Broadcast Services; Advanced Television Systems

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 95-315]

Broadcast Services; Advanced Television Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: This Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third

Notice of Inquiry examines a broad range of issues related to the

conversion of our current broadcast television to digital technology.

In previous orders in this Advanced Television (``ATV'') proceeding,

our focus was on fostering the development of High Definition

Television. Technological evolution now obliges us to revisit some of

those decisions, which we do in this document. Accordingly, we invite

comment on a broad range of issues related to the conversion by

television broadcasters to digital television, including eligibility

requirements,

[[Page 42131]]

spectrum issues, definition of the service, public interest

obligations, transition issues, recovery of spectrum, length of the

application/construction period, issues related to small markets and

noncommercial stations, all-channel receiver issues, and must-carry and

retransmission consent, to ensure that the rules that we fashion in

this proceeding serve the public interest in all respects. We also

institute an inquiry to invite comment as to where in the spectrum

broadcasters should eventually be located and as to the amount, value

and uses of the spectrum that could eventually be recovered when the

conversion to digital television is completed.

DATES: Comments are due by October 18, 1995, and reply comments are due

by December 4, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Saul Shapiro (202-418-2600) or Roger Holberg (202-776-1653), Mass Media

Bureau.

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

Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry in MM

Docket No. 87-268, FCC 95-315, adopted July 28, 1995, and released

August 9, 1995. The complete text of this NPRM and NOI is available for

inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and

also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

1. With this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Third Notice of Inquiry (``Notice''), we continue the process of moving

toward the next era of broadcast television: digital broadcast

television. In previous orders in this Advanced Television (``ATV'')

\1\ proceeding,\2\ our focus was on fostering the development of High

Definition Television (``HDTV'').\3\ Technological evolution now

obliges us to revisit some of those decisions and consider new

information, which we do in this document.

\1\ Advanced Television (``ATV'') refers to any television

technology that provides improved audio and video quality or

enhances the current NTSC television system.

\2\ Our earlier Notices and Orders are: Notice of Inquiry, 52 FR

34259, September 10, 1987; Tentative Decision and Further Notice of

Inquiry, 53 FR 38747, October 3, 1988; First Report and Order, 55 FR

39275, September 26, 1990; Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 56 FR

58207, November 18, 1991; Second Report and Order/Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, 57 FR 21744 & 21755, May 22, 1992; Second

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 57 FR 38652, August 26,

1992; Memorandum Opinion and Order/Third Report and Order/Third

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87-268, 57

FR 53679 & 53588, November 12, 1992.

\3\ High Definition Television offers approximately twice the

vertical and horizontal resolution of NTSC, which is a picture

quality approaching 35 millimeter film, and has sound quality

approaching that of a compact disc.

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

2. The current technology allows for multiple streams, or

``multicasting,'' of Standard Definition Television (``SDTV'') \4\

programming at a quality at least comparable to, and possibly better

than, the current analog signal, as well as CD-quality audio signals

and the rapid delivery of huge amounts of data. It allows broadcasters

to send, simultaneously, video, voice and data. In addition, it allows

broadcasters to provide a range of services dynamically, that is, it

allows them to switch easily and quickly from one type of service to

another.

\4\ Standard Definition Television (``SDTV'') is a digital

television system in which picture quality is approximately

equivalent to the current NTSC television system.

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

3. Revisiting our earlier decisions is consistent with our

statutory responsibility to ``encourage the provision of new

technologies and services to the public,'' 47 U.S.C. 157, as well as

with our general statutory obligations to promote the public interest,

since these developments have the potential to provide profound

benefits to the American public.

4. In deciding what rules should govern the transition to digital

television, we recognize our obligation to manage the spectrum

efficiently and in the public interest and to take account of the

legitimate interests of all those with a stake in that transition. With

the foregoing considerations in mind, we will pursue and balance the

following goals in this proceeding: (1) Preserving a free, universal

broadcasting service; (2) fostering an expeditious and orderly

transition to digital technology that will allow the public to receive

the benefits of digital television while taking account of consumer

investment in NTSC television sets; (3) managing the spectrum to permit

the recovery of contiguous blocks of spectrum, so as to promote

spectrum efficiency and to allow the public the full benefit of its

spectrum; and (4) ensuring that the spectrum--both ATV channels and

recovered channels--will be used in a manner that best serves the

public interest.

5. It has become apparent that the flexibility of the Grand

Alliance system will allow for more applications and alternative uses

than we had previously contemplated. We are issuing this Fourth Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry to invite

comment on several aspects of this changed ATV environment and their

ramifications for this proceeding.

A. Spectrum Issues

6. The Commission previously decided that ATV would be introduced

by assigning existing broadcasters a temporary channel on which to

operate an ATV station during a transition period and that the spectrum

needed for the transition would be obtained from the spectrum currently

allocated to broadcasting. We continue to believe that providing 6 MHz

channels for ATV purposes represents the optimum balance of broadcast

needs and spectrum efficiency. We invite comment, however, on any means

of achieving greater spectrum efficiency.

B. Definition of Service

7. We reaffirm in this proceeding our intention to preserve and

promote universal, free, over-the-air television. We envision that the

6 MHz channel earmarked for ATV will be used for free, over-the-air

broadcasting. The digital transmission system currently proposed would

provide broadcasters with new flexibility and new capabilities as they

embark on serving the American public with the next generation of

television. Broadcasters will be capable of providing through ATV not

only a vastly improved high definition picture, but also multiple

program steams. In addition, the ATV system is capable of nonbroadcast

uses that are nonvideo and/or subscription-based in nature. Allowing at

least some level of flexibility would increase the ability of

broadcasters to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace, and

would allow them to serve the public with new and innovative services

Flexibility could also allow for a more rapid transition to digital

broadcasting. Nonetheless, any flexibility afforded broadcasters must

not undermine our American system of universal, free, over-the-air

television. In establishing a regulatory framework for the provision of

ATV in light of this new flexibility, we therefore seek comment on the

following questions:

Should we require broadcasters to provide a minimum amount

of HDTV and, if so, what minimum amount should be required?

To what extent should we allow broadcasters to use their

ATV spectrum for uses other than free, over-the-air broadcasting? We

recognize that we

[[Page 42132]]

currently allow broadcasters to use a portion of their analog spectrum

for ancillary and supplementary uses that do not interfere with or

detract from their primary broadcast function. Should such uses of the

ATV spectrum be permitted and, if so, how should they be defined? What

portion of the ATV system's capacity should be allowed to be used for

ancillary and supplementary services?

