WPCO 2E BPH-cpi3|xle)#Xx P7oXP#CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)XX@CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable) P7 oXP#2"w ZICourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYdCdddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddCdoddd~d~d~8~8vddddddkNkdkd~d~d~dddddddYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCxHP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLASIII.PRSXP\  P6QH;XXP8xC;,oXx P7XPove/Rename...$&Find...C:\RESUMEovemberDecemberanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugust SeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemb2 R 5X?3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Т8xC;,oXx P7XP7zC;,sXz_ p^7X&6uC;,-/3Xu&_ x$&7XXV"H($,hH P7hPBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2\ Z v p k HP LaserJet IIISiHPLAIISI.WRSXP\  P6Q,,,girXPa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k  vta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2J T  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2 | 1a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2ca8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2Qa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   23a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2u$e#l##PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^(1<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  312(a)(7); 47 C.F.R.  73.1944 (reasonable access); 47 U.S.C.  315;  Y'-47 C.F.R.  73.1941 (equal opportunities). See also 47 C.F.R.  73.1920 (personal attack rule); 47 C.F.R.  73.1930 (right to reply).- Broadcasters are also obliged to refrain from airing certain  Y-programming, such as indecent programming outside the "safe harbor" period.'l& Y-ԍ 18 U.S.C.  1464; 47 U.S.C.  303; 47 C.F.R.  73.3999. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently upheld a ban on the broadcasting of  Y|-indecent programs between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. See Action for Children's Television  Ye-v. FCC, No. 931092 (D.C. Cir. June 30, 1995). Finally, in order to promote diversity of viewpoint, broadcasters must refrain from discriminating in employment and must establish and maintain an equal employment opportunity ("EEO")  YH-program designed to provide equal employment opportunities for minorities and women.A(H& Y!-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.2080.A Our previous orders reflect the assumption that public interest obligations would attach to ATV broadcasting. Indeed, that broadcasters "have an obligation to serve the public interest" is one of our reasons for limiting initial eligibility for ATV channels to existing  Y -broadcasters.b) & Y&'-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3342.b " :)0*(( "Ԍx  Y-x!34. Request for Comment. We remain committed to enforcing our statutory mandate to ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest. Our current public interest rules, including those implementing specific statutory requirements, were developed for broadcasters essentially limited by technology to a single, analog video programming service. The potential for more flexible and dynamic use of the advanced television channel than what broadcasters currently enjoy gives rise to important questions about the nature of public interest obligations in the digital broadcasting world. We request comment on how the conversion to digital broadcasting should affect broadcasters' obligation to serve the public interest.  Y -x"35. Our future rules may allow broadcasters to use their advanced television channels to provide a high definition television service, multiple standard definition television services and perhaps other services, some of which may be on a subscription basis. Should a licensee's public interest obligations depend on the nature of the services it chooses to provide and, if that is the case, how so? For example, if a broadcaster chooses to provide multiple standard definition services, should public interest obligations attach to each one? What if one or more of those services are provided on a subscription basis? Alternatively, should public interest obligations be seen as attaching not to services but to licensees, each of whom would be required to operate the facilities associated with its 6 MHz ATV channel in the public interest? We note that attaching a public interest requirement on one type of "service" could skew broadcaster investment away from providing that service a situation that could potentially result in a net public interest loss. Commenters are requested to discuss whether, if Congress grants the Commission the requisite authority, we should consider imposing spectrum fees for that portion of the spectrum used by broadcasters to provide subscription services. We note that the use of spectrum fees may allow the Commission to establish a regulatory framework that does not discourage broadcasters from providing free overtheair channels or other services to which public interest obligations might attach. We also invite comment on whether the conversion to digital broadcasting justifies other changes in our public interest framework.  Y7-x#36. Finally, we express our intention to continue to apply EEO requirements on broadcasters. We ask, however, whether there are additional means available to further our objective of promoting diversity of viewpoints in a digital world.  Y- E. Transition.  Y!-x1. Simulcast Requirement.  Y#-x$37. Previous Decision. Previously, we have expressed our belief that maintaining existing service is extremely important, and that the public interest would be served by avoiding any substantial dislocation of service to existing viewers. Accordingly, we determined that ATV licensees should simulcast on their NTSC stations the programming":&)0*((`'"  Y-offered on their ATV stations.*& Yy-ԍ We defined simulcasting as the broadcast on the NTSC channel of the same basic material broadcast on the ATV channel, excluding commercials and promotions, within 24 YK-hours. Id. at 6978. We preliminarily decided that, beginning one year after the six year application and construction period, ATV licensees would have to simulcast 50  Y-percent of their ATV programming, increasing to 100 percent two years later.+K& Y-ԍ See Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3355, 3357; see also Third  Y-Report/Further Notice, supra at 697071. Additionally, we indicated that we would review this schedule at the time of our initial review of the pace of conversion at the end of the application/construction period and  Y-immediately prior to the imposition of 100 percent simulcasting.<,& Y# -ԍ Id. at 6971.<  Y_-x%38. Our concern was, and remains, that consumers not be prematurely deprived of  YH-the benefits of existing television equipment.-H& Y-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3355; Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 697072. We also stated that requiring simulcasting would assist us in reclaiming the analog channel as soon as possible by minimizing broadcaster and consumer reliance on the ATV and NTSC channels carrying separately  Y -programmed services.<. 0 & Y-ԍ Id. at 3356.< Additionally, we believed that a simulcast requirement would "give added impetus to ATV receiver penetration by eliminating the need for dual mode receivers capable of receiving both NTSC and ATV," thereby helping to lower the cost of ATV  Y -receivers, spurring increased penetration.</ & YP-ԍ Id. at 3356.<  Y-x&39. Changed Circumstances and Proposal. These decisions were appropriate and practical at a time when it appeared that ATV would primarily consist of the broadcast of a single HDTV program service. However, it is apparent that a digital TV system can be used in many other ways, including to transmit multiple simultaneous SDTV program services. A licensee may, for instance, utilize its ATV channel to air four SDTV program services. Obviously, that licensee would be unable to simulcast all four program services on its NTSC channel. Under such circumstances, it is clear that our simulcasting requirement must be revisited and we must consider alternatives.  