[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42130-42140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20243]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 95-315]
Broadcast Services; Advanced Television Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third
Notice of Inquiry examines a broad range of issues related to the
conversion of our current broadcast television to digital technology.
In previous orders in this Advanced Television (``ATV'') proceeding,
our focus was on fostering the development of High Definition
Television. Technological evolution now obliges us to revisit some of
those decisions, which we do in this document. Accordingly, we invite
comment on a broad range of issues related to the conversion by
television broadcasters to digital television, including eligibility
requirements,
[[Page 42131]]
spectrum issues, definition of the service, public interest
obligations, transition issues, recovery of spectrum, length of the
application/construction period, issues related to small markets and
noncommercial stations, all-channel receiver issues, and must-carry and
retransmission consent, to ensure that the rules that we fashion in
this proceeding serve the public interest in all respects. We also
institute an inquiry to invite comment as to where in the spectrum
broadcasters should eventually be located and as to the amount, value
and uses of the spectrum that could eventually be recovered when the
conversion to digital television is completed.
DATES: Comments are due by October 18, 1995, and reply comments are due
by December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Saul Shapiro (202-418-2600) or Roger Holberg (202-776-1653), Mass Media
Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry in MM
Docket No. 87-268, FCC 95-315, adopted July 28, 1995, and released
August 9, 1995. The complete text of this NPRM and NOI is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. With this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and
Third Notice of Inquiry (``Notice''), we continue the process of moving
toward the next era of broadcast television: digital broadcast
television. In previous orders in this Advanced Television (``ATV'')
\1\ proceeding,\2\ our focus was on fostering the development of High
Definition Television (``HDTV'').\3\ Technological evolution now
obliges us to revisit some of those decisions and consider new
information, which we do in this document.
\1\ Advanced Television (``ATV'') refers to any television
technology that provides improved audio and video quality or
enhances the current NTSC television system.
\2\ Our earlier Notices and Orders are: Notice of Inquiry, 52 FR
34259, September 10, 1987; Tentative Decision and Further Notice of
Inquiry, 53 FR 38747, October 3, 1988; First Report and Order, 55 FR
39275, September 26, 1990; Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 56 FR
58207, November 18, 1991; Second Report and Order/Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 57 FR 21744 & 21755, May 22, 1992; Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 57 FR 38652, August 26,
1992; Memorandum Opinion and Order/Third Report and Order/Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268, 57
FR 53679 & 53588, November 12, 1992.
\3\ High Definition Television offers approximately twice the
vertical and horizontal resolution of NTSC, which is a picture
quality approaching 35 millimeter film, and has sound quality
approaching that of a compact disc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The current technology allows for multiple streams, or
``multicasting,'' of Standard Definition Television (``SDTV'') \4\
programming at a quality at least comparable to, and possibly better
than, the current analog signal, as well as CD-quality audio signals
and the rapid delivery of huge amounts of data. It allows broadcasters
to send, simultaneously, video, voice and data. In addition, it allows
broadcasters to provide a range of services dynamically, that is, it
allows them to switch easily and quickly from one type of service to
another.
\4\ Standard Definition Television (``SDTV'') is a digital
television system in which picture quality is approximately
equivalent to the current NTSC television system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Revisiting our earlier decisions is consistent with our
statutory responsibility to ``encourage the provision of new
technologies and services to the public,'' 47 U.S.C. 157, as well as
with our general statutory obligations to promote the public interest,
since these developments have the potential to provide profound
benefits to the American public.
4. In deciding what rules should govern the transition to digital
television, we recognize our obligation to manage the spectrum
efficiently and in the public interest and to take account of the
legitimate interests of all those with a stake in that transition. With
the foregoing considerations in mind, we will pursue and balance the
following goals in this proceeding: (1) Preserving a free, universal
broadcasting service; (2) fostering an expeditious and orderly
transition to digital technology that will allow the public to receive
the benefits of digital television while taking account of consumer
investment in NTSC television sets; (3) managing the spectrum to permit
the recovery of contiguous blocks of spectrum, so as to promote
spectrum efficiency and to allow the public the full benefit of its
spectrum; and (4) ensuring that the spectrum--both ATV channels and
recovered channels--will be used in a manner that best serves the
public interest.
5. It has become apparent that the flexibility of the Grand
Alliance system will allow for more applications and alternative uses
than we had previously contemplated. We are issuing this Fourth Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry to invite
comment on several aspects of this changed ATV environment and their
ramifications for this proceeding.
A. Spectrum Issues
6. The Commission previously decided that ATV would be introduced
by assigning existing broadcasters a temporary channel on which to
operate an ATV station during a transition period and that the spectrum
needed for the transition would be obtained from the spectrum currently
allocated to broadcasting. We continue to believe that providing 6 MHz
channels for ATV purposes represents the optimum balance of broadcast
needs and spectrum efficiency. We invite comment, however, on any means
of achieving greater spectrum efficiency.
B. Definition of Service
7. We reaffirm in this proceeding our intention to preserve and
promote universal, free, over-the-air television. We envision that the
6 MHz channel earmarked for ATV will be used for free, over-the-air
broadcasting. The digital transmission system currently proposed would
provide broadcasters with new flexibility and new capabilities as they
embark on serving the American public with the next generation of
television. Broadcasters will be capable of providing through ATV not
only a vastly improved high definition picture, but also multiple
program steams. In addition, the ATV system is capable of nonbroadcast
uses that are nonvideo and/or subscription-based in nature. Allowing at
least some level of flexibility would increase the ability of
broadcasters to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace, and
would allow them to serve the public with new and innovative services
Flexibility could also allow for a more rapid transition to digital
broadcasting. Nonetheless, any flexibility afforded broadcasters must
not undermine our American system of universal, free, over-the-air
television. In establishing a regulatory framework for the provision of
ATV in light of this new flexibility, we therefore seek comment on the
following questions:
Should we require broadcasters to provide a minimum amount
of HDTV and, if so, what minimum amount should be required?
To what extent should we allow broadcasters to use their
ATV spectrum for uses other than free, over-the-air broadcasting? We
recognize that we
[[Page 42132]]
currently allow broadcasters to use a portion of their analog spectrum
for ancillary and supplementary uses that do not interfere with or
detract from their primary broadcast function. Should such uses of the
ATV spectrum be permitted and, if so, how should they be defined? What
portion of the ATV system's capacity should be allowed to be used for
ancillary and supplementary services?
