[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72763-72775]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07de05-21]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 05-312; FCC 05-192]
Digital Television Distributed Transmission System Technologies;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules that will
permit television broadcast licensees to use a distributed transmission
system (``DTS'') in lieu of a single-transmitter to operate their
television broadcast stations. The proposed rules will apply with
respect to existing authorized facilities and to use of DTS after
establishment of the new DTV Table of Allotments, which may afford
stations the opportunity to apply to maximize their service areas after
the end of our current freeze on the filing of most applications.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before February 6,
2006; reply comments are due on or before March 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-312,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
[[Page 72764]]
or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 05-192, adopted on November 3, 2005,
and released on November 4, 2005. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington DC, 20554. These documents
will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
(Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or
Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send
an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) and contains modified information collection
requirements. These modified requirements of FCC Forms 301 and 302-DTV
will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, we approved in
principle the use of distributed transmission system (DTS) technologies
but deferred to a separate proceeding the development of rules for DTS
operation and the examination of several policy issues related to its
use. (See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 69 FR 59500, October 4,
2004, (Second DTV Periodic Report and Order)). With this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we now examine the issues related to the
use of DTS and propose rules for future DTS operation. The rules we
propose will apply with respect to existing authorized facilities and
to use of DTS after establishment of the new DTV Table of Allotments,
which may afford stations the opportunity to apply to maximize their
service areas after our current freeze on the filing of most
applications. In addition, we issue a Clarification Order, which is
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, to clarify
the interim rules established in the Second DTV Periodic Report and
Order, which will continue to be available for stations that wish to
apply to use DTS technology during the pendency of this rulemaking
proceeding.
II. Background
2. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM in MB Docket No. 03-15, we
sought comment on whether we should permit DTV stations to use DTS
technologies. (See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and
Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No.
03-15, 68 FR 7737, February 18, 2003, (Second DTV Periodic NPRM).). A
DTV distributed transmission system would employ multiple synchronized
transmitters spread around a station's service area. Each transmitter
would broadcast the station's DTV signal on the same channel, relying
on the performance of ``adaptive equalizer'' circuitry in DTV receivers
to cancel or combine the multiple signals plus any reflected signals to
produce a single signal. Such distributed transmitters could be
considered to be similar to analog TV booster stations, a secondary,
low power service used to fill in unserved areas in the parent
station's coverage area, but DTV technology has the ability to enable
this type of operation in a much more efficient manner. For analog TV
boosters, in contrast to DTV DTS operation, significant self-
interference will occur unless there is substantial terrain blocking
the arrival of multiple signals into the same area (for example,
interference will occur if one signal arrives from the primary analog
station directly and a second signal arrives from a booster station).
3. We received 18 comments in the Second DTV Periodic Report and
Order relating to the use of DTS, with the parties generally supporting
use of this technology. We agreed with the generally supportive
comments that DTS technology offers potential benefits to the public
and noted the encouraging, though limited, reports of the technology
tested thus far. Accordingly, in the Second DTV Periodic Report and
Order we approved in principle the use of DTS technology, set forth
interim guidelines, and committed to undertake a rulemaking proceeding
to adopt rules for DTS operations. We now initiate that rulemaking to
propose rules for future DTS operation, seek further comment on DTS
operations and clarify certain aspects of the interim rules established
in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order.
III. Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking
4. In this NPRM, we consider the comments received in the Second
DTV Periodic proceeding and propose rules for future DTS operation.
Specifically, we propose to permit DTV station licensees and permittees
to use DTS technologies where feasible in place of a single transmitter
to provide service as authorized. Requests for DTS operation and any
associated issues may be addressed under our interim policy until this
rulemaking is completed and we have implemented the necessary revisions
to our processing software. Requests for DTS operation that would
involve an extension of authorized coverage will not be accepted until
the freeze is lifted. For purposes of this discussion, we anticipate
that most stations would focus on DTS operations that would be employed
after we lift our current freeze on the filing of most applications,
which was imposed until we complete the new DTV Table of Allotments.
The Second DTV Periodic Report and Order imposed this freeze to limit
expansion of coverage that would interfere with maintaining a stable
database throughout the channel election and allotment process.
A. Comments Received in the Second DTV Periodic Review
5. The rules and policies we propose in this NPRM are premised, in
part, on the comments submitted in response to the Second DTV Periodic
NPRM. Although not affording an adequate basis on which to adopt final
rules, the record in the Second DTV Periodic proceeding suggests many
potential benefits of DTS, such as uniform signal levels throughout a
licensee's service area, the ability to operate at reduced power to
achieve the same coverage, a reduced likelihood of causing interference
to neighboring licensees, an ability to overcome terrain limitations,
and more reliable indoor reception. Merrill Weiss Group (MWG), the
principal proponent of DTS, cited DTS' potential for improving spectrum
efficiency by enabling increased levels
[[Page 72765]]
of service while maintaining or reducing the levels of interference.
MWG has patent interests in the technology contained in the Transmitter
Synchronization Standard recently approved by the ATSC. MWG has
committed to the ATSC to license its technology under reasonable terms
and conditions without unfair discrimination to all parties that
demonstrate financial resources to meet their obligations. MWG also
indicated that urban area service can be improved by DTS transmitting
antennas being closer to receivers so that higher signal levels are
made available from multiple directions, which can enable reception
with set-top antennas instead of roof-mounted antennas. MWG claimed
that DTS will often use shorter towers that may avoid zoning problems
and that they can be located to overcome obstacles of rough terrain in
some markets and urban canyons in others. Finally, MWG suggested that
DTS transmitters can help make a staged rollout of maximized service
possible. In joint comments, the Association for Maximum Service
Television (MSTV) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
supported quick Commission action to allow DTS.
6. Others specifically supported MWG, including Axcera, a
manufacturer of transmitters and related equipment, WPSX/Penn State
Public Broadcasting (WPSX/Penn State), which has an experimental
authorization to test distributed transmission technology, and Tribune
Broadcasting Company (Tribune) and Golden Orange Broadcasting (Golden
Orange), TV licensees that face specific situations where they may want
to use DTS technology. Others, such as transmission equipment
manufacturer Harris Corporation (Harris) and Siete Grande Television,
Inc. (Siete Grande), which operates four analog channel 7 transmitters
covering different parts of Puerto Rico, also supported allowing DTS.
Ronald Brey (Brey), a TV consumer, and Thomas C. Smith (Smith), a TV
broadcast technician, each expressed concern that not enough is known
about the performance of DTS technology and that increased interference
could be caused.
