TV Broadcast Service, Ancillary Communications Services

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 73

[MM Docket No. 95-42, FCC 95-155]

TV Broadcast Service, Ancillary Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this proceeding, comment is sought on what procedural and

substantive rules, if any, should be established regarding the

transmission of ancillary digital data within the active video portion

of broadcast television NTSC signals. This action is needed to

determine how best to permit certain digital technologies to be

integrated with the current television broadcast service (NTSC).

DATES: Comments must be submitted by June 23, 1995. Reply comments must

be submitted July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Gordon at (202) 776-1653 or James E. McNally, Jr. at (202) 418-

2190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 95-42, adopted April

10, 1995, and released May 2, 1995. The complete text of this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),

1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC and also may be purchased from the

Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, at

(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

1. The Commission initiates this proceeding to determine how best

to permit certain digital technologies to be integrated with the

current television broadcast service (NTSC). Specifically, it seeks

comment on what procedural and substantive rules, if any, should be

established regarding the transmission of ancillary digital data within

the active video portion of broadcast television NTSC signals.

2. Section 73.646 of the Commission's Rules allows the

transmission, with prior Commission consent, of ancillary

telecommunications services within the Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI)

of television broadcast signals. No picture information is transmitted

during the VBI. In order to ensure the public's ability to receive

over-the-air video broadcast transmissions of the highest quality made

possible by the current television standard, the Commission has

generally not allowed the transmission of ancillary telecommunications

services within the active video portion of broadcast television

signals without specific approval.

3. Recently, two general approaches have been proposed to the

Commission for the transmission of digital data. The first replaces the

transmitted video signal with digitally encoded information in a part

of the picture not normally seen by viewers because all TV sets to some

extent ``overscan'' the picture to ensure that the portion of the

picture tube that is visible is completely filled with the picture. To

date, the Commission has authorized only the top line of the video

picture (line 22) for such activity, although in theory, digital

signals also could be concealed in the left or right edges of the

picture, or at the bottom. The second method of concealing digital

signals distributes them throughout the visible picture The amplitudes

of such signals are kept sufficiently low (or they are confined to such

a limited part of the normally emitted video spectrum bandwidth) that

they are invisible to the viewer. Tests of such systems indicate that,

with a proper selection of system parameters, no degradation to picture

brightness, contrast, color or focus is perceptible to the viewer.

4. On December 9, 1993, WavePhore, Inc. (WavePhore) requested a

declaratory ruling that television broadcast licensees may, without

prior Commission authorization, use WavePhore's ``TVT1'' system to

transmit digital data signals. This system transmits digital data on a

subcarrier within the standard 6.0 MHz NTSC television signal, between

3.9 HNz and 4.2 MHz above the visual carrier frequency, at an amplitude

close to the video noise floor.

5. On November 22, 1989, the staff granted A. C. Nielsen Company

(``Nielsen'') temporary, conditional authority to use line 22 of the

active portion of the television video signal to transmit the Nielsen

Automated Measurement of Lineup (``AMOL'') system signal identification

codes. By a subsequent letter dated May 1, 1990, the temporary

authority as extended until the Commission acts on the request for

permanent authority, or until the temporary authority is expressly

withdrawn.

6. As a result of the difficulties encountered in obtaining

assurance that its system for identifying commercials would not be

overwritten (and thus be rendered useless) by Nielsen's AMOL system,

Airtrax filed a petition for rule making (RM-7567), which requested the

Commission to set standard for ``special signal'' use of line 22. As

justification for the rule making, Airtrax noted what even with the

limited number of special signals currently authorized, disputes had

arisen as to how to ensure [[Page 24607]] compatibility of existing

systems and to ensure that one entity's system would not preclude other

users from access to line 22 at individual TV broadcast stations.

Airtrax argued that the Commission had a statutory duty to promote the

provision of new technologies and service to the public and that it

should establish the ground rules by which competition may take place.

7. By letter of November 8, 1993 Yes! Entertainment Corporation

(``Yes!'') requested the Commission to permit television broadcasters

to transmit a pulsed amplitude (7.5 to 100 IRE) signal at the beginning

of each line of active video, yielding a data rate of 14,160 pulses per

second, which could be coded to carry audio information. By means of

equipment at a viewer's television receiver, this signal would be

detected, processed and retransmitted from a set-top box to an external

``TV Teddy'' toy bear (a stuffed animal with a built-in receiver and

speaker) for the purpose of making it ``talk.'' Yes! indicates that

there would be no visible degradation of received video because the

affected portion of each scanning line is in an ``overscanned'' area.

8. On January 19, 1995, the Commission authorized Station WWOR-TV

in Secaucus, New Jersey, to conduct tests of a data transmission

technology developed by Digideck, Inc. (Digideck called) ``D-Channel.''