Y-x'40. As stated above, the simulcasting requirement was in large measure intended to allow consumers to avoid being prematurely deprived of the benefits of their NTSC video equipment. We hoped to avoid having broadcasters move their best programs to HDTV,"/0*((" with the result that large numbers of viewers that do not have HDTV equipment would lose much of the value of broadcast television service. At the present time, this no longer appears to be a likely prospect. We do not foresee broadcasters taking their best programming off of their NTSC stations and putting it on HDTV where potential audiences will, at first, be small. Similarly, we do not see broadcasters moving their best programming off of NTSC and on to ATV early in the conversion process. We believe that, instead, the market will continue to serve consumer demand by assuring the continued presence of good programming on NTSC channels. However, we still perceive a need for a simulcast requirement, albeit different from that first envisioned.  Y -x(41. Some number of consumers, unaware of the transition to digital television or unable to afford replacement equipment, may continue viewing analog television throughout the transition period. At the end of the transition period, we may be confronted with the choice of either terminating analog service, causing such viewers to lose their only source of free broadcast service, or, alternatively, allowing analog broadcasting to continue, thereby depriving the broad general public of the benefits that we believe are to be found from the recovery of one of the channels. We wish to avoid either alternative and believe that a simulcasting requirement may be useful in speeding the migration of these consumers from analog to digital broadcasting. Accordingly, we propose to require the simulcast of all material being broadcast on the licensee's NTSC station (with the exception of commercials  Y4-and promotions)04& Y-ԍ As indicated above, both commercial and promotional material were specifically excluded from our original definition of what must be simulcast. on a program service of the ATV channel. If a program is available only on the analog service, then all viewers (those with digitally capable and analogonly sets) will need to watch it in the analog service. In a simulcast environment, the number of consumers who will lose access to a specific program service will be reduced by the number who have a  Y-digitally capable set or set top converter.1b& Y-ԍ In the "AllChannel Receiver Issues" section, infra, we discuss allchannel receiver issues that could possibly minimize or potentially eliminate this potential problem.  Y-x)42. We ask parties to comment on this proposal, including assessing its impact on broadcasters' ability to provide HDTV service, and to offer other viable alternatives, keeping in mind our goals of avoiding a reliance on NTSC service and assuring recovery of large blocks of contiguous spectrum at the conclusion of a speedy and smooth transition process. We are open to suggestions and will consider any option that does not slow the conversion to digital television. For instance, commenters may wish to comment on whether the simulcast requirement should be tradeable. That is, should a licensee be permitted to purchase time on a competitor's ATV station on which to broadcast its analog programming?  Y- x  Y-x*43. Also, we seek comment on the phasing in of a simulcasting requirement. We believe that at the beginning of the transition a broadcaster should be required to simulcast" 10*((!" little or no NTSC programming. Few viewers would have ATV receivers at that stage. Later, as fewer consumers depend upon analog television and ATV equipment proliferates, we tentatively believe that the simulcasting requirement should be increased. Commenters are invited to comment on the relevant time periods for each phase and the amount of simulcasting that should be required in each such phase.  Yv-x2. Licensing of ATV and NTSC Stations.  YH-x+44. Previous Decision. As a related issue, we must revisit the question of whether licensees' NTSC and ATV station licenses should be considered a single license or two separate and distinct licenses. We previously decided to treat the licensee as having two  Y -paired licenses.b2 & Y| -ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3344.b That is, each licensee's NTSC and ATV station would receive a separate license. Because the licenses were to be paired, however, if a licensee's NTSC license were to be revoked or not renewed while its ATV application was pending, the licensee would lose its priority eligibility status. Also, if either a licensee's NTSC or ATV license were revoked or not renewed, the remaining license would automatically suffer the same fate. We nonetheless indicated that we would consider permitting a licensee to voluntarily surrender its NTSC channel while retaining the corresponding ATV channel on a casebycase basis in the interest of spectrum efficiency.  Y4-x,45. We decided that broadcasters would be operating two distinct facilities having different characteristics and, frequently, transmitting from different locations. Treating the ATV and NTSC channels as separately licensed facilities would, we concluded, simplify enforcement and administration. However, we paired the two licenses to prevent the separate transfer of one channel of the pair because we believed that would make it impossible to recapture one of the 6 MHz channels at the end of the transition period and  Y-still leave the existing licensee with a broadcast outlet.b3y& Y-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3344.b  Y|-x-46. Changed Circumstances and Request for Comments. We tentatively conclude that substantial benefits could be obtained if, instead of licensing the NTSC and ATV facilities separately, we authorized both under a single, unified license. It would ease administrative burdens on the Commission and broadcasters alike by reducing the number of applications that would have to be filled out, filed and processed. Licensing the two facilities under a single authorization is also consistent with our view that the authorizations may be issued pursuant to our broad authority under Section 316 of the Act to modify an existing license. Finally, treating the two facilities under a single license would retain the sound  Y -policy announced in the Second Report/Further Notice of treating both facilities the same  Y!-from the revocation/nonrenewal standpoint.b4!*& Y'-ԍ  Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3344.b We seek comment on this tentative"!40*(("" conclusion.  Y-x.47. Commenters advocating separate licenses for the ATV channels may wish to address whether, if NTSC and ATV licenses were licensed separately, we should allow the sale of an authorization for an unbuilt ATV facility. Allowing such transfers could speed the transition to digital ATV by putting transition spectrum into the hands of parties willing and able to construct ATV facilities. Commenters should be mindful, however, that even if NTSC and ATV licenses were to be issued separately and unpaired the NTSC licensee would have to cease its NTSC operations at the end of the transition period. Moreover, unpairing the NTSC and ATV licenses would raise complex issues regarding simulcast and retransmission/must carry rights. In the event we adopt an NTSCATV simulcast requirement, should the transfer of a separated ATV license be permitted only if the programming on the accompanying NTSC license were simulcast in digital?  Y -F. Transition Period.  Y -x/48. Previous Decision. In the Third Report/Further Notice we made a preliminary decision to establish a transition period that concludes 15 years from the date of adoption of  Yy-an ATV system or a final Table of ATV Allotments is effective, whichever is later.e5y& Y-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 335354.e In addition, we adopted a schedule of periodic reviews to permit us to monitor the progress of ATV implementation and to make any necessary adjustments. We decided that the transition period should not be modified without a substantial showing that the change is in the public interest. We reiterated that we planned to award broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz channel to permit a smooth, efficient transition to an improved technology with as much certainty and as little inconvenience to the public and the industry as possible. Finally, we clarified that, in general, broadcasters who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have to cease broadcasting in NTSC at the end of the 15year transition period.  