MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 21 and 74

[MM Docket No. 97-217; FCC 97-360]

MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), the

Commission seeks comment on the proposed amendment of its rules to

enable Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Instructional

Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'') licensees to engage in fixed two-

way transmissions. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals to

enhance the flexibility of MDS and ITFS operations through facilitated

use of response stations, use of booster stations with program

origination capability in a cellular configuration, and use of variable

bandwidth (``subchanneling'' or ``superchanneling''). Comment is sought

regarding the technical, procedural and economic effects of

implementing the proposed rule changes.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 9, 1997, and reply

comments on or before January 8, 1998. Written comments by the public

on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are due December 9,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Jacobs, (202) 418-7066 or

Dave Roberts, (202) 418-1600, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

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

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 97-217, adopted October 7,

1997, and released October 10, 1997. The full text of this NPRM is

available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in

the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on MDS and ITFS Two-Way

Transmissions

1. This NPRM was issued in response to a petition for rulemaking

filed by a group of 111 educators and participants in the wireless

cable industry (collectively, ``Petitioners''), comprised of MDS and

ITFS licensees, wireless cable operators, equipment manufacturers, and

industry consultants and associations. In this proceeding, Petitioners

are asking that we implement a series of technical rule changes that

would give MDS and ITFS licensees the needed flexibility to fully

exploit digital technology in delivering two-way communications

services. Currently, MDS and ITFS licensees are authorized to use

digital technology in order to increase the number of usable one-way

channels available to them, leased ITFS frequencies and MDS channels

may be used for asymmetrical high speed digital data applications so

long as such usage complies with the Commission's technical rules and

its declaratory ruling on the use of digital modulation by MDS and ITFS

stations (``Digital Declaratory Ruling,'' 11 FCC Rcd 18839 (1996)), and

MDS licensees have been permitted to provide two-way service on a

limited basis. While 125 kHz response channels are currently allocated

for use in association with most MDS and ITFS stations, Petitioners

anticipate that many MDS and ITFS licensees and wireless cable

operators engaging in two-way transmissions will require more capacity

for return paths than is available through such 125 kHz channels.

Moreover, because these 125 kHz response channels must be individually

licensed under the

[[Page 60026]]

Commission's existing rules, Petitioners argue that the existing rules

are too cumbersome and impose too great a financial burden on licensees

seeking to implement two-way wireless services. Instead, Petitioners

propose a system under which MDS and ITFS licensees would be permitted

to utilize all or part of a 6 MHz channel for return path transmissions

from subscriber premises, to cellularize their transmission systems to

take advantage of spectrally efficient frequency reuse techniques, and

to employ modulation schemes consistent with bandwidths either larger

or smaller than 6 MHz, all while providing incumbent MDS and ITFS

licensees interference protection equivalent to what they currently

receive.

2. Petitioners emphasized that they are not seeking a reallocation

of spectrum, but instead are seeking to modify the technical rules

governing the spectrum already allotted to MDS and ITFS. We placed the

petition for rulemaking on public notice, and received comments and

reply comments from wireless cable industry participants that generally

supported Petitioners' proposals. While many ITFS commenters expressed

concern over the details of Petitioners' proposals, the comments and

reply comments reflected a consensus in the MDS and ITFS communities

that the concept of two-way offerings would greatly aid both services.

We believe that several of Petitioners' proposals may be in the public

interest in that they would enhance the MDS and ITFS services by

providing licensees additional flexibility in order to implement two-

way services. Such flexibility would be facilitated by changing certain

of our technical rules, amending some of our programming rules, and

modifying some of our current application procedures for MDS and ITFS

facilities. The NPRM seeks comment on the various issues raised by

these proposals, and puts forth some counter-proposals to those

proffered by Petitioners.

3. Revised Definitions of Service. The ITFS/MDS spectrum is used

primarily for the provision of either one-way video service to

students, in the ITFS context, or, in the MDS context, wireless cable

service to subscribers, which likewise historically has constituted

primarily the provision of one-way video services. While our Rules

already permit MDS licensees to provide non-video services, under our

current regulatory scheme, MDS operators typically only provide two-way

service to subscribers using telephone return links or individually

licensed subscriber premises stations. This is an outgrowth of the

basic one-way approach to MDS transmission from which our current rules

originated.

4. We propose changes to MDS and ITFS service definitions to fully

incorporate the concept of two-way transmission and which reflect the

reorientation of the regulatory approach to a flexible service, from

that of an essentially one-way service. A regulatory system would be

created authorizing the use of response stations and response station

hubs to enable the two-way operation of wireless cable systems. We

solicit comment on this new service paradigm.

5. Specifically, we propose to amend the definition of a ``response

station'' to indicate that licensees may use all or part of any of

their 6 MHz channels as a response channel. Response stations would be

the means of transmission from a subscriber's premises, and could use

either separate transmitting antennas for return paths or combined

transmitting/receiving antennas. The concept of a response station hub

is added, and these hubs would serve as the collection points for

signals from the response stations in a multipoint-to-point

configuration for upstream signal flow. Thus, response stations would

not need to be licensed individually, and they could operate at lower

power because the response station hubs would be located closer to

subscriber premises than are current transmitter sites. Commenter

Caritas Telecommunications, Inc. (``Caritas'') proposed that we limit

the availability of response channels to MDS channels 1, 2 and 2A,

converting those channels from their current use for point-to-

multipoint transmissions to subscribers' homes to use for transmission

return paths. We tentatively decline to adopt this counter-proposal and

agree with Petitioners that it would both artificially limit the amount

of spectrum that could be used for return paths and unnecessarily

prevent ITFS licensees from using their own channels for return paths.

We solicit comment on the response station hub concept and its

implications. We also solicit comments on our proposals regarding the

expanded definition of response stations, including provision for

transmissions on all available MDS and ITFS channels, and on Caritas'

counter-proposal.