7. As noted in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, the record
did not provide information on the practical operation of DTS
technology. Consequently, we seek additional comment here on the use of
DTS technologies, as well as on the asserted benefits of this
technology. Specifically, we seek comment on how DTS operation will
serve the public interest and on how such operation will advance the
DTV transition. We also seek comment on the impact of allowing the use
of DTS technologies. How will DTS work with all DTV receivers,
including small or inexpensive digital televisions and the digital-to-
analog converters many viewers will have for their analog-only
televisions? Will consumers, cable headends and satellite local receive
facilities need additional equipment to ensure reliable and high
quality reception as compared with the equipment associated with
reception of a single transmitter station's signal? Will DTS operation
impact the service provided by traditional single-transmitter stations?
What, if any, is the burden on local communities in permitting DTS
operation? Will DTS operation require the erection of multiple
telecommunications towers rather than collocation on existing towers?
How will the timing of the build-out of digital service be affected by
DTS? How will DTS affect the costs experienced by licensees? How will
DTS technology impact small business broadcasters?
B. Regulatory Status
8. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM, we asked whether DTS facilities
should have primary or secondary regulatory status. We propose to
afford primary regulatory status to the multiple transmitters used in
DTS within the areas that such DTS transmitters are authorized to
serve. The record in MB Docket 03-15 supports the grant of primary
status to DTS transmitters used to serve a DTV station's authorized
service area. MWG, among others, urges that primary status should be
afforded to achieve at least the same maximized coverage that a DTV
station would be able to achieve from a single transmitter and that DTS
stations should not be required to protect secondary low power TV and
TV translator stations within whatever allowable coverage area the
Commission establishes.
9. Based on the comments received thus far, we believe DTS would
facilitate the digital transition, and we agree with commenters that
primary status within a licensee's service area is essential to obtain
the benefits of spectrum efficiency offered by DTS techniques. The
anticipated benefits include reaching populations that would not
otherwise be served by conventional means. A station would be able to
design its arrangement of DTS transmitters so that it reaches populated
areas that have been obstructed by terrain or buildings from prior
direct reception of its signal. It could also provide a potentially
viable alternative to stations whose single-tower proposals may have
been stymied by tower height and placement limits associated with
aeronautical safety or local zoning concerns. DTS techniques are
expected to enable increased levels of service while at the same time
maintaining or reducing the levels of interference. DTS offers an
opportunity to licensees to provide better service within their
coverage area, while minimizing the preclusive impact on existing and
future surrounding stations.
10. Primary status for DTS transmitters is needed to protect this
increased service. Without primary status, stations would be encouraged
to use the less efficient conventional means (i.e., increased power) to
expand their service or would not enhance their service at all. If we
require a station to give up primary status to any significant portion
of its potential service population in order to implement DTS, we
believe that few, if any stations would opt for this technology. In
granting primary status, we propose to license such DTS transmitters
under 47 CFR part 73 of the rules. We seek comment on the anticipated
benefits of DTS and our tentative conclusion to provide primary status
within a licensee's service area, as described below. We intend to use
application filing and processing procedures similar to the current
procedures. We seek comment on these rules and procedures.
C. Location and Service Area
11. Licensees that opt to use DTS in lieu of the traditional single
transmitter should be allowed to apply for facilities to serve an area
generally comparable to the area they could cover with a single
transmitter. We believe we should balance the primary coverage rights
between stations choosing to employ DTS and those choosing not to do
so. In general, we do not believe that stations employing DTS
technology should be afforded dramatically expanded primary coverage
rights. Such special treatment is not necessary to implement DTS
service. Accordingly, we propose to limit the area that a station can
serve from its DTS operation to the equivalent of the area it could
serve using a single-transmitter.
12. MWG offered two alternative approaches to this issue in its
comments in MB Docket 03-15. One approach would allow DTS transmitters
and the service they provide to be located anywhere within the
designated market area (DMA) in which the station is located. This
``DMA approach'' would allow broadcasters to expand their DTS service
to cover their DMA limited only by the requirement that they do not
cause unacceptable interference to
[[Page 72766]]
another licensee. The other approach offered by MWG would allow DTS
transmitters to be located within a station's ``theoretically maximized
DTV service contour.'' MWG describes the ``theoretically maximized DTV
service contour'' as being based at the station's DTV allotment
reference coordinates, with the coverage contour extended to correspond
to the coverage that would be achieved if the station were authorized
at the maximum effective radiated power and antenna height specified in
the Commission rules. In addition, MWG suggests that a station with an
authorization at a transmitter location different from the DTV
allotment reference coordinates should be allowed to locate its DTS
transmitters within the combination of the authorized coverage contour
and the ``theoretically maximized DTV service contour.'' This
``maximized DTV contour'' approach would also allow a DTS transmitter
to extend service. In MWG's proposal, if a station is allowed a DTS
transmitter site that is 60 miles from its reference site, the service
from that DTS transmitter could extend to a distance 50 percent
farther, (90 miles for this example) from the allotment reference
point. (See 47 CFR 73.215(b)(2)(i): ``For vacant allotments, contours
are based on the presumed use, at the allotment's reference point, of
the maximum ERP that could be authorized for the station class of the
allotment, and antenna HAAT in the directions of concern that would
result from a non-directional antenna mounted at a standard eight-
radial antenna HAAT equal to the reference HAAT for the station class
of the allotment.''). In support of both of its proffered alternatives
that would permit greater primary coverage, MWG contends that station
service contours are less important in DTV than in analog TV, being
used only to define the area where interference analysis is conducted.
MWG claims that using any currently specified contour would be entirely
too limiting in the placement and service of DTS transmitters, noting
that maximization of service is a DTV objective. MWG argues that, at
the very least, DTV facilities should be able to be maximized to the
same extent whether a single transmitter or DTS is used.
13. Other commenters in MB Docket 03-15 support various aspects of
MWG suggested approaches. Tribune agrees with the alternative suggested
by MWG that primary DTS transmitters should be allowed within a
theoretically maximized DTV service contour. For restrictions on both
DTS transmitter location and coverage, Golden Orange supports MWG's
``DMA contour'' approach where the DMA extends beyond a station's
predicted Grade B service area.
14. Other commenters propose a less expansive approach. Harris
recommends that DTS transmitters be located within their station's DTV
service contour and not extend service outside that contour. Axcera
suggests that DTS transmitters be allowed to serve beyond a station's
authorized coverage area as long as the station does not increase the
interference contour from a real or theoretical single transmitter
system that would otherwise be permitted. Siete Grande suggests limits
like the analog operation it is authorized in Puerto Rico where each
transmitter's proposed Grade B service contour is contained within the
licensed main station predicted Grade B coverage contour.