Y-x049. We stated that the establishment of a firm date for full transition to digital transmission technologies would be in the public interest because it would keep administration simple, assure progress toward freeing spectrum on a timely basis, and give  YN-affected parties the benefits of a clearly defined planning horizon.b6Ny& Yx-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3353.b At the time, we believed  Y7-that a 15year transition period was reasonably supported by the data then available.a77*& Y"-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6964.a We recognized, however, that the data upon which we were relying consisted of projections that were subject to change as more information regarding ATV was obtained. Therefore, we established a series of periodic reviews to avoid making an inflexible decision that may be  Y-overtaken by future events.?8& Yg'-ԍ Id. at 696465.? We also stated that should the periodic reviews demonstrate"80*(( "  Y-that the transition period should be advanced, we would consider accelerating the deadline.<9& Yy-ԍ Id. at 6968.<  Y-  Y-x150. Changed Circumstances and Request for Comments. At this juncture, there may be reasons to expect that broadcasters will adopt ATV more rapidly than was anticipated in 1992, when we last analyzed the transition period. The broadcast industry, including equipment manufacturers, have been at the forefront of developing digital technology for television. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) is already transmitting with digital technologies with SDTVtype quality. Cable systems have been aggressively evaluating and investing in digital technology to increase programming capacity, improve picture quality and provide new services to consumers. Wireless cable operators have announced their interest in using digital compression technologies to increase the number of program streams they provide. Other new services, such as "video dialtone," that would use digital transmission technologies are also being initiated or planned. In this environment, broadcasters have added incentive to convert more rapidly in order to remain competitive.  Y -x251. Consumers will buy or rent digitally capable receivers or settop converters as their choice of digitallybased video products expands. For each household which transitions to any of the new media, including overtheair digital, there will be at least one less television set reliant upon overtheair NTSC analog transmissions. Given the degree of competition that exists between suppliers of electronic equipment, and expected economies of scale resulting from the proliferation of digitally based media, we anticipate that declining costs will translate into reduced prices and increased sales of digital receivers and converters to consumers.  Y-x352. We previously cautioned that broadcasters' cessation of NTSC transmission and surrender of a 6 MHz channel would depend on ATV becoming the prevalent medium, stemming in part from our concern over the number of households that might continue to  Y-rely on NTSC transmissions.d:y& Y-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3353. d As discussed above, purchase of an ATV receiver or converter is not the only means of ending reliance on NTSC transmission, so projections solely of ATV receiver penetration may not be the most accurate benchmark for deciding when broadcasters should cease NTSC transmission and surrender a 6 MHz channel.  Y -x453. We now wish to consider whether some objective benchmark(s) could be used to determine when broadcasters should cease NTSC transmission. Is it possible to end the transition period in a market by tying the transition period to some objective benchmark(s)? If so, what benchmark(s) should be used? The conversion could be considered complete when the number of households that rely on NTSC has fallen to a given percentage. We ask parties to comment on tying the transition period and final conversion date to the percentage of households in a market that rely on NTSC transmission. If the final conversion date is""*:0*((#" triggered when the number of households that rely on NTSC falls to a given percentage, what should the threshold percentage be that triggers the final conversion date? How would we measure the number of households that rely on NTSC transmission from year to year? Should we measure households or television sets? What other objective benchmarks should we consider in determining the transition period and the final conversion date? To what extent should the availability of inexpensive digital receivers and converters be used as a benchmark in determining the length of the transition period?  YH-x554. We previously reasoned that by adopting a target date approach we could speed the transition to digital technologies. Are there mechanisms other than the date certain approach that we adopted in 1992, that we could put in place to create incentives for rapid adoption of ATV by consumers, broadcasters, manufacturers, and others? For example, should we consider having the transition period end at the earlier of a date certain or attainment of an objective benchmark? We seek information on how broadcasters could assist consumers by providing alternate methods of acquiring or leasing digital equipment in the short term so that the transition costs can be reduced and the transition schedule can be shortened. Could broadcasters in a market cooperate in leasing converters and/or ATV receivers to consumers? Would cooperation between broadcasters in a market raise anticompetitive concerns? If so, how could the cooperative arrangements of broadcasters be adapted to reduce household reliance on NTSC transmission without raising these concerns?  Y4-  Y-G. Recovery of Spectrum.  Y-x655. Previous Decision. In the Second Report/Further Notice, we put broadcasters on notice that when ATV becomes the prevalent medium, they will be required to surrender a 6  Y-MHz channel and cease broadcasting in NTSC.c;& Y:-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3353. c In the Third Report/Further Notice, we reiterated that we are awarding broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz channel and we clarified that broadcasters who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have to cease  Y|-broadcasting in NTSC.a<|y& Y-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6967.a  YN-x756. The Commission has previously stated that interim use of an additional 6 MHz channel was necessary to permit a smooth, efficient transition to an improved technology. The rationale underlying the recovery of spectrum was the freeing of spectrum of significant value for other uses. The Commission stated that the spectrum to be used for the transition to ATV has significant value for other services and benefits and that any delay in reclaiming  Y-the reversion spectrum carries potential costs to the public.b=*& Y%-ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3354.b x  Y!- x857. Changed Circumstances and Proposal. When the transition to digital"!=0*(("" technologies is complete, we must have some mechanism in place to recover the extra 6 MHz channel. One option would be to continue renewing licenses for five year periods but explicitly terminate authority to use one of the 6 MHz channels at the end of the transition period. If we were to adopt a "twolicense" approach, one of the two licenses could expire at the end of the transition period. We ask parties to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.  Y_-x958. We remain committed to the recovery of spectrum. In addition, we believe that spectrum will be of greater value if available in large contiguous nationwide blocks. To create contiguous blocks of spectrum following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some digital broadcast stations to new channels that are contiguous with others. This would have the effect of condensing broadcast assignments to a narrower band of spectrum without eliminating any licenses. Today, television broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but NTSC technology does not permit all of the channels to be used in the  Y -same geographic area.