6. We further propose to amend the definition for ``signal booster

stations'' to allow such stations to originate transmissions, as well

as to relay transmissions from other stations. Booster stations would

be used to cellularize wireless cable operations, which now may operate

in areas too large to be served by a single station. Permitting

boosters to originate as well as relay programming would facilitate

frequency reuse cellular configurations and two-way high speed Internet

access and other services. We seek comment on the proposal to expand

the role of booster stations in this manner. Flexible subchannelization

(i.e., the division of a channel of a particular bandwidth into

multiple channels of smaller bandwidth) also would be permitted to

allow more efficient channel reuse within a given service area, and

superchannelization (i.e., the combining of more than one channel into

a single, wider channel) would be allowed and could be used for the

transmission of high data rates and/or the use of spread spectrum

emissions. Superchannels also would be licensed to multiple entities in

many instances, due to the fact that the interleaved, non-contiguous

channels in this band generally are licensed to different entities.

Subchannels and superchannels would be limited to digital

transmissions with uniform spectral power density across the bandwidth,

in order to make possible the use of spectral density analysis as part

of the interference analysis process. We seek comment on these

channelization proposals.

7. Finally, as noted above, 125 kHz channels are currently

allocated as response channels for use in association with most MDS and

ITFS stations, and as such they would provide further capacity as

return paths in the cellularized two-way scheme. In their Comments,

Petitioners add that the Commission should also permit the use of the

125 kHz channels for point-to-multipoint transmissions. Petitioners

explain that for systems using digital technologies, there is a need to

transmit downstream control signals over side channels that require

less than a full 6 MHz channel, for instance for control over digital

set top decoders or control over two-way communication systems.

Petitioners maintain that use of the 125 kHz channels for such

applications is beneficial in that it preserves the 6 MHz channels for

transmissions that require greater bandwidth, and it can lead to

reduced equipment costs. Petitioners also propound that to further

offer flexibility to create channels with bandwidths exceeding 125 kHz,

the Commission should remove the current rule provisions which require

that the 125 kHz channels only be used in conjunction with their

associated 6 MHz channels. While also proposing that the 125 kHz

channels be used for additional point-to-multipoint spectrum, Caritas

goes a step further than Petitioners, advancing that the Commission

should

[[Page 60027]]

reallocate the 125 kHz channels to be combined into one continuous

piece of spectrum to be used for such purposes. We are proposing rules

in accordance with the most flexible framework ultimately requested by

Petitioners for use of the 125 kHz channels, including allowing

superchannelization or subchannelization of these stations regardless

of whether they are used as response stations or for point-to-

multipoint transmissions. We believe that these changes are sufficient

to derive the benefits explained by Petitioners, and that a

reallocation and the complications associated with that is not

necessary. We solicit comment on these proposals regarding use of the

125 kHz channels.

8. Interference Considerations. In the Digital Declaratory Ruling,

we waived our rules with respect to out-of-band emissions and permitted

the use of a somewhat relaxed spectral mask for digital transmission

modes. This action was taken because the Commission concluded that the

application of the current analog emission mask to digital emissions

would be unnecessarily restrictive and could increase the cost of

digital equipment while providing no benefit. In addition, the results

of laboratory tests submitted in connection with the Commission's

consideration of this issue demonstrated that a digital station using

the relaxed mask is less likely to cause interference than an analog

station using the existing, more restrictive, mask.

9. In the NPRM, we propose to permanently incorporate into the

Rules the spectral mask waiver provisions of the Digital Declaratory

Ruling, specifically for primary system transmitters and single channel

booster transmitters with a power greater than -9 dBW EIRP; masks are

further specified, albeit with certain modifications, for sub-and

superchannels, response stations, and booster stations transmitting on

multiple non-contiguous channels carrying separate signals and with an

EIRP greater than -9 dBW (``broadband boosters''). As an exception to

the spectral masks for the 125 kHz channels, discrete spurious

emissions above the upper and below the lower authorized channel edges

would be permitted under certain conditions. And Petitioners request

that no spectral mask whatsoever be applicable to booster stations with

an EIRP of -9 dBW or less. Petitioners argue that such low power

stations have only a very limited potential for interference, and that

applying strict emission limitations to them would significantly

increase the price of equipment with no benefit to the user or nearby

licensees in terms of added interference protection. We seek comment on

whether the degree of attenuation proposed for these various schemes is

sufficient to provide adequate adjacent channel interference

protection. We also request comment on whether eliminating a spectral

mask for low power boosters presents an undue interference risk, and,

if so, which additional interference safeguards should be adopted.

10. As in the Digital Declaratory Ruling, all spectral mask

calculations involving digital emissions will use the average power of

the emission across its bandwidth, and steps must be taken to ensure

substantially uniform power density across the bandwidth in use,

including constant power per unit of bandwidth for sub-and

superchannels. We also propose to place a limit of 18 dBW EIRP on

response station transmitters in cellularized systems, and that higher

power facilities be authorized separately and require a site specific

interference analysis. Given the extremely complex interference

situation attendant to cellularized operations and the heavily

encumbered nature of MDS and ITFS environments, we do not believe that

it would be prudent to permit essentially unlimited numbers of response

station transmitters with 2000 watts (33 dBW EIRP) of radiated power,

as Petitioners requested. However, while current MDS and ITFS rules

limit booster power to 18 dBW EIRP, we propose to allow boosters to

operate up to 33 dBW EIRP, the maximum power level for MDS and ITFS. We

seek comment on this approach to transmitter power within the two-way

scheme. We also seek comment on rule proposals with respect to

frequency tolerance requirements for digital transmissions, type

acceptance of response station transmitters and boosters, and radio

frequency (``RF'') emissions for MDS/ITFS return path transmissions.