15. We are troubled by the implications of allowing significantly
greater coverage for DTS than the coverage that can be achieved by a
traditional single-transmitter station. We do not believe it is
appropriate to expand significantly the coverage rights of some
stations by allowing DTS operation anywhere within a station's DMA.
Many DMAs cover extensive areas and the DMA approach could allow some
stations to provide service into communities 100 or more miles away
from their current station location. Such service could be inconsistent
with our traditional focus on localism. If stations were allowed to
extend their service areas through DTS operations, those extended
services could conflict with exclusive territories based on contractual
arrangements. Such expansion, particularly throughout a geographically
large DMA, would subvert our current licensing rules by allowing a
station to obtain the rights to serve a new community where a new
station might otherwise be licensed. (See 47 CFR 73.623(h).)
Disallowing such expansion is consistent with the statutory requirement
to award new licenses through competitive bidding (auctions), as
appropriate. (See 47 U.S.C. 309(j).) Such expansions may also reduce
the availability of channels for new stations and thereby similarly
reduce opportunities for new stations in a manner inconsistent with our
TV channel allotment and licensing policies. We thus tentatively reject
MWG's DMA approach.
16. Similarly, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow
stations with DTS operations to extend coverage by an additional 50
percent beyond the distance that a station would be allowed to cover if
it operated from a single transmitter. Instead of either MWG approach,
we believe the service areas of DTS and single-transmitter licensees
should be treated as comparably as feasible. Consistent with this
principle, we propose a ``table of distances'' below that we believe is
comparable to a theoretically maximized DTV service contour. To the
extent that MWG's suggested approaches seek an expansion of service
areas beyond what would be permitted under our rules, we tentatively
reject them. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
17. Accordingly, we propose to permit stations to utilize DTS to
provide service over the same area that they are authorized to serve
with a single transmitter. To that end, and to afford stations an
opportunity to provide service using DTS over an area comparable to the
area they would be authorized to serve using a single transmitter, we
propose to require DTS coverage to be confined within a circle from a
station's reference coordinates based on the DTV service field
strengths specified in 47 CFR 73.622(e) of our rules and the maximum
power and antenna height restrictions specified in 47 CFR 73.622(f).
Also, zones are defined in 47 CFR 73.609. Zone 1 is generally the more
heavily populated states in the northeast U.S. (extending west to the
Mississippi River and south to include Norfolk and Richmond, VA, while
excluding northern sections of Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont,
New Hampshire and Maine). This approach is based on a set of distances
from stations' reference points that reflect DTV stations' potential
maximized facilities, generally allowing stations using DTS to achieve
the coverage that would be achieved if the station were authorized at
the maximum effective radiated power and antenna height specified in
the Commission's rules. (See 47 CFR 73.622). We believe using this
limited set of distances instead of individual calculation of the
theoretically maximized DTV service contours as suggested by MWG will
simplify determinations of allowable DTS coverage areas and will offer
equal treatment of similarly situated stations. The approaches for DTS
that we are considering and offering for comment are intended for use
with respect to currently authorized facilities that licensees have
certified in the channel election process and for future facilities
changes that may be authorized after the freeze is lifted and new
applications are filed. No station is automatically entitled to use the
areas described by the parameters set forth in this chart to
[[Page 72767]]
provide DTS. Rather, DTS stations, like single-transmitter stations,
can apply to use these areas to request authorization to maximize after
the freeze is lifted. The circles described by the chart are the
maximum DTS stations can apply for, and are derived from the maximum
height and power that a single-transmitter station is and would be able
to apply for.
18. We propose the following table of distances. As explained
below, the distances represent circles within which all DTS station
coverage contours must be contained. In the vast majority of cases, the
appropriate circle will equal or exceed a station's currently
authorized coverage contour, including the contour within which the
station certified it will provide service at the end of the transition.
The rule proposed will provide for those exceptional situations in
which this is not the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone (see 47 CFR
Channel 73.609) F(50,90) field strength ERP at HAAT Distance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6............................... 1...................... 28 dBu................... 10 kW at 305 m................. 108 km. (67 mi.).
2-6............................... 2 and 3................ 28 dBu................... 10 kW at 610 m................. 128 km. (80 mi.).
7-13.............................. 1...................... 36 dBu................... 30 kW at 305 m................. 101 km. (63 mi.).
7-13.............................. 2 and 3................ 36 dBu................... 30 kW at 610 m................. 123 km. (77 mi.).
14-69............................. 1, 2 and 3............. 41 dBu................... 1000 kW at 365 m............... 103 km. (64 mi.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to use a reference point for each DTV station that is
based on its certification in the post-transition DTV channel election
process that was detailed in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order.
We seek comment on whether a different reference point should be used,
for example based on a station's initial DTV allotment or the allotment
established in its individual DTV channel change rule making. We note
that some stations may desire a different reference point and request
comment on what process could be used to change reference points
without circumventing the limits created by the proposed distance
table. We seek comment on these proposals and conclusions.
19. In parts of the country where the terrain is uniform, the
proposed ``table of distances'' illustrates the area that a station
could serve if it operated a single-transmitter at maximum power and
height allowed by our current rules. Reliance on this table can
facilitate licensees' use of DTS by eliminating the need for a two-step
process: First calculating the antenna height necessary to match the
maximum allowed average antenna height and power for a single
transmitter and then calculating the distances to the service contour
in every direction based on the antenna height above the terrain in
that direction. Because most stations are not in areas where variations
in the terrain result in significant variations in the coverage
dependent on which direction from the transmitter is being considered,
the table shows the distance most stations could serve if they operated
a single-transmitter at maximum power and height allowed by our current
rules.
20. We also propose to use the table of distances in areas in which
irregular terrain is an issue. In such locations, single-transmitter
stations' maximum service areas are distorted from a circular coverage
contour to varying degrees. Coverage contours of stations using non-
directional transmitting antennas will be circular except where the
surrounding terrain has a different average height in different
directions. For example, if the average terrain to the North is 500
feet above mean sea level and the average terrain to the South is 1000
feet above mean sea level, the coverage contour will extend further to
the north than it does to the south. Where coverage does not reach as
far due to terrain in one direction, a station would have a
correspondingly larger coverage distance in other directions. In these
cases, stations' single-transmitters may be authorized to serve people
outside of the circular coverage contour because the average terrain
calculation has allowed the station to be authorized for a larger
coverage contour in one direction (one that would not have been reached
if there was no terrain issue). In these circumstances, stations would
be authorized to provide DTV service within their authorized coverage
area. We seek comment on this.