To what extent should we allow braodcasters to use their
ATV spectrum for services that go beyond traditional broadcast
television or ancillary and supplementary uses analogous to those
allowed under our current regulatory regime? Should broadcasters be
permitted to provide nonbroadcast and/or subscription services? \5\ If
so, how should such services be defined and how much of the ATV
system's capacity should be allowed for such uses? If allowed, what
regulation, if any, would be appropriate for such services?
\5\ We note that, under our current rules, a licensee may
provide video programming primarily on a subscription basis. We also
note pending legislative proposals that contemplate granting us the
authority to require licensees to pay annual spectrum fees where
licensees charge the public for the new services provided on the
conversion channels. We will publish a Public Notice or other
appropriate document with respect to the effect on our ATV decisions
of any relevant law enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In responding to the above questions, if commenters propose that
licensees be required to meet any requirements (such as a minimum HDTV
requirement) or be limited in providing ancillary and supplementary
services, they should include comment on the administrative processes
we would use to implement any requirements or limitations. For
instance, how should we measure use--by the amount of time, data packet
``headers,'' or by some other means? Should the time of day when
broadcast or other video service is offered have any significance? What
administrative process should we use to enforce such a requirement--
self reporting, complaints from the public, operating logs, etc.--and
what costs would be associated with each?
C. Eligibility Issues
9. The Commission has previously established that during the
initial period, existing broadcasters would have the first opportunity
to acquire ATV channels. Included in the class of existing broadcasters
were: (a) All full-service television broadcast station licensees; (b)
permittees authorized as of October 24, 1991, and (c) all parties with
applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991,
who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station licenses.
10. We continue to believe that initial eligibility should be
limited to existing broadcasters given the shortage of suitable
spectrum and our decision not to allocate additional spectrum for this
purpose. We are still asking existing broadcasters to inaugurate a
television service that will deliver a signal of superior quality.
Furthermore, we are not creating a new service, and our eligibility
restriction does not ultimately result in more spectrum for
broadcasters or less spectrum for others. We are merely moving each
existing broadcaster from one channel to a different channel in a one-
for-one exchange designed to accomplish a number of long-term public
interest goals.\6\ Broadcasters will be required to cease their analog
operations after a relatively short period, thereby permitting a swift,
certain transition to digital technology and a rapid recovery of
spectrum for the benefit of the public.
\6\ There is ample precedent for our reallocation of spectrum in
the public interest, even where such reallocation results in
displacement of current users of the spectrum, and it is clear that
we have broad discretion to do so. We have, in a number of contexts,
moved users of spectrum to different bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. We believe that we are not precluded by Ashbacker Radio Corp.
v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945), from limiting initial eligibility to
incumbent broadcasters, even if we permit flexible use of the digital
system and especially since the broadcasters' ``analog'' operations
will be shut down and one of the channels will be relinquished.\7\
Under Section 309 of the Communications Act, as applied by the Supreme
Court in United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.,\8\ we are authorized
to set licensee eligibility standards. As an independent matter, we
note that we also have authority under Section 316 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 316, to modify existing licenses as the
public interest requires. In so doing, our actions are not governed by
the hearing and other requirements of Section 309 of the Act.\9\ In
light of our authority under both Storer and Section 316 of the Act, we
invite comment on our tentative conclusion that no Ashbacker problem is
presented by our proposals.
\7\ The Court of Appeals has held that Ashbacker applies only to
parties whose applications have been declared mutually exclusive and
does not apply to ``prospective applicants.'' Reuters Ltd. v. FCC,
781 F.2d 946, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1986). No Ashbacker rights would be
triggered because we are defining the category of eligible
applicants rather than rejecting one bona fide applicant without
comparing it to the others.
\8\ 351 U.S. 192 (1956).
\9\ Section 316 does not require us to accept petitions to deny
an application filed as a result of a proposed modification, but it
does require us to consider protests filed by other licensees or
permittees who believe their own licenses or permits would be
modified by the Section 316 modification. See 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 316(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. While we reiterate our tentative conclusion to limit initial
eligibility for ATV frequencies to existing broadcasters, we seek
comment on the potential impact our proposal would have on the
Commission's long standing policy of fostering programming and
ownership diversity. Specifically, we seek comment on what measures, if
any, the Commission may adopt to include new entrants into this
emerging era of digital television.
13. Some parties have suggested that we should auction the spectrum
intended to be used for ATV service. Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, limits the uses of spectrum
that is subject to being auctioned. It specifically requires that,
``the principal use of such spectrum will involve, or is reasonably
likely to involve, the licensee receiving compensation from
subscribers. * * *'' Our experience and our judgment concerning market
conditions lead us to believe that the broadcasters would use this
spectrum for free over-the-air broadcast service; therefore, it cannot
be auctioned under Section 309(j). For this reason, as well as those
set forth above, we reiterate our previous decision to limit initial
eligibility to existing licensees. Commenters may address whether any
changed circumstances should alter this conclusion.
14. Given our decision not to allocate additional spectrum for
television broadcasting, the number of transition channels is limited.
Therefore, we also solicit comment on granting eligibility status to
those broadcasters that are in bankruptcy, off-the-air, have
construction permits or are otherwise non-operational, or otherwise
incapable of engaging in the transition to digital television. We
specifically request comment on whether the transition channels
identified for these licensees or permittees would be better used to
support service to the public if instead they were made available to
new entrants.
D. Public Interest Obligations
15. Our rules imposing public interest obligations on broadcast
licensees flow from the statutory mandate that broadcasters serve the
``public interest, convenience and necessity,'' \10\ as well as other
provisions of the Communications Act. Broadcasters are
[[Page 42133]]
required to air programming responsive to community needs and
interests. They are required to air programming designed to ``serv[e]
the educational and informational needs of children.'' They must
provide ``reasonable access'' to candidates for federal elective
office, and must afford ``equal opportunities'' to candidates for any
public office. Broadcasters are also obliged to refrain from airing
certain programming, such as indecent programming outside the ``safe
harbor'' period. Finally, in order to promote diversity of viewpoint,
broadcasters must refrain from discriminating in employment and must
establish and maintain an equal employment opportunity (``EEO'')
program designed to provide equal employment opportunities for
minorities and women. Our previous orders reflect the assumption that
public interest obligations would attach to ATV broadcasting. Indeed,
that broadcasters ``have an obligation to serve the public interest''
is one of our reasons for limiting initial eligibility for ATV channels
to existing broadcasters.