To what extent should we allow braodcasters to use their

ATV spectrum for services that go beyond traditional broadcast

television or ancillary and supplementary uses analogous to those

allowed under our current regulatory regime? Should broadcasters be

permitted to provide nonbroadcast and/or subscription services? \5\ If

so, how should such services be defined and how much of the ATV

system's capacity should be allowed for such uses? If allowed, what

regulation, if any, would be appropriate for such services?

\5\ We note that, under our current rules, a licensee may

provide video programming primarily on a subscription basis. We also

note pending legislative proposals that contemplate granting us the

authority to require licensees to pay annual spectrum fees where

licensees charge the public for the new services provided on the

conversion channels. We will publish a Public Notice or other

appropriate document with respect to the effect on our ATV decisions

of any relevant law enacted.

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

8. In responding to the above questions, if commenters propose that

licensees be required to meet any requirements (such as a minimum HDTV

requirement) or be limited in providing ancillary and supplementary

services, they should include comment on the administrative processes

we would use to implement any requirements or limitations. For

instance, how should we measure use--by the amount of time, data packet

``headers,'' or by some other means? Should the time of day when

broadcast or other video service is offered have any significance? What

administrative process should we use to enforce such a requirement--

self reporting, complaints from the public, operating logs, etc.--and

what costs would be associated with each?

C. Eligibility Issues

9. The Commission has previously established that during the

initial period, existing broadcasters would have the first opportunity

to acquire ATV channels. Included in the class of existing broadcasters

were: (a) All full-service television broadcast station licensees; (b)

permittees authorized as of October 24, 1991, and (c) all parties with

applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991,

who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station licenses.

10. We continue to believe that initial eligibility should be

limited to existing broadcasters given the shortage of suitable

spectrum and our decision not to allocate additional spectrum for this

purpose. We are still asking existing broadcasters to inaugurate a

television service that will deliver a signal of superior quality.

Furthermore, we are not creating a new service, and our eligibility

restriction does not ultimately result in more spectrum for

broadcasters or less spectrum for others. We are merely moving each

existing broadcaster from one channel to a different channel in a one-

for-one exchange designed to accomplish a number of long-term public

interest goals.\6\ Broadcasters will be required to cease their analog

operations after a relatively short period, thereby permitting a swift,

certain transition to digital technology and a rapid recovery of

spectrum for the benefit of the public.

\6\ There is ample precedent for our reallocation of spectrum in

the public interest, even where such reallocation results in

displacement of current users of the spectrum, and it is clear that

we have broad discretion to do so. We have, in a number of contexts,

moved users of spectrum to different bands.

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

11. We believe that we are not precluded by Ashbacker Radio Corp.

v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945), from limiting initial eligibility to

incumbent broadcasters, even if we permit flexible use of the digital

system and especially since the broadcasters' ``analog'' operations

will be shut down and one of the channels will be relinquished.\7\

Under Section 309 of the Communications Act, as applied by the Supreme

Court in United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.,\8\ we are authorized

to set licensee eligibility standards. As an independent matter, we

note that we also have authority under Section 316 of the

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 316, to modify existing licenses as the

public interest requires. In so doing, our actions are not governed by

the hearing and other requirements of Section 309 of the Act.\9\ In

light of our authority under both Storer and Section 316 of the Act, we

invite comment on our tentative conclusion that no Ashbacker problem is

presented by our proposals.

\7\ The Court of Appeals has held that Ashbacker applies only to

parties whose applications have been declared mutually exclusive and

does not apply to ``prospective applicants.'' Reuters Ltd. v. FCC,

781 F.2d 946, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1986). No Ashbacker rights would be

triggered because we are defining the category of eligible

applicants rather than rejecting one bona fide applicant without

comparing it to the others.

\8\ 351 U.S. 192 (1956).

\9\ Section 316 does not require us to accept petitions to deny

an application filed as a result of a proposed modification, but it

does require us to consider protests filed by other licensees or

permittees who believe their own licenses or permits would be

modified by the Section 316 modification. See 47 U.S.C.

Sec. 316(a)(3).

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

12. While we reiterate our tentative conclusion to limit initial

eligibility for ATV frequencies to existing broadcasters, we seek

comment on the potential impact our proposal would have on the

Commission's long standing policy of fostering programming and

ownership diversity. Specifically, we seek comment on what measures, if

any, the Commission may adopt to include new entrants into this

emerging era of digital television.

13. Some parties have suggested that we should auction the spectrum

intended to be used for ATV service. Section 309(j) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, limits the uses of spectrum

that is subject to being auctioned. It specifically requires that,

``the principal use of such spectrum will involve, or is reasonably

likely to involve, the licensee receiving compensation from

subscribers. * * *'' Our experience and our judgment concerning market

conditions lead us to believe that the broadcasters would use this

spectrum for free over-the-air broadcast service; therefore, it cannot

be auctioned under Section 309(j). For this reason, as well as those

set forth above, we reiterate our previous decision to limit initial

eligibility to existing licensees. Commenters may address whether any

changed circumstances should alter this conclusion.

14. Given our decision not to allocate additional spectrum for

television broadcasting, the number of transition channels is limited.

Therefore, we also solicit comment on granting eligibility status to

those broadcasters that are in bankruptcy, off-the-air, have

construction permits or are otherwise non-operational, or otherwise

incapable of engaging in the transition to digital television. We

specifically request comment on whether the transition channels

identified for these licensees or permittees would be better used to

support service to the public if instead they were made available to

new entrants.

D. Public Interest Obligations

15. Our rules imposing public interest obligations on broadcast

licensees flow from the statutory mandate that broadcasters serve the

``public interest, convenience and necessity,'' \10\ as well as other

provisions of the Communications Act. Broadcasters are

[[Page 42133]]

required to air programming responsive to community needs and

interests. They are required to air programming designed to ``serv[e]

the educational and informational needs of children.'' They must

provide ``reasonable access'' to candidates for federal elective

office, and must afford ``equal opportunities'' to candidates for any

public office. Broadcasters are also obliged to refrain from airing

certain programming, such as indecent programming outside the ``safe

harbor'' period. Finally, in order to promote diversity of viewpoint,

broadcasters must refrain from discriminating in employment and must

establish and maintain an equal employment opportunity (``EEO'')

program designed to provide equal employment opportunities for

minorities and women. Our previous orders reflect the assumption that

public interest obligations would attach to ATV broadcasting. Indeed,

that broadcasters ``have an obligation to serve the public interest''

is one of our reasons for limiting initial eligibility for ATV channels

to existing broadcasters.