11. The Commission's current regulations in ITFS and MDS for

interference protection were designed to minimize the potential for

destructive cochannel and adjacent channel interference between systems

located in proximity to each other. The specific criteria for

protection are of two forms, namely, (1) cochannel and adjacent channel

desired-to-undesired signal (D/U) ratios and (2) limits on the

magnitude of a station's free space field as measured at the edge of

the station's protected service area. For cochannel interference

protection, an applicant must configure its system so that the signals

from each of its transmitters are at least 45 dB weaker than the

signals of the existing licensee's transmitters within the licensee's

protected service area and/or, in the case of ITFS licensees, at the

licensee's protected receiver sites. For adjacent channel protection,

the ratio must be at least 0 dB. In order to meet the second form of

protection, an applicant generally must be able to demonstrate that the

magnitude of the free space radiated field from each transmitter does

not exceed a particular limit (i.e., a power flux density -73 dBW/

m2) at the boundary of the applicant's service area.

12. Petitioners propose to apply the existing interference criteria

in essentially unchanged form, and to supplement them with similar new

criteria to be applied to hub, booster, and response stations.

Petitioners further propose to aggregate the power from a primary

station and all associated booster stations for one set of interference

calculations, and that a separate set of interference calculations be

performed using the aggregated power from response stations. However,

we counter-propose that a calculation of the combined field produced by

the primary station transmitter, all boosters, and the aggregated power

from response stations within a system be utilized to determine

compliance with interference standards. We seek comment on the relative

merits of Petitioners' proposed approach and our counter-proposal. We

also emphasize that where an interfered-with receive antenna meets the

antenna characteristics set forth in our MDS and ITFS rules, the

station causing the harmful interference is responsible for curing it.

13. Interference Prediction Methodology. In order to predict the

interference potential of response stations in the proposed

cellularized scheme, Petitioners seek to employ a three-step process

using statistical analysis and worst-case assumptions. In step one, the

hub station response service area (``RSA'') is defined and a grid of

points is located within this area representative of the expected

actual distribution of response station transmitters within the area.

Regions within the area are defined so that an adequate population

uniformity exists for purposes of predicting interference from a

distribution of response station transmitters. Population uniformity is

determined using a complex formula involving evaluation of the

population density within each ZIP Code within the planned boundaries

of a region. Population uniformity is an important facet of each region

because Petitioners assume, a priori, that the distribution of response

station transmitters will be

[[Page 60028]]

closely matched to population distribution within each region.

14. In step two, Petitioners propose to identify the technical

characteristics of response stations which will be associated with each

point in the RSA grid. One or more classes of response stations would

be identified within the RSA and its regions, with each class being a

function of several variables, such as transmitted power (EIRP),

antenna height, frequency, bandwidth, and maximum number of assumed

simultaneously operated response stations in the regional class; these

characteristics and others would be specified in the response hub

application. Differentiating between classes is asserted by Petitioners

to be essential for accurately calculating the interference potential

of the response stations within an RSA, because differentiable

technical characteristics between classes likely will lead to

differentiable potentials for causing interference to neighboring

systems.

15. The final step in calculating response station interference

would require combining the radiated fields of all response stations of

all classes, regions and RSAs within the primary station's protected

service area. In order to simplify this calculation, the statistical

population uniformity within each region would be used as a basis for

grouping response stations of all classes in proximity at the grid

points laid out within each RSA; multiple classes could share the same

grid points. For each class of response stations assigned to a grid

point, a set of worst-case assumptions would be made concerning the

transmitting antenna radiation pattern, transmitter power (EIRP) and

antenna height. Several complex calculations, including procedures for

checking the initial calculations, combining the radiated field for all

of the transmitters for each class of response station at each grid

point from all RSAs would then be used to evaluate compliance with the

interference criteria. Thus, whereas under current rules such

compliance is calculated on a per-transmitter basis, Petitioners'

proposed system would necessitate that it be calculated on an

aggregated basis, covering hundreds or thousands of transmitters and

their combined interference potential to neighboring systems.

Petitioners argue that licensees should be free, upon notification to

the Commission, to continue adding response station transmitters within

their systems until calculations indicate that permissible interference

values would be exceeded, and that using worst-case assumptions in

their methodology has built in an interference protection buffer for

situations where more stations or a different mix of stations than

anticipated are activated in an RSA.

16. In the NPRM, we caution that the interference prediction

methodology is based solely on assumptions, thus leading to a

statistical picture of response station interference potential which

gives an uncertain approximation of the operating environment, although

Petitioners also claim that this approximation is conservative. In

addition, we discuss how the small scale test conducted by Petitioners

in the flat and relatively unimpeded terrain of Tucson, AZ, while

useful, may not be generally applicable to the very diverse

geographical and interference environments in which MDS and ITFS

systems operate. We also express concern that the proposed methodology

is so complex that it may be very difficult to implement and enforce,

and may lead to numerous filings updating system configurations, which

would present severe burdens upon existing licensees and operators

needing to analyze these filings in order to verify that no harmful

interference will result to their systems. Notwithstanding these

reservations, however, we express our belief that Petitioners' overall

goal of facilitating cellularization of the services is very forward-

looking, and warrants an opportunity to proceed despite the

complications and uncertainties which could arise. Thus, we propose to

adopt the methodology and seek comment on it, but we also specifically

solicit suggestions for alternative methods for prediction of

interference to and from cellularized systems. For example, we ask to

what extent ``worst case'' analysis could serve a sufficient

approximation to a more exact analysis, such as a determination of

noninterference based solely on terrain shadowing, and to what

geographical extent individual response station areas should be

aggregated in large BTAs.

17. Modulation Methods. In the Digital Declaratory Ruling, we

authorized the use of Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (``QAM'') and

Vestigial Sideband (``VSB'') modulation. While we declined to consider

the use of other digital modulation methods in the context of that

proceeding, we stated that we would consider future requests for

declaratory rulings where the requesters submit appropriate data to

demonstrate that other modulation techniques could be used in a manner

that would not interfere with MDS and ITFS analog and digital

operations. In the current rulemaking proceeding, Pace

Telecommunications Consortium (``Pace'') commented that the Commission

should immediately grant ITFS and MDS licensees the flexibility to use

whatever digital techniques best serve their needs, with interference

controlled through the use of power spectral density limits and

spectral masks.

