seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V)). It was established ``to assist the
Commission in considering the issues surrounding the introduction of
advanced television service in the United States.'' (Notice, 52 Fed.
Reg. 38523 (October 16, 1987).) The Advisory Committee consisted of
a twenty-five member parent committee and three subcommittees--
Planning, Systems and Implementation. Its membership on the date
that the ATSC DTV Standard was recommended to the Commission is at
Appendix B.
\2\ In issuing this Notice, we are requesting comment, inter
alia, on whether to accept the conclusions of the Final Report and
Recommendation of the Advisory Committee, adopted November 28, 1995
(``ACATS Report''), which recommends the Advanced Television Systems
Committee Standard A/53 (1995) ATSC Digital Television Standard
(``ATSC DTV Standard'') as the standard for DTV broadcasting in the
United States. This standard is based on the Advisory Committee
design specifications and the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance (``Grand
Alliance'') System. The ACATS Report is hereby incorporated into the
record of this proceeding. Copies of the ACATS Report are available
through the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services. Additionally, the ACATS Report, ACATS Final
Technical Report and ATSC DTV Standard are available on the Internet
at the ATSC site (http://www.atsc.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
2. On February 13, 1987, 58 broadcast organizations
(``Petitioners'') filed a joint ``Petition for Notice of Inquiry''
asking the Commission to initiate a proceeding to explore issues
arising from the advent of new and advanced television (``ATV'')
technologies and their possible impact, in either broadcast or non-
broadcast uses, on existing television broadcast service. On July 16,
1987, as a result of the comments it received in response to the
petition, the Commission inaugurated the instant proceeding, ``to
consider the technical and public policy issues surrounding the use of
advanced television technologies by television broadcast licensees.''
3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87-268, (``First
Inquiry''), 2 FCC Rcd 5125 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission empaneled the Advisory Committee on Advanced
Television Service (ACATS) shortly after having opened the inquiry
phase of this proceeding. Among other activities, ACATS designed the
detailed testing plans for the system and conducted substantial related
studies.
4. On May 24, 1993 the three groups that had developed the four
final DTV systems examined by ACATS agreed to produce a single, best-
of-the-best system to propose as the standard. The three ventures that
joined to become the ``Grand Alliance'' consisted of AT&T and Zenith
Electronics Corporation; General Instrument Corporation and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philips Electronics North
America Corporation, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and the David
Sarnoff Research Center. The standard recommended by ACATS and now
before us is based on the system developed, built, and proposed by the
Digital HDTV Grand Alliance proposal to ACATS. The system described by
the ATSC 4 DTV Standard having been successfully designed, built
and tested, in November 1995, the Advisory Committee voted to recommend
the Commission's adoption of the ATSC DTV Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``ATSC'' is the Advanced Television Systems Committee. ATSC
currently has 54 members including television networks, motion
picture and television program producers, trade associations,
television and other electronic equipment manufacturers and segments
of the academic community. It was formed by the member organizations
of the Joint Committee on InterSociety Coordination (``JCIC'') for
the purpose of exploring the need for and, where appropriate, to
coordinate development of the documentation of ATV systems. The JCIC
is composed of the Electronic Industries Association, the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the National Association of
Broadcasters, the National Cable Television Association, and the
Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. The membership
of the ATSC when it adopted the ATSC DTV Standard is at Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. We believe that the ATSC DTV Standard embodies the world's best
digital television technology and promises to permit striking
improvements to today's television pictures and sound; to permit the
provision of additional services and programs; to permit integration of
future substantial improvements while maintaining compatibility with
initial receivers; and to permit interoperability with computers and
other digital equipment associated with the national information
initiative.
[[Page 26865]]
III. The ATSC DTV Standard
6. The five components described in the annexes to the ATSC DTV
Standard are video coding, audio coding, transport, RF/transmission and
receiver. These five basic components, plus a video format selection
function, are sometimes referred to as comprising ``layers'' of the
system. Compliance with the ATSC DTV Standard requires some of its
provisions be followed, but many of these provisions include numerous
acceptable options that the system's users may select. In addition to
the required provisions, some additional provisions of the ATSC DTV
Standard are recommended but not required, and others are optional.
Finally, although it describes the coding and transmission of
television video and audio, it also allows transmission of a variety of
other services as ``ancillary data.'' This structure makes the system
described by the ATSC DTV Standard extremely flexible and gives it room
to incorporate a wide range of future improvements.
7. Format selection: The ATSC DTV Standard supports a variety of
scanning formats. Table I shows the number of scanning lines and
horizontal picture elements (or pixels) per line, which affect
resolution. The 720-line and 1080-line formats below represent high
resolution video. The lower-resolution 480-line formats accommodate
existing NTSC 5 programming and equipment as well as material
designed for viewing on VGA computer monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NTSC refers to the current analog television system. It is
named for the National Television System Committee, an industry
group that developed the monochrome (black and white) television
standard in 1940-41 and the color television standard in 1950-53.
Table I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical lines Horizontal pixels Aspect ratio Picture rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1080.............................. 1920................. 16:9 60I 30P 24P
720.............................. 1280................. 16:9 60P 30P 24P
480.............................. 704................. 16:9 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P
480.............................. 640................. 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Table I also indicates that the high-resolution formats both use
a picture aspect ratio of 16 units horizontally by 9 units vertically
(that is, a picture 16 inches wide would be 9 inches tall or one 32
inches wide would be 18 inches tall). The choices of 1280 pixels per
line for the 720-line format and 1920 pixels per line for the 1080-line
format result in square pixels (that is, pixels which are displayed at
equal distances, both horizontally and vertically) for both formats,
based on the 16:9 aspect ratio. Material in the 480-line by 704-pixel
format could use either a 16:9 or a 4:3 aspect ratio.