\10\ 47 U.S.C. 307(c). See also id. Sec. 307(a).

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

16. We remain committed to enforcing our statutory mandate to

ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest. Our current public

interest rules, including those implementing specific statutory

requirements, were developed for broadcasters essentially limited by

technology to a single, analog video programming service. The potential

for more flexible and dynamic use of the advanced television channel

than what broadcasters currently enjoy gives rise to important

questions about the nature of public interest obligations in the

digital broadcasting world. We request comment on how the conversion to

digital broadcasting should affect broadcasters' obligation to serve

the public interest.

17. Our future rules may allow broadcasters to use their advanced

television channels to provide a high definition television service,

multiple standard definition television services and perhaps other

services, some of which may be on a subscription basis. Should a

licensee's public interest obligations depend on the nature of the

services it chooses to provide and, if that is the case, how so? For

example, if a broadcaster chooses to provide multiple standard

definition services, should public interest obligations attach to each

one? What if one or more of those services are provided on a

subscription basis? Alternatively, should public interest obligations

be seen as attaching not to services but to licensees, each of whom

would be required to operate the facilities associated with its 6 MHz

ATV channel in the public interest? We note that attaching a public

interest requirement on one type of ``service'' could skew broadcaster

investment away from providing that service--a situation that could

potentially result in a net public interest loss. Commenters are

requested to discuss whether, if Congress grants the Commission the

requisite authority, we should consider imposing spectrum fees for that

portion of the spectrum used by broadcasters to provide subscription

services. We note that the use of spectrum fees may allow the

Commission to establish a regulatory framework that does not discourage

broadcasters from providing free over-the-air channels or other

services to which public interest obligations might attach. We also

invite comment on whether the conversion to digital broadcasting

justifies other changes in our public interest framework.

18. Finally, we express our intention to continue to apply EEO

requirements on broadcasters. We ask, however, whether there are

additional means available to further our objective of promoting

diversity of viewpoints in a digital world.

E. Transition

1. Simulcast Requirement

19. Previously, we determined that ATV licensees should simulcast

on their NTSC stations the programming offered on their ATV stations.

We preliminarily decided that, beginning one year after the six year

application and construction period, ATV licensees would have to

simulcast 50 percent of their ATV programming, increasing to 100

percent two years later. Additionally, we indicated that we would

review this schedule at the time of our initial review of the pace of

conversion at the end of the application/construction period and

immediately prior to the imposition of 100 percent simulcasting.

20. Our concern was, and remains, that consumers not be prematurely

deprived of the benefits of existing television equipment. We also

stated that requiring simulcasting would assist us in reclaiming the

analog channel as soon as possible by minimizing broadcaster and

consumer reliance on the ATV and NTSC channels carrying separately

programmed services. Additionally, we believed that a simulcast

requirement would ``give added impetus to ATV receiver penetration by

eliminating the need for dual mode receivers capable of receiving both

NTSC and ATV,'' thereby helping to lower the cost of ATV receivers,

spurring increased penetration.

21. These decisions were appropriate and practical when it appeared

that ATV would primarily consist of the broadcast of a single HDTV

program service. However, it is apparent that a digital TV system can

be used to transmit multiple simultaneous SDTV program services.

Obviously, a licensee would be unable to simulcast multiple program

services on its NTSC channel. Under such circumstances, it is clear

that our simulcasting requirement must be revisited and we must

consider alternatives.

22. The simulcasting requirement was in large measure intended to

allow consumers to avoid being prematurely deprived of the benefits of

their NTSC video equipment. We hoped to avoid having broadcasters move

their best programs to HDTV, with the result that large numbers of

viewers that do not have HDTV equipment would lose much of the value of

broadcast television service. At the present time, this no longer

appears to be a likely prospect. We do not foresee broadcasters taking

their best programming off of their NTSC stations and putting it on

HDTV where potential audiences will, at first, be small. Similarly, we

do not see broadcasters moving their best programming off of NTSC and

on to ATV early in the conversion process. We believe that, instead,

the market will continue to serve consumer demand by assuring the

continued presence of good programming on NTSC channels. However, we

still perceive a need for a simulcast requirement, albeit different

from that first envisioned.

23. Some number of consumers, unaware of the transition to digital

television or unable to afford replacement equipment, may continue

viewing analog television throughout the transition period. At the end

of the transition period, we may be confronted with the choice of

either terminating analog service, causing such viewers to lose their

only source of free broadcast service, or, alternatively, allowing

analog broadcasting to continue, thereby depriving the broad general

public of the benefits that we believe are to be found from the

recovery of one of the channels. We wish to avoid either alternative

and believe that a simulcasting requirement may be useful in speeding

the migration of these consumers from analog to digital broadcasting.

Accordingly, we propose to require the simulcast of all material being

broadcast on the licensee's NTSC station (with the exception of

commercials and promotions) on a

[[Page 42134]]

program service of the ATV channel. If a program is available only on

the analog service, then all viewers (those with digitally capable and

analog-only sets) will need to watch it in the analog service. In a

simulcast environment, the number of consumers who will lose access to

a specific program service will be reduced by the number who have a

digitally capable set or set top converter.

24. We ask parties to comment on this proposal, including assessing

its impact on broadcasters' ability to provide HDTV service, and to

offer other viable alternatives, keeping in mind our goals of avoiding

a reliance on NTSC service and assuring recovery of large blocks of

contiguous spectrum at the conclusion of a speedy and smooth transition

process. We are open to suggestions and will consider any option that

does not slow the conversion to digital television. For instance,

commenters may wish to comment on whether the simulcast requirement

should be tradeable. That is, should a licensee be permitted to

purchase time on a competitor's ATV station on which to broadcast its

analog programming?

25. Also, we seek comment on the phasing in of a simulcasting

requirement. We believe that at the beginning of the transition a

broadcaster should be required to simulcast little or no NTSC

programming. Few viewers would have ATV receivers at that stage. Later,

as fewer consumers depend upon analog television and ATV equipment

proliferates, we tentatively believe that the simulcasting requirement

should be increased. Commenters are invited to comment on the relevant

time periods for each phase and the amount of simulcasting that should

be required in each such phase.