18. As in the Digital Declaratory Ruling, in the NPRM we decline to

adopt one or more ``standard'' digital technologies. We will retain or

add provisions for accommodating the use of different modulation types,

as requested by Petitioners. In addition, because we wish to encourage

parties to continue to identify different digital modulation schemes

that could be useful in MDS and ITFS, we emphasize that we remain open

to considering future requests for declaratory rulings in accordance

with the Digital Declaratory Ruling, upon submission of appropriate

data. We further invite comment on whether there is a basis for

concluding that use of particular digital modulation types by MDS and

ITFS stations other than VSB and QAM would not be prone to

interference, based on the current 45 dB/0 dB protection ratios for

cochannel and adjacent channel interference respectively, i.e. that

such modulation formats should be permitted without requiring test

data. For example, one modulation type may be a subset of VSB and QAM

and, therefore, is covered under the industry tests used to support the

Digital Declaratory Ruling.

19. Application Procedures. Petitioners set forth an application

processing scheme, governing the filing of applications for new or

modified response station hubs or boosters, that would substantially

shift review of applications from Commission staff and leave much of

the interference environment to be worked out among licensees.

Petitioners propose that we adopt a rolling, one-day filing window

system. While each applicant would be required to demonstrate

protection of existing or previously proposed facilities, all

acceptable applications filed on the same day would be granted and the

filers left to resolve incompatibilities amongst themselves with little

or no intervention by Commission staff. Specifically, Petitioners

propose that applications would be placed on public notice without

prior staff review of interference studies, and that the applications

would be automatically granted on the 61st day after that notice unless

a petition to deny was filed or the Commission notified the applicant

prior to that date that a grant would not be made.

[[Page 60029]]

20. Petitioners speculate that a large number of applications are

likely to be filed once the new rules become effective and that many of

the applications submitted at that time will conflict with others filed

simultaneously. In order to smooth the transition to the rolling one-

day filing window application processing system, Petitioners propose

that a special one-week window be employed when the new rules first go

into effect, and that all applications filed during this window be

deemed filed as of the same day. Following the publication of a public

notice announcing the tendering for filing of applications submitted

during that window, applicants would have a period of 60 days to amend

their applications to resolve conflicts. During this 60-day period, no

additional applications could be filed, affording those who filed

during the one-week window an opportunity to resolve any conflicts

without fear that, during the pendency of settlement discussions, third

parties will propose facilities that will have to be protected if the

original applicants amend their applications. After this initial 60 day

period, public notice and automatic grant procedures akin to those

proposed by Petitioners for the rolling one-day filing windows would be

implemented. Following Petitioners' plan, on the 61st day after the

publication of the second public notice, applications for

authorizations for response station hubs and for booster stations

henceforth would be accepted and processed under the rolling one-day

filing window approach.

21. Although we tentatively accept Petitioners' proposal to place

the applications on public notice without prior staff review of the

interference studies, we tentatively reject their proposal for

automatic grant of the applications. We believe that placing the

applications on public notice without prior interference analysis will

serve to speed the review process by making the relevant data available

to all interested parties as quickly as possible. However, we believe

that an automatic grant at the end of the proposed 60 day public notice

period will not provide an adequate opportunity for interested parties

or, where necessary, for Commission staff, to review the interference

studies or for the Commission to make a reasoned determination in

complex cases. We solicit comment on our conclusions.

22. In addition, while Petitioners' proposal in this area presents

a promising start, it still leaves a number of concerns and questions

unresolved. Commenter Catholic Television Network (``CTN'') raised the

concern that the one-day rolling filing window will create an undue

burden on ITFS licensees, who may find themselves required to evaluate

a continuing stream of applications. We solicit comment on how such a

concern could be resolved in the context of the one-day rolling filing

window. We also solicit comment on whether we should retain our current

periodic filing window system used for ITFS applications and what

advantages and disadvantages exist between the existing system and the

proposed system. Furthermore, Petitioners' proposal leaves a number of

significant questions unresolved regarding the processing of

conflicting applications. For example what should be the result in the

event that same-day filers of closely-spaced conflicting applications

cannot resolve their differences? Should the applicants be ordered into

binding arbitration for which they will assume the cost and whose

outcome will be finally subject to Commission approval? Should the

Commission simply freeze the applications until the parties are able to

resolve their differences? Should the Commission's staff function as a

referee in such cases and, if so, should it adopt any sort of

comparative criteria to guide its decisions? Should the staff adopt

some type of point system to rate competing applicants? We seek comment

on these questions.

23. We tentatively propose the following processing rules, taking

into consideration the concerns of the various commenters. Under these

rules, applicants would file an original and two copies of their system

proposal and serve a copy of the proposal on any party whose MDS/ITFS

interests may be affected by the proposal. A complete application would

then be placed on public notice for a 60-day initial comment period.

Prior to the expiration of the 60-day period, interested parties could

file comments, petitions to deny or requests for extension of time to

file comments or petitions to deny. Although it is our policy that

requests for extension of time shall not be granted, and we do not

propose to change that policy, we anticipate that the limited resources

available to an ITFS party to review a potentially complex two-way

service proposal will be a factor considered in whether we grant a

request for extension of time. In the alternative, we would consider

adopting a 120-day initial comment period, with requests for extensions

of time considered only in extraordinary circumstances. We seek comment

on these proposals and solicit detailed alternate proposals. We

especially seek comment on what time period parties believe would be

necessary to adequately review a service proposal without unduly

delaying the processing of such a proposal.