\10\ 47 U.S.C. 307(c). See also id. Sec. 307(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. We remain committed to enforcing our statutory mandate to
ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest. Our current public
interest rules, including those implementing specific statutory
requirements, were developed for broadcasters essentially limited by
technology to a single, analog video programming service. The potential
for more flexible and dynamic use of the advanced television channel
than what broadcasters currently enjoy gives rise to important
questions about the nature of public interest obligations in the
digital broadcasting world. We request comment on how the conversion to
digital broadcasting should affect broadcasters' obligation to serve
the public interest.
17. Our future rules may allow broadcasters to use their advanced
television channels to provide a high definition television service,
multiple standard definition television services and perhaps other
services, some of which may be on a subscription basis. Should a
licensee's public interest obligations depend on the nature of the
services it chooses to provide and, if that is the case, how so? For
example, if a broadcaster chooses to provide multiple standard
definition services, should public interest obligations attach to each
one? What if one or more of those services are provided on a
subscription basis? Alternatively, should public interest obligations
be seen as attaching not to services but to licensees, each of whom
would be required to operate the facilities associated with its 6 MHz
ATV channel in the public interest? We note that attaching a public
interest requirement on one type of ``service'' could skew broadcaster
investment away from providing that service--a situation that could
potentially result in a net public interest loss. Commenters are
requested to discuss whether, if Congress grants the Commission the
requisite authority, we should consider imposing spectrum fees for that
portion of the spectrum used by broadcasters to provide subscription
services. We note that the use of spectrum fees may allow the
Commission to establish a regulatory framework that does not discourage
broadcasters from providing free over-the-air channels or other
services to which public interest obligations might attach. We also
invite comment on whether the conversion to digital broadcasting
justifies other changes in our public interest framework.
18. Finally, we express our intention to continue to apply EEO
requirements on broadcasters. We ask, however, whether there are
additional means available to further our objective of promoting
diversity of viewpoints in a digital world.
E. Transition
1. Simulcast Requirement
19. Previously, we determined that ATV licensees should simulcast
on their NTSC stations the programming offered on their ATV stations.
We preliminarily decided that, beginning one year after the six year
application and construction period, ATV licensees would have to
simulcast 50 percent of their ATV programming, increasing to 100
percent two years later. Additionally, we indicated that we would
review this schedule at the time of our initial review of the pace of
conversion at the end of the application/construction period and
immediately prior to the imposition of 100 percent simulcasting.
20. Our concern was, and remains, that consumers not be prematurely
deprived of the benefits of existing television equipment. We also
stated that requiring simulcasting would assist us in reclaiming the
analog channel as soon as possible by minimizing broadcaster and
consumer reliance on the ATV and NTSC channels carrying separately
programmed services. Additionally, we believed that a simulcast
requirement would ``give added impetus to ATV receiver penetration by
eliminating the need for dual mode receivers capable of receiving both
NTSC and ATV,'' thereby helping to lower the cost of ATV receivers,
spurring increased penetration.
21. These decisions were appropriate and practical when it appeared
that ATV would primarily consist of the broadcast of a single HDTV
program service. However, it is apparent that a digital TV system can
be used to transmit multiple simultaneous SDTV program services.
Obviously, a licensee would be unable to simulcast multiple program
services on its NTSC channel. Under such circumstances, it is clear
that our simulcasting requirement must be revisited and we must
consider alternatives.
22. The simulcasting requirement was in large measure intended to
allow consumers to avoid being prematurely deprived of the benefits of
their NTSC video equipment. We hoped to avoid having broadcasters move
their best programs to HDTV, with the result that large numbers of
viewers that do not have HDTV equipment would lose much of the value of
broadcast television service. At the present time, this no longer
appears to be a likely prospect. We do not foresee broadcasters taking
their best programming off of their NTSC stations and putting it on
HDTV where potential audiences will, at first, be small. Similarly, we
do not see broadcasters moving their best programming off of NTSC and
on to ATV early in the conversion process. We believe that, instead,
the market will continue to serve consumer demand by assuring the
continued presence of good programming on NTSC channels. However, we
still perceive a need for a simulcast requirement, albeit different
from that first envisioned.
23. Some number of consumers, unaware of the transition to digital
television or unable to afford replacement equipment, may continue
viewing analog television throughout the transition period. At the end
of the transition period, we may be confronted with the choice of
either terminating analog service, causing such viewers to lose their
only source of free broadcast service, or, alternatively, allowing
analog broadcasting to continue, thereby depriving the broad general
public of the benefits that we believe are to be found from the
recovery of one of the channels. We wish to avoid either alternative
and believe that a simulcasting requirement may be useful in speeding
the migration of these consumers from analog to digital broadcasting.
Accordingly, we propose to require the simulcast of all material being
broadcast on the licensee's NTSC station (with the exception of
commercials and promotions) on a
[[Page 42134]]
program service of the ATV channel. If a program is available only on
the analog service, then all viewers (those with digitally capable and
analog-only sets) will need to watch it in the analog service. In a
simulcast environment, the number of consumers who will lose access to
a specific program service will be reduced by the number who have a
digitally capable set or set top converter.
24. We ask parties to comment on this proposal, including assessing
its impact on broadcasters' ability to provide HDTV service, and to
offer other viable alternatives, keeping in mind our goals of avoiding
a reliance on NTSC service and assuring recovery of large blocks of
contiguous spectrum at the conclusion of a speedy and smooth transition
process. We are open to suggestions and will consider any option that
does not slow the conversion to digital television. For instance,
commenters may wish to comment on whether the simulcast requirement
should be tradeable. That is, should a licensee be permitted to
purchase time on a competitor's ATV station on which to broadcast its
analog programming?
25. Also, we seek comment on the phasing in of a simulcasting
requirement. We believe that at the beginning of the transition a
broadcaster should be required to simulcast little or no NTSC
programming. Few viewers would have ATV receivers at that stage. Later,
as fewer consumers depend upon analog television and ATV equipment
proliferates, we tentatively believe that the simulcasting requirement
should be increased. Commenters are invited to comment on the relevant
time periods for each phase and the amount of simulcasting that should
be required in each such phase.