21. We seek comment on the usefulness of this Table and the
validity of the underlying assumptions. We also seek comment on the
effect of such assumptions on the scope and range of the service area
and populations to be served by stations that use DTS. Would this
inadvertently result in significantly expanded areas of service beyond
what our current maximization rules contemplate? Or would the result be
more effective service over the typical potential area? We seek comment
on alternative ways to determine the service areas appropriate for DTS
operation, as well as alternate methods to determine or limit
incidental expansion of service areas.
22. Finally, as we noted in the Interim Rules adopted in the Second
DTV Periodic Report and Order, we are concerned that DTS operators not
use DTS technology to favor some populations within their service area
over others, a practice sometimes referred to as ``cherry-picking.'' We
propose to maintain the protections against cherry-picking that we
adopted in the Interim Rules and continue to require that licensees
using DTS technology provide, at a minimum, essentially the same level
of service they would using their single-transmitter facilities. We
recognize that some difference in coverage between conventional and DTS
operations may be unavoidable, but we intend to keep this concern and
public service obligation in mind when we review applications to use
DTS technology. We seek comment on how best to account for these
differences while maintaining that DTS systems comply with the
requirement to serve essentially the same population as conventional
systems. At a minimum, we propose that we would deny any application to
construct DTS facilities that would result in loss of service to the
population currently served within the licensee's service contour. We
note that, under our interim policy, we now consider this issue on a
case-by-case basis to determine if the DTS operator would serve
``essentially all of its replication coverage area,'' which would
include all viewers within the station's replicated service area who
are predicted to be served by the station's current analog transmitter.
We expect that these viewers would be predicted to receive the
minimally necessary signal strength (based on the FCC curves F(50,90)
propagation model) from at least one DTS transmitter. We seek comment
on this approach, but also ask whether a more objective standard can be
used to prevent cherry-picking while allowing for differences in
technologies.
[[Page 72768]]
D. Power, Antenna Height and Emission Mask
23. We received several comments in MB Docket 03-15 concerning
power, antenna height and other operational standards of DTS
transmitters. MWG suggested that for these parameters, the existing
rules for DTV stations can be applied to distributed transmitters with
little or no modification. MWG described distributed transmitters as
being inherently limited by the need to meet interference requirements
with respect to neighboring stations. Thus, MWG concluded there was no
reason to impose different limits on the maximum power and antenna
height for each distributed transmitter than the limits specified in 47
CFR 73.622(f)(5) for single transmitter DTV stations. MWG also stated
that the relative powers of distributed transmitters in a network must
be carefully chosen to optimize the service the network provides and
should not be unnecessarily constrained. MWG also argued there is no
reason to impose different emission mask requirements on distributed
transmitters than those imposed on single DTV transmitters. Siete
Grande suggested that each distributed transmitter should meet the
requirements that apply to single main transmitters, including maximum
operating power and compliance with radio frequency exposure guidelines
and other environmental rules. WPXS/Penn State supports the positions
and proposed rules submitted by MWG.
24. For each distributed transmitter in a DTS system, we propose to
apply the existing Part 73 DTV effective radiated power, antenna height
and emission mask rules applicable to single-transmitter DTV stations.
Specifically, we believe there will be no adverse impact on other
stations if we require that each transmitter in a DTS system conform to
the maximum power and emission mask requirements applicable to single-
transmitter DTV stations. This approach should offer DTS stations
flexibility in designing their system to maximize DTV service while
limiting their potential interference in light of the service area
limitations and interference protection requirements proposed in this
NPRM.
E. Licensing Issues
25. We propose that DTS transmitters will not be separately
licensed, but will be part of a linked group that will be covered by
one construction permit and license. Unless otherwise indicated, we
propose to apply the current requirements and processes for DTV
stations, or, where appropriate, analog TV stations. For example, the
normal CP expiration dates will apply. (See 47 CFR 73.624(d) and
73.3598.) We seek comment on this approach and on how to provide
licensees and permittees with flexibility to serve viewers as quickly
as possible but without the risk of commencing service in one area
while delaying service to another area containing fewer or less
affluent viewers (i.e., cherry-picking). Under our proposal, licensees
will request authority to construct DTS facilities by filing a single
application that includes either a main transmitter and one or more
additional transmitters that will collectively use the DTS technology,
or two or more smaller DTS transmitters. For example: 47 CFR 73.1690(b)
requires a construction permit be granted before a new tower structure
is built for broadcast purposes, or a station's geographic coordinates
are changed or effective radiated power is increased; 47 CFR 73.3533
requires that a Form 301 be used by commercial broadcast stations
seeking a construction permit and Form 340 be used by noncommercial
educational broadcast stations; 47 CFR 73.3572 describes the processing
of TV broadcast station applications; and 47 CFR 73.3598 specifies the
period of construction (but 47 CFR 73.624(d) specifies DTV build-out
dates). A licensee may add to its DTS network of transmitters using a
minor change application for a construction permit to change a licensed
DTV facility, or for a modified construction permit to change a DTV
facility authorized by a construction permit. Such applications will be
processed in accordance with our processing rules and guidelines.
However, at least one of a licensee's DTS transmitters must provide
coverage of the station's community of license in accordance with 47
CFR 73.625 of our rules. We request specific comment on whether service
in the principal community can be relied upon if it is provided from
multiple transmitters (where the interaction between the signals from
the different transmitters may make reception difficult or impossible
in some part of the overlapping coverage areas). We seek comment on our
proposals. We also seek comment on whether additional or different
restrictions would be appropriate for DTS transmitters.
F. Interference Protection
26. We received several comments in MB Docket No. 03-15 concerning
the standards needed to protect DTS operations from interference and
the standards needed to protect other stations from interference from
DTS transmitters. MWG suggested that distributed transmitters should be
subject to the same interference calculations as for single-transmitter
stations, except that, first, the service provided by a DTS operation
would include each location predicted to be served by at least one of
the DTS transmitters, and second, the interference effect on each
protected station should be the accumulated effect of all of the
distributed transmitters in the network. MWG contends that this
approach is necessary to avoid double counting of the interference
caused or received. MWG argued that the single-transmitter standards
for de minimis interference should apply to the overall service and
interference. MWG noted that allotment of adjacent channels in the same
area can preclude DTS use, especially in the case of analog TV stations
within four channels above or below the intended DTS channel. MWG
asserted that the Commission's interference analysis software can be
extended to account for DTS stations without requiring a major overhaul
of the program. MWG said the distributed transmitters would have to be
linked in the Commission database so the software could consider the
service and interference effects of all the transmitters of a DTS
station as a single composite service area or interference source.
Finally, MWG suggested that for purposes of analyzing interference from
its neighbors, internal interference between DTS transmitters in a
single system should be ignored.
