[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5521-5537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2102]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 73
[ET Docket No. 10-235; FCC 10-196]
Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission initiated a process to
further its ongoing commitment to addressing America's growing demand
for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing innovation and investment
in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace with the global wireless
revolution, by making a significant amount of new spectrum available
for broadband. The approach proposed is consistent with the goal set
forth in the National Broadband Plan (the ``Plan'') to repurpose up to
120 megahertz from the broadcast television bands for new wireless
broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to
an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as proposed will
provide the necessary flexibility for meeting the requirements of these
new applications.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 18, 2011, and reply
comments must be filed on or before April 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 10-235,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office.
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail: [email protected], TTY
(202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 10-235, FCC 10-196, adopted and
released on November 30, 2010. The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 2, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries
[[Page 5522]]
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
initiated a process to further its ongoing commitment to addressing
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing
innovation and investment in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace
with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant amount of
new spectrum available for broadband. Through this NPRM, the Commission
takes preliminary steps to enable the repurposing of a portion of the
UHF and VHF frequency bands that are currently used by the broadcast
television service, which in later actions it expects to make available
for flexible use by fixed and mobile wireless communications services,
including mobile broadband. At the same time, the Commission recognizes
that over-the-air TV serves important public interests, and its
approach will help preserve this service as a healthy, viable medium.
The approach the Commission proposed is consistent with the goal set
forth in the National Broadband Plan (the ``Plan'') to repurpose up to
120 megahertz from the broadcast television bands for new wireless
broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to
an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as proposed will
provide the necessary flexibility for meeting the requirements of new
applications.
2. The specific bands under consideration are the low VHF spectrum
at 54-72 MHz (TV channels 2-4) and 76-88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the
high VHF spectrum at 174-216 MHz (TV channels 7-13), and the UHF bands
at 470-608 MHz (TV channels 14-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV channels 38-51);
for purposes of this NPRM, the Commission will refer to this spectrum
as the ``U/V Bands.'' This NPRM proposes three actions that will
establish the underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless
broadband uses of the U/V Bands, while maintaining current license
assignments in the band. First, the Commission proposes to add new
allocations for fixed and mobile services in the U/V Bands to be co-
primary with the existing broadcasting allocation in those bands. The
additional allocations would provide the maximum flexibility for
planning efforts to increase spectrum available for flexible use,
including the possibility of assigning portions of the U/V Bands for
new mobile broadband services in the future. Second, the Commission
proposes to establish a framework that, for the first time, permits two
or more television stations to share a single six-megahertz channel,
thereby fostering efficient use of the U/V Bands. Third, the Commission
intends to consider approaches to improve service for television
viewers and create additional value for broadcasters by increasing the
utility of the VHF bands for the operation of television services.
3. By taking these important steps to facilitate wireless broadband
uses in the U/V Bands, this NPRM is the first in a series of actions
that will allow us to make progress toward our goal of improving
efficient use of the bands and enable ongoing innovation and investment
through flexible use. The Commission intends to propose further actions
consistent with other of the Plan's recommendations for the U/V Bands,
including, but not limited to, the process of voluntarily returning
broadcast licenses to the Commission and the licensing process and
service rules for new fixed and mobile wireless communications
services. As part of that process, the Commission will address the
Plan's proposal for channel re-packing, the band plan for recovered
spectrum and other related issues and will provide full opportunity for
public comment on those issues at that time.
4. The National Broadband Plan. The Plan was issued on March 17,
2010. As required under the Recovery Act, the Plan seeks to ensure that
every American has access to broadband capability and establishes clear
benchmarks for meeting that goal. The Plan recommends making 500
megahertz of spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz newly available to
meet the needs of mobile, fixed and unlicensed wireless broadband in
the next 10 years and for providing 300 megahertz of that amount for
mobile flexible uses within 5 years, of which up to 120 megahertz would
come from the broadcast television bands.
5. This NPRM takes the first step towards achieving these important
objectives by proposing additional frequency allocations, a framework
that will permit two or more television stations to share a single six-
megahertz channel, and changes to rules for use of the VHF band to
improve its utility for television service. The Commission recognizes
that broadcast television provides an important service to the public,
and our actions in this proceeding will take full account of the vital
role played by over-the-air television while increasing the flexible
use of spectrum in a manner that meets consumer and business needs. The
Commission remains committed to preserving the free, over-the-air
broadcast television service and maintaining the diversity of local
voices and important informational and entertainment benefits it
provides the American public.
6. It is our strong intention to provide for an orderly transition
of a portion of the U/V Bands to flexible use, in a manner that will
minimize any impact on over-the-air television broadcasting and the
consumers it serves, both off-the-air and through multichannel video
program distributors. In this regard, broadcast television stations and
other primary services operating on the spectrum to be recovered will
be co-primary with and be protected from interference from new
broadband services for as long as they remain on channels in that
spectrum.
7. To facilitate the recovery of underutilized television channels
while continuing to maintain existing broadcast television services,
the Commission also proposes in this NPRM new rules that would allow a
television service licensee to voluntarily reduce its occupation of
spectrum by offering to operate on a shared six megahertz channel.