2. Licensing of ATV and NTSC Stations
26. We revisit the question of whether licensees' NTSC and ATV
station licenses should be considered a single license or two separate
and distinct licenses. We previously decided to treat the licensee as
having two paired licenses. That is, each licensee's NTSC and ATV
station would receive a separate license. Because the licenses were to
be paired, however, if a licensee's NTSC license were to be revoked or
not renewed while its ATV application was pending, the licensee would
lose its priority eligibility status. Also, if either a licensee's NTSC
or ATV license were revoked or not renewed, the remaining license would
automatically suffer the same fate. We nonetheless indicated that we
would consider permitting a licensee to voluntarily surrender its NTSC
channel while retaining the corresponding ATV channel on a case-by-case
basis in the interest of spectrum efficiency.
27. We decided that broadcasters would be operating two distinct
facilities having different characteristics and, frequently,
transmitting from different locations. Treating the ATV and NTSC
channels as separately licensed facilities would, we concluded,
simplify enforcement and administration. However, we paired the two
licenses to prevent the separate transfer of one channel of the pair
because we believed that would make it impossible to recapture one of
the 6 MHz channels at the end of the transition period and still leave
the existing licensee with a broadcast outlet.
28. We tentatively conclude that substantial benefits could be
obtained if, instead of licensing the NTSC and ATV facilities
separately, we authorized both under a single, unified license. It
would ease administrative burdens on the Commission and broadcasters
alike by reducing the number of applications that would have to be
filled out, filed and processed. Licensing the two facilities under a
single authorization is also consistent with our view that the
authorizations may be issued pursuant to our broad authority under
Section 316 of the Act to modify an existing license. Finally, treating
the two facilities under a single license would retain the sound policy
announced in the Second Report/Further Notice of treating both
facilities the same from the revocation/non-renewal standpoint. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
29. Commenters advocating separate licenses for the ATV channels
may wish to address whether, if NTSC and ATV licenses were licensed
separately, we should allow the sale of an authorization for an unbuilt
ATV facility. Allowing such transfers could speed the transition to
digital ATV by putting transition spectrum into the hands of parties
willing and able to construct ATV facilities. Commenters should be
mindful, however, that even if NTSC and ATV licenses were to be issued
separately and unpaired the NTSC licensee would have to cease its NTSC
operations at the end of the transition period. Moreover, unpairing the
NTSC and ATV licenses would raise complex issues regarding simulcast
and retransmission/must carry rights. In the event we adopt an NTSC-ATV
simulcast requirement, should the transfer of a separated ATV license
be permitted only if the programming on the accompanying NTSC license
were simulcast in digital?
F. Transition Period
30. In the Third Report/Further Notice we made a preliminary
decision to establish a transition period that concludes 15 years from
the date of adoption of an ATV system or a final Table of ATV
Allotments is effective, whichever is later. In addition, we adopted a
schedule of periodic reviews to permit us to monitor the progress of
ATV implementation and to make any necessary adjustments. We decided
that the transition period should not be modified without a substantial
showing that the change is in the public interest. We reiterated that
we planned to award broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz
channel to permit a smooth, efficient transition to an improved
technology with as much certainty and as little inconvenience to the
public and the industry as possible. Finally, we clarified that, in
general, broadcaster who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have
to cease broadcasting in NTSC at the end of the 15-year transition
period.
31. There may now be reasons to expect that broadcasters will adopt
ATV more rapidly than was anticipated in 1992, when we last analyzed
the transition period. The broadcast industry, including equipment
manufacturers, have been at the forefront of developing digital
technology for television. Other new services, such as ``video
dialtone,'' that would use digital transmission technologies are also
being initiated or planned. In this environment, broadcasters have
added incentive to convert more rapidly in order to remain competitive.
32. Consumers will buy or rent digitally capable receivers or set-
top converters as their choice of digitally-based video products
expands. For each household which transitions to any of the new media,
including over-the-air digital, there will be at least one less
television set reliant upon over-the-air NTSC analog transmissions.
Given the degree of competition that exists between suppliers of
electronic equipment, and expected economies of scale resulting from
the proliferation of digitally based media, we anticipate that
declining costs will translate into reduced prices and increased sales
of digital receivers and converters to consumers.
33. We previously cautioned that broadcasters' cessation of NTSC
transmission and surrender of a 6 MHz channel would depend on ATV
becoming the prevalent medium, stemming in part from our concern over
the number of households that might
[[Page 42135]]
continue to rely on NTSC transmissions. As discussed above, purchase of
an ATV receiver or converter is not the only meaning of ending reliance
on NTSC transmission, so projections solely of ATV receiver penetration
may not be the most accurate benchmark for deciding when broadcasters
should cease NTSC transmission and surrender a 6 MHz channel.
34. We now wish to consider whether some objective benchmark(s)
could be used to determine when broadcasters should cease NTSC
transmission. Is it possible to end the transition period in a market
by tying the transition period to some objective benchmark(s)? If so,
what benchmark(s) should be used? The conversion could be considered
complete when the number of households that rely on NTSC has fallen to
a given percentage. We ask parties to comment on tying the transition
period and final conversion date to the percentage of households in a
market that rely on NTSC transmission. If the final conversion date is
triggered when the number of households that rely on NTSC falls to a
given percentage, what should the threshold percentage be that triggers
the final conversion date? How would we measure the number of
households that rely on NTSC transmission from year to year? Should we
measure households or television sets? What other objective benchmarks
should we consider in determining the transition period and the final
conversion date? To what extent should the availability of inexpensive
digital receivers and converters be used as a benchmark in determining
the length of the transition period?
35. We previously reasoned that by adopting a target date approach
we could speed the transition to digital technologies. Are there
mechanisms other than the date certain approach that we adopted in
1992, that we could put in place to create incentives for rapid
adoption of ATV by consumers, broadcasters, manufacturers, and others?
For example, should we consider having the transition period end at the
earlier of a date certain or attainment of an objective benchmark? We
seek information on how broadcasters could assist consumers by
providing alternate methods of acquiring or leasing digital equipment
in the short term so that the transition costs can be reduced and the
transition schedule can be shortened. Could broadcasters in a market
cooperate in leasing converters and/or ATV receivers to consumers?
Would cooperation between broadcasters in a market raise anti-
competitive concerns? If so, how could the cooperative arrangements of
broadcasters be adapted to reduce household reliance on NTSC
transmission without raising these concerns?