9. The picture rates specified in Table I identify the number of
images that are sent each second, with an ``I'' designating interlaced
scanning and a ``P'' designating progressive scanning. Progressive
scanning lines are presented in succession from the top of the picture
to the bottom, with a complete image sent in each frame as is commonly
found in computer displays today. For interlaced scanning, which also
is used in NTSC television, odd and even numbered lines of the picture
are sent consecutively, as two separate fields. These two fields are
superimposed to create one frame, or complete picture, at the receiver.
The picture rates can be 24, 30 or 60 fields per second.
10. Video coding: For compression of video signals, the ATSC DTV
Standard requires conformance with the main profile syntax of the MPEG-
2 video standard.6 Employing this standard, the amount of data
needed to represent television pictures is reduced using a variety of
tools, including a motion compensated discrete cosine transform (DCT)
algorithm and bidirectional-frame (B-frame) prediction. Each of these
tools serves to improve compression efficiency by reducing the total
amount of digital information that needs to be transmitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MPEG-2 is a video compression and transport standard created
by the Moving Picture Experts Group of the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Audio coding: For compression of audio signals, the ATSC DTV
Standard requires conformance with ATSC Doc. A/52, the Digital Audio
Compression (AC-3) Standard. The AC-3 perceptual coding system, which
was developed by Dolby Labs, can encode a complete main audio service
which includes left, center, right, left surround, right surround, and
low frequency enhancement channels into a bit stream at a rate of 384
kilobits per second (kbps). Audio service can also include fewer
channels (down to single channel, monophonic service) using a lower bit
rate.
12. Transport: The service multiplex and transport layer of the
ATSC DTV Standard is a compatible subset of the MPEG-2 systems standard
that describes a means of delivering a digital data stream in fixed-
length ``packets'' of information. Each packet contains only one type
of data: video, audio or ancillary. There is no fixed mix of packet
types, which further helps provide flexibility. Channel capacity can be
dynamically allocated in the transport layer, under the direct control
of the broadcaster. Within the transport layer, the packets of video,
audio, closed captioning and any other data associated with a single
digital television program are combined using a mechanism to ensure
that the sound, pictures and closed captioning information can be
synchronized at the receiver. Data describing multiple television
programs, or unrelated data for other purposes, are also combined in
the transport layer.
13. RF/Transmission: The transmission layer of the ATSC DTV
Standard uses a vestigial sideband (VSB) technique with a small pilot
carrier added at the suppressed carrier frequency. The relationship of
the pilot carrier frequency to interference to lower adjacent channel
NTSC service is discussed in the ``interference'' section below.
14. Terrestrial broadcasts of DTV will be exposed to situations
that include strong interfering signals, electromagnetic noise from
numerous sources, and configurations of buildings or terrain features
that cause multipath interference. For successful reception under these
difficult conditions, an 8-level VSB signal is specified and extensive
error correction is provided. Taking into account the transport
requirements and error correction, the 8-VSB signal carries an
effective useful payload of approximately 19.28 megabits per second
(Mbps). For more benign environments, like that provided in a cable
system, the ATSC DTV
[[Page 26866]]
Standard includes a 16-level VSB high data rate mode that provides
double the capacity of the 8-level VSB terrestrial broadcast mode.
15. Receiver: The ATSC DTV Standard does not specify requirements
for a compliant receiver. In essence, the DTV receiver designs are to
be based on the specifications of the signal contained in the other
portions of the Standard. The receiver reverses the functions of the
RF/transmission and transport layers, and, after decompression,
generates video and audio suitable for its display.
16. Flexibility. The ATSC DTV Standard provides a method of
accommodating a broad range of uses. The packetized transport structure
is a critical component in achieving this broad level of flexibility.
Scrambled packets can be sent, which allows conditional access
subscription or pay-per-view services to be delivered.
17. Extensibility. In the future, new services may be uniquely
identified through the use of new packet identifiers that would be
ignored by previously deployed digital receivers. Such data could be
used to augment DTV programs or could permit new services that have not
yet been envisioned. Either extension of the DTV service would require
new DTV receivers or new decoder devices to be developed and used in
order to obtain the benefits of the new service or functionality, but
would not disrupt provision of DTV service to consumers using existing
sets. The marketplace would determine the extent to which sets with new
functionalities are available.
IV. Adopting the ATSC DTV Standard
18. There is near universal agreement that transmission standards,
either de facto or de jure, confer many benefits.7 We believe that
the proposals discussed herein would enable consumers, licensees and
equipment manufacturers to realize the benefits of standards without
unduly restricting innovation and competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a discussion of the benefits of standards, see Stanley
M. Besen and Leland L. Johnson, Compatibility Standards,
Competition, and Innovation in the Broadcast Industry (Santa Monica,
CA: The RAND Corporation, 1986) at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Previous Statements. Previously, we have asked whether
mandatory transmission standards serve the public interest. In our
initial 1987 Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, we noted that NTSC
standards were established during the television industry's infancy
when universal compatibility standards were arguably necessary in order
to develop a national television broadcasting system in a timely
manner.8 However, we also stated that the continuation of
mandatory standards may no longer be necessary and may even be
counterproductive.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ First Inquiry, supra at 5135.