Under this provision, all of the stations sharing a channel would
broadcast their services through the same ATSC digital television
signal using that signal's multicasting capabilities. Each licensee
would have the same rights and service obligations as a licensee
operating from a full channel today, including the right to carriage by
cable and satellite providers pursuant to the rules for mandatory
carriage or retransmission consent. The Commission believes that
channel sharing could be beneficial to certain licensees, particularly
those that wish to save on their operating costs or minimize the amount
of their investment in spectrum or transmission facilities. In
addition, channel sharing
[[Page 5523]]
could provide an incentive for broadcasters to relinquish spectrum for
a portion of the proceeds of the revenues of a U/V Band spectrum
auction, subject to Congress providing the Commission the authority to
conduct an incentive auction. Further, channel sharing could offer
opportunities for broadcasters serving minority, foreign language and
niche interests that might have smaller audiences and lower income to
operate at reduced cost and thereby improve their viability. In
allowing stations to share channels, the Commission notes that in some
instances changes in the operation of television stations could raise
the possibility of interference to radio astronomy operations on
channel 37 or to services operating on frequencies immediately above
channel 51. It is the Commission's intent that any channel or other
facilities changes that might be requested as part of sharing
agreements not result in increased interference to radio astronomy
operations on channel 37 or to operations of other services above
channel 51. The Commission requests comments on specific steps that
could be taken as part of the implementation of its sharing rules to
mitigate the potential for such interference. The Commission describes
its initial proposed rules for channel sharing by television licensees
in this NPRM. The Commission is also aware that broadcasters have
encountered technical issues in using VHF channels to provide
satisfactory service to viewers. It intends to consider rule changes
and other alternatives for making the VHF channels more desirable for
DTV operation. The Commission's proposals for adding new allocations to
the U/V bands, channel sharing by television stations and improving
television service from VHF channels are discussed.
Spectrum Allocations
8. New Spectrum Allocations. The Commission proposes changes to the
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations in Sec. 2.106 of the rules that
would allow it to make a significant portion of the spectrum currently
used for broadcast television available for flexible use, including
fixed and mobile wireless broadband services. To facilitate repurposing
of a portion of the U/V Bands in a later action, the Commission
proposed in this NPRM to add allocations for fixed and mobile services
in the U/V Bands (excluding channel 37) for non-Federal use, to be co-
primary with that for broadcast services. This proposal would also
expand the existing land mobile allocation in the areas where PLMRS and
CMRS systems operate on specified frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band
to be the same more generalized and flexible mobile allocation that
would be specified for other frequencies in the U/V Bands.
9. These new allotments would allow us to consider the entire range
of the U/V Bands in selecting the specific frequencies to be designated
for new licensed and/or unlicensed uses. This approach will provide
maximum flexibility in planning for the future assignment of a portion
of the U/V Bands for flexible use, including new broadband services.
The Commission's goal is to adopt a band that will provide for flexible
use while continuing to support the needs of the television service. It
is not proposing to change or add to the existing allocations for land
mobile (medical telemetry and medical telecommand) and radio astronomy
that are at 608-614 MHz (at channel 37). The Commission requests
comments on this proposed plan for adding new allocations to the U/V
Bands and invite suggestions for alternative approaches.
Broadcast Television Channel Sharing
10. The Plan recommends that, to facilitate the recovery of
spectrum, the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
``establish a licensing framework to permit two or more stations to
share a six-megahertz channel.'' The Commission believes that the
option of channel sharing, in addition to aiding in the broadband goals
of the Plan, could also be beneficial to the television industry and to
viewers. Television stations operating on shared channels could use the
cost savings and additional income from such arrangements to strengthen
their financial condition and to develop new and enhanced programming.
Channel sharing could also provide existing small- and minority-owned
stations an opportunity to enhance or preserve their local program
offerings. The Commission anticipates providing broadcast stations an
opportunity to voluntarily elect to share a channel. The Commission
therefore seeks comment in this proceeding on the development of an
appropriate regulatory structure for voluntary television channel
sharing that will preserve over-the-air television as a healthy, viable
medium going forward, in a way that would benefit consumers overall,
while establishing mechanisms to make available additional spectrum for
flexible broadband uses.
11. The Commission envisions, consistent with the Plan, that two
stations could generally broadcast one primary HD video stream each
over a shared six-megahertz channel or more than two stations
broadcasting in SD (not HD) could share a six-megahertz channel. As
noted in the Plan, ``numerous permutations are possible, including
dynamic arrangements whereby broadcasters sharing a channel reach
agreements to exchange capacity to enable higher or lower transmission
bit rates depending on market-driven choices.'' In this regard, the
Commission observes that at the Broadcast Engineering Forum
participants expressed concerns that sharing a single channel would not
be practical because it would not provide sufficient transmission
capacity for two or more stations to offer the highest quality HD
programming simultaneously. Stations were also concerned that channel
sharing could impact or eliminate current and future DTV services, such
as expansion of high-definition programming and deployment of mobile
television service. The Commission intends to consider these issues in
this proceeding and welcomes comments on these concerns.