This system, like that of WavePhore, operates in the active video part

of the TV spectrum and is represented as being imperceptible to

viewers.

9. The commission believes that it does not yet have sufficient

information upon which to act on the requests from Yes! and WavePhore

and therefore initiates this proceeding to address them as well as the

Airtrax petition. Both requests raise significant questions pertaining

to potential use for other purposes and technical compatibility. The

Commission solicits additional information in order to ascertain the

long-term impact the authorization of these or other potential systems

may have on broadcasters, the data transmitting industry, consumers,

and others.

10. Generally, the Commission proposes that licensees be allowed to

transmit acceptable data signals without prior Commission authority or

notification but not be allowed to relinquish to the data or program

supplier the right to delete the data. A licensee should be notified of

any upstream data insertion in programming supplied to it unless the

presence of the data is readily detectable. The Commission further

proposes that a licensee be required to maintain a copy at the station

of any contract regarding ancillary data transmissions within the

video, as is currently required for data transmissions in the VBI.

11. With the possibility that other manufacturers will want to

employ different schemes for their own products or services, a

substantial demand for such ``hidden video spectrum'' could develop,

potentially posing difficult system compatibility problems. Maintaining

the licensee's ultimate responsibility gives the broadcaster

flexibility to choose among clearly mutually-exclusive uses. However,

the Commission is concerned that newly-developed systems might be

incompatible with systems already in use without that fact being

obvious to the broadcaster. It is also possible that while a single

system's digital data insertions on a particular video signal would

cause no discernible degradation to reception of the TV signal by

itself, a combination of transmissions could have destructive

cumulative effects. Comment is sought on how to be certain that

broadcasters and users are aware of such cumulative effects and also on

how, if at all, such incompatibilities could harm consumers,

broadcasters, or the data delivery industry. Comment is also sought on

whether the resolution of questions concerning system compatibility and

the impact of cumulative effects on the video signal should be left to

presumably informed broadcasters or whether compatibility standards and

insertion limits should be prescribed by regulation.

12. There are two fundamentally different methods employed to

prevent the inserted data from being discernable to viewers. In this

proceeding, the Commission will refer to them as ``overscan''

technology, where data is inserted at the top, bottom, right or left

edge of the picture and ``sub-video'' technology, where data is

inserted in a manner that could affect regularly viewable portions of

the TV picture but would still not be detectable by the ordinary

viewer. Line-22 uses and the Yes! proposal are examples of the

``overscan'' approach. WavePhore's and Digideck's proposals use the

``sub-video'' approach. Comments are sought to explore two aspects of

these different approaches: discernable degradation and broadcasters'

ability to delete the data.

13. Current policy generally does not allow any use of the video

portion of the TV signal for ancillary purposes if the picture or sound

would be adversely affected in a manner that is discernable by viewers.

The Commission proposes to continue to require that broadcasters not be

allowed to use any digital data transmission system (or combination of

such systems) that would perceptibly degrade the video signal. Comment

is also sought on whether further reductions in overscan might result

in signals in ``overscan'' areas becoming discernible to viewers in the

future and on whether ``overscan'' technologies are visible on standard

TVs and VCR recordings when ``picture-in-picture'' modes of viewing are

invoked or will be more visible in the future when a TV signal is

displayed as a ``window'' on a computer terminal graphics display. If

development of these methods of television video display suggests that

continuing use of ``overscan'' data transmission technology could

create problems as the previously hidden information becomes visible on

the screen, comment is sought on whether ``overscan'' technologies

should be phased out in favor of more subtle, less intrusive methods of

data transmission, and if so, on a timetable for such a phase out.

14. Comment is sought on whether there is some method by which

picture degradation or ``distortion'' due to sub-video methods of data

transmission can be objectively measured and on whether there is some

limit which should not be exceeded. Comment also is invited on the

extent if at all, the Commission should permit alteration of the video

signal or the video bandpass characteristics to permit the insertion of

data. Any further information on the potential for Digideck's D-Channel

system to cause adjacent channel interference also is requested.

Finally, the Commission asks whether some types of receivers might be

more prone to showing degradation caused by any method of sub-video

data transmission.

15. Licensees must maintain control over all aspects of their

signal, including data transmissions within the video and must thus

retain the right to reject any material they deem unsuitable. Comment

is sought on whether an ability to reject the entire program should be

considered to satisfy this obligation or if any acceptable data

insertion method must allow the broadcaster the option of stripping out

the data.

16. ``Overscan'' data signals are limited to specific places in the

picture and are easily deleted by the licensee. Comment is sought on

what would happen to the picture if the licensee deletes sub-video

data, if the licensee replaces sub-video data, and if multiple

occurrences of such deletions or replacements take place. The

Commission is concerned that individually insignificant degradations

[[Page 24608]] to the picture could become cumulative, noticeable, and

objectionable.