^> & Y7-ԍ See First Inquiry, 2 FCC Rcd at 513234.^ We believe that the "Grand Alliance" digital system does not have these difficulties. By moving some digital broadcast stations, we would be able to obtain a more spectrumefficient arrangement by condensing broadcasting assignments to less than 400 MHz. We believe that information concerning spectrum recovery and moving some digital broadcast stations to new channels should be solicited at this time to assure the future availability of contiguous spectrum and encourage immediate planning and investment in new services. We request comment on our tentative plans to create contiguous blocks of spectrum.  Y-x:59. While broadcasters have been given notice that they must surrender a 6 MHz channel after full conversion to digital technologies, no final decisions have been made concerning which of the two channels would be surrendered. Allowing licensees to determine which 6 MHz channel they would use for digital transmission and which channel they would surrender may result in broadcasters providing digital services on channels scattered throughout the VHF and UHF broadcast band. Allowing this would inhibit the formation of large contiguous blocks of spectrum. To minimize the number of digital broadcast stations that may need to be moved to new channels to facilitate the creation of large contiguous blocks of VHF and/or UHF spectrum, it will likely be necessary for us, not the licensee, to determine which 6 MHz channel the broadcaster must use for digital transmission and which channel must be surrendered. Also, we believe that by making these decisions early we can aid broadcasters in their investment decisions.  Y-x;60. In order to create the maximum amount of contiguous spectrum following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some digital broadcast stations to new channels. We recognize that there are costs associated with moving stations to new channels. We request comment on the benefits and costs of moving stations to new channels. We also seek comment on how to minimize the costs of moving stations to new channels. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether each broadcaster should pay for its own move,"h$y>0*((%" whether all broadcasters should pay for the costs of relocation, or whether the licensee that bumps the broadcaster should pay to move the broadcaster, as was done in the emerging  Y-technologies band for PCS.?& YK-ԍ See Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket No.  Y4-929, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993).  Y-H. Length of Application/Construction Period.  Yv-x<61. Previous Decision. In the Third Report/Further Notice we made a preliminary decision concerning the application and construction period that affected the length of the transition period. We granted existing broadcasters three years from the effective date of ATV system selection or an ATV Allotment Table, whichever is later, in which they  Y -exclusively may apply for a preferred or "setaside" ATV channel,5@ b& Y--ԍ Second Report/Further Notice, supra at 3346; Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 693740. Other parties would also be able to apply for ATV facilities if they were to find a new allotment and get the Table of Allotments amended accordingly.5 and a total of six years  Y -to both apply for and construct an ATV facility.cA & Y-ԍ Third Report/Further Order, supra at 693839.c  Y -x=62. We previously stated that such factors as the time needed to raise the necessary capital to invest in ATV technology, to plan for the creation of a new station, including, in some cases, having to locate a new transmitter site, and to allow ATV equipment to become available, required that we establish these application and construction periods.  Yb-x>63. Proposal. We propose to establish a procedure by which broadcasters have six months in which to make an election and confirm to the Commission that they want an ATV license. After that, they would have the remainder of the threeyear period in which to supply supporting data as we may require. If they elect not to construct an ATV facility, or elect to construct but do not proceed to do so, their NTSC licenses will expire at the end of the ATV conversion period and they will have to cease broadcasting. This process would have the benefit of identifying early on locations where existing broadcasters do not want to transition to ATV and where applications from new entrants for ATV stations could therefore be considered.  Y|-x?64. We ask that commenters address all aspects of the construction period. Is the current sixyear period appropriate, too long, or is it insufficient? We believe that the exclusive eligibility period can be shortened, primarily by requiring licensees to make an election within the first six months after the adoption of an ATV standard or final Table of  Y -Allocations, whichever is later, as to whether to convert.zB & Yg'-ԍ See, "Length of Application/Construction Period," supra.z This should not place an undue" G B0*((-" burden on licensees. Broadcasters have now been on notice for a number of years of the general direction in which we are moving toward digital television and some, we understand, have begun planning in earnest for the transition. Moreover, much digital broadcasting equipment has been developed and demonstrated. Commenters should provide information on their ability to apply for and construct ATV facilities and discuss the difficulties they would have in meeting a shorter time frame.  Y_-x@65.  Nevertheless, we are mindful of the difficulties to be encountered by television broadcasters converting to ATV. Sources of financing may be limited and their willingness to support the conversion is unknown. For some stations tower sites may need to be found, leases negotiated and towers built. Equipment will have to be purchased and installed, and  Y -the capacity of industry to supply over 1500 broadcastersC & Y| -ԍ As of May 31, 1995, there were 1539 full service television stations licensed. "Broadcast Station Totals as of May 31, 1995," Mimeo No. 54516, June 23, 1995. with new equipment, from cameras to transmitters to antennas, all within the same time frame is not currently known. Given the different aspect ratio for ATV as opposed to NTSC, new studio sets may have to be designed and constructed in order for stations to originate programming. We fully appreciate that this transition will not be an easy task. Accordingly, we request comment on the practical difficulties licensees will have in successfully undertaking the conversion and on proposed solutions.  YK-I. Small Markets  Y-xA66. Previous Decision. In the Third Report/Further Notice, we decided not to adopt a "staggered approach" to initial ATV implementation with large markets required to  Y-implement first and small markets last.aDb& Y-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6946.a While recognizing that small market stations produce less revenue than those in large markets, adversely affecting their ability to finance the transition, we also noted that our extension of the application/construction period to a  Y-total of six years, and our "sliding scale" approach'E1& Yn-ԍ Under the sliding scale approach, parties applying early in the sixyear application/construction period would have the remainder of the application period and the full threeyear construction period in which to construct. Thus, they would have a longer time to devote to construction of ATV facilities than those applying later. This, we stated, "should permit those applying early additional time to cope with any unforeseen problems  Y"-that arise." Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6939. Should we adopt our proposal to require an election by the end of the sixth month, licensees filing earlier in the remaining twoandonehalf years would still have more time in which to construct than those filing later in that period.' should provide small market stations adequate relief. Moreover, we noted that, "[e]ven in the smallest markets, industry figures show that the most profitable group of stations, which accounted for one quarter of all"| E0*((m" stations, made an average of $923,495 in pretax profits in 1990," whereas, "[i]n contrast, even in the top ten markets, the bottom quarter stations lost money on average."