24. We believe that the adoption of the one-week initial filing

window will lessen the burden on all affected parties, including the

Commission's staff, during the first round of application filing. We

also believe that providing parties with an initial 60-day period

during which they can resolve any apparent conflicts and then amend

their applications without prejudice will provide for quicker and

easier processing. We believe that issuing a public notice announcing

the acceptance for filing of all applications as amended will serve an

important notice function for all potentially affected parties. As

discussed above, however, we do not propose to accept Petitioners'

automatic grant proposal. Rather than adopt Petitioners' proposed

automatic grant, we tentatively conclude that, at the end of any

comment period that we may adopt and following any further staff

review, the Commission staff, pursuant to delegated authority, would

issue a grant or denial of any authorization pursuant to the revised

rules. If no oppositions have been filed in a particular proceeding and

the Commission staff has determined that a service proposal would not

cause interference in violation of our Rules, we anticipate that such a

grant would be accomplished quickly. We seek comment on both our

proposed approach and on Petitioners' proposed automatic grant.

25. We also solicit comment on ways to make information on actual

system operating parameters available to third-party applicants who

need such information for analysis of the interference environment, and

on how to conform our MDS and ITFS rules to provide for amendment of

booster station and response station hub applications. Finally, in

their Comments, Petitioners urge that we adopt a system whereby an

applicant, once authorization for service has been granted, may switch

from common carrier to non-common carrier service and back without

seeking subsequent authorization. We seek comment on this aspect of

Petitioners' proposal, and on whether operators should be required to

give the Commission notice when they are switching back and forth

between common carrier and non-common carrier service, even if prior

approval is not required.

26. Issues Specific to ITFS. Under Sec. 74.931 of the Commission's

Rules, ITFS stations are operated by

[[Page 60030]]

educational organizations and are ``intended primarily to provide a

formal educational and cultural development in aural and visual form,''

to students enrolled for credit in accredited secondary schools,

colleges and universities. An ITFS licensee who leases excess channel

capacity to a wireless cable operator must provide a total average of

at least 20 hours per channel per week of ITFS programming on its

authorized channels. ITFS licensees in such lease arrangements also

retain the right to recapture ``an average of an additional 20 hours

per channel per week for simultaneous programming on the number of

channels for which it is authorized.'' In addition, an ITFS licensee

may shift its required educational programming onto fewer than its

authorized number of channels via channel loading or channel mapping.

The licensee may further agree to transmission of recapture time on

channels not authorized to it but which are included in the wireless

cable system of which it is a part.

27. Petitioners propose changes which would revise the absolute 20

hours per channel per week recapture time requirement to provide that

the ITFS programming requirements constitute a total of 40 hours per

channel per week, including both actual programming and recapture time.

The Petition does not contemplate any changes to the required minimum

of 20 hours per channel per week of actual ITFS programming. Thus,

under the proposed changes, if an ITFS licensee actually provides more

than an average of 20 hours per channel per week of ITFS programming,

reserved recapture time would only need to make up the difference to

achieve a total of 40 hours per channel per week. CTN commented that

retaining the 20 hour minimum actual programming requirement is

inadequate, and insisted that as digital compression increases the

number of channel paths, there must be a proportionate increase in the

number of paths available for education, including data services. In

their reply, Petitioners claimed that many ITFS licensees are finding

it difficult to satisfy the existing ITFS minimum programming

requirements. Petitioners further posed that adoption of CTN's proposal

would create a disincentive for ITFS licensees to introduce the new

technologies contemplated by the Petition. We solicit comment from ITFS

licensees on these comments. In the NPRM, we find no grounds for

retreat from the absolute 20 hour recapture time requirement,

especially at this juncture when several wireless cable systems

currently enjoy or imminently stand to reap the benefits of increased

spectrum capacity through use of digital compression techniques. While

we acknowledge the great value to wireless cable operators of

maximization of spectrum available for leasing, we also emphasize the

primary educational purpose of ITFS and the importance of maintaining

sufficient capacity for programming by ITFS licensees which fulfills

that purpose.

28. In the NPRM, we specifically seek comment on several issues

related to the question of whether to change our ITFS programming

requirements in light of the use of digital technology by ITFS

licensees. Should there be different rules depending on whether the

wireless cable system employs digital transmissions? Should a change

take the form of an increase in required levels of actual ITFS

programming, an increase in ready recapture time, or both? How should

any increased requirements be measured, e.g., additional hours or

additional paths? With the flexibility in implementation of ITFS

programming requirements currently allowed or proposed, such as channel

loading and shifting of required programming onto other channels within

a wireless cable system, should we retain our existing program content

requirements and, if not, how should they be modified? For example,

should data transmission count towards minimum ITFS programming

requirements? Should voice transmission count? If data and/or voice

transmission were to count, how would they be measured with respect to

fulfillment of minimum ITFS programming requirements? Should time-of-

day requirements be instituted for these uses to help ensure that they

are really being put towards ITFS programming? Furthermore, should

counting one or both of them have an effect on the amount of actual

programming or ready recapture time required? We also invite comment on

whether education-related uplink transmissions should be applied

towards satisfaction of minimum ITFS programming requirements. While we

note our initial impression that counting uplink transmissions will be

overly complicated and impractical, given the anticipated multitudes of

response stations and the difficulty in predicting or tracking exactly

when they are being used for educational purposes, we nonetheless

welcome suggestions on how they would be measured with respect to

fulfillment of minimum ITFS programming requirements.

29. Petitioners anticipate that system developers will attempt to

utilize contiguous 6 MHz channels for two-way services in order to

minimize the amount of spectrum that would be lost to the proposed

spectral mask whenever a return path is adjacent to a downlink channel.