\9\ 1Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In the 1988 Second Inquiry, we continued our examination of
whether the NTSC standard should be relaxed or repealed, how standards
should be established for advanced television, and whether it would be
desirable to require compatibility between advanced television
broadcast transmissions and other ATV distribution media.10 In
this regard, we asserted that establishing a standard has certain
advantages such as pointing the various interested parties in the same
direction, reducing the risk to both audiences and broadcasters of
investments in systems that might become obsolete if a different system
is introduced in the market, and overcoming reluctance to invest in new
equipment.11 We also stated that, ``detailed, inflexible standards
that have the force of law may reduce consumer choice and prevent the
timely introduction of new technology.'' 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Tentative Decision and Further Notice of Inquiry in MM
Docket No. 87-268 (``Second Inquiry''), 3 FCC Rcd 6520, 6534 (1988).
\11\ Id. at 6534-35.
\12\ Id. at 6535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Subsequent to our statements concerning standards in the 1987
and 1988 decisions, as described above, we concluded in 1990 that
``[c]onsistent with our goal of ensuring excellence in ATV service, we
intend to select a simulcast high definition television system.''
13 We also stated that, ``parties filing comments in response to
the Further Notice generally assume that the Commission will ultimately
authorize a system using new technology that will provide HDTV
service.'' (Footnote omitted.) 14 The Commission's November 14,
1990 Memorandum of Understanding with the Advisory Committee, the
Advanced Television Test Center, Inc., Cable Television Laboratories,
Inc., and the Canadian Communications Research Centre, said, ``[t]he
FCC's stated intention is to select an ATV standard by the second
quarter of 1993.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ First Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5626, 5628 (1990).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Recent Developments. Two recent developments are relevant to
whether and, if so, what form of a required standard is desirable.
First, the presence of multiple competing systems strengthened the
argument for selecting a standard. Today, only one system has been
recommended by our Advisory Committee and no other competing technology
appears to demonstrate superiority over the ATSC DTV Standard.15
Thus, concerns with the possibility of multiple competing systems may
be less relevant today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ACATS Report at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Second, prior to the development of the ATSC DTV Standard, it
was widely believed that the service offered by a licensee would change
from one NTSC program stream to one HDTV program stream. Today's
digital technologies and improved compression techniques create the
opportunity for delivering one, and under special circumstances perhaps
two, HDTV program streams, or multiple program streams at lower
resolution. Furthermore, digital technologies give each licensee the
technical capacity to explore new business opportunities and provide
new services. If the ATSC DTV Standard is as dynamic as believed, a
required standard will not thwart technical advance.
24. Analysis of Required Standards. The traditional rationale for
requiring a standard arises when two conditions are met.16 First,
that there is a substantial public benefit from a standard. Second,
private industry either will not, or cannot, produce a standard because
the private costs of getting involved in standard setting outweigh the
private benefits, or a number of different standards have been
developed and private industry cannot agree which should become the
standard. The second condition may not be applicable in view of the
strong industry coalescence around the ATSC DTV Standard. However, we
believe that the first condition applies to DTV. Television today is a
ubiquitous service that is available to almost every American household
and is relied on by a majority of Americans as their primary news and
information source.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Stanley M. Besen and Garth Saloner, ``The Economics of
Telecommunications Standards,'' in Changing the Rules: Technological
Change, International Competition, and Regulation in Communications,
Robert W. Crandall and Kenneth Flamm, editors (The Brookings
Institute, 1989).
\17\ Seventy-two percent of Americans rely on television as
their primary source of news. NTVA, Roper-Starch, NAB, America's
Watching--Public Attitudes Toward Television-1995, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. A required standard may provide additional certainty to
consumers, licensees, and equipment manufacturers, especially during
the launch of this new technology. A required standard may protect
consumers against losses by assuring them that their investments in DTV
equipment will not be made obsolete by a different technology. In
addition, requiring use of a single standard
[[Page 26867]]
guarantees compatibility. This assures consumers that the DTV equipment
they purchase to view one television station can be used to view every
other television station. The compatibility guaranteed by a single
required standard may also reduce consumer costs by eliminating the
need to purchase duplicative equipment or special devices to convert
from one standard to another. Finally, a required standard may lead to
a more rapid development and acceptance of DTV equipment. Absent a
required standard, some consumers and licensees may be reluctant to
purchase DTV equipment if they believe that different DTV technologies
may become available in the near future. A required standard may reduce
such ``wait and see'' behavior.
26. Although there are benefits to required standards, there also
may be certain costs. One may be deterrence of technical
innovations.18 Over time, we expect that normal technological
progress will lead to improvements. If subsequent technological
improvements cannot be readily incorporated into the ATSC DTV Standard,
the Standard could lock the broadcast market into less than optimal
technology. Required standards also may reduce some forms of
competition while enhancing others. With required standards, equipment
manufacturers cannot compete by offering differentiated products using
different technologies. As such, a primary cost of required standards
is loss of variety.19 On the other hand, required standards, which
are licensed to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis, may intensify
the more conventional forms of competition, such as price, service, and
product features.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For an overview of the characteristics of the television
broadcast market that contribute to the inertia of established
standards see Bruce M. Owen and Steven S. Wildman, Video Economics,
(Harvard University Press, 1992): 260-313. For a more general
discussion of the characteristics of one-way and two-way
communications systems that affect the adoption of technology see
Michael L. Katz and Carl Shapiro, ``Systems Competition and Network
Effects,'' Journal of Economic Perspectives (Spring 1994): 93-115.