17. The Commission wishes to encourage the use of television

signals for ancillary data transmission and to permit new technological

developments. Comment is sought on whether special rules should be

applied to digital data transmissions that are directed to the general

public.

18. While the Commission seeks comments now to expedite resolution

of this proceeding and to gain information that can assist any interim

decisions it may make, it intends also to consider the work of the

National Data Broadcasting Committee as requested by several commenters

in this proceeding.

19. The Commission next seeks comments on whether there are

limitations that should be imposed on a technical standard developed by

industry. The Commission asks whether any system that may be

recommended as a standard must be ``partitioned by use'' at the time of

its possible adoption or whether its design permits its adaptation to

potential future uses on a flexible or dynamic basis. This question

should also be considered in relation to digital signal decoders that

might be used by the general public, either as an optional accessory

provided on certain models of televisions or as some kind of external

converter.

20. Comment is sought on how the rules should reflect the industry

standards. The options range from continuing to authorize such

transmissions on an ad hoc basis to adopting a comprehensive set of

rules defining and regulating permissible transmissions. Comment is

requested on adopting rules analogous to those that govern multichannel

television sound, where an industry committee evaluated the technology

and recommended a standard. The Commission's Rules refer to the

standard, which is also published in a Bulletin issued by the

Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, but are only

designed to protect receivers designed to the standard from signals to

which they would respond incorrectly.

21. Pending the Committee's completion of its work, comment is

invited on whether the Commission should consider the near-term

authorization of individual methods of such transmission on an ad hoc

basis. The Commission expects technical conflicts between users to be

resolved by the individual licensees, but requests comments on whether

Commission involvement or guidance is necessary to focus licensee

decisions on the public interest. Commenters are invited to address how

questions of picture or sound degradation can be resolved.

22. The Commission proposes that the policies currently contained

in Sections 73.646 (which sets forth the rules currently applicable to

non-broadcast services provided in the VBI) and 73.667 (TV subsidiary

communications services) be extended to include non-broadcast use of

overscan and sub-video data transmission technologies.

23. Lines in the VBI are also used for broadcast and broadcast-

related services. The Commission proposes to permit both broadcast and

broadcast-related use of sub-video data transmission technology and

asks for comment on this proposal.

24. As a final matter, given the pendency of the advanced

television proceeding, MM Docket No. 87-268, which proposes to replace

the current NTSC transmission standard, the Commission seeks comment on

whether by further enhancing NTSC television in the manner described

herein the Commission would provide a disincentive for the public to

readily accept and upgrade to the digital service that the Commission

expects will be introduced in the near future. Similarly, the

Commission requests comment on the extent to which enhancing NTSC

service in the manner described herein could slow or create a

distincentive to the recovery of the spectrum currently used by NTSC

stations, as discussed in the advanced television proceeding.

Procedural Matters

25. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before June 12, 1995, and reply

comments on or before June 27, 1995. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original and four 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 the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,

DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,

room 239, at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

26. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the

Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement

I. Reason for Action

In recent years, a number of requests have been submitted to the

Commission concerning systems of embedding digital data within

television video signals. These proposals raise important questions

about how embedded data systems could be accommodated, concerns over

the extent to which broadcasters' control over their signals may be

impaired or lost, and to what degree embedding multiple digital signals

in the television picture may result in discernable picture

degradation.

II. Objectives of the Action

The purpose of this proceeding is to develop policies and rules

defining the respective rights and responsibilities of broadcast

licensees and persons wishing to provide different types of digital

information service, to explore the potential uses of such digital

technology, to determine to what extent different systems may be

compatible, to determine whether a national technical standard is

necessary for the provision of such service, and to determine the

probable impact of such service on the quality of primary television

service.

III. Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in

Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 154 and 303.

IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

Policies adopted in this proceeding could lead to increased record-

keeping requirements being imposed on broadcast licensees and/or

providers of digital information service. If such requirements are

imposed, they would probably take the form of such entities being

required to maintain copies of contracts relating to the provision of

such service and making them available to the Commission upon request.

V. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

None.

VI. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved

Approximately 10,000 licensees of television broadcast facilities

of all types (Commercial and educational VHF and UHF stations,

translators, boosters and Low Power TV stations) could be

[[Page 24609]] affected. The number of digital service providers

affected would probably be much less.

VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities Consistent With Stated Objectives

A decision to implement a national standard applicable to all

digital information to be contained within the television picture, in

conjunction with a decision as to the general types of information that

could be provided, could greatly reduce or eliminate the compatibility

problems related to the provision of digital data services and decrease

the need for additional record-keeping requirements.

27. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals

suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth above. Written public

comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of

the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading

designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in

accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981).

28. Authority for the proposed amendments is contained in Section

4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-11284 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M