27. We seek comment on these issues. In particular, we seek comment
on whether to calculate interference based on each DTS transmitter
individually, as proposed by MWG, or based more conservatively on the
combined signals of all the DTS transmitters. In either case, the
cumulative population predicted to lose service due to interference
from all DTS transmitters would be used to determine compliance with
the same de minimis interference standard as used for single-
transmitter stations. We do not believe that there is a significant
difference between the two approaches, but seek comment on this point.
28. We seek comment concerning ongoing experimental operations that
might help us develop a more appropriate mechanism for considering the
interference caused or received by a DTS operation. We note that the
timing of introducing regular DTS service will depend on completing
this rule making and making necessary modifications to our application
processing software. As we approach the end of the transition, the key
interference considerations will
[[Page 72769]]
become DTV to DTV, which relieves concerns expressed by MWG that
potential interference to adjacent channel NTSC stations may make DTS
unusable in some areas.
G. Technical Standards
29. We received several comments in MB Docket 03-15 concerning the
technical standards to be used for the synchronization of multiple DTV
transmitters. At the time of those comments, the Advanced Television
Systems Committee (ATSC) was developing a new standard for such
synchronization. (See ATSC A/110A, Synchronization Standard for
Distributed Transmission (July 19, 2005). ATSC standards are available
at http://www.atsc.org/standards.html). According to an ATSC press release,
``The new standard defines the mechanisms for synchronization of
transmitters emitting 8-VSB signals in accordance with the ATSC DTV
Standard (A/53C). It also provides for adjustment of transmitter timing
and other characteristics through additional information carried within
the specified packet structure.'' ATSC indicated that transmissions
pursuant to the then candidate standard comply fully with the ATSC A/53
standard that the Commission has mandated for DTV stations, so use of
the then candidate standard would not require Commission action. MWG
also stated that the technical standard for distributed transmitters
should be the same as for single transmitters and that it was
unnecessary to add additional technical requirements unrelated to
providing interference protection to neighboring stations. MWG
suggested that the internal workings of DTS should follow the standard
that was then in the ATSC approval process, and would not require
Commission rules. MWG further indicated that the Commission should
limit its restrictions on DTS operation so that necessary adjustments
can be made without the need for amending Commission rules or modifying
station authorizations.
30. We note that ATSC has approved standard A/110A, titled
``Synchronization Standard for Distributed Transmission.'' As
consistently suggested by comments, at this early stage in the
introduction of this technology, we do not believe it is necessary or
appropriate to propose to mandate compliance with this, or any other,
synchronization standard. Operation that is consistent with the current
standard or other future appropriate technologies will likely minimize
the internal interference that a station effectively would be causing
to itself. However ATSC standard A/110A, Sec. 1.2 of the Commission's
rules advised that ``* * *, while Distributed Transmission holds the
potential to greatly improve the coverage and service areas of DTV
transmission, it also holds the potential to cause interference within
the network that some receivers, particularly early designs, may not be
able to handle. Consequently, Distributed Transmission Networks must be
carefully designed to minimize the burden placed on the adaptive
equalizers in such legacy receivers while maximizing the improvement in
signals delivered to the public. The impact on any specific receiver
will depend upon the receiver's location, the use of directional
antennas, and other factors related to the design of the receiver.'' At
the same time, the interference effect on other stations would not be
affected by the synchronization or lack of synchronization of the DTS
transmitters in accordance with the standard. It is clearly in the DTS
station's self-interest to minimize its internal interference. We
encourage stations that are using DTS technology to provide us with
data on the performance of the technology and the extent to which
internal interference is minimized.
31. We note that stations must comply with the ATSC standards for
digital television. We do not intend to require compliance with a
particular synchronization standard, provided that the synchronization
technology used is effective and otherwise consistent with our rules
(47 CFR 73.682(d); ATSC A/53B, Standard: Digital Television Standard,
Revision B with Amendments 1 and 2 (May 19, 2003)). We propose to avoid
requiring licensees to use a particular synchronization approach that
would necessarily require use of a patented technology. We note that
MWG has patent interests in the technology contained in the
Synchronization Standard for Distributed Transmission document that has
been approved by the ATSC. What is the likely effect of such patents on
potential users of DTS technology? Would such patent interests
adversely affect licensees' use of the proposed DTS service? Does the
Commission need to take steps to ensure that licenses to MWG's
technology and any other patented technology that might be developed to
implement DTS are offered on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis?
Are there other means of using DTS that would not necessitate obtaining
a license for patented technology or equipment?
H. Class A, Low Power, Translator and Booster Television Stations
32. In the proceeding that established the Class A television
service, the Commission required certain proposals for new or modified
DTV service to protect Class A and digital Class A TV service (e.g.,
application proposals for DTV service maximization filed after May 1,
2000) (Establishment of a Class A Television Service, 65 FR 29985-01,
paragraph 72 (May 10, 2000), on recon, 66 FR 21681, May 1, 2001 and 47
CFR 73.623(c)(5)). Full-service licensees wishing to use DTS technology
must protect Class A stations to the same extent as stations using a
single transmitter.
33. We propose to permit Class A TV licensees to use DTS
technologies to operate a single frequency network of a group of
commonly owned digital Class A stations that carry common locally
produced programming within the market area served by the station
group. The market area for locally produced programming of a digital
Class A station is the area within the station's predicted DTV noise-
limited contour, as defined in Sec. 73.622(e) of the Commission's
rules, based on the station's authorized facilities (Amendment of Parts
73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low
Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster
Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations, 69
FR 69325, November 29, 2004 (Digital LPTV Report and Order)). With
respect to a group of commonly owned stations, digital Class A stations
whose predicted noise-limited contours are physically contiguous to
each other comprise the market area for locally produced programming
(47 CFR 73.6000(2)). In conventional arrangements of commonly owned
stations, the individual stations generally operate on different TV
channels in order to avoid interference to reception. Use of a common
channel in a Class A station group using DTS technology would promote
spectrum efficiency and might also provide an alternative for licensees
whose stations face channel displacement. Under this proposal, in most
respects, the operation of the Class A stations in such DTS networks
would be the same as their operation as stand-alone digital stations
(e.g., protected service area and permitted effective radiated power).
As a significant difference, these stations would be interconnected and
operate on a common TV channel. Thus, these stations would be
authorized with the same ``primary'' regulatory status
[[Page 72770]]
accorded stand-alone digital Class A stations. We seek comment on this
proposal.
34. More generally, we seek comment on whether to permit a Class A
or LPTV licensee or permittee to use DTS technology to operate single
frequency networks within the protected contour of its authorized
station. We note that the service area of a Class A or LPTV station is
typically much smaller than that of a DTV broadcast station and, thus,
Class A and low power licensees may have less need for distributed
stations. Yet, there may be situations in which licensees could benefit
from use of DTS technology (e.g., the ability to overcome terrain
limitations or for purposes of interference avoidance).