G. Recovery of Spectrum
36. We have put broadcasters on notice that when ATV becomes the
prevalent medium, they will be required to surrender a 6 MHz channel
and cease broadcasting in NTSC, reiterated that we are awarding
broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz channel, and clarified
that broadcasters who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have to
cease broadcasting in NTSC.
37. The rationale underlying the recovery of spectrum was the
freeing of spectrum of significant value for other uses. The spectrum
to be used for the transition to ATV has significant value for other
services and benefits and that any delay in reclaiming the reversion
spectrum carries potential costs to the public.
38. When the transition to digital technologies is complete, we
must have some mechanism in place to recover the extra 6 MHz channel.
One option would be to continue renewing licenses for five year periods
but explicitly terminate authority to use one of the 6 MHz channels at
the end of the transition period. If we were to adopt a ``two-license''
approach, one of the two licenses could expire at the end of the
transition period. We ask parties to comment on the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach.
39. We remain committed to the recovery of spectrum. In addition,
we believe that spectrum will be of greater value if available in large
contiguous nationwide blocks. To create contiguous blocks of spectrum
following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some
digital broadcast stations to new channels that are contiguous with
others. This would have the effect of condensing broadcast assignments
to a narrower band of spectrum without eliminating any licenses. Today,
television broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but NTSC
technology does not permit all of the channels to be used in the same
geographic area. We believe that the ``Grand Alliance'' digital system
does not have these difficulties. By moving some digital broadcast
stations, we would be able to obtain a more spectrum-efficient
arrangement by condensing broadcasting assignments to less than 400
MHz. We believe that information concerning spectrum recovery and
moving some digital broadcast stations to new channels should be
solicited at this time to assure the future availability of contiguous
spectrum and encourage immediate planning and investment in new
services. We request comment on our tentative plans to create
contiguous blocks of spectrum.
40. While broadcasters have been given notice that they must
surrender a 6 MHz channel after full conversion to digital
technologies, no final decisions have been made concerning which of the
two channels would be surrendered. Allowing licensees to determine
which 6 MHz channel they would use for digital transmission and which
channel they would surrender may result in broadcasters providing
digital services on channels scattered throughout the VHF and UHF
broadcast band. Allowing this would inhibit the formation of large
contiguous blocks of spectrum. To minimize the number of digital
broadcast stations that may need to be moved to new channels to
facilitate the creation of large contiguous blocks of VHF and/or UHF
spectrum, it will likely be necessary for us, not the licensee, to
determine which 6 MHz channel the broadcaster must use for digital
transmission and which channel must be surrendered. Also, we believe
that by making these decisions early we can aid broadcasters in their
investment decisions.
41. In order to create the maximum amount of contiguous spectrum
following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some
digital broadcast stations to new channels. We recognize that there are
costs associated with moving stations to new channels. We request
comment on the benefits and costs of moving stations to new channels.
We also seek comment on how to minimize the costs of moving stations to
new channels. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether each
broadcaster should pay for its own move, whether all broadcasters
should pay for the costs of relocation, or whether the licensee the
bumps the broadcaster should pay to move the broadcaster, as was done
in the emerging technologies band for PCS.
H. Length of Application/Construction Period
42. We previously granted existing broadcasters three years from
the effective date of ATV system selection or an ATV Allotment Table,
whichever is later, in which they exclusively may apply for a preferred
or ``set-aside'' ATV channel, and a total of six years to both apply
for and construct an ATV facility. We previously stated that such
factors as the time needed to raise the necessary capital to invest in
ATV technology, to plan for the creation of a new station, including,
in some cases, having to
[[Page 42136]]
locate a new transmitter site, and to allow ATV equipment to become
available, required that we establish these application and
construction periods.
43. We propose to establish a procedure by which broadcasters have
six months in which to make an election and confirm to the Commission
that they want an ATV license. After that, they would have the
remainder of the three-year period in which to supply supporting data
as we may require. If they elect not to construct an ATV facility, or
elect to construct but do not proceed to do so, their NTSC licenses
will expire at the end of the ATV conversion period and they will have
to cease broadcasting. This process would have the benefit of
identifying early on locations where existing broadcasters do not want
to transition to ATV and where applications from new entrants for ATV
stations could therefore be considered.
44. We ask that commenters address all aspects of the construction
period. Is the current six-year period appropriate, too long, or is it
insufficient? We believe that the exclusive eligibility period can be
shortened, primarily by requiring licensees to make an election within
the first six months after the adoption of an ATV standard or final
Table of Allocations, whichever is later, as to whether to convert.
This should not place an undue burden on licensees. Broadcasters have
now been on notice for a number of years of the general direction in
which we are moving toward digital television and some, we understand,
have begun planning in earnest for the transition. Moreover, much
digital broadcasting equipment has been developed and demonstrated.
Commenters should provide information on their ability to apply for and
construct ATV facilities and discuss the difficulties they would have
in meeting a shorter time frame.
45. Nevertheless, we are mindful of the difficulties to be
encountered by television broadcasters converting to ATV. Sources of
financing may be limited and their willingness to support the
conversion is unknown. For some stations tower sites may need to be
found, leases negotiated and towers built. Equipment will have to be
purchased and installed, and the capacity of industry to supply over
1500 broadcasters with new equipment, from cameras to transmitters to
antennas, all within the same time frame is not currently known. Given
the different aspect ratio for ATV as opposed to NTSC, new studio sets
may have to be designed and constructed in order for stations to
originate programming. We fully appreciate that this transition will
not be an easy task. Accordingly, we request comment on the practical
difficulties licensees will have in successfully undertaking the
conversion and on proposed solutions.
I. Small Markets
46. We previously decided not to adopt a ``staggered approach'' to
initial ATV implementation with large markets required to implement
first and small markets last. While recognizing that small market
stations produce less revenue than those in large markets, adversely
affecting their ability to finance the transition, we also noted that
our extension of the application/construction period to a total of six
years, and our ``sliding scale'' approach \11\ should provide small
market stations adequate relief. Nevertheless, we indicated that if the
application/construction period appeared insufficient, we could adjust
it at later reviews.