2. Licensing of ATV and NTSC Stations

26. We revisit the question of whether licensees' NTSC and ATV

station licenses should be considered a single license or two separate

and distinct licenses. We previously decided to treat the licensee as

having two paired licenses. That is, each licensee's NTSC and ATV

station would receive a separate license. Because the licenses were to

be paired, however, if a licensee's NTSC license were to be revoked or

not renewed while its ATV application was pending, the licensee would

lose its priority eligibility status. Also, if either a licensee's NTSC

or ATV license were revoked or not renewed, the remaining license would

automatically suffer the same fate. We nonetheless indicated that we

would consider permitting a licensee to voluntarily surrender its NTSC

channel while retaining the corresponding ATV channel on a case-by-case

basis in the interest of spectrum efficiency.

27. We decided that broadcasters would be operating two distinct

facilities having different characteristics and, frequently,

transmitting from different locations. Treating the ATV and NTSC

channels as separately licensed facilities would, we concluded,

simplify enforcement and administration. However, we paired the two

licenses to prevent the separate transfer of one channel of the pair

because we believed that would make it impossible to recapture one of

the 6 MHz channels at the end of the transition period and still leave

the existing licensee with a broadcast outlet.

28. We tentatively conclude that substantial benefits could be

obtained if, instead of licensing the NTSC and ATV facilities

separately, we authorized both under a single, unified license. It

would ease administrative burdens on the Commission and broadcasters

alike by reducing the number of applications that would have to be

filled out, filed and processed. Licensing the two facilities under a

single authorization is also consistent with our view that the

authorizations may be issued pursuant to our broad authority under

Section 316 of the Act to modify an existing license. Finally, treating

the two facilities under a single license would retain the sound policy

announced in the Second Report/Further Notice of treating both

facilities the same from the revocation/non-renewal standpoint. We seek

comment on this tentative conclusion.

29. Commenters advocating separate licenses for the ATV channels

may wish to address whether, if NTSC and ATV licenses were licensed

separately, we should allow the sale of an authorization for an unbuilt

ATV facility. Allowing such transfers could speed the transition to

digital ATV by putting transition spectrum into the hands of parties

willing and able to construct ATV facilities. Commenters should be

mindful, however, that even if NTSC and ATV licenses were to be issued

separately and unpaired the NTSC licensee would have to cease its NTSC

operations at the end of the transition period. Moreover, unpairing the

NTSC and ATV licenses would raise complex issues regarding simulcast

and retransmission/must carry rights. In the event we adopt an NTSC-ATV

simulcast requirement, should the transfer of a separated ATV license

be permitted only if the programming on the accompanying NTSC license

were simulcast in digital?

F. Transition Period

30. In the Third Report/Further Notice we made a preliminary

decision to establish a transition period that concludes 15 years from

the date of adoption of an ATV system or a final Table of ATV

Allotments is effective, whichever is later. In addition, we adopted a

schedule of periodic reviews to permit us to monitor the progress of

ATV implementation and to make any necessary adjustments. We decided

that the transition period should not be modified without a substantial

showing that the change is in the public interest. We reiterated that

we planned to award broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz

channel to permit a smooth, efficient transition to an improved

technology with as much certainty and as little inconvenience to the

public and the industry as possible. Finally, we clarified that, in

general, broadcaster who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have

to cease broadcasting in NTSC at the end of the 15-year transition

period.

31. There may now be reasons to expect that broadcasters will adopt

ATV more rapidly than was anticipated in 1992, when we last analyzed

the transition period. The broadcast industry, including equipment

manufacturers, have been at the forefront of developing digital

technology for television. Other new services, such as ``video

dialtone,'' that would use digital transmission technologies are also

being initiated or planned. In this environment, broadcasters have

added incentive to convert more rapidly in order to remain competitive.

32. Consumers will buy or rent digitally capable receivers or set-

top converters as their choice of digitally-based video products

expands. For each household which transitions to any of the new media,

including over-the-air digital, there will be at least one less

television set reliant upon over-the-air NTSC analog transmissions.

Given the degree of competition that exists between suppliers of

electronic equipment, and expected economies of scale resulting from

the proliferation of digitally based media, we anticipate that

declining costs will translate into reduced prices and increased sales

of digital receivers and converters to consumers.

33. We previously cautioned that broadcasters' cessation of NTSC

transmission and surrender of a 6 MHz channel would depend on ATV

becoming the prevalent medium, stemming in part from our concern over

the number of households that might

[[Page 42135]]

continue to rely on NTSC transmissions. As discussed above, purchase of

an ATV receiver or converter is not the only meaning of ending reliance

on NTSC transmission, so projections solely of ATV receiver penetration

may not be the most accurate benchmark for deciding when broadcasters

should cease NTSC transmission and surrender a 6 MHz channel.

34. We now wish to consider whether some objective benchmark(s)

could be used to determine when broadcasters should cease NTSC

transmission. Is it possible to end the transition period in a market

by tying the transition period to some objective benchmark(s)? If so,

what benchmark(s) should be used? The conversion could be considered

complete when the number of households that rely on NTSC has fallen to

a given percentage. We ask parties to comment on tying the transition

period and final conversion date to the percentage of households in a

market that rely on NTSC transmission. If the final conversion date is

triggered when the number of households that rely on NTSC falls to a

given percentage, what should the threshold percentage be that triggers

the final conversion date? How would we measure the number of

households that rely on NTSC transmission from year to year? Should we

measure households or television sets? What other objective benchmarks

should we consider in determining the transition period and the final

conversion date? To what extent should the availability of inexpensive

digital receivers and converters be used as a benchmark in determining

the length of the transition period?

35. We previously reasoned that by adopting a target date approach

we could speed the transition to digital technologies. Are there

mechanisms other than the date certain approach that we adopted in

1992, that we could put in place to create incentives for rapid

adoption of ATV by consumers, broadcasters, manufacturers, and others?

For example, should we consider having the transition period end at the

earlier of a date certain or attainment of an objective benchmark? We

seek information on how broadcasters could assist consumers by

providing alternate methods of acquiring or leasing digital equipment

in the short term so that the transition costs can be reduced and the

transition schedule can be shortened. Could broadcasters in a market

cooperate in leasing converters and/or ATV receivers to consumers?

Would cooperation between broadcasters in a market raise anti-

competitive concerns? If so, how could the cooperative arrangements of

broadcasters be adapted to reduce household reliance on NTSC

transmission without raising these concerns?

G. Recovery of Spectrum

36. We have put broadcasters on notice that when ATV becomes the

prevalent medium, they will be required to surrender a 6 MHz channel

and cease broadcasting in NTSC, reiterated that we are awarding

broadcasters interim use of an additional 6 MHz channel, and clarified

that broadcasters who do not convert to ATV will nevertheless have to

cease broadcasting in NTSC.