35. To the extent, if any, that we were to permit use of DTS
technology in the Class A and LPTV services, we seek comment on
appropriate rules to govern the authorization and operation of such
service. How should we determine permissible transmitter locations in
such DTS systems and protected service areas? For example, we envision
that the protected area of a DTS network of a group of commonly owned
Class A stations would be the combined area of the protected signal
contours of the stations comprising the group. Should we apply the
power and emission limits that now govern digital LPTV and Class A
stations? We would be inclined to use the general approach for
interference analysis that we would adopt for DTS in the DTV service
(i.e., interference predictions based on individual transmitters or
aggregation of the transmitters in the system), using the desired-to-
undesired (``D/U'') signal strength ratios and other prediction
criteria applicable to digital Class A and LPTV stations (e.g., 47 CFR
73.6010, 73.6016, 73.6017, 73.6018, 73.6019 and 73.6022).
36. We also seek comment on the impact of our DTS proposals on the
need for low power digital booster stations. Will DTS transmitters, as
MWG suggests, reduce the need for such stations, or is there a purpose
for both types of stations (e.g., due to differences in the costs and
technical complexity of digital boosters and DTS stations)? In the
digital LPTV proceeding, we declined to establish a digital TV booster
station class. We concurred with commenters that ``we should resolve
issues regarding distributed transmission systems before further
considering whether to authorize on-channel digital boosters.'' (See
Digital LPTV Report and Order, 69 FR 69325, November 29, 2004). In so
doing, we noted our expectation that such stations would be primarily
used by full-service broadcasters to serve terrain-shadowed portions of
their service areas, in the manner of analog boosters. To what extent
does our allowance in the digital LPTV proceeding for on-channel
digital TV translators reduce the need for digital boosters? The
regulation of on-channel digital translator stations differs in several
respects from that of analog booster stations. Unlike on-channel
digital translators, analog boosters are licensed only to TV broadcast
licensees and permittees, must be located inside the station's
protected contour (analog Grade B contour), and the predicted service
contour of the booster may not extend beyond that of the signal being
retransmitted. Applications for analog booster stations may be filed at
any time; applications for on-channel digital TV translators must be
filed under the procedures for new digital stations in the LPTV
service.
37. In addition, MWG suggests that DTS technology can effectively
replace networks of translators using the primary station channel and a
single additional channel as part of the translator license. An example
of such a two-channel scenario would start with a station transmitting
from a main tower site on its original channel, providing adequate
reception to a distance of about 30 miles. Communities at the edge of
that service range would receive a stronger, more reliable signal from
transmitters located near those communities using the additional
channel that would not have an interference interaction with the
original channel. Communities 40 miles from the main tower site might
be at the edge of service from the transmitters using the additional
channel, but could be served by more transmitters using the original
channel with less chance of interference. In such cases, MWG urges that
the operation on the additional (relay) channel should also be treated
as primary. We do not believe that use of the ``single additional
channel,'' as suggested by MWG, is an essential component of DTS
service, and we reject the suggestion that it be afforded primary
status as inconsistent with our desire to avoid favoring DTS stations
over non-DTS stations, but we note that for either category of DTV
station, we would permit use of an ``additional channel'' for a DTV
translator with secondary regulatory status.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA) the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
provided in Section V.D. of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy
of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
B. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
39. The NPRM proposes rules that will permit television broadcast
licensees to use a distributed transmission system (DTS) in lieu of a
single-transmitter to operate their television broadcast stations. The
proposed rules will apply with respect to existing authorized
facilities and to use of DTS after establishment of the new DTV Table
of Allotments, which may afford stations the opportunity to apply to
maximize their service areas after the end of our current freeze on the
filing of most applications. (A DTV distributed transmission system
would employ multiple synchronized transmitters spread around a
station's service area. Each transmitter would broadcast the station's
DTV signal on the same channel, relying on the performance of
``adaptive equalizer'' circuitry in DTV receivers to cancel or combine
the multiple signals plus any reflected signals to produce a single
signal.)
C. Legal Basis
40. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is
contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307,
308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
a. Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules. 41. The RFA
directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible,
an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same
[[Page 72771]]
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' small organization,'' and
``small government jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
42. The proposed rules contained in this NPRM will permit
television broadcast licensees to use a distributed transmission system
(DTS) in lieu of a single-transmitter to operate their television
broadcast stations. We believe television broadcast licensees will be
directly affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. We do not believe
any other types of entities will be directly affected by the proposed
rules, but request comment on this tentative conclusion. Therefore, in
this IRFA, we invite comment on the impact of the proposed rules on
small television broadcast stations. A description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,
is provided below.
43. Television Broadcasting. The proposed rules and policies could
apply to television broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of
television service. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a
small business if such station has no more than $12 million in annual
receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those
``primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' (This
category description continues, ``These establishments operate
television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own
studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.''
Separate census categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in
producing programming.) According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on
October 18, 2005, about 873 of the 1,307 commercial television stations
(or about 67 percent) have revenues of $12 million or less and thus
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however,
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under
the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.
Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies.
44. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent.
45. Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations. The proposed
rules and policies could also apply to licensees of Class A TV
stations, low power television (LPTV) stations, and TV translator
stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television
services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast
licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television
broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than
$12 million in annual receipts.
46. Currently, there are approximately 598 licensed Class A
stations, 2,098 licensed LPTV stations, 4,491 licensed TV translators
and 11 TV booster stations. Given the nature of these services, we will
presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition,
revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated
with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is
small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities
since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or
aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not have
data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but virtually
all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of less than $12
million and thus may be categorized as small, except to the extent that
revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be
considered.
b. Entities Believed To Be Not Directly Affected By Proposed Rules.
47. Because the rules proposed in this NPRM pertain only to the
technology employed in broadcasting, we do not believe the rules will
directly affect program distribution and, therefore, we do not believe
that our proposed rules will directly affect cable operators or
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), such as Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, private cable operators (PCOs),
also known as satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems, home
satellite dish (HSD) services, multipoint distribution services (MDS)/
multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS), Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS), local multipoint distribution service
(LMDS) and open video systems (OVS). Nevertheless, we seek comment on
this tentative conclusion and, although such comment is not required by
the RFA, we invite comment from any small cable operators or small
MVPDs who believe they might be directly affected by our proposed rules
contained in the Notice.
48. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Cable system operators
fall within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program
Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $12.5
million or less in revenue annually. According to the Census Bureau
data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the
entire year in the category of Cable and Other Program Distribution. Of
this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an
additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more, but less than
$25 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997. Economics and Statistics
Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997
Economic Census, Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size,
Information Sector 51, Table 4 at 50 (2000). The amount of $10 million
was used to estimate the number of small business firms because the
relevant Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at
$10,000,000. No category for $12.5 million existed. Thus, the number is
as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available
information.) In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002
indicates that the total number of Cable and Other Program Distribution
entities increased approximately 46 percent between 1997 and 2002. (See
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
``Information,'' Table 2, Comparative Statistics for the United States
(1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and
[[Page 72772]]
1997, NAICS code 513220 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data
indicate that the number of total ``establishments'' increased from
4,185 to 6,118. In this context, the number of establishments is a less
helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of
``firms,'' because the latter number takes into account the concept of
common ownership or control. The more helpful 2002 census data on
firms, including employment and receipts numbers, will be issued in
late 2005.) The Commission estimates that the majority of providers in
this category of Cable and Other Program Distribution are small
businesses.
49. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed, with SBA's approval, its own definition of a
small cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under
the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving
400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. (See 47 CFR 76.901(e). The
Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a
small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million
or less. For ``regulatory simplicity,'' the Commission established the
company size standard in terms of subscribers, rather than dollars; in
the cable context, $100 million in annual regulated revenues equates to
approximately 400,000 subscribers.) We last estimated that there were
1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable companies at the
end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to
serve more than 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved
in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable
operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439
small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the
proposals contained in this NPRM.
50. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for a ``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that
there are 67.7 million subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an
operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, we estimate that the number of
cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or less totals
approximately 1,450. The Commission neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore
is unable at this time to estimate more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
size standard contained in the Communications Act.
51. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. Because DBS provides subscription
services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and
Other Program Distribution. This definition provides that a small
entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently,
only four operators hold licenses to provide DBS service, which
requires a great investment of capital for operation. All four
currently offer subscription services. Two of these four DBS operators,
DirecTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation (EchoStar), report
annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small
business. A third operator, Rainbow DBS, is a subsidiary of
Cablevision's Rainbow Network, which also reports annual revenues in
excess of $12.5 million, and thus does not qualify as a small business.
DirecTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD,
serving an estimated 13.04 million subscribers nationwide. EchoStar,
which provides service under the brand name Dish Network, is the second
largest DBS operator and the fourth largest MVPD, serving an estimated
10.12 million subscribers nationwide. Rainbow DBS, which provides
service under the brand name VOOM, reported an estimated 25,000
subscribers. The fourth DBS operator, Dominion Video Satellite, Inc.
(Dominion), offers religious (Christian) programming and does not
report its annual receipts. Dominion, which provides service under the
brand name Sky Angel, does not publicly disclose its subscribership
numbers on an annualized basis. The Commission does not know of any
source which provides this information and, thus, we have no way of
confirming whether Dominion qualifies as a small business. Because DBS
service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a
small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal
to become a DBS licensee. Nevertheless, given the absence of specific
data on this point, we acknowledge the possibility that there are
entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $12.5 million in
annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business,
if independently owned and operated.
52. Private Cable Operators (PCOs) also known as Satellite Master
Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems. PCOs, also known as SMATV systems
or private communication operators, are video distribution facilities
that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-
way. PCOs acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial
wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments
and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels
and office buildings. The SBA definition of small entities for Cable
and Other Program Distribution Services includes PCOs and, thus, small
entities are defined as all such companies generating $12.5 million or
less in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 135 members
in the Independent Multi-Family Communications Council (IMCC), the
trade association that represents PCOs. Individual PCOs often serve
approximately 3,000-4,000 subscribers, but the larger operations serve
as many as 15,000-55,000 subscribers. In total, PCOs currently serve
approximately 1.1 million subscribers. Because these operators are not
rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the
Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published
financial information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated
number of operators and the estimated number of units served by the
largest ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial number of PCO qualify
as small entities.
53. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition
of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such
companies generating $12.5 million or less in revenue annually. HSD or
the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original
satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home
reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in
the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas
are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide
range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming
purchased from
[[Page 72773]]
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt
of video programming. There are approximately 30 satellites operating
in the C-band, which carry over 500 channels of programming combined;
approximately 350 channels are available free of charge and 150 are
scrambled and require a subscription. HSD is difficult to quantify in
terms of annual revenue. HSD owners have access to program channels
placed on C-band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution
by MVPDs. Commission data shows that, between June 2003 and June 2004,
HSD subscribership fell from 502,191 subscribers to 335,766
subscribers, a decline of more than 33 percent. The Commission has no
information regarding the annual revenue of the four C-Band
distributors.
54. Wireless Cable Systems. Wireless cable systems use the
Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television
Fixed Service (ITFS) frequencies in the 2 GHz band to transmit video
programming and provide broadband services to subscribers. Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-
multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video
telecommunications. As previously noted, the SBA definition of small
entities for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes such
companies generating $12.5 million in annual receipts, appears
applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. In addition, the Commission has
defined small MDS and LMDS entities in the context of Commission
license auctions.
55. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small
business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less
than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition
of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by
the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67
auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time,
the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more
than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees
and wireless cable operators that did not participate in the MDS
auction must rely on the SBA definition of small entities for Cable and
Other Program Distribution. Information available to us indicates that
there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do
not generate revenue in excess of $12.5 million annually. Therefore, we
estimate that there are approximately 850 small MDS providers as
defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
56. While SBA approval for a Commission-defined small business size
standard applicable to ITFS is pending, educational institutions are
included in this analysis as small entities. There are currently 2,032
ITFS licensees, and all but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least
1,932 ITFS licensees are small businesses.
57. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a
small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of
less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The
Commission has held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 and Auction 23.
Auction No. 17, the first LMDS auction, began on February 18, 1998, and
closed on March 25, 1998. (104 bidders won 864 licenses.) Auction No.
23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April 27, 1999, and closed on May 12,
1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.) Moreover, the Commission added an
additional classification for a ``very small business,'' which was
defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less
than $15 million in the previous three calendar years. These
definitions of ``small business'' and ``very small business'' in the
context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. In the
first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 auction
winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses. In the
LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based on this
information, we believe that the number of small LMDS licenses will
include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning
bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS
providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
58. Open Video Systems (OVS). The OVS framework provides
opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
services, OVS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and
Other Program Distribution Services, which provides that a small entity
is one with $ 12.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission
has certified 25 OVS operators with some now providing service.
Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant
holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises, even though OVS
is one of four statutorily-recognized options for local exchange
carriers (LECs) to offer video programming services. As of June 2003,
BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.49
percent of all MVPD households. Among BSPs, however, those operating
under the OVS framework are in the minority, with approximately eight
percent operating with an OVS certification. Serving approximately
460,000 of these subscribers, Affiliates of Residential Communications
Network, Inc. (RCN) is currently the largest BSP and 11th largest MVPD.
(WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 15th largest MVPD, with
cable systems serving about 288,000 subscribers as of September 2003.
The third largest BSP is Knology, which currently serves approximately
174,957 subscribers as of June 2004.) RCN received approval to operate
OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas.
The Commission does not have financial information regarding the
entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be
operational. We thus believe that at least some of the OVS operators
may qualify as small entities.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
59. The NPRM proposes rules that will permit television broadcast
licensees to use DTS in lieu of a single-transmitter to operate their
television broadcast stations. Use of DTS is at the option of the
broadcast licensee. The NPRM would not impose any mandatory reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, unless the licensee
chooses to use DTS. The proposed rule changes that we believe will
directly affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements are described below.
60. The NPRM proposes that DTS transmitters will not be separately
licensed, but will be part of a linked group that will be covered by
one construction permit and license. Unless otherwise indicated, the
NPRM proposes to apply the current requirements and processes for DTV
stations, or, where appropriate, analog TV stations. The Commission
intends to use application filing and processing procedures similar to
the current procedures for DTV licensing. Under the proposal, licensees
will request authority to construct DTS facilities by filing a single
application that includes either a main transmitter and one or more
additional transmitters that will collectively use the DTS technology,
or two or more smaller DTS transmitters. A
[[Page 72774]]
licensee may add to its DTS network of transmitters using a minor
change application for a construction permit to change a licensed DTV
facility, or for a modified construction permit to change a DTV
facility authorized by a construction permit. Such applications will be
processed in accordance with the Commission's current processing rules
and guidelines. However, at least one of a licensee's DTS transmitters
must provide coverage of the station's community of license in
accordance with Sec. 73.625 of our rules.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
62. The use of DTS is not mandatory. Only television broadcast
licensees who chose to use DTS will be impacted by the proposed rules.
Therefore, with respect to the issue of the impact of the proposed
rules on smaller entities, we believe small business broadcasters will
benefit from the opportunities offered by DTS. The record in the Second
DTV Periodic proceeding suggests many potential benefits of DTS to
smaller as well as larger entities, such as uniform signal levels
throughout a licensee's service area, the ability to operate at reduced
power to achieve the same coverage, a reduced likelihood of causing
interference to neighboring licensees, an ability to overcome terrain
limitations, and more reliable indoor reception. Nevertheless, in the
Notice, comment is sought concerning the impact of DTS technology on
small business broadcasters.
G. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Commission's Proposals
63. None.
H. Report to Congress
64. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this
IRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy
of the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in
the Federal Register.
I. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
65. This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and contains modified information
collection requirements. These modified requirements of FCC Forms 301
and 302-DTV will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.
66. Further Information. For additional information concerning the
PRA proposed information collection requirements contained in this
NPRM, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the Internet to
Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.
J. Ex Parte Rules
67. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding will be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-
disclose'' requirements under Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in
accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda
period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally
prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of
the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the
subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the
views and arguments presented is generally required. Additional rules
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
K. Filing Requirements
68. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
69. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting
comments. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
70. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
71. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington,
DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents
will be available
[[Page 72775]]
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
72. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and
Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
73. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, or Eloise
Gore, Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418-2120.
V. Ordering Clauses
74. Accordingly, It Is Ordered that pursuant to sections 4(i) and
(j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 157,
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 that Notice
is herby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
75. It is further ordered that the Reference Information Center,
Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Digital television, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
2. Section 73.626 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 73.626 DTV Distributed Transmission Systems.
(a) A DTV station may be authorized to operate multiple
transmitters to provide service consistent with the requirements of
this section and other rules applicable to DTV stations. A station must
comply with the following DTV rules, except when such compliance is
inconsistent with an explicit requirement in this section:
(1) Sec. 73.622 Digital television table of allotments.
(2) Sec. 73.623 DTV applications and changes to DTV allotments.
(3) Sec. 73.624 Digital television broadcast stations.
(4) Sec. 73.625 DTV coverage of principal community and antenna
system.
(5) Paragraph (d) of Sec. 73.682 TV transmission standards.
(b) An application proposing use of a distributed transmission
system (DTS) will not be accepted for filing if it proposes coverage by
any of the proposed transmitters of areas farther from the station's
DTS reference point than the distance in the following table for the
station's proposed channel and zone, except where coverage of such
areas by the applicant's conventional (non-DTS) DTV facility already is
authorized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Zone F(50,90) field strength Distance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6........................... 1...................... 28 dBu................. 108 km. (67 mi.).
2-6........................... 2 and 3................ 28 dBu................. 128 km. (80 mi.).
7-13.......................... 1...................... 36 dBu................. 101 km. (63 mi.).
7-13.......................... 2 and 3................ 36 dBu................. 123 km. (77 mi.).
14-69......................... 1, 2 and 3............. 41 dBu................. 103 km. (64 mi.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) DTV station zones are defined in Sec. 73.609 of this subpart.
(2) The coverage for each DTS transmitter is determined based on
the F(50,90) field strength given in the table, calculated in
accordance with Sec. 73.625(b) of this subpart.
(3) Each station's DTS reference point is the location of the
facility it specified in its certification in the DTV channel election
process, pursuant to the procedures established in the Second DTV
Periodic Report and Order, 69 FR 59500, October 4, 2004. These
reference points were published in Public Notice, DA 04-3922. For
stations initially authorized subsequent to that certification process,
the reference point is the location established in its individual rule
making to add the DTV channel allotment, or the location specified in
its initial construction permit for a new DTV station, if it was not
established in an individual rule making to add the DTV channel
allotment.
(c) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for
filing if the combined coverage from all of the transmitters fails to
provide predicted service to all population predicted to receive
service from the authorized conventional (non-DTS) DTV facility of the
station.
(d) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for
filing if the coverage from at least one proposed transmitter does not
provide principal community coverage as required in Sec. 73.625(a) of
this subpart.
(e) An application proposing use of DTS will not be accepted for
filing if the proposed transmitters would cause interference to another
station in excess of the criteria specified in Sec. 73.623(c), (e),
(f) and (g) of this subpart.
* * * * *
3. Section 73.6023 is added to subpart J to read as follows:
Sec. 73.6023 Distributed transmission systems.
Station licensees may operate a commonly owned group of digital
Class A stations with contiguous predicted DTV noise-limited contours
(see Sec. 73.622(e) of this part) on a common television channel in a
distributed transmission system.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-23658 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P