\11\ Under the sliding scale approach, parties applying early in
the six-year application/construction period would have the
remainder of the application period and the full three-year
construction period in which to construct. Thus, they would have a
longer time to devote to construction of ATV facilities than those
applying later. Should we adopt our proposal to require an election
by the end of the sixth month, licensees filing earlier in the
remaining two-and-one-half years would still have more time in which
to construct than those filing later in that period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. We now seek comment on whether we should reconsider this
decision, and if so, on what type of relief should be provided from the
six year deadline and to whom? For example, should there be a general
extension of the deadline for a certain class of stations? If so, for
how long and to whom? Should it be to stations that make a showing of
financial hardship and if so how would that be defined? Should there be
a different rule for small markets? What about stations serving
economically disadvantaged areas? How should ``small markets'' or
``economically disadvantaged areas'' be defined? Commenters should
address whether such a general extension would result in slowing the
implementation of advanced television in these markets.
48. We also seek comment on whether a waiver would be an
appropriate way to address the issues of stations who can not afford to
make the transition to digital. If commenters believe a waiver would be
an appropriate mechanism, they should specify what factors the
Commission should consider in granting such a waiver. They should also
address ways to reduce the administrative burden of such a waiver
process on the Commission and on licensees.
49. Finally, we seek comment on an alternative proposal which would
allow the Commission to automatically extend the deadline for a
licensee that has not built after the six-year period if no one else
files for the ATV license. If, at the end of the six-year period,
another party applies to construct the unbuilt ATV facility, should we
permit the incumbent broadcaster to retain its preferential status if
it makes a sufficient showing in this regard? Such a policy would
recognize that in some markets economic factors may not support all of
the stations introducing digital broadcast within the six-year time
frame. If, however, there is a new entrant who can provide service
immediately, then the public might be better served by the immediate
initiation of service.
J. Noncommercial Stations
50. We earlier sought comment on whether some additional measures
of relief or further action should be taken on behalf of noncommercial
stations with respect to the presumptive six-year application/
construction deadline. We indicated that we would consider a wide array
of alternatives to mitigate the problems faced by noncommercial
broadcasters.
51. Commenters addressing the difficulties of noncommercial
broadcasters in converting to digital television chiefly seek relief
with respect to the financial qualifications that they would have to
demonstrate. The Association of America's Public Television Stations,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Public Broadcasting Service
(``Public Television'') argue that, because of funding constraints, it
will take substantially longer than three, or even six years, for
public stations to be able to obtain necessary funds to convert to ATV.
Public Television asks that noncommercial educational stations be
allowed to file ATV applications without certifying or demonstrating
financial qualifications on the filing date. Rather, it believes such
licensees should be given three years after the filing of an ATV
application to demonstrate, with a business plan, how they will raise
matching funds and that public broadcasters should not have to make any
showing with respect to having sufficient access to funds to meet their
operating costs in the first 90 days of operation. Public Television
asks that we accept no competing applications while that application is
being processed. In this way, public broadcasters would be able to
timely file and avoid the possibility of being able to obtain only a
short-spaced UHF
[[Page 42137]]
channel, a VHF transition channel, or no channel at all.
52. The National Association of College Broadcasters (``NACB'')
asks that the Commission reserve ATV channels in the same proportion as
they are reserved on NTSC. Arizona State also urges that each vacant
noncommercial allocation be kept in reserve for future public ATV use.
Both NACB and Arizona State ask that we provide noncommercial
educational television stations with additional time in which to apply
for, and construct ATV facilities.
53. It is clear from comments received that noncommercial licensees
will face unique problems in their transition to ATV, chiefly in the
area of funding, where noncommercial broadcasters appear to be subject
to the vagaries of forces and parties beyond their control. Indeed,
historically, we have recognized ``that in making our statutory
findings as to financial qualifications, greater leeway must be
accorded the educational station because of its very nature.'' NTA
Television Broadcasting Corp., 44 FCC 2563, 2574 (1961). (Citation
omitted.)
54. Commenters should address whether noncommercial broadcasters
would obtain sufficient relief in the event that we adopt for all
existing broadcasters a paired channel assignment scheme and
requirements such as proposed above. If we do not adopt that proposal
or, if adopted, it does not provide sufficient relief for noncommercial
broadcasters, we ask for comment on what further relief would be
appropriate and will permit them to participate in the channel
assignment process on an equitable basis. In particular, commenters may
address the implications of our system instead of a fixed channel
scheme.
55. A second problem that noncommercial broadcasters commented on
was the length of the application/construction period. We have
previously expressed our belief that to provide different schedules for
commercial and noncommercial broadcasters would not be conducive to the
goal of a speedy and smooth transition. It is still our preference to
establish a firm transition schedule, but with the safeguard of having
that schedule subject to periodic review. Additionally, unique problems
can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We believe this may be
preferable to establishing two separate classes of broadcasters, each
with its own schedule, causing confusion to the public and additional
administrative burdens to the Commission.
56. Additionally, commenters should address other things that the
Commission can do to assist them in their conversion to ATV. For
instance, the broadcast of ``advertisements'' is currently prohibited
by Section 399B of the Communications Act. Commenters may want to
address whether this should be viewed as applying only to one program
service or, if to all program services broadcast by noncommercial
broadcasters, whether it would be desirable for the Commission to seek
legislative alteration of this prohibition. We also ask commenters to
discuss whether the transition to digital by noncommercial broadcasters
might be facilitated through re-defining what ``noncommercial'' means.
If the Commission mandated only that the minimum required broadcast
programming must be ``noncommercial,'' would it be possible for
noncommercial broadcasters to finance the transition through commercial
and flexible uses of the spectrum that would not interfere with the
noncommercial broadcast stream? Is there other relief that we can grant
noncommercial broadcasters to minimize restrictions on their operations
and allow them greater flexibility?
K. All-Channel Receiver Issues
57. In 1962, Congress adopted the All Channel Receiver Act, which
authorizes us to require that television receivers ``be capable of
adequately receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to
television broadcasting.'' \12\ Pursuant to this authority we required
that all TV receivers be capable of UHF channel reception and adopted
standards to make reception of UHF channels comparable with reception
of VHF channels.\13\ We previously determined in this proceeding that
the All Channel Receiver Act does not mandate the manufacture of dual-
mode (ATV and NTSC) receivers. We expressed concern that such a
requirement might overly or prematurely burden consumers, and sought
comment on whether there is any need to require that manufacturers
produce receivers capable of both NTSC and ATV reception during the
period prior to full conversion to ATV.