37. The rationale underlying the recovery of spectrum was the

freeing of spectrum of significant value for other uses. The spectrum

to be used for the transition to ATV has significant value for other

services and benefits and that any delay in reclaiming the reversion

spectrum carries potential costs to the public.

38. When the transition to digital technologies is complete, we

must have some mechanism in place to recover the extra 6 MHz channel.

One option would be to continue renewing licenses for five year periods

but explicitly terminate authority to use one of the 6 MHz channels at

the end of the transition period. If we were to adopt a ``two-license''

approach, one of the two licenses could expire at the end of the

transition period. We ask parties to comment on the advantages and

disadvantages of each approach.

39. We remain committed to the recovery of spectrum. In addition,

we believe that spectrum will be of greater value if available in large

contiguous nationwide blocks. To create contiguous blocks of spectrum

following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some

digital broadcast stations to new channels that are contiguous with

others. This would have the effect of condensing broadcast assignments

to a narrower band of spectrum without eliminating any licenses. Today,

television broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but NTSC

technology does not permit all of the channels to be used in the same

geographic area. We believe that the ``Grand Alliance'' digital system

does not have these difficulties. By moving some digital broadcast

stations, we would be able to obtain a more spectrum-efficient

arrangement by condensing broadcasting assignments to less than 400

MHz. We believe that information concerning spectrum recovery and

moving some digital broadcast stations to new channels should be

solicited at this time to assure the future availability of contiguous

spectrum and encourage immediate planning and investment in new

services. We request comment on our tentative plans to create

contiguous blocks of spectrum.

40. While broadcasters have been given notice that they must

surrender a 6 MHz channel after full conversion to digital

technologies, no final decisions have been made concerning which of the

two channels would be surrendered. Allowing licensees to determine

which 6 MHz channel they would use for digital transmission and which

channel they would surrender may result in broadcasters providing

digital services on channels scattered throughout the VHF and UHF

broadcast band. Allowing this would inhibit the formation of large

contiguous blocks of spectrum. To minimize the number of digital

broadcast stations that may need to be moved to new channels to

facilitate the creation of large contiguous blocks of VHF and/or UHF

spectrum, it will likely be necessary for us, not the licensee, to

determine which 6 MHz channel the broadcaster must use for digital

transmission and which channel must be surrendered. Also, we believe

that by making these decisions early we can aid broadcasters in their

investment decisions.

41. In order to create the maximum amount of contiguous spectrum

following the transition period, it may be necessary to move some

digital broadcast stations to new channels. We recognize that there are

costs associated with moving stations to new channels. We request

comment on the benefits and costs of moving stations to new channels.

We also seek comment on how to minimize the costs of moving stations to

new channels. Finally, we ask parties to comment on whether each

broadcaster should pay for its own move, whether all broadcasters

should pay for the costs of relocation, or whether the licensee the

bumps the broadcaster should pay to move the broadcaster, as was done

in the emerging technologies band for PCS.

H. Length of Application/Construction Period

42. We previously granted existing broadcasters three years from

the effective date of ATV system selection or an ATV Allotment Table,

whichever is later, in which they exclusively may apply for a preferred

or ``set-aside'' ATV channel, and a total of six years to both apply

for and construct an ATV facility. We previously stated that such

factors as the time needed to raise the necessary capital to invest in

ATV technology, to plan for the creation of a new station, including,

in some cases, having to

[[Page 42136]]

locate a new transmitter site, and to allow ATV equipment to become

available, required that we establish these application and

construction periods.

43. We propose to establish a procedure by which broadcasters have

six months in which to make an election and confirm to the Commission

that they want an ATV license. After that, they would have the

remainder of the three-year period in which to supply supporting data

as we may require. If they elect not to construct an ATV facility, or

elect to construct but do not proceed to do so, their NTSC licenses

will expire at the end of the ATV conversion period and they will have

to cease broadcasting. This process would have the benefit of

identifying early on locations where existing broadcasters do not want

to transition to ATV and where applications from new entrants for ATV

stations could therefore be considered.

44. We ask that commenters address all aspects of the construction

period. Is the current six-year period appropriate, too long, or is it

insufficient? We believe that the exclusive eligibility period can be

shortened, primarily by requiring licensees to make an election within

the first six months after the adoption of an ATV standard or final

Table of Allocations, whichever is later, as to whether to convert.

This should not place an undue burden on licensees. Broadcasters have

now been on notice for a number of years of the general direction in

which we are moving toward digital television and some, we understand,

have begun planning in earnest for the transition. Moreover, much

digital broadcasting equipment has been developed and demonstrated.

Commenters should provide information on their ability to apply for and

construct ATV facilities and discuss the difficulties they would have

in meeting a shorter time frame.

45. Nevertheless, we are mindful of the difficulties to be

encountered by television broadcasters converting to ATV. Sources of

financing may be limited and their willingness to support the

conversion is unknown. For some stations tower sites may need to be

found, leases negotiated and towers built. Equipment will have to be

purchased and installed, and the capacity of industry to supply over

1500 broadcasters with new equipment, from cameras to transmitters to

antennas, all within the same time frame is not currently known. Given

the different aspect ratio for ATV as opposed to NTSC, new studio sets

may have to be designed and constructed in order for stations to

originate programming. We fully appreciate that this transition will

not be an easy task. Accordingly, we request comment on the practical

difficulties licensees will have in successfully undertaking the

conversion and on proposed solutions.

I. Small Markets

46. We previously decided not to adopt a ``staggered approach'' to

initial ATV implementation with large markets required to implement

first and small markets last. While recognizing that small market

stations produce less revenue than those in large markets, adversely

affecting their ability to finance the transition, we also noted that

our extension of the application/construction period to a total of six

years, and our ``sliding scale'' approach \11\ should provide small

market stations adequate relief. Nevertheless, we indicated that if the

application/construction period appeared insufficient, we could adjust

it at later reviews.

\11\ Under the sliding scale approach, parties applying early in

the six-year application/construction period would have the

remainder of the application period and the full three-year

construction period in which to construct. Thus, they would have a

longer time to devote to construction of ATV facilities than those

applying later. Should we adopt our proposal to require an election

by the end of the sixth month, licensees filing earlier in the

remaining two-and-one-half years would still have more time in which

to construct than those filing later in that period.