\19\ Katz and Shapiro, supra at 110.
\20\ Stanley M. Besen and Joseph Farrell, ``Choosing How to
Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization, Journal of
Economic Perspectives (Spring 1994): 117-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. As we weigh the benefits and costs of required standards, we
note that for MMDS and new services like PCS, DBS, and DARS, we have
decided to allow the marketplace to determine transmission standards.
We recognize that these decisions were made in a context different from
that of terrestrial broadcast television, an established industry upon
which the American people rely for both information and entertainment.
Additionally, unlike these other services, free over-the-air broadcast
television is a mass market media serving nearly all of the American
public nationwide rather than a subscription service in which the
service provider may supply the reception equipment.21 In this
context, the goals of certainty and reliability take on a different
significance than may have been present with respect to other
communications services and strengthens the case for our adoption of a
DTV standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ America's Watching--Public Attitudes Toward Television--
1995, supra, at p. 3. Even nearly 60% of viewing in cable television
households is of the programming of broadcast television stations.
NCTA, Cable Television Developments, Fall 1995, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Proposal. We propose to adopt the ATSC DTV Standard. We
tentatively conclude that requiring the use of the ATSC DTV Standard is
appropriate because it would provide a measure of certainty and
confidence to manufacturers, broadcasters and consumers, thus helping
assure a smooth implementation of digital broadcast television and the
preservation of a free and universally available broadcast television
service.
29. The digital television system that has been recommended by the
Advisory Committee appears to be dynamic, flexible and high quality. It
provides a variety of picture formats that will allow broadcasters to
select the one most appropriate for their program material, ranging
from very high resolution providing the best possible picture quality
to multiple programs of lower resolution, which could result in
increased choices for viewers. Even at the lower resolutions, the
recommended system represents a clear improvement over the current NTSC
standard.
30. Use of the ATSC DTV Standard also represents a rare opportunity
to increase significantly the efficient use of broadcast spectrum. The
ATSC DTV Standard will allow channels unusable in the NTSC analog
environment to be assigned for digital broadcasting between existing
NTSC channels. It was designed to be flexible enough to incorporate
future improvements, including those resulting in ever higher
resolution, that the Advisory Committee believes will be made possible
by future advances in compression and display technology.
31. We believe that the ``headroom'' for innovation incorporated in
the ATSC DTV Standard, along with the desirability of providing
certainty and confidence, argue in favor of a required standard. In
addition, the flexibility of the ATSC DTV Standard significantly
reduces some of the potential detriments associated with a required
standard as the new technology is being launched. The packetized
structure of the data transport, as described above, ensures a
flexibility that will permit the DTV licensee to provide, for instance,
several standard definition programs, or one high-definition program,
or some standard definition programming together with data transfer or
electronic publishing on the remaining bit streams, and to switch
instantaneously between such applications. Other applications are
limited primarily by the imagination of the DTV licensee. This means
that a wide array of innovations can be introduced without Commission
action.
32. We seek comment on the tentative conclusion that we will
require use of the ATSC DTV Standard. Assuming that we do require the
use of the ATSC DTV Standard by digital television licensees, we
request comment on whether we should place the Standard into our rules
in its entirety or whether we should incorporate it by
reference.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Letter dated April 2, 1996, submitted for the record by
Joseph P. Markoski of the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey on
behalf of the EIA and the EIA Advanced Television Committee. The
letter cites as precedent for incorporating the standard into our
Rules by reference Sections 73.682(a)(14), 73.682(a)(21)(iv) and
15.31(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules. A similar, but alternative,
proposal would be to publish the Standard not in our Rules but,
rather, as an OET technical bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33.While we propose to require digital television licensees to use
the ATSC DTV Standard, we recognize that the benefits of a required
standard may become attenuated over time, as the costs of a requirement
may increase. At some point, when the new digital broadcasting
technology has become firmly established, requirements designed to
promote certainty and to foster a smooth implementation of digital
television may no longer be necessary. Meanwhile, over time, the
likelihood increases that there will be technological innovation that
even the flexible ATSC DTV Standard may not be able to accommodate. In
addition, given the pace of technological change, it is likely that
there will be unforeseeable innovations that are incompatible with the
ATSC DTV Standard. As long as there is a requirement in our rules that
DTV licensees use only the ATSC DTV Standard, such innovations could
not be introduced to consumers without a potentially costly and time-
consuming Commission proceeding. That, in turn, could reduce the
incentive to conduct the research and development that leads to
innovation.