\12\ 47 U.S.C. 303(s).
\13\ See 47 CFR 15.117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. With ATV now considered to include both HDTV and SDTV, we
request comment on whether SDTV receivers should be required to have
the ability to receive an HDTV signal or vice versa, and whether we
should regulate how such a signal must be displayed. We understand that
companies are working on receiver designs that would display the Grand
Alliance HDTV signal as a lower resolution SDTV picture. Such as
conversion could result in relatively inexpensive receivers or
converter boxes for NTSC receivers, compared with the projected HDTV
receiver costs. We seek comment on whether permitting the manufacture
and sale of receivers that display only NTSC, SDTV, or HDTV signals, or
a combination of two but not all three, would be consistent with the
All Channel Receiver Act or otherwise would be in the public interest.
Should we require that, during the transition period, all sets be
capable of receiving and displaying NTSC and SDTV signals? Should we
require ``all-format'' receivers capable of receiving and displaying
NTSC, SDTV and HDTV signals, and, if so, how should we require HDTV
signals to be displayed, in a true HDTV fashion or as a lower
resolution SDTV picture? What impact should a decision not to require
HDTV broadcasting have on whether we should require all receivers to
have HDTV reception and display capabilities? Should a decision on one
be coupled with the other? What impact should a decision to adopt only
minimal broadcast SDTV requirements have on this question? Would
limiting the sale of NTSC equipment help consumers by assuring that
they do not purchase equipment that will soon be obsolete, or harm them
by, for example, depriving them of access to equipment they may need to
obtain the benefit of other video equipment they have, such as VCRs? If
we permit the sale of NTSC equipment, should we require a visible label
warning that, as of a date certain, it will no longer be able to
provide over-the-air broadcast reception? Or, if we permit the sale of
NTSC equipment after the specified date, should we require that the
sale of such equipment be accompanied by the provision of or ability to
use a digital converter? We believe that the All Channel Receiver Act
provides us with adequate authority to address these issues. We ask for
comment on how we should exercise it.
L. Must Carry and Retransmission Consent
59. We have not previously addressed the impact of ATV on cable
television carriage or retransmission consent obligations. Sections 614
and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934 contain the cable television
``must carry'' requirements. Section 325 contains revised
``retransmission consent'' requirements, pursuant to which cable
operators may be required to obtain the
[[Page 42138]]
consent of broadcasters before retransmitting their signals. Within
local market areas broadcasters have an option to proceed under either
the retransmission consent or the mandatory carriage requirements.
These provisions were added by the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992,\14\ subsequent to the adoption of our last
decision in this proceeding.
\14\ Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47 U.S.C. 521
et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Under the mandatory carriage provisions, cable operators,
subject to certain capacity based limitations, are generally required
to carry the signals of local television stations on their cable
systems.\15\ Section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires that, at the time
we prescribe standards for advanced television, we ``initiate a
proceeding to establish any changes in the signal carriage requirements
of cable television systems necessary to ensure cable carriage of such
broadcast signals of local commercial television stations which have
been changed to conform with such * * * standards.'' While we have not
yet prescribed standards for advanced television, in the sense of
having defined or determined final standards, we believe it timely to
begin our consideration of must-carry obligations at this point.
\15\ Although we recognize that there is an ongoing challenge to
the constitutionality of the existing requirements, Turner
Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994), we assume for
purposes of this discussion the validity of the existing statutory
provisions. Parties are welcome to comment on the implications of
any of the issues involved in this proceeding in terms of the
judicial sustainability of any future requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Clearly, during the transition period, at least the station's
NTSC channel will be subject to must carry obligations. During the
transition period, when, under our original plan, the NTSC channel
would have been carrying 100% of the HDTV programming being aired on
the conversion channel, there did not appear to be a must-carry problem
because, as long as the two were carrying duplicative programming, the
NTSC and commonly owned HDTV stations would not both have had to have
been carried.\16\ But, if we change the simulcast requirement,
programming on the NTSC and ATV channels might not be duplicative, and
both might qualify for carriage. Additional issues are raised if the
conversion channel is being used for the transmission of multiple SDTV
program services. If carriage of all material being broadcast by the
station were required, the dedication of, for instance, five cable
channels (one for the NTSC programming and, for example, four multicast
programs being offered on the conversion channel) might be required.
Thus, a review of the must carry and retransmission consent rules now
is an important component of this proceeding. In addition, it is
necessary to clearly identify any issues regarding cable carriage that
need to be factored into the ATV transitional rules, technical
standards, and regulatory policies in order to facilitate the most
productive possible interaction between ATV broadcasting and cable
television service.
\16\ See Section 614(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (47 U.S.C. Sec. 534(b)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. We seek comment on any relevant differences in rules or
policies that might be needed both during the transition and as a
consequence of ATV having replaced NTSC broadcasting. For instance, how
should channel capacity be defined in a digital environment, i.e., in
terms of channels, bandwidth, or bits of data per second? Does ``on-
channel'' carriage have the same meaning in a digital as it does in an
analog environment? Should ``substantially duplicates'' include
duplication of programming in different transmission formats? Will
changes in station coverage require changes in carriage obligations?
Additionally, what is the meaning of ``primary video'' in the context
of digital broadcast transmission? \17\ Is there appropriate parallel
to line 21 of the vertical blanking interval of NTSC stations for ATV
stations? What, if any, flexibility does the Commission have under
Section 614(b)(4)(B) to modify requirements applied by the
Communications Act to NTSC signals in the new digital environment? For
example, does the Commission have authority to address ``A/B'' switch
issues to enhance subscriber access to signals or portions of signals
that may not receive carriage notwithstanding the existing prohibition?
Is a revised definition of ``basic tier'' needed? Is a common
retransmission/must carry election required for all of the video
programming from an individual broadcast license in a market or just
for one ``primary video'' stream, as defined by the broadcast licensee?
In the more flexible broadcast environment associated with digital
transmission would changes be needed in the rules that mandate that
local signals be carried in their entirety even if carried under the
retransmission consent option? Are there other issues relating to the
retransmission consent process that would need to be addressed?
\17\ Section 614 of the Act requires carriage of ``the primary
video, accompanying audio, and line 21 closed caption transmission''
of each local commercial broadcast station carried on the cable
system. Also required, to the extent technically feasible, is
carriage of program-related material carried in the vertical
blanking interval or on subcarriers. Similar requirements are found
in Section 615 with respect to noncommercial educational stations.