Furthermore, entire ITFS channel groups may need to be devoted for

return paths. Thus, Petitioners propose that we allow ITFS licensees to

satisfy their programming requirements on other channels within the

wireless cable system. This proposal would be the next step in a

progression of rule changes, following our allowance of channel mapping

and channel loading, that have afforded ITFS licensees increased

flexibility in the implementation of their minimum programming

requirements. Because this proposal would enhance the two-way scheme,

and because it would not call for any dilution or elimination of

minimum ITFS programming requirements, we are considering implementing

it. The flexibility that the suggested changes would accord to ITFS

licensees to lease their channel capacity, along with the maintenance

of minimum ITFS programming requirements, could also encourage

educators to apply for new ITFS stations and lead to more educational

programming. Several commenters put forth ideas for refinements to this

proposal. Arizona State Board of Regents, et al. (``Arizona'')

suggested that each ITFS licensee be required to preserve at least one

downstream video channel, and that the Commission institute a procedure

whereby it would routinely grant applications by ITFS licensees to

exchange individual ITFS channels between channel groups. Instructional

Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. (``Foundation'') would require that

each ITFS licensee devote at least half of its capacity for downstream

use. Schwartz, Woods & Miller (``SWM'') prompted the Commission to

facilitate the ``trading'' of channels between the ITFS and MDS bands.

30. Several of the ITFS commenting parties expressed concern that

the proposed two-way scheme presents threats to the independence of

ITFS licensees and their future ability to use spectrum capacity for

instructional purposes. Pace, for instance, cautioned that because the

Petition proposes a massive shift towards industry control over ITFS

applications, the Commission must ensure that individual ITFS licensees

``do not lose their freedom of choice'' over the use of their channels,

through coercion by neighboring licensees or strong wireless cable

operators. However, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Broadcasting Authority

(``CMPBA''), an ITFS licensee, took the view that the proposed rules

[[Page 60031]]

adequately protect the interests of ITFS entities, primarily because

the rules do not obligate ITFS licensees to take part in the two-way

system, enter into a lease agreement, file FCC applications, or accept

harmful signal levels. Some of the concerned ITFS commenting parties

focused on the effect that the proposed rules may have on the

engineering autonomy of ITFS licensees. Arizona posed the question of

what would happen if an excess capacity agreement comes to an end, and

the ITFS licensee has previously converted its channels to two-way use

and has shifted some or all of its programming onto other channels in

the wireless cable system. Similarly, CTN asked what the impact of

cellularization of a market would be on one or more ITFS licensees

within it who elect not to cellularize, as well as whether a single

ITFS licensee who strives to cellularize its operations would be

dependent on other licensees in the market.

31. In the NPRM, we emphasize that cellularization by ITFS

licensees would be permissive only, and not mandatory. We particularly

seek comment on the effects of allowing complete flexibility in the

number of channels ``turned around'' for return paths, and in the

shifting of required ITFS programming onto other channels in the

wireless cable system and what restrictions, if any, should be adopted.

We also seek comment on whether we should require ITFS licensees to

retain one or more channels for downstream transmissions and the

ramifications of such a requirement. Further, we seek comment on

whether ITFS channel swaps should only be just between ITFS channels,

or whether ITFS licensees should be able to swap their spectrum for

channels in the MDS band. We seek additional comment on specific

potential threats to the engineering autonomy of ITFS licensees which

could result from institution of the proposed two-way framework; in

conjunction with such comment, we further seek proposed solutions. Some

proposed solutions include channel swapping and reimbursement of costs

of channel changes, upholding that participation of ITFS licensees in

cellularization is not mandatory, and potentially increasing

reservation of ready recapture time for ITFS programming. Do any of

these ideas individually, or a combination of them, provide a

sufficient foundation for meeting the expanding needs of some ITFS

licensees? Commenters are also encouraged to address the general

question of whether the Commission should establish solutions by rule,

or whether solutions should be achieved by contract, as advocated by

Petitioners.

32. Several commenters also addressed the degree of oversight the

Commission should maintain in regulating the wireless cable industry

and ITFS. In the past, the Commission has adopted rules and procedures

to accommodate and protect the special needs of educational

institutions and organizations, believing that educational institutions

should be treated differently from commercial entities in many

situations due to limited financial and staff resources. In addition,

ITFS licensees and applicants are required to file their excess

capacity lease agreements, which are reviewed by the staff for overly

restrictive provisions affecting the licensee's rights and obligations,

and compliance with the Commission's leasing policies.

33. In order to ensure that educators retain control of their

facilities and to protect their interests, the Foundation proposed that

the Commission require that two-way digital applications and

interference consents be reviewed by legal and engineering counsel that

do not represent commercial interests, and that these independent

advisors ``certify that in their professional opinion the submission

will not be harmful to future instructional service.'' We have declined

in the past to require all leasing parties to hire separate counsel,

finding this ``safeguard'' unnecessary and relying instead on the

staff's review and monitoring of leases. We see no reason to change our

position on this issue and seek comment on this issue. SWM also

proposed that in order to protect the rights of incumbent ITFS

licenses, the Commission require that leases approved or submitted

under the previous rules ``be amended to make clear that the wireless

cable lessee and the ITFS licensee have together considered the rule

changes adopted and made any appropriate changes to lease terms, prior

to the commencement of commercial operations on the frequencies using

cellularization, sectorization or differing channelization plans.''

Petitioners opposed this proposal, stating that the parties to the

excess capacity lease agreements, and not the Commission, are best

positioned to determine whether proposed system changes require

contract revisions. Accordingly, we seek comment on SWM's proposal.

34. We also seek comment on what impact the proposed rule changes

would have on our requirements regarding excess capacity lease

agreements. For example, the Commission consistently has maintained

that an ITFS licensee should be permitted to purchase the ITFS

equipment necessary to maintain its operation in the event the lease is

terminated. In addition, we also require that the licensee maintain

ultimate control over its licensed facilities. Several commenters have

expressed concern that given the complexity and cost of Petitioner's

proposal, ITFS licensees will be unable to sever their relationship

with the wireless cable operator and acquire the equipment to either

continue cellular operations or return to non-two-way transmissions. We

particularly seek comment on this matter and on what type of equipment

MDS lessees of ITFS channels should be required to make available to

the ITFS licensees upon termination of a lease. For example, should it

only be digital equipment comparable to that in use on the system at

the time the lease is terminated or should it be equipment that would

make it possible for the ITFS licensee to restore analog video

operation, if necessary? Furthermore, with respect to Petitioners'

proposal that ITFS licensees be allowed to utilize their entire channel

for return paths and shift their ITFS programming to other channels, we

request comment on whether the parties should be required to file

written agreements governing the ITFS licensee's lease of an ITFS

programming channel, and whether our present requirements for excess

capacity leases, including those dealing with control issues, length of

lease, and rights on termination, should apply.