34.In addition to ensuring that the Commission's rules promote the
rapid
[[Page 26868]]
introduction of digital television broadcasting, we seek in this
proceeding to adopt rules that encourage further innovation by those
who have devised the ATSC DTV Standard as well as new entrants. We also
seek to minimize our regulations and to have the regulations that we do
adopt remain in effect no longer than necessary. We are mindful,
finally, of the spirit of the recently adopted Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which seeks, ``[t]o promote competition and reduce regulation
in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for
American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid
deployment of new telecommunications technologies.'' 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Preamble to Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. There are several options that arguably could accomplish these
goals and we propose to adopt one, or more than one in
combination.24 The Commission could proceed under its current
processes for regulatory evolution and change, which include
consideration, as appropriate, of requests from parties to amend its
rules and reviews initiated by the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ These options are not necessarily incompatible. For
example, we could adopt a sunset provision but also provide for
Commission review of the Standard prior to the sunset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Alternatively, the Commission could commit itself to conduct a
proceeding to review the Standard at some future time. If the
Commission chooses this option, should a review be structured to place
the burden of persuasion on those seeking to continue requiring a
standard or on those seeking to eliminate the requirement? When should
such a review take place? Should we select a specific date or should we
link the review to an objective event?
37. Finally, the Commission could establish a period of time after
which the ATSC DTV Standard no longer would be required or exclusive.
At the conclusion of some meaningful period of time, digital licensees
would be free to use any technology that does not interfere with users
of the ATSC DTV Standard. If such a sunset provision were to be
adopted, how should we determine when the mandatory aspects of our
rules would expire?
38. Commenters are encouraged to comment on the foregoing and to
propose other options. In so doing, they should provide a thorough
explanation of the benefits and detriments of their options and an
explanation of how their options serve the goals that we have outlined
above.
39.Finally, we seek comment on alternative approaches to requiring
a standard, including those the Commission has previously identified:
(1) authorizing use of a standard and prohibiting interference to it,
but not requiring the use of that standard; 25 and (2) adopting a
standard for allocation and assignment purposes only.26 We also
seek comment on requiring use of some layers of the ATSC DTV Standard
(described more fully above) but making others optional. For example,
would it be desirable to require digital licensees to use the RF/
transmission layer of the ATSC DTV Standard, while leaving them free to
choose coding and compression technologies different from those
described in the ATSC DTV Standard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Second Inquiry, supra at 6535.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Acceptability of the ATSC DTV Standard. Although the ATSC DTV
Standard has many supporters, it also has its critics. Some in the
computer industry argue that the presence of interlaced scanning
formats, the 60 Hz transmission rate, aspect ratios, colorimetry and
non-square pixel spacing in the ATSC DTV Standard all merit further
consideration.27 Proponents of the ATSC DTV Standard respond that
the Standard was developed for terrestrial broadcasting but has
incorporated significant elements to enhance compatibility with
computers.28 With respect to the issue of the presence of
interlaced scanning in the proposed Standard, the Grand Alliance argues
that, ``* * * the Grand Alliance HDTV system emphasizes progressive
scan--five of the six HDTV formats are progressive scan, and the
Advisory Committee believes that the lone interlaced format should be
`migrated' to progressive as soon as improvements in digital
compression and transmission technology make an over-1000 line, 60 Hz
progressively scanned format achievable within a 6 MHz terrestrial
channel.'' 29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Comments of Apple Computer, Inc., and Microsoft
Corporation, in response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87-268
(``Fourth Further Notice''), 10 FCC Rcd 10540 (1995).
\28\ Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society of Motion
Picture and Television Engineers (``SMPTE''), 28 August 1995, at 2,
Memo of Paul Misener, ACATS, to Fiona Branton, ITI (``Misener
Memo''), August 18, 1995, at 1-2. Reply Comments of the Digital HDTV
Grand Alliance, in response to the Fourth Further Notice, at 38 and
40.
\29\ Reply Comments of the HDTV Grand Alliance, supra at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. There also has been objection from cinematographers to the 16:9
aspect ratio contained in the ATSC DTV Standard. They are concerned
that the proposed Standard may limit broadcasters' ability to display
the full artistic quality of their work. They suggest, instead, that
HDTV be displayed in a 2:1 aspect ratio. In reply, the Society of
Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) states that the 16:9
aspect ratio was established by the SMPTE Working Group on High
Definition Electronic Production in 1985 on the basis of studies of the
requirement for both motion picture and television production.
Moreover, it states that the value of 16:9 for aspect ratio was decided
upon only after long debate and that ``due consideration was given to
the then current practices both in North America and around the
world.'' 30 SMPTE states that it has been demonstrated that there
is no difficulty in accommodating program material or motion picture
films of any reasonable aspect ratio within the 16:9 format and that
material originally composed for a 2:1 aspect ratio could be
accommodated by leaving 11% of the vertical space unused.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society of Motion
Picture and Television Engineers, 18 August 1995, at 2.
\31\ Id. at 3. In this regard it notes that there is a broad
range of aspect ratios that has been employed in modern times and
that there is no single aspect ratio that is usable universally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Additionally, we note that low power television station
(``LPTV'') operators generally want to be included in the
implementation of digital technology, and have suggested that, if LPTV
is excluded, its continued viability would be jeopardized. LPTV
commenters are concerned that any standards that could adversely affect
their operations be thoroughly documented in this proceeding.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Comments of Abacus Television in response to the
Fourth Further Notice, at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. We seek comment on these issues. We believe that those opposing
our mandate of the ATSC DTV Standard should have the burden of
persuasion as to why that standard should not be adopted.
V. Protection From Interference
44. Protection from interference is a fundamental Commission
function that must be considered when introducing new technologies into
spectrum allocations currently in use. In addition to criteria we will
propose in the near future, when we propose an initial Table of DTV
Allotments and associated technical criteria, there are some
interference-related aspects of the ATSC DTV Standard that we shall
explore now. In the following paragraphs, we solicit comment on
limitations on stations using the ATSC DTV Standard that might be
needed to avoid
[[Page 26869]]
objectionable interference to reception of either existing NTSC service
or the reception of other stations that use the ATSC DTV Standard.