(Footnote  Y-omitted.)aF& YK-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6947.a This suggested to us that a staggered approach based on market size alone would not necessarily target the correct stations. Nevertheless, we indicated that if the application/construction period appeared insufficient, we could adjust it at later reviews.  Yv-xB67. Changed Circumstances and Request for Comments. We now seek comment on whether we should reconsider this decision, and if so, on what type of relief should be provided from the six year deadline and to whom? For example, should there be a general extension of the deadline for a certain class of stations? If so, for how long and to whom? Should it be to stations that make a showing of financial hardship and if so how would that be defined? Should there be a different rule for small markets? What about stations serving economically disadvantaged areas? How should "small markets" or "economically disadvantaged areas" be defined? Commenters should address whether such a general extension would result in slowing the implementation of advanced television in these markets.  Y-xC68. We also seek comment on whether a waiver would be an appropriate way to address the issues of stations who can not afford to make the transition to digital. If commenters believe a waiver would be an appropriate mechanism, they should specify what factors the Commission should consider in granting such a waiver. They should also address ways to reduce the administrative burden of such a waiver process on the Commission and on licensees.  Y-xD69. Finally, we seek comment on an alternative proposal which would allow the Commission to automatically extend the deadline for a licensee that has not built after the sixyear period if no one else files for the ATV license. If, at the end of the sixyear period, another party applies to construct the unbuilt ATV facility, should we permit the incumbent broadcaster to retain its preferential status if it makes a sufficient showing in this regard? Such a policy would recognize that in some markets economic factors may not support all of the stations introducing digital broadcast within the sixyear time frame. If, however, there is a new entrant who can provide service immediately, then the public might be better served by the immediate initiation of service. x  Y -J. Noncommercial Stations.  Y-xE70. Previous Decision. In the Third Report/Further Notice we sought comment on whether some additional measures of relief or further action should be taken on behalf of noncommercial stations with respect to the presumptive sixyear application/construction  Y"-deadline.lG"y& Y&-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6930, 69476948.l We indicated that we would consider a wide array of alternatives to mitigate the""*G0*((#"  Y-problems faced by noncommercial broadcasters.<H& Yy-ԍ Id. at 6948.<  Y-xF71. Comments. Commenters addressing the difficulties of noncommercial broadcasters in converting to digital television chiefly seek relief with respect to the financial qualifications that they would have to demonstrate. The Association of America's Public Television Stations, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Public Broadcasting Service  Yv-("Public Television") argue that, because of funding constraints,Ivy& Y -ԍ Noncommercial broadcasters have noted the unique difficulties that they face in obtaining assured financing for the transition, since they rely on government appropriations, foundation grants, and corporate and viewer donations. it will take substantially  Y_-longer than three,J_& Y -ԍ As previously indicated, in the Third Report/Further Notice we extended the application period from two to three years. or even six years, for public stations to be able to obtain necessary funds  YH-to convert to ATV.KKH& Y-ԍ Public Television Comments at 18.K Public Television asks that noncommercial educational stations be allowed to file ATV applications without certifying or demonstrating financial qualifications on the filing date. Rather, it believes such licensees should be given three years after the filing of an ATV application to demonstrate, with a business plan, how they will raise matching funds and that public broadcasters should not have to make any showing with respect to having sufficient access to funds to meet their operating costs in the first 90 days of operation. Public Television asks that we accept no competing applications while that application is being processed. In this way, public broadcasters would be able to timely file and avoid the possibility of being able to obtain only a shortspaced UHF channel, a VHF transition channel, or no channel at all.  YK-xG72. The National Association of College Broadcasters ("NACB") asks that the Commission reserve ATV channels in the same proportion as they are reserved on NTSC. Arizona State also urges that each vacant noncommercial allocation be kept in reserve for  Y-future public ATV use.=LG & Y-ԍ Arizona State at 5.= Both NACB and Arizona State ask that we provide noncommercial educational television stations with additional time in which to apply for, and construct ATV facilities.  Y-xH73. Proposal and Request for Comments. It is clear from the comments that noncommercial licensees will face unique problems in their transition to ATV. These problems are chiefly in the area of funding, where noncommercial broadcasters appear to be subject to the vagaries of forces and parties beyond their control. Indeed, historically, we have recognized "that in making our statutory findings as to financial qualifications, greater"N L0*((k"  Y-leeway must be accorded the educational station because of its very nature." NTA  Y-Television Broadcasting Corp., 44 FCC 2563, 2574 (1961). (Citation omitted.) Thus, even  Y-though at the time of the NTA decision we required a "stringent" financial showing of commercial applicants, we found that for noncommercial applicants the public interest required only a showing that assurance of financial wherewithal to build and operate the  Y-station was "reasonable." Id. at 2574. To do otherwise, we said, "would preclude unnecessarily and against the public interest many worthwhile educational television  Y_-endeavors." Id. x  Y1-xI74. Commenters should address whether noncommercial broadcasters would obtain sufficient relief in the event that we adopt for all existing broadcasters a paired channel assignment scheme and requirements such as proposed above. If we do not adopt that proposal or, if adopted, it does not provide sufficient relief for noncommercial broadcasters, we ask for comment on what further relief would be appropriate and will permit them to participate in the channel assignment process on an equitable basis. In particular,  Y -commenters may address the implications of our system instead of a fixed channel scheme.DM & Y -ԍ GHTV, Inc., SCI Television, Inc., and Busse Broadcasting Corp., in joint comments, support relief for noncommercial broadcasters who, they fear, will be unable to meet the "aggressive timetable" the Commission has set for ATV transition. However, they ask that if the Commission grants noncommercial licensees relaxed filing or financial requirements, we extend the same treatment to commercial licensees. As indicated above, there is longstanding precedent for granting noncommercial licensees special consideration particularly with respect to financial showings. The action we are taking will continue that precedent. We see, however, no reason to extend the same treatment to commercial licensees whose financial environment is so much different from that of noncommercial broadcasters.D  Yb-xJ75. A second problem that noncommercial broadcasters commented on was the length of the application/construction period. Both Arizona State and NACB express the belief that a sixyear period is insufficient for noncommercial broadcasters. We have previously expressed our belief that to provide different schedules for commercial and noncommercial broadcasters would not be conducive to the goal of a speedy and smooth transition. It is still our preference to establish a firm transition schedule, but with the safeguard of having that schedule subject to periodic review. Additionally, unique problems can be dealt with on a casebycase basis. We believe this may be preferable to establishing two separate classes of broadcasters, each with its own schedule, causing confusion to the public and additional administrative burdens to the Commission.  