35. We also revisit our channel loading rules, and propose to

retain them. We request that interested parties comment on whether

these rules have been beneficial to ITFS licensees and wireless cable

operators, or whether they have been detrimental. Because we believe

that they have provided additional much-needed flexibility to ITFS

licensees and wireless cable operators, any parties commenting that

these rules have been detrimental should also focus on solutions to

permit the continued application of them while rendering them more

universally beneficial. Finally, we also consider issues related to

retention of ITFS call sign transmission requirements and

accountability of ITFS licensees.

36. In this NPRM, we propose to amend our rules to give MDS and

ITFS licensees the needed flexibility to fully exploit digital

technology in delivering two-way communications services. Growth in the

wireless cable industry has remained slow despite the increased channel

capacity offered by digital compression and facilitated by the Digital

Declaratory Ruling. Meanwhile, convergence of different information

[[Page 60032]]

delivery systems, including video and Internet access, is occurring in

other industries, such as cable and DBS. Thus, one of our primary goals

in instituting this proceeding is to enhance the competitiveness of the

wireless cable industry. Another of our chief underlying goals in this

proceeding is to provide benefits to the educational community through

the use of two-way services, such as high speed Internet service.

Besides proposing to amend our technical rules to facilitate such usage

over ITFS frequencies, we note that the growth of wireless cable has

led to the continued development of ITFS by supporting and funding

approximately 95 percent of all new ITFS applicants. Thus, we believe

that enhancing the competitive viability of wireless cable service

through maximization of flexibility and service offerings promotes the

underlying educational purpose of ITFS.

37. This is a permit-but-disclose 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's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

38. For information regarding proper filing procedures for

comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an original and five copies of all

comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want

each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an

original plus ten copies must be filed. 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

39. Authority. This NPRM is issued pursuant to authority contained

in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(g) and (r), and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 154(j),

301, 303(g), 303(r), and 403.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1

the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small

entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 97-217 (``NPRM''). Written public comments

are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to

the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM

provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register. See id.

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

\1\ See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et

seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act

of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II

of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

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

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

The Commission is instituting this rulemaking to determine whether,

and if so, how, to amend its rules to promote the ability of MDS and

ITFS licensees to provide two-way digital services. The objective of

this proceeding is to encourage the efficient use of the spectrum

allotted to MDS and ITFS by simplifying our current two-way licensing

system and providing greater flexibility in the use of the allotted

spectrum where such flexibility would best serve the needs of the

public. In addition, we intend to enhance the competitiveness of the

wireless cable industry and the resultant choices available to

consumers, and to increase Internet access for educational institutions

and their students via ITFS frequencies.

Legal Basis

Authority for the action proposed in this proceeding may be found

in Sections 4(i) and (j), 301, 303(g) and (r), and 403 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),

154(j), 301, 303(g), 303(r), and 403.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which

the Proposed Rules Will Apply

The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same

meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and

``small business concern.'' 2 In addition, the term ``small

business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''

under the Small Business Act.3 A small business concern is

one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant

in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the SBA.4

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

\2\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(6).

\3\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the

definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3), the statutory definition of small

business applies unless an agency after consultation with the Office

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after an

opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions

of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency

and publishes definitions in the Federal Register.

\4\ Small Business Act, 15 USC Sec. 632.

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

MDS

The Commission has defined ``small entity'' for the auction of MDS

as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross

annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding

three calendar years.5 This definition of a small entity in

the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA.6

The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for

authorizations in 493 basic trading areas (BTAs). Of 67 winning

bidders, 61 qualified as small entities.7

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

\5\ 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1).

\6\ See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules

With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution

Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act--

Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-31 and PP Docket No. 93-253,

Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995), 60 FR 36524 (July 17,

1995).

\7\ One of these small entities, O'ahu Wireless Cable, Inc., was

subsequently acquired by GTE Media Ventures, Inc., which did not

qualify as a small entity for purposes of the MDS auction.

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

MDS is also heavily encumbered with licensees of stations

authorized prior to the auction. The SBA has developed a definition of

small entities for pay television services, which includes all such

companies generating $11 million or less in annual

receipts.8 This definition includes multipoint distribution

systems, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators

which did not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to

us indicates that there are 832 of these licensees and operators that

do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million annually. We

tentatively conclude that for purposes of this IRFA, there are

approximately 892 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the

Commission's auction rules, and some of these providers may be impacted

by the outcome of this NPRM. We seek comment on this tentative

conclusion.

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

\8\ 13 CFR 121.201.

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

ITFS

There are presently 2032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these

licenses are held by educational institutions (these 100 fall in the

MDS category, above). Educational institutions may be included in the

definition of a small entity.9 ITFS is a non-pay, non-

[[Page 60033]]

commercial broadcast service that, depending on SBA categorization,

has, as small entities, entities generating either $10.5 million or

less, or $11.0 million or less, in annual receipts.10

However, we do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of,

annual revenue data for ITFS licensees. Thus, we tentatively conclude

that up to 1932 of these educational institutions are small entities.

We seek comment on this conclusion.

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

\9\ See 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 (3)-(5).

\10\ See 13 CFR 121.210 (SIC 4833, 4841, and 4899).