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

47. We now seek comment on whether we should reconsider this

decision, and if so, on what type of relief should be provided from the

six year deadline and to whom? For example, should there be a general

extension of the deadline for a certain class of stations? If so, for

how long and to whom? Should it be to stations that make a showing of

financial hardship and if so how would that be defined? Should there be

a different rule for small markets? What about stations serving

economically disadvantaged areas? How should ``small markets'' or

``economically disadvantaged areas'' be defined? Commenters should

address whether such a general extension would result in slowing the

implementation of advanced television in these markets.

48. We also seek comment on whether a waiver would be an

appropriate way to address the issues of stations who can not afford to

make the transition to digital. If commenters believe a waiver would be

an appropriate mechanism, they should specify what factors the

Commission should consider in granting such a waiver. They should also

address ways to reduce the administrative burden of such a waiver

process on the Commission and on licensees.

49. Finally, we seek comment on an alternative proposal which would

allow the Commission to automatically extend the deadline for a

licensee that has not built after the six-year period if no one else

files for the ATV license. If, at the end of the six-year period,

another party applies to construct the unbuilt ATV facility, should we

permit the incumbent broadcaster to retain its preferential status if

it makes a sufficient showing in this regard? Such a policy would

recognize that in some markets economic factors may not support all of

the stations introducing digital broadcast within the six-year time

frame. If, however, there is a new entrant who can provide service

immediately, then the public might be better served by the immediate

initiation of service.

J. Noncommercial Stations

50. We earlier sought comment on whether some additional measures

of relief or further action should be taken on behalf of noncommercial

stations with respect to the presumptive six-year application/

construction deadline. We indicated that we would consider a wide array

of alternatives to mitigate the problems faced by noncommercial

broadcasters.

51. Commenters addressing the difficulties of noncommercial

broadcasters in converting to digital television chiefly seek relief

with respect to the financial qualifications that they would have to

demonstrate. The Association of America's Public Television Stations,

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Public Broadcasting Service

(``Public Television'') argue that, because of funding constraints, it

will take substantially longer than three, or even six years, for

public stations to be able to obtain necessary funds to convert to ATV.

Public Television asks that noncommercial educational stations be

allowed to file ATV applications without certifying or demonstrating

financial qualifications on the filing date. Rather, it believes such

licensees should be given three years after the filing of an ATV

application to demonstrate, with a business plan, how they will raise

matching funds and that public broadcasters should not have to make any

showing with respect to having sufficient access to funds to meet their

operating costs in the first 90 days of operation. Public Television

asks that we accept no competing applications while that application is

being processed. In this way, public broadcasters would be able to

timely file and avoid the possibility of being able to obtain only a

short-spaced UHF

[[Page 42137]]

channel, a VHF transition channel, or no channel at all.

52. The National Association of College Broadcasters (``NACB'')

asks that the Commission reserve ATV channels in the same proportion as

they are reserved on NTSC. Arizona State also urges that each vacant

noncommercial allocation be kept in reserve for future public ATV use.

Both NACB and Arizona State ask that we provide noncommercial

educational television stations with additional time in which to apply

for, and construct ATV facilities.

53. It is clear from comments received that noncommercial licensees

will face unique problems in their transition to ATV, chiefly in the

area of funding, where noncommercial broadcasters appear to be subject

to the vagaries of forces and parties beyond their control. Indeed,

historically, we have recognized ``that in making our statutory

findings as to financial qualifications, greater leeway must be

accorded the educational station because of its very nature.'' NTA

Television Broadcasting Corp., 44 FCC 2563, 2574 (1961). (Citation

omitted.)

54. Commenters should address whether noncommercial broadcasters

would obtain sufficient relief in the event that we adopt for all

existing broadcasters a paired channel assignment scheme and

requirements such as proposed above. If we do not adopt that proposal

or, if adopted, it does not provide sufficient relief for noncommercial

broadcasters, we ask for comment on what further relief would be

appropriate and will permit them to participate in the channel

assignment process on an equitable basis. In particular, commenters may

address the implications of our system instead of a fixed channel

scheme.

55. A second problem that noncommercial broadcasters commented on

was the length of the application/construction period. We have

previously expressed our belief that to provide different schedules for

commercial and noncommercial broadcasters would not be conducive to the

goal of a speedy and smooth transition. It is still our preference to

establish a firm transition schedule, but with the safeguard of having

that schedule subject to periodic review. Additionally, unique problems

can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We believe this may be

preferable to establishing two separate classes of broadcasters, each

with its own schedule, causing confusion to the public and additional

administrative burdens to the Commission.

56. Additionally, commenters should address other things that the

Commission can do to assist them in their conversion to ATV. For

instance, the broadcast of ``advertisements'' is currently prohibited

by Section 399B of the Communications Act. Commenters may want to

address whether this should be viewed as applying only to one program

service or, if to all program services broadcast by noncommercial

broadcasters, whether it would be desirable for the Commission to seek

legislative alteration of this prohibition. We also ask commenters to

discuss whether the transition to digital by noncommercial broadcasters

might be facilitated through re-defining what ``noncommercial'' means.

If the Commission mandated only that the minimum required broadcast

programming must be ``noncommercial,'' would it be possible for

noncommercial broadcasters to finance the transition through commercial

and flexible uses of the spectrum that would not interfere with the

noncommercial broadcast stream? Is there other relief that we can grant

noncommercial broadcasters to minimize restrictions on their operations

and allow them greater flexibility?

K. All-Channel Receiver Issues

57. In 1962, Congress adopted the All Channel Receiver Act, which

authorizes us to require that television receivers ``be capable of

adequately receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to

television broadcasting.'' \12\ Pursuant to this authority we required

that all TV receivers be capable of UHF channel reception and adopted

standards to make reception of UHF channels comparable with reception

of VHF channels.\13\ We previously determined in this proceeding that

the All Channel Receiver Act does not mandate the manufacture of dual-

mode (ATV and NTSC) receivers. We expressed concern that such a

requirement might overly or prematurely burden consumers, and sought

comment on whether there is any need to require that manufacturers

produce receivers capable of both NTSC and ATV reception during the

period prior to full conversion to ATV.

\12\ 47 U.S.C. 303(s).

\13\ See 47 CFR 15.117.

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

58. With ATV now considered to include both HDTV and SDTV, we

request comment on whether SDTV receivers should be required to have

the ability to receive an HDTV signal or vice versa, and whether we

should regulate how such a signal must be displayed. We understand that

companies are working on receiver designs that would display the Grand

Alliance HDTV signal as a lower resolution SDTV picture. Such as

conversion could result in relatively inexpensive receivers or

converter boxes for NTSC receivers, compared with the projected HDTV

receiver costs. We seek comment on whether permitting the manufacture

and sale of receivers that display only NTSC, SDTV, or HDTV signals, or

a combination of two but not all three, would be consistent with the

All Channel Receiver Act or otherwise would be in the public interest.