45. First, we propose to adopt an emission mask, limiting the out-
of-channel emissions from a DTV station transmitter, measured after any
external filter that may be used and based on a measurement bandwidth
of 500 kHz. We seek comment on the following emission mask: (A) at the
channel edge, emissions attenuated no less than 35 dB below the average
transmitted power; (B) more than 6 MHz from the channel edge, emissions
attenuated no less than 60 dB below the average transmitted power; and
(C) at any frequency between 0 and 6 MHz from the channel edge,
emissions attenuated no less than the value determined using the
following formula:
Attenuation in dB=35+[(f)2/1.44]
Where: f=frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the
channel
This proposal is derived from analysis of the ACATS test results
for protection of adjacent channel stations. The attenuation level is
based on an assumption that the average DTV power in a 6 MHz channel is
12 dB less than the NTSC station effective radiated power (ERP). This
power difference provides approximately equal noise limited coverage
for DTV and NTSC stations in the UHF frequency band. If DTV stations
are permitted to operate in a co-located adjacent channel arrangement
with average DTV power exceeding that assumed value, greater
attenuation of the out-of-band emissions may be required.
46. Second, ACATS has reported interference from an upper-adjacent
channel DTV signal to reception of an NTSC station that is related to
the precise location of the DTV signal pilot carrier frequency.33
To prevent interference to NTSC receivers from this source, we are
proposing to require an ATSC DTV Standard station pilot frequency to be
located 5.082138 MHz above the visual carrier of the lower adjacent
channel NTSC station. The above stated frequency difference between the
NTSC visual carrier and the DTV VSB pilot would need to be maintained
within a tolerance of 3 Hz.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ACATS Final Technical Report at 5.2.8.
\34\ See Annex to ACATS Report, Record of Test Results for
Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System (October 1995), at I-14-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Third, we propose to specify the maximum power for each DTV
station as an average power across the occupied bandwidth, so an
appropriate method or methods of determining operating power will be
different from the established NTSC procedures, which determine the
power transmitted during each synchronizing pulse (peak power). We
propose that stations using the ATSC DTV Standard would be allowed to
determine their average power using conventional RMS averaging power
meters.
48. We seek comment on all of the foregoing including whether the
proposed limits on out-of-channel emissions, pilot carrier frequency
tolerance and average power determination are appropriate and represent
the minimum necessary requirements for controlling the interference
potential of stations operating in conformance with the ATSC DTV
Standard. We also seek comment on whether the proposed limits are
sufficient for this purpose, or if other parameters also need to be
constrained.
49. In addition to rules restricting broadcast stations that relate
to interference concerns, there are many rules that establish
procedures or have been applied broadly to all broadcast stations. We
propose to modify many of them to include DTV, or to adapt them and
create new DTV rules, as appropriate so that eligible licensees might
move quickly to introduce this new technology to consumers. A
preliminary list of these technical and procedural rules is attached as
Appendix A. We seek comment on whether they should be modified to
include DTV, be changed to treat DTV differently than NTSC or other
broadcast services are treated, or if they need not be applied to DTV.
Commenters addressing this issue should provide specific
recommendations, rule-by-rule, as to the modifications they advocate.
VI. Interoperability
50. Cross-Industry Interoperability. Compatibility with other
transmission forms and media applications has been an important issue
throughout this proceeding. Since its inception, ACATS emphasized the
need for DTV broadcasting technology to be interoperable with
alternative media.35 In addition, ACATS has recognized that
interoperability takes on critical importance given the future needs
for high resolution digital imagery and the development of a National
Information Infrastructure. ACATS believes that the ATSC DTV Standard
is suitably interoperable with other video delivery media and imaging
systems, including cable television, direct broadcast satellite, and
computer systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ This description of the ACATS position on interoperability
is largely derived from the ACATS Report at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. The working party and an ``interoperability review panel'' also
adopted a list of eleven characteristics critical to interoperability
based on the needs and desires exhibited by alternative media
advocates.36 ACATS believes the Grand Alliance video system
adequately addresses all eleven factors and strikes the best balance
between various technical considerations and needs of different
industries. It is a balance that has been endorsed by, among others, a
subgroup of the Federal Government's Information Infrastructure Task
Force, the 1994 NIST/ARPA Workshop on Advanced Digital Video, and the
Information Technology Industry Council (``ITI'').37 We request
comment on the level of interoperability between the ATSC DTV Standard
and alternative media and on the ACATS Report's conclusion that it is
adequate. Are there any critical interoperability problems that remain?
What additional actions, if any, might the Commission take to
facilitate interoperability? We ask that in commenting on this issue,
commenters provide specific technical or economic analyses upon which
we can make our decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ACATS Report, Appendix I.
\37\ ACATS Report at 16. See also Information Technology
Industry Council, ``Position Statement on Standards for Advanced
Television,'' October 31, 1995, at 1-2. We note that subsequently
ITI stated that the ATSC DTV Standard ``will be an important part of
a diverse and flexible NII'' and ``urges the Commission to promptly
adopt and implement'' it, but without the interlace options, stating
that it believes ``a truly interoperable ATV system will require the
exclusive use of progressive scan.'' See Comments of the Industry
Information Technology Industry Council filed in response to the
Fourth Further Notice, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. With digital technologies, differences in transmission methods
could develop between broadcast and alternative media if an appropriate
variant of the ATSC DTV Standard is not required for alternative media.