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

Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

The Commission seeks comment on proposals to amend its rules to

promote the ability of MDS and ITFS licensees to provide two-way

digital services, including implementation of simplified procedures

governing application for, and authorization of, booster stations and

response station hubs. Because the proposed rule changes would enable

licensees to apply for and receive authorizations for new types of

booster stations and for response station hubs, certain commensurate

new reporting and recordkeeping obligations would follow as part of

this process, though the nature of the obligations and the MDS and ITFS

rules directly addressing them 11 would remain the same. At

the same time, however, the proposed rule changes would make the

overall licensing process for two-way digital services much less

cumbersome than the current process, which requires individual

licensing of each response station and booster station. In the NPRM, we

request comment on whether we should increase ITFS programming

requirements, and if so, in which way and to what degree. While the

proposed two-way scheme would result in more complicated interference

analysis requirements for MDS and ITFS entities seeking to establish or

modify service, regardless of whether the entities themselves choose to

engage in fixed two-way transmissions, these interference safeguards

are necessary to promote the objectives of this proceeding. We seek

comment on these conclusions and how we can modify any proposed new

requirements so as to reduce the burden on small entities and still

meet the objectives of this proceeding.

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

\11\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 21.911.

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

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

As described in the NPRM, in response to a March 31, 1997 Public

Notice soliciting comment on the Petition, several of the ITFS

commenting parties express concern that the proposed two-way scheme

presents threats to the independence of ITFS licensees and their future

ability to use spectrum capacity for instructional purposes. Pace, for

instance, cautions that because the Petition proposes a massive shift

towards industry control over ITFS applications, the Commission must

ensure that individual ITFS licensees ``do not lose their freedom of

choice'' over the use of their channels, through coercion by

neighboring licensees or strong wireless cable operators. Other

commenting ITFS parties, however, do not perceive such a threat. For

instance, CMPBA believes that the proposed rules adequately protect the

interests of ITFS entities, primarily because the rules do not obligate

ITFS licensees to take part in the two-way system, enter into a lease

agreement, file FCC applications, or accept harmful signal levels.

Nevertheless, in order to find solutions that would allay the concerns

of some ITFS licensees, in the NPRM we seek suggestions on ways to

provide maximum flexibility in usage of ITFS channels while ensuring

that capacity is reserved for downstream ITFS programming, pose the

question of whether solutions should be established by rule or by

contract and what role the Commission or other third parties should

play in reviewing excess capacity lease agreements, and confirm that

cellularization by ITFS licensees would be permissive only, and not

mandatory.

CTN raises the concern that Petitioners' one-day rolling

application filing window plan and automatic grant proposal will create

an undue burden on ITFS licensees who may find themselves required to

evaluate a continuing stream of applications. We solicit comment on how

such a concern could be resolved in the context of a one-day rolling

filing window or whether we should retain a periodic filing window

system. Furthermore, we tentatively reject the automatic grant

component of Petitioners' application processing proposal, and instead

propose a ``comment period'' of 60 or 120 days, after which

applications would be processed pursuant to current procedures. In

proposing the comment period alternative, we acknowledge the complexity

of the engineering information in the response hub or booster station

applications, and the substantial number of affected parties,

particularly ITFS licensees, that frequently have very limited

resources and that often would not be able to file a petition against

an application before the application is automatically granted. Thus,

in the NPRM, we particularly solicit comment from small ITFS operators.

Similarly, we express concern that the proposed interference prediction

methodology is so complex that it may lead to numerous filings updating

system configurations, which would present considerable burdens upon

existing licensees and operators needing to analyze these filings. We

therefore solicit suggestions for other possible prediction

methodologies.

In some instances, a proposed rule will impact different classes of

small entities in different ways. For instance, in considering whether

to increase ITFS programming requirements, including ready recapture

time, we acknowledge in the NPRM the balance which underlies the

existence and substance of the ready recapture provisions of 47 CFR

74.931(e): the great value to wireless cable operators of maximization

of spectrum available for leasing, and the importance of maintaining

sufficient capacity for programming by ITFS licensees which fulfills

the primary educational purpose of ITFS. We decline to retreat from the

current recapture time requirements of Sec. 74.931(e), but we solicit

comment in the NPRM on whether we should adopt any changes to the

number of hours required for ready recapture by ITFS licensees.

Other proposals, tentative conclusions, or questions that we pose

in the NPRM are designed to minimize the impact on all small entities

involved. For example, we tentatively reject Caritas' proposal to limit

the availability of response channels to MDS channels 1, 2, and 2A,

because it would both artificially limit the amount of spectrum that

could be used for return paths and unnecessarily prevent ITFS licensees

from using their own channels for return paths, while providing no

interference protection benefits that cannot be derived in other ways.

CTN and SWM both put forth procedural suggestions for this

proceeding. CTN proposes that rather than proceeding with the instant

rulemaking, we pursue a negotiated rulemaking procedure and convene a

federal advisory committee to evaluate Petitioners' proposals and work

out the most effective method to implement them. CTN asserts that this

would provide substantial, useful information and facilitate the

process initiated by Petitioners. We believe that the instant

rulemaking process will provide us with sufficient information to

adequately

[[Page 60034]]

evaluate Petitioners' proposals. In addition, the need for swift

consideration of these proposals, in order to enhance the

competitiveness of the wireless cable industry and expedite educational

institutions' access to the Internet via ITFS frequencies, may be

defeated by implementing a potentially lengthy negotiated rulemaking

procedure. Thus, we reject CTN's proposal for a negotiated rulemaking

at this time. Should circumstances warrant, however, we reserve the

option to revisit our decision on this issue at a later date.

Conversely, SWM requests the issuance of an NPRM in this proceeding,

and noting that many of the parties which filed comments in the initial

round of this proceeding are ITFS entities, requests an early Fall

comment date in light of the academic schedules which predominate

amongst these entities. The comment period that we establish here,

therefore, should enhance the ability of ITFS entities to file

carefully considered comments and reply comments. We solicit comment in

the NPRM on other substantive and procedural alternatives to adoption

of the proposed two-way digital transmission scheme.

Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule

None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

Environmental impact statements

47 CFR Part 21

Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Television.

47 CFR Part 74

Communications equipment, Education, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-29346 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P