However, ``[r]etransmission of other material in the vertical
blanking interval or other nonprogram-related material (including
teletext and other subscription and advertiser supported information
services) shall be at the discretion of the cable operator.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. A second set of issues relates to the technical interface and
associated coast and rate issues. We expect that there will be parallel
development of both cable and broadcast digital video communications.
At the same time, it is inevitable that particular cable systems and
particular broadcast markets will progress on different time schedules.
Accordingly, issues will arise as to how digital broadcasts may be
carried on cable systems that are still entirely analog in their
opinions, are partially analog and partially digital, or that are
entirely digital. With respect to each type of operation there are
potential issues relating to headend equipment, transmission plant,
subscriber premises equipment, and type of digital transmission system
that may arise. Accordingly, we seek information on what technical
modifications may be needed to enable cable systems to deliver ATV
signals to subscribers and what costs may be associated with these
modifications. How should digital broadcast programming be required to
be carried? Should it be required to be carried digitally or would it
be adequate to have it carried in whatever format the cable operator
selects? Does ``material degradation'' in the statute require that HDTV
signals be carried in an HDTV format? Further, we need to begin to
consider and seek comment on what, if any, changes may be warranted in
the rate regulation process, in the technical standards, or in other
rules to account for the changes resulting from ATV carriage.
64. Assuming that an appropriate set of rules can be developed for
application at the end of the transition period, an interim process is
still needed to govern the transition from NTSC to ATV broadcasting.
During the period when broadcast licensees are broadcasting in both the
existing NTSC analog mode and in the new ATV mode, what should the
carriage obligations be? Must both signals be carried and if not should
the change from NTSC to the ATV signals be at the discretion of the
cable operator or the broadcaster? Alternatively, should it be based on
a fixed transition schedule or on an external event such as the market
penetration of digital television
[[Page 42139]]
receivers or the system operator's transmission of its own digital
video programming? Given the complex economic and technical
interrelationships between broadcasters and cable operators during this
transitional period, are there market mechanisms that can be
incorporated into the rules to facilitate cooperation?
V. Third Notice of Inquiry
65. Over 400 MHz of spectrum in the VHF and UHF bands is currently
allocated to television broadcasting. As part of our long-term plans to
promote spectrum efficiency, we are considering reducing the amount of
spectrum allocated television broadcasting, which, as explained above,
could be accomplished in the digital environment without reducing the
number of broadcasters in any market due to the inherent efficiencies
of the proposed digital system. If we were to readjust channel
assignments, we would need to know where in current broadcast spectrum
broadcasters would eventually be located. Although we previously
preliminarily viewed UHF as the part of the spectrum to which all
television broadcasting would be moved, we now question the tentative
conclusion. Accordingly, at this time, we ask parties to comment on the
best place for broadcasting. Specifically, we seek comment on which
parts of the VHF and UHF bands are most highly valued for broadcast use
(e.g., VHF, lower UHF, middle UHF, upper UHF). We also request
commenters to identify the costs associated with placing television
broadcasting in each of the four possible locations.
66. Today, TV broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but
because of interference and market forces, on average only 80 MHz is
used per market. In the top markets, around 120 MHz is used. Digital
broadcasting will allow much more efficient and intensive use of this
spectrum. During the transition period, however, digital TV stations
must operate alongside NTSC stations. The digital TV system will enable
us to authorize these stations under controlled circumstances (each
channel will be available only at certain locations with limits on
radiated power and effective antenna height) to minimize interference
to NTSC and digital TV service. While these digital stations allow for
the development of many new broadcast services, they would be of
limited value for other users because they generally would not occupy a
contiguous block of channels, there would be no common nationwide
channels, and their use would be restricted by the need to avoid
interference with NTSC analog television sets. When the transition to
digital is completed, however, and the analog NTSC stations are turned
off, we have an opportunity to create contiguous blocks of spectrum
nationwide. Some or all of this spectrum could be allocated and
auctioned. We ask commenters to provide estimates of the total amount
of contiguous spectrum blocks that could be created following recovery
of the NTSC channels. We also seek estimates of the total market value
of these contiguous blocks of spectrum. What services would be most
efficiently provided using contiguous blocks of spectrum? We request
that commenters explain the methodology and analysis used to derive
estimates of the amount and value of contiguous spectrum. In addition
to the broadcast industry, we solicit comment from other industries
(e.g. land mobile and computer) that may have an interest in providing
services using these blocks of spectrum.
Administrative Matters
67. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before April 17, 1995, and reply
comments on or before May 17, 1995. All relevant and timely comments
will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in
this proceeding. To file formally in the proceeding, you must file an
original plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and support
comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of
your comments you must file an original plus nine copies. You should
send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, DC 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,
NW., Washington, DC 20554.
68. 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 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. Reason for Action
69. The Commission seeks comment not only on a variety of new
issues central to the development of advanced television service in the
United States, but on several of the tentative decisions made earlier
in this proceeding because of the rapidly changing nature of digital
television. Advanced television, at the time this proceeding was
initiated was envisioned primarily as a system for improving higher
picture and sound quality, limited to transmitting/receiving a single
channel of television. The emergence of digital technology with its
extensive flexibility and the approach of the National Information
Infrastructure require that the Commission review the issues
surrounding high definition television from a new, more expansive
perspective.
II. Objectives of the Action
70. The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of
this decision solicits comment on a variety of issues, several of which
are being revisited, 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 ATV testing
process, will lead to implementation of ATV in the most harmonious
fashion and to selection of the most desirable ATV system.
III. Legal Basis
71. Authority for this action may be found at 47 U.S.C. 154 and
303.
IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
72. 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 Rues Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules
73. There are no rules which would overlap, duplicate, or conflict
with these rules.
VI. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved
74. There are approximately 1,539 UHF and VHF, commercial and
educational television stations, 2,509 UHF translator stations, 2,261
VHF translator stations, and 1,648 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
[[Page 42140]]
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 high
definition 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.
75. In re-examining issues discussed in past decisions, the
Commission is seeking not only to establish a more comprehensive,
reliable record, but, with that intent, is 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.
76. 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 Fourth Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry, 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. Pub. L. No. 96-354,
94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq (1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
LaVera F. Marshall,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-20243 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