Should we require that, during the transition period, all sets be

capable of receiving and displaying NTSC and SDTV signals? Should we

require ``all-format'' receivers capable of receiving and displaying

NTSC, SDTV and HDTV signals, and, if so, how should we require HDTV

signals to be displayed, in a true HDTV fashion or as a lower

resolution SDTV picture? What impact should a decision not to require

HDTV broadcasting have on whether we should require all receivers to

have HDTV reception and display capabilities? Should a decision on one

be coupled with the other? What impact should a decision to adopt only

minimal broadcast SDTV requirements have on this question? Would

limiting the sale of NTSC equipment help consumers by assuring that

they do not purchase equipment that will soon be obsolete, or harm them

by, for example, depriving them of access to equipment they may need to

obtain the benefit of other video equipment they have, such as VCRs? If

we permit the sale of NTSC equipment, should we require a visible label

warning that, as of a date certain, it will no longer be able to

provide over-the-air broadcast reception? Or, if we permit the sale of

NTSC equipment after the specified date, should we require that the

sale of such equipment be accompanied by the provision of or ability to

use a digital converter? We believe that the All Channel Receiver Act

provides us with adequate authority to address these issues. We ask for

comment on how we should exercise it.

L. Must Carry and Retransmission Consent

59. We have not previously addressed the impact of ATV on cable

television carriage or retransmission consent obligations. Sections 614

and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934 contain the cable television

``must carry'' requirements. Section 325 contains revised

``retransmission consent'' requirements, pursuant to which cable

operators may be required to obtain the

[[Page 42138]]

consent of broadcasters before retransmitting their signals. Within

local market areas broadcasters have an option to proceed under either

the retransmission consent or the mandatory carriage requirements.

These provisions were added by the Cable Television Consumer Protection

and Competition Act of 1992,\14\ subsequent to the adoption of our last

decision in this proceeding.

\14\ Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47 U.S.C. 521

et seq.

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

60. Under the mandatory carriage provisions, cable operators,

subject to certain capacity based limitations, are generally required

to carry the signals of local television stations on their cable

systems.\15\ Section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Act requires that, at the time

we prescribe standards for advanced television, we ``initiate a

proceeding to establish any changes in the signal carriage requirements

of cable television systems necessary to ensure cable carriage of such

broadcast signals of local commercial television stations which have

been changed to conform with such * * * standards.'' While we have not

yet prescribed standards for advanced television, in the sense of

having defined or determined final standards, we believe it timely to

begin our consideration of must-carry obligations at this point.

\15\ Although we recognize that there is an ongoing challenge to

the constitutionality of the existing requirements, Turner

Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994), we assume for

purposes of this discussion the validity of the existing statutory

provisions. Parties are welcome to comment on the implications of

any of the issues involved in this proceeding in terms of the

judicial sustainability of any future requirements.

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

61. Clearly, during the transition period, at least the station's

NTSC channel will be subject to must carry obligations. During the

transition period, when, under our original plan, the NTSC channel

would have been carrying 100% of the HDTV programming being aired on

the conversion channel, there did not appear to be a must-carry problem

because, as long as the two were carrying duplicative programming, the

NTSC and commonly owned HDTV stations would not both have had to have

been carried.\16\ But, if we change the simulcast requirement,

programming on the NTSC and ATV channels might not be duplicative, and

both might qualify for carriage. Additional issues are raised if the

conversion channel is being used for the transmission of multiple SDTV

program services. If carriage of all material being broadcast by the

station were required, the dedication of, for instance, five cable

channels (one for the NTSC programming and, for example, four multicast

programs being offered on the conversion channel) might be required.

Thus, a review of the must carry and retransmission consent rules now

is an important component of this proceeding. In addition, it is

necessary to clearly identify any issues regarding cable carriage that

need to be factored into the ATV transitional rules, technical

standards, and regulatory policies in order to facilitate the most

productive possible interaction between ATV broadcasting and cable

television service.

\16\ See Section 614(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (47 U.S.C. Sec. 534(b)(5)).

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

62. We seek comment on any relevant differences in rules or

policies that might be needed both during the transition and as a

consequence of ATV having replaced NTSC broadcasting. For instance, how

should channel capacity be defined in a digital environment, i.e., in

terms of channels, bandwidth, or bits of data per second? Does ``on-

channel'' carriage have the same meaning in a digital as it does in an

analog environment? Should ``substantially duplicates'' include

duplication of programming in different transmission formats? Will

changes in station coverage require changes in carriage obligations?

Additionally, what is the meaning of ``primary video'' in the context

of digital broadcast transmission? \17\ Is there appropriate parallel

to line 21 of the vertical blanking interval of NTSC stations for ATV

stations? What, if any, flexibility does the Commission have under

Section 614(b)(4)(B) to modify requirements applied by the

Communications Act to NTSC signals in the new digital environment? For

example, does the Commission have authority to address ``A/B'' switch

issues to enhance subscriber access to signals or portions of signals

that may not receive carriage notwithstanding the existing prohibition?

Is a revised definition of ``basic tier'' needed? Is a common

retransmission/must carry election required for all of the video

programming from an individual broadcast license in a market or just

for one ``primary video'' stream, as defined by the broadcast licensee?

In the more flexible broadcast environment associated with digital

transmission would changes be needed in the rules that mandate that

local signals be carried in their entirety even if carried under the

retransmission consent option? Are there other issues relating to the

retransmission consent process that would need to be addressed?

\17\ Section 614 of the Act requires carriage of ``the primary

video, accompanying audio, and line 21 closed caption transmission''

of each local commercial broadcast station carried on the cable

system. Also required, to the extent technically feasible, is

carriage of program-related material carried in the vertical

blanking interval or on subcarriers. Similar requirements are found

in Section 615 with respect to noncommercial educational stations.

However, ``[r]etransmission of other material in the vertical

blanking interval or other nonprogram-related material (including

teletext and other subscription and advertiser supported information

services) shall be at the discretion of the cable operator.''

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

63. A second set of issues relates to the technical interface and

associated coast and rate issues. We expect that there will be parallel

development of both cable and broadcast digital video communications.

At the same time, it is inevitable that particular cable systems and

particular broadcast markets will progress on different time schedules.