There is no guarantee that alternative media will choose the ATSC DTV
Standard. In our Second Inquiry, we expressed ``our tentative view that
ATV compatibility among alternative media also may develop in an
appropriate manner without government involvement.'' 38 While we
recognized that there may be benefits to compatibility, we added that
``we do not intend to retard the introduction of ATV on non-broadcast
media, nor do we intend at this point to require compatibility among
the various media or set specific signal or equipment
[[Page 26870]]
standards for this purpose.'' 39 We seek comment on whether this
view remains correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Second Inquiry, supra at 6537.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 (1992 Cable Act), Congress expressed concern about
compatibility between consumer electronics equipment and cable
systems.40 We are aware of concern within the broadcast industry
that, for example, cable systems may voluntarily adopt QAM modulation
in lieu of VSB modulation specified in the ATSC DTV Standard. Some
cable system operators suggest deploying a DTV system that does not use
B-frames. While we understand that technical distinctions between
broadcast and cable may at some extreme cause consumer harm, we also
recognize that it is in the economic interests of the providers to
ensure consumers have access to the most desirable programming. Today,
nearly 60 percent of cable viewing hours are spent watching broadcast
programming, much of which is provided under retransmission consent
agreements. In light of these concerns, we seek comment on whether the
public interest would be served by Commission involvement to assure
compatibility between digital broadcast standards and digital cable
standards. Similarly, there would appear to be advantages and
disadvantages to Commission involvement to assure compatibility between
other existing and potential competing video delivery methods,
including DBS, MMDS, Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'')
and open video systems. We seek comment on the considerations that
apply in these different environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, (1992). Section 17
of the 1992 Cable Act added a new Section 624A to the Communications
Act of 1934, which has been implemented by First Report and Order in
ET Docket No. 93-7, 9 FCC Rcd 1981 (1994). Section 301 of the
Telecom Act, in turn, has modified Section 624A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Other Issues
54. Receiver Standards and Related Features. In the Fourth Further
Notice, we solicited comment on whether DTV receivers should be
required to have the ability to receive both SDTV and HDTV
transmissions, whether we should regulate how such signals should be
displayed and whether permitting the manufacture only of ``all format''
receivers capable of displaying NTSC, SDTV and HDTV signals would be
consistent with the All-Channel Receiver Act or otherwise in the public
interest.41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id. at 10552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Now, however, we have the ATSC DTV Standard before us. In Annex
E, it indicates that our current TV rules should be appropriate for the
digital TV service with respect to tuner performance, direct pickup and
closed captioning.42 It notes that a 10 dB ``noise figure'' was
used for spectrum planning purposes and it expects that value to be
appropriate. Additionally, the ATSC DTV Standard indicates that any
decoder interface standards we adopt for NTSC ``cable-ready'' receivers
in ET Docket No. 93-7 will almost certainly provide a basis for rules
concerning this aspect of digital TV receivers.43 In its Final
Report, the Technical Subgroup of ACATS recommended that the Commission
require that receivers (and set-top boxes designed to receive ATV
broadcasts for display on NTSC sets) be able to receive adequately all
DTV formats.44 In response to the Fourth Further Notice, some
commenters expressed concerned that such a requirement might have a
large effect on either reception quality or receiver costs.45 We
request comment on the importance of this requirement for compatibility
between receivers and broadcast signals. What level of reception
performance should be considered adequate? Given our proposal that
licensees must use the ATSC DTV Standard, is such a requirement
necessary? We seek comment on necessary adjustments to the existing TV
receiver rules so that they cover digital TV receivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ATSC DTV Standard at 61-64. Note that it describes
``appropriate'' as meaning that the existing rules for NTSC which
are referenced contain most elements of future rules for digital
television and, further, the rules may be expanded to cover digital
television.
\43\ First Report and Order in ET Docket No. 93-7, supra.
Although the Commission adopted requirements for television
receivers to be marketed as ``cable-ready,'' an open issue in that
proceeding is a standard for a decoder interface.
\44\ ACATS Report at 20.
\45\ See, e.g., Comments of the Electronic Industries
Association and the Advanced Television Committee at 16. See also
Comments of Zenith Electronics Corporation at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Licensing Technology. We have previously stated that in order
for DTV implementation to be fully realized, the patents on a DTV
standard would have to be licensed to other manufacturing companies on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.46 In response, the
Advisory Committee's testing procedures have required proponents of any
DTV system to follow American National Standards Institute patent
policies which require assurance that: (1) a license will be made
available without compensation to applicants desiring to utilize the
license for the purpose of implementing the standard; or (2) a license
will be made available to applicants under reasonable terms and
conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair
discrimination.47 We seek comment on whether we should require
more detailed information on the specific terms, if any, for patenting
and licensing the ATSC DTV Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268, 6
FCC Rcd 7024, 7035 (1991); Second Report and Order/Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268, 7 FCC Rcd 3340, 3358
(1992); Memorandum Opinion and Order/Third Report and Order/Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket 87-268, 7 FCC
Rcd 6924, 6982 (1992).
\47\ Advisory Committee ATV Test Procedures Test Management Plan
at Sec. 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. International Trade. We recognize that other countries may
choose other digital television systems that they feel more
appropriately meet their needs, expectations or national priorities.