Ye-xK76. Additionally, commenters should address other things that the Commission can do to assist them in their conversion to ATV. For instance, the broadcast of "advertisements" is currently prohibited by Section 399B of the Communications Act. "7 M0*((" Commenters may want to address whether this should be viewed as applying only to one program service or, if to all program services broadcast by noncommercial broadcasters, whether it would be desirable for the Commission to seek legislative alteration of this prohibition. We also ask commenters to discuss whether the transition to digital by noncommercial broadcasters might be facilitated through redefining what "noncommercial" means. If the Commission mandated only that the minimum required broadcast programming must be "noncommercial," would it be possible for noncommercial broadcasters to finance the transition through commercial and flexible uses of the spectrum that would not interfere with the noncommercial broadcast stream? Is there other relief that we can grant noncommercial broadcasters to minimize restrictions on their operations and allow them greater flexibility?  Y -  Y -K. AllChannel Receiver Issues.  Y -xL77. Previous Decision. Traditionally, we have not regulated broadcast receivers  Y -except insofar as they incidentally radiate energy.\N & Y -ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  15.101 et seq. \ In 1962, Congress adopted the All Channel Receiver Act, which authorizes us to require that television receivers "be capable of adequately receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to television  Yb-broadcasting."?Oby& Y-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 303(s).? Pursuant to this authority we required that all TV receivers be capable of UHF channel reception and adopted standards to make reception of UHF channels  Y4-comparable with reception of VHF channels.OP4*& Y-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 15.117.O We previously determined in this proceeding that the All Channel Receiver Act does not mandate the manufacture of dualmode (ATV and NTSC) receivers. We expressed concern that such a requirement might overly or prematurely burden consumers, and sought comment on whether there is any need to require that manufacturers produce receivers capable of both NTSC and ATV reception during the  Y-period prior to full conversion to ATV.aQ& YM-ԍ Third Report/Further Notice, supra at 6984.a  Y-xM78. Changed Circumstances and Request for Comments. With ATV now considered to include both HDTV and SDTV, we request comment on whether SDTV receivers should be required to have the ability to receive an HDTV signal or vice versa, and whether we should regulate how such a signal must be displayed. We understand that companies are working on receiver designs that would display the Grand Alliance HDTV signal as a lower resolution SDTV picture. Such a conversion could result in relatively inexpensive receivers or converter boxes for NTSC receivers, compared with the projected HDTV receiver costs. We seek comment on whether permitting the manufacture and sale of receivers that display only NTSC, SDTV, or HDTV signals, or a combination of two but not all three, would be"Q0*(( !" consistent with the All Channel Receiver Act or otherwise would be in the public interest. Should we require that, during the transition period, all sets be capable of receiving and displaying NTSC and SDTV signals? Should we require "allformat" receivers capable of receiving and displaying NTSC, SDTV and HDTV signals, and, if so, how should we require HDTV signals to be displayed, in a true HDTV fashion or as a lower resolution SDTV picture? What impact should a decision not to require HDTV broadcasting have on whether we should require all receivers to have HDTV reception and display capabilities? Should a decision on one be coupled with the other? What impact should a decision to adopt only minimal broadcast SDTV requirements have on this question? Would limiting the sale of NTSC equipment help consumers by assuring that they do not purchase equipment that will soon be obsolete, or harm them by, for example, depriving them of access to equipment they may need to obtain the benefit of other video equipment they have, such as VCRs? If we permit the sale of NTSC equipment, should we require a visible label warning that, as of a date certain, it will no longer be able to provide overtheair broadcast reception? Or, if we permit the sale of NTSC equipment after the specified date, should we require that the sale of such equipment be accompanied by the provision of or ability to use a digital converter? We believe that the All Channel Receiver Act provides us with adequate authority to address these issues. We ask for comment on how we should exercise it.  YK-L. Must Carry and Retransmission Consent  Y- xN79. Statutory Must Carry and Retransmission Consent Requirements. We have not previously addressed the impact of ATV on cable television carriage or retransmission consent obligations. Sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934 contain the cable television "must carry" requirements. Section 325 contains revised "retransmission consent" requirements, pursuant to which cable operators may be required to obtain the consent of broadcasters before retransmitting their signals. Within local market areas broadcasters have an option to proceed under either the retransmission consent or the mandatory carriage requirements. These provisions were added by the Cable Television  Ye-Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,tRe& Y-ԍ P.L. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47 U.S.C.  521 et seq.t subsequent to the adoption of our last decision in this proceeding.  Y -xO80. Under the mandatory carriage provisions, cable operators, subject to certain capacity based limitations, are generally required to carry the signals of local television  Y-stations on their cable systems.S1{& Y#-ԍ Included in the existing rules are the following types of obligations and responsibilities: 1) only a portion of channel capacity must be devoted to carriage of local signals; 2) stations are entitled to "on channel" carriage; 3) signals must be carried "without material degradation;" 4) stations not providing a defined level of signal quality to the system need not be carried; 5) all such signals must be on a basic service tier; 6) systems need only"&R0*((&" carry the "primary video" and certain defined programming that is broadcast on the vertical blanking interval; 7) rules requiring cable operators to provide a switch (input selector or A/B switch) to permit the viewing of overtheair signals may not be adopted; 8) a cable operator "shall not be required to carry the signal of any local commercial television station that substantially duplicates the signal of another local commercial television station which is carried on the cable system;" and 9) a cable operator may not request or accept any consideration from a television station in fulfillment of these obligations (other than copyright payments and costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the cable system's headend).  Systems with more than 12 usable activated channels must" S0*((" carry the signals of local commercial television stations, "up to onethird of the aggregate  Y-number of usable activated channels of such system[s]."@T & Y[ -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  534(b).