Accordingly, issues will arise as to how digital broadcasts may be

carried on cable systems that are still entirely analog in their

opinions, are partially analog and partially digital, or that are

entirely digital. With respect to each type of operation there are

potential issues relating to headend equipment, transmission plant,

subscriber premises equipment, and type of digital transmission system

that may arise. Accordingly, we seek information on what technical

modifications may be needed to enable cable systems to deliver ATV

signals to subscribers and what costs may be associated with these

modifications. How should digital broadcast programming be required to

be carried? Should it be required to be carried digitally or would it

be adequate to have it carried in whatever format the cable operator

selects? Does ``material degradation'' in the statute require that HDTV

signals be carried in an HDTV format? Further, we need to begin to

consider and seek comment on what, if any, changes may be warranted in

the rate regulation process, in the technical standards, or in other

rules to account for the changes resulting from ATV carriage.

64. Assuming that an appropriate set of rules can be developed for

application at the end of the transition period, an interim process is

still needed to govern the transition from NTSC to ATV broadcasting.

During the period when broadcast licensees are broadcasting in both the

existing NTSC analog mode and in the new ATV mode, what should the

carriage obligations be? Must both signals be carried and if not should

the change from NTSC to the ATV signals be at the discretion of the

cable operator or the broadcaster? Alternatively, should it be based on

a fixed transition schedule or on an external event such as the market

penetration of digital television

[[Page 42139]]

receivers or the system operator's transmission of its own digital

video programming? Given the complex economic and technical

interrelationships between broadcasters and cable operators during this

transitional period, are there market mechanisms that can be

incorporated into the rules to facilitate cooperation?

V. Third Notice of Inquiry

65. Over 400 MHz of spectrum in the VHF and UHF bands is currently

allocated to television broadcasting. As part of our long-term plans to

promote spectrum efficiency, we are considering reducing the amount of

spectrum allocated television broadcasting, which, as explained above,

could be accomplished in the digital environment without reducing the

number of broadcasters in any market due to the inherent efficiencies

of the proposed digital system. If we were to readjust channel

assignments, we would need to know where in current broadcast spectrum

broadcasters would eventually be located. Although we previously

preliminarily viewed UHF as the part of the spectrum to which all

television broadcasting would be moved, we now question the tentative

conclusion. Accordingly, at this time, we ask parties to comment on the

best place for broadcasting. Specifically, we seek comment on which

parts of the VHF and UHF bands are most highly valued for broadcast use

(e.g., VHF, lower UHF, middle UHF, upper UHF). We also request

commenters to identify the costs associated with placing television

broadcasting in each of the four possible locations.

66. Today, TV broadcasters have over 400 MHz assigned to them, but

because of interference and market forces, on average only 80 MHz is

used per market. In the top markets, around 120 MHz is used. Digital

broadcasting will allow much more efficient and intensive use of this

spectrum. During the transition period, however, digital TV stations

must operate alongside NTSC stations. The digital TV system will enable

us to authorize these stations under controlled circumstances (each

channel will be available only at certain locations with limits on

radiated power and effective antenna height) to minimize interference

to NTSC and digital TV service. While these digital stations allow for

the development of many new broadcast services, they would be of

limited value for other users because they generally would not occupy a

contiguous block of channels, there would be no common nationwide

channels, and their use would be restricted by the need to avoid

interference with NTSC analog television sets. When the transition to

digital is completed, however, and the analog NTSC stations are turned

off, we have an opportunity to create contiguous blocks of spectrum

nationwide. Some or all of this spectrum could be allocated and

auctioned. We ask commenters to provide estimates of the total amount

of contiguous spectrum blocks that could be created following recovery

of the NTSC channels. We also seek estimates of the total market value

of these contiguous blocks of spectrum. What services would be most

efficiently provided using contiguous blocks of spectrum? We request

that commenters explain the methodology and analysis used to derive

estimates of the amount and value of contiguous spectrum. In addition

to the broadcast industry, we solicit comment from other industries

(e.g. land mobile and computer) that may have an interest in providing

services using these blocks of spectrum.

Administrative Matters

67. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415

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

parties may file comments on or before April 17, 1995, and reply

comments on or before May 17, 1995. All relevant and timely comments

will be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in

this proceeding. To file formally in the proceeding, you must file an

original plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and support

comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of

your comments you must file an original plus nine copies. You should

send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20554.

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

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the

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

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I. Reason for Action

69. The Commission seeks comment not only on a variety of new

issues central to the development of advanced television service in the

United States, but on several of the tentative decisions made earlier

in this proceeding because of the rapidly changing nature of digital

television. Advanced television, at the time this proceeding was

initiated was envisioned primarily as a system for improving higher

picture and sound quality, limited to transmitting/receiving a single

channel of television. The emergence of digital technology with its

extensive flexibility and the approach of the National Information

Infrastructure require that the Commission review the issues

surrounding high definition television from a new, more expansive

perspective.

II. Objectives of the Action

70. The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of

this decision solicits comment on a variety of issues, several of which

are being revisited, in order to establish an accurate, comprehensive,

reliable record on which to base the Commission's ultimate decisions in

this proceeding. The record established from comments filed in response

to this decision, as well as other Commission decisions, and the

combined efforts of the Commission, the affected industries, the

Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, and ATV testing

process, will lead to implementation of ATV in the most harmonious

fashion and to selection of the most desirable ATV system.

III. Legal Basis

71. Authority for this action may be found at 47 U.S.C. 154 and

303.

IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

72. Such requirements are not proposed in this phase of the

proceeding, but may be raised and comment sought in future decisions in

this proceeding.

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

73. There are no rules which would overlap, duplicate, or conflict

with these rules.

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

74. There are approximately 1,539 UHF and VHF, commercial and

educational television stations, 2,509 UHF translator stations, 2,261

VHF translator stations, and 1,648 UHF and VHF low power television

stations which would be affected by decisions reached in this

proceeding. The impact of actions taken in this proceeding on small

entities would ultimately depend

[[Page 42140]]

on the final decisions taken by the Commission. However, the

Commission, in taking future action will continue to balance the need

to provide the public with affordable, flexible, accessible high

definition television service with the economic and administrative

interests of the affected industries.

VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities Consistent With Stated Objectives.

75. In re-examining issues discussed in past decisions, the

Commission is seeking not only to establish a more comprehensive,

reliable record, but, with that intent, is soliciting comments and

suggestions that hopefully will represent the views of all of the

industries concerned, and thus the commission will be better able to

minimize whatever negative impact might face small entities as a result

of our decisions.

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

the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Fourth Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making and Third Notice of Inquiry, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. No. 96-354,

94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

LaVera F. Marshall,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-20243 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M