LETTERS ON CURRENT ISSUES
[Text only of letters sent from the Commerce Committee Democrats]

The Honorable William Kennard
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Kennard:

In April, the Commission adopted a Table of Allotments to temporarily assign a second channel of spectrum to broadcasters for use during the transition to digital television service. I strongly supported the Commission's action, and believe it sets a bold new course for the rapid delivery of digital broadcast television to the American public. However, there is at least one facet of this decision which raises concern.

In the Sixth Report and Order (MM Docket No. 87-268), the Commission indicated that it might eliminate channels 2 through 6 from the television broadcast spectrum. This proposal raises serious questions regarding effective spectrum management and the Commission's commitment to free, over-the-air television service for all Americans. Before the Commission reaches any decision on the petitions challenging this proposal, please answer the following questions:

1. Please describe the propagation characteristics of broadcast signals on channels 2 through 6. Do these signals enable persons living farther from a broadcast tower to receive television service better than signals transmitted on other frequencies of the broadcast spectrum?

2. Please describe the ability of broadcast signals on these channels to overcome difficult terrain and to penetrate heavy foliage. Do the unique capabilities of low VHF signals enhance the ability of persons living in rural or mountainous communities to receive free, over-the-air television service?

3. It is my understanding that the Commission's staff may have concerns about the possibility of interference to low VHF signals from leaky power lines and other sources. Do broadcast engineers uniformly agree with this conclusion? Is there a consensus within the engineering community about the extent of this interference? If broadcasters and equipment manufacturers are willing and capable of adopting engineering solutions to ameliorate any potential interference problems, is it not in the public interest to permit them to do so?

4. One of the objectives of this proceeding is to reduce the amount of spectrum available to broadcasters and to "repack" the spectrum so that it can be available for other purposes. I strongly support this goal and have long championed efforts to increase spectrum efficiency and make more spectrum available for other uses in the public interest. However, shouldn't the Commission be guided in its allocation decisions by the goal of minimizing disruption among spectrum users and, more importantly, to Americans who enjoy the quality of service currently provided by existing spectrum users? If so, please explain how these criteria are best served by a decision to eliminate channels 2 through 6 from the block of spectrum allocated for broadcast use.

Thank you for your response to these questions. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth
Commissioner Ness
Commissioner Powell
Commissioner Tristani

Back to the Public Record Home Page