@ In addition, cable systems are obliged to carry local noncommercial educational television stations according to a different formula, based upon a system's number of usable activated channels. These statutory  Y-requirements are reflected in Section 76.56 of the Commission's Rules. Ur & Y-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.56. Although we recognize that there is an ongoing challenge to the  Y-constitutionality of the existing requirements, Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994), we assume for purposes of this discussion the validity of the existing statutory provisions. Parties are welcome to comment on the implications of any of the issues involved in this proceeding in terms of the judicial sustainability of any future requirements.   Yv-xP81. Section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires that, at the time we prescribe standards for advanced television, we "initiate a proceeding to establish any changes in the signal carriage requirements of cable television systems necessary to ensure cable carriage of such broadcast signals of local commercial television stations which have been changed to conform with such ... standards." While we have not yet prescribed standards for advanced television, in the sense of having defined or determined final standards, we believe it timely to begin our consideration of mustcarry obligations at this point.  Y -xQ82. Request for Comment. Clearly, during the transition period, at least the station's NTSC channel will be subject to must carry obligations. During the transition period, when, under our original plan, the NTSC channel would have been carrying 100% of the HDTV programming being aired on the conversion channel, there did not appear to be a mustcarry problem because, as long as the two were carrying duplicative programming, the NTSC and  YK-commonly owned HDTV stations would not both have had to have been carried.VK& Y#-ԍ See Section 614(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.  534(b)(5)). But, if we change the simulcast requirement, programming on the NTSC and ATV channels might not be duplicative, and both might qualify for carriage. Additional issues are raised if the conversion channel is being used for the transmission of multiple SDTV program services. If"aV0*((" carriage of all material being broadcast by the station were required, the dedication of, for instance, five cable channels (one for the NTSC programming and, for example, four multicast programs being offered on the conversion channel) might be required. Thus, a review of the must carry and retransmission consent rules now is an important component of this proceeding. In addition, it is necessary to clearly identify any issues regarding cable carriage that need to be factored into the ATV transitional rules, technical standards, and regulatory policies in order to facilitate the most productive possible interaction between ATV broadcasting and cable television service.  YH-  Y1-xR83. We seek comment on any relevant differences in rules or policies that might be needed both during the transition and as a consequence of ATV having replaced NTSC broadcasting. For instance, how should channel capacity be defined in a digital environment, i.e., in terms of channels, bandwidth, or bits of data per second? Does "onchannel" carriage have the same meaning in a digital as it does in an analog environment? Should "substantially duplicates" include duplication of programming in different transmission formats? Will changes in station coverage require changes in carriage obligations? Additionally, what is the meaning of "primary video" in the context of digital broadcast  Yy-transmission?WHy& Y-ԍ Section 614 of the Act requires carriage of "the primary video, accompanying audio, and line 21 closed caption transmission" of each local commercial broadcast station carried on the cable system. Also required, to the extent technically feasible, is carriage of programrelated material carried in the vertical blanking interval or on subcarriers. Similar requirements are found in Section 615 with respect to noncommercial educational stations. However, "[r]etransmission of other material in the vertical blanking interval or other  Yh-nonprogramrelated material (including teletext and other subscription and advertiser supported information services) shall be at the discretion of the cable operator."  Is there an appropriate parallel to line 21 of the vertical blanking interval of NTSC stations for ATV stations? What, if any, flexibility does the Commission have under Section 614(b)(4)(B) to modify requirements applied by the Communications Act to NTSC signals in the new digital environment? For example, does the Commission have authority to address "A/B" switch issues to enhance subscriber access to signals or portions of signals that may not receive carriage notwithstanding the existing prohibition? Is a revised definition of "basic tier" needed? Is a common retransmission/must carry election required for all of the video programming from an individual broadcast licensee in a market or just for one "primary video" stream, as defined by the broadcast licensee? In the more flexible broadcast environment associated with digital transmission would changes be needed in the rules that mandate that local signals be carried in their entirety even if carried under the retransmission  Y|-consent option?X|& Y$-ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order in Docket 92259, 9 FCC Rcd 6723, paras 96107 (1994). Are there other issues relating to the retransmission consent process that would need to be addressed? "N r X0*((>"Ԍ Y-xS84. A second set of issues relates to the technical interface and associated cost and rate issues. We expect that there will be parallel development of both cable and broadcast digital video communications. At the same time, it is inevitable that particular cable systems and particular broadcast markets will progress on different time schedules. Accordingly, issues will arise as to how digital broadcasts may be carried on cable systems that are still entirely analog in their operations, are partially analog and partially digital, or that are entirely digital. With respect to each type of operation there are potential issues relating to headend equipment, transmission plant, subscriber premises equipment, and type of digital transmission system that may arise. Accordingly, we seek information on what technical modifications may be needed to enable cable systems to deliver ATV signals to subscribers and what costs may be associated with these modifications. How should digital broadcast programming be required to be carried? Should it be required to be carried digitally or would it be adequate to have it carried in whatever format the cable operator selects? Does "material degradation" in the statute require that HDTV signals be carried in an HDTV  Y -format? Further, we need to begin to consider and seek comment on what, if any, changes may be warranted in the rate regulation process, in the technical standards, or in other rules to account for the changes resulting from ATV carriage.  Yb-xT85. Assuming that an appropriate set of rules can be developed for application at the end of the transition period, an interim process is still needed to govern the transition from NTSC to ATV broadcasting. During the period when broadcast licensees are broadcasting in both the existing NTSC analog mode and in the new ATV mode, what should the carriage obligations be? Must both signals be carried and if not should the change from NTSC to the ATV signals be at the discretion of the cable operator or the broadcaster? Alternatively, should it be based on a fixed transition schedule or on an external event such as the market penetration of digital television receivers or the system operator's transmission of its own digital video programming? Given the complex economic and technical interrelationships between broadcasters and cable operators during this transitional period, are there market mechanisms that can be incorporated into the rules to facilitate cooperation?  Ye- V. THIRD NOTICE OF INQUIRY  Y -xU86.