Their systems may well be incompatible with the ATSC DTV Standard.
Would our proposal here serve to enhance competitiveness of a U.S.
system worldwide and what are the benefits associated with such a
result? Will a requirement to use the ATSC DTV Standard as the sole
authorized system exacerbate or enhance the opportunities of U.S. based
content providers, equipment manufacturers or other parties?
Additionally, to increase international compatibility, the Grand
Alliance adopted the MPEG-2 video stream syntax for encoding of video
and the MPEG-2 transport stream syntax for the packetization and
multiplexing of video, audio and data signals. Should we pursue
additional measures to facilitate international compatibility?
58. Captioning. Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
48 requires the Commission, within 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Telecom Act, to prescribe regulations to assure that
video programming is fully accessible through the provision of closed
captions. The ATSC DTV Standard reserves a fixed 9600 bits-per-second
data rate for closed captioning.49 We understand that EIA's R4.3
Subcommittee on TV Data Systems is considering a standard to define the
syntax for the data, as well as the issue of how to include closed
captioning information for multichannel SDTV transmissions. Any
comments parties may have concerning the ability of DTV to include
captioning and how the Commission should implement
[[Page 26871]]
captioning requirements for DTV may be filed in response to this
Further Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
\49\ ATSC DTV Standard at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Matters
59. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 45 days after
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 30
days after comments are due. To file formally in this proceeding, you
must file an original plus six copies of all comments, reply comments,
and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eleven
copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20554.
60. This is a non-restricted 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 Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
I. Reason for Action
The Commission seeks comment on a variety of issues concerning
whether to adopt a technical standard for digital television and, if
so, whether that standard should be the one reported to the Commission
by the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Systems.
II. Objectives of the Action
The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making solicits comment
on a variety of issues, in order to establish an accurate,
comprehensive, reliable record on which to base the Commission's
ultimate decisions in this proceeding. The record established from
comments filed in response to this decision, as well as other
Commission decisions, and the combined efforts of the Commission, the
affected industries, the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television
Service, and the DTV testing process, will lead to implementation of
DTV in the most harmonious fashion and to selection of the most
desirable DTV system.
III. Legal Basis
Authority for this action may be found at 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154 and
303.
IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
Such requirements are not proposed in this phase of the proceeding,
but may be raised and comment sought in future decisions in this
proceeding.
V. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules
There are no rules which would overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
these rules.
VI. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved
There are approximately 1,546 UHF and VHF, commercial and
educational television stations, 2,587 UHF translator stations, 2,275
VHF translator stations, and 1,825 UHF and VHF low power television
stations which would be affected by decisions reached in this
proceeding. The impact of actions taken in this proceeding on small
entities would ultimately depend on the final decisions taken by the
Commission. However, the Commission, in taking future action will
continue to balance the need to provide the public with affordable,
flexible, accessible digital broadcast television service with the
economic and administrative interests of the affected industries.
VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives.
This Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is intended to
examine the issue of what, if any, transmission standard for digital
television should be adopted by the Commission. In so doing, we are
soliciting comments and suggestions that hopefully will represent the
views of all of the industries concerned, and thus the Commission will
be better able to minimize whatever negative impact might face small
entities as a result of our decisions.
Ordering Clause
61. Accordingly, it is ordered That pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and 303, this Fifth Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.
62. Additional Information: For additional information regarding
this proceeding, contact Saul Shapiro (202-418-2600) or Roger Holberg
(202-418-2134), Mass Media Bureau.
63. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth above. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of
the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Fifth Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601
et seq. (1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Appendix A
Additional procedural or general broadcast rules that may be
modified or adapted for DTV.
Sec.
73.607 Availability of channels.
73.611 Reference points and distance computations.
73.612 Protection from interference.
73.615 Administrative changes in authorizations.
73.621 Noncommercial educational TV stations.
73.635 Use of common antenna site.
73.684 Prediction of coverage.
73.685 Transmitter location and antenna system.
73.686 Field strength measurements.
73.688 Indicating instruments.
73.1010 Cross reference to rules in other parts.
73.1015 Truthful written statements and responses to Commission
inquiries and correspondence.
73.1030 Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy,
research and receiving installations.
73.1120 Station location.
73.1125 Station main studio location.
73.1201 Station identification.
73.1202 Retention of letters received from the public.
73.1206 Broadcast of telephone conversations.
73.1207 Rebroadcasts.
73.1208 Broadcast of taped, filmed, or recorded material.
73.1209 References to time.
73.1211 Broadcast of lottery information.
73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list retention; related
requirements.
73.1213 Antenna structure, marking and lighting.
73.1216 Licensee-conducted contests.
[[Page 26872]]
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
73.1225 Station inspections by FCC.
73.1226 Availability to FCC of station logs and records.
73.1230 Posting of station and operator licenses.
73.1250 Broadcasting emergency information.
73.1510 Experimental authorizations.
73.1515 Special field test authorizations.
73.1520 Operation for tests and maintenance.
73.1580 Transmission system inspections.
73.1590 Equipment performance measurements.
73.1610 Equipment tests.
73.1615 Operation during modification of facilities.
73.1620 Program tests.
73.1635 Special temporary authorizations (STA).
73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.
73.1665 Main transmitters.
73.1670 Auxiliary transmitters.
73.1675 Auxiliary antennas.
[FR Doc. 96-13394 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