` ` x Over 400 MHz of spectrum in the VHF and UHF bands is currently allocated to television broadcasting. As part of our longterm plans to promote spectrum efficiency, we are considering reducing the amount of spectrum allocated to television broadcasting, which, as explained above, could be accomplished in the digital environment without reducing the number of broadcasters in any market due to the inherent efficiencies of the proposed "Grand Alliance" system. If we were to readjust channel assignments, we would need to know where in current broadcast spectrum broadcasters would eventually be located. Although we previously preliminarily viewed UHF as the part of the spectrum to which all television  Yh$-broadcasting would be moved,sYh$& Y&-ԍ Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, supra at 5379.s we now question that tentative conclusion. Accordingly, at"h$!yY0*((%" this time, we ask parties to comment on the best place for broadcasting. Specifically, we seek comment on which parts of the VHF and UHF bands are most highly valued for broadcast use (e.g., VHF, lower UHF, middle UHF, upper UHF). We also request commenters to identify the costs associated with placing television broadcasting in each of the four possible locations.  Yv-xV87. Today, TV broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but because of interference and market forces, on average only 80 MHz is used per market. In the top markets, around 120 MHz is used. Digital broadcasting will allow much more efficient and intensive use of this spectrum. During the transition period, however, digital TV stations must operate alongside NTSC stations. The digital TV system will enable us to authorize these stations under controlled circumstances (each channel will be available only at certain locations with limits on radiated power and effective antenna height) to minimize interference to NTSC and digital TV service. While these digital stations allow for the development of many new broadcast services, they would be of limited value for other users because they generally would not occupy a contiguous block of channels, there would be no common nationwide channels, and their use would be restricted by the need to avoid interference with NTSC analog television sets. When the transition to digital is completed, however, and the analog NTSC stations are turned off, we have an opportunity to create contiguous blocks of spectrum nationwide. Some or all of this spectrum could be reallocated and auctioned. We ask commenters to provide estimates of the total amount of contiguous spectrum blocks that could be created following recovery of the NTSC channels. We also seek estimates of the total market value of these contiguous blocks of spectrum. What services would be most efficiently provided using contiguous blocks of spectrum? We request that commenters explain the methodology and analysis used to derive estimates of the amount and value of contiguous spectrum. In addition to the broadcast industry, we solicit comment from other industries (e.g., land mobile and computer) that may have an interest in providing services using these blocks of spectrum.T VI. CONCLUSION  Y7-xW88. By this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of  Y -Inquiry, we request comments on the many issues pertinent to the conversion by television broadcasters to digital technology. The speedy conversion to digital technology will have profound public interest benefits, permitting efficient spectrum use, optimizing the development of new technologies and services to consumers, and fostering diversity and competition. We intend to conduct a searching and thorough review of the issues to ensure that the rules we adopt serve us well in fashioning a digital television broadcast system for the twentyfirst century. To that end, we invite commenters to give serious and thoughtful consideration to the important issues raised herein and to provide us their views on these issues, as well as supporting data and analysis.  Y:&-       ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERSă  Y#'-x "#'"Y0*((P("Ԍ Y-xX89. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before October 18, 1995, and reply comments on or before December 4, 1995. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original plus five copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal  Y_-Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  Y -xY90. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  Y -disclosed as provided in the Commission Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).  X-x = INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT STATEMENT ă  Yb-I.xReason for Action xThe Commission seeks comment not only on a variety of new issues central to the development of advanced television service in the United States, but on several of the tentative decisions made earlier in this proceeding because of the rapidly changing nature of  Y-digital television. Advanced television, at the time this proceeding was initiated was envisioned primarily as a system for improving higher picture and sound quality, limited to transmitting/receiving a single channel of television. The emergence of digital technology with its extensive flexibility and the approach of the National Information Infrastructure require that the Commission review the issues surrounding high definition television from a new, more expansive perspective. II. Objectives of the Action  Y -xThe Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of this decision solicits comment on a variety of issues, several of which are being revisited, in order to establish an accurate, comprehensive, reliable record on which to base the Commission's ultimate decisions in this proceeding. The record established from comments filed in response to this decision, as well as other Commission decisions, and the combined efforts of the Commission, the affected industries, the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, and the ATV testing process, will lead to implementation of ATV in the most harmonious fashion and to selection of the most desirable ATV system.  YQ%-III.xLegal Basis xAuthority for this action may be found at 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303."#'#Y0*((P("Ԍ Y-ԙIV.xReporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements xSuch requirements are not proposed in this phase of the proceeding, but may be raised and comment sought in future decisions in this proceeding.  Y-V.xFederal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with these rules. xThere are no rules which would overlap, duplicate, or conflict with these rules.  Y1-VI.xDescription, potential impact and number of small entities involved. x xThere are approximately 1,539 UHF and VHF, commercial and educational television stations, 2,509 UHF translator stations, 2,261 VHF translator stations, and 1,648 UHF and VHF low power television stations which would be affected by decisions reached in this proceeding. The impact of actions taken in this proceeding on small entities would ultimately depend on the final decisions taken by the Commission. However, the Commission, in taking future action will continue to balance the need to provide the public with affordable, flexible, accessible high definition television service with the economic and administrative interests of the affected industries.  Y4-VII.xAny significant alternatives minimizing the impact on small entities consistent with stated objectives. xIn reexamining issues discussed in past decisions, the Commission is seeking not only to establish a more comprehensive, reliable record, but, with that intent, is soliciting comments and suggestions that hopefully will represent the views of all of the industries concerned, and thus the Commission will be better able to minimize whatever negative impact might face small entities as a result of our decisions.  Ye-Ordering Clause  Y7-xZ91. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and 303, this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry IS ADOPTED.  Y -x[92. Additional Information: For additional information regarding this proceeding,  Y!-contact Saul Shapiro (2024182600) or Roger Holberg (2027761653), Mass Media Bureau.  Y#-x\93. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth above. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice, but they"#'$Y0*((P(" must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub.  Y-L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq (1981).  Yv- x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhWilliam F. Caton  Y -x` `  hh@hhActing Secretary