12. Other approaches to channel sharing that involve sub-channel
services such as mobile broadcast may also be possible. The Commission
seeks comment on those approaches. The only requirement would be that
all stations utilizing a shared channel be required to retain at least
enough spectrum to operate one SD channel. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach and whether stations sharing a single channel will be
able to continue to comply with the requirement to operate at least one
SD channel.
13. In designing a channel sharing plan that will result in the
more efficient use of television spectrum and free channels for
flexible use, the Commission indicated that its goal will be to retain
as much of its existing policy framework for allocating, licensing, and
operating television stations as possible. Despite sharing a single
channel and transmission facility, each station will continue to be
licensed and operated separately, have its own call sign and be
separately subject to all of the Commission's obligations, rules, and
policies. Each station's programming obligations will remain the same
(e.g., children's programming, political broadcasting, EAS, indecency),
and a station will not be responsible for the programming or violations
of any other station sharing its channel. In addition, stations sharing
a channel will retain their rights to mandatory carriage on multiple
video program distributors (MVPDs). While the licensees sharing a given
channel and facility will independently maintain their own
[[Page 5524]]
rights and obligations under their respective licenses, the Commission
does not envision that channel sharing, from a technological
perspective, would entail a fixed split of the six-megahertz channel
into two three-megahertz blocks. Rather, the capacity of the six-
megahertz would be shared and the Commission would leave it up to the
licensees to determine the precise manner in which that capacity would
be shared. Moreover, the Commission observed that it has licensed
spectrum on a shared use basis--with each licensee remaining
responsible for its own obligations and holding its own licensed
rights--for a variety of services and under a number of different
frameworks. For example, during the course of charting out an MSS
licensing regime for Big LEO systems, the Commission adopted a plan in
which four CDMA systems would each be authorized to operate over 11.35
megahertz of bandwidth in the same 1.6 GHz band, leaving the inter-
system coordination to the satellite licensees themselves. Other
examples of shared use include certain part 90 Private Land Mobile
Radio Services (where the large number of shared users are coordinated
through a system of frequency coordinators), many part 95 Personal
Radio Services (such as the General Mobile Radio Service, where
licensees share the same channels through an informal system of
cooperation), and the part 97 Amateur Radio Service (where all
frequencies are shared and coordinated by adherence to rules of
operation set forth in part 97). The Commission seeks comment on how
television broadcast stations can most effectively coordinate their
individual rights and responsibilities while operating under the type
of sharing arrangement proposed here. Finally, the Commission points
out that only where necessary to implement a shared channel licensing
scheme will it seek to change the existing policies and rules.
14. The Commission also proposes to limit channel sharing to
television stations with existing applications, construction permits or
licenses as of the date of adoption of this NPRM. The dual intentions
in proposing this channel option are to provide (1) a means for
stations that may need to be more economically efficient in their
operations to share transmission resources and (2) a path for stations
to make their spectrum available for new broadband services and
continue to operate a broadcast television service. The Commission
requests comment on this proposal.
Basic Qualifications for Channel Sharing
15. Voluntary operation of broadcast stations on shared channels
will help to increase the efficient use of the U/V Bands while ensuring
that local public interest and service requirements continue to be
fulfilled. Since it ultimately seeks an appropriate, market-based
balance with flexible use in the U/V Bands, the Commission expects that
the extent of channel sharing will vary between markets.
a. Commercial and Noncommercial Educational Stations
16. The Commission seeks comment on whether commercial and
noncommercial educational (NCE) stations should be permitted to share a
single television channel. NCE television stations operate on special
reserved channels and are prohibited from airing commercial material.
The Commission contemplates that stations that share a channel will
continue to be licensed and operated separately, although they will be
sharing a single transmitting facility. Therefore, there would be no
overlap of programming between a commercial and NCE station. However,
the Commission seeks comment on whether a commercial station should be
permitted to operate on a shared channel reserved for NCE use. The
Commission seeks to determine how the new ``shared'' channel might be
partitioned or designated to preserve the NCE status while allowing the
channel to be shared by a non-NCE entity.
b. Consideration of Service Losses
17. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require that a
certain level of television service be preserved in the shared channel
environment. Specifically, it seeks comment on whether the Commission
should consider any prospective loss of television service when
determining whether to permit stations to make the modifications to
their transmission facilities necessary to achieve channel sharing.
Since stations sharing a single television channel must operate from a
single transmission facility, changes to one or more of the stations'
existing facilities will be necessary for sharing to occur. Such
changes could result in a loss of television service to some persons
presently able to receive over-the-air signal from one or more of the
stations, and could also result in gains to television service.
18. The Commission notes that its current policy is to consider
losses of service on a case-by-case basis, and it seeks comment on
continuing that policy in the context of channel sharing arrangements.
Although the Commission historically has viewed any loss of service as
prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, its policy has been
to consider and evaluate any counterbalancing factors an applicant may
present to justify service losses. This balancing process, to determine
whether the projected loss of service will be outweighed by other
factors, involves more than a mere comparison of numbers. The
Commission examines the extent of the loss, and whether any ``white''
or ``gray'' loss areas will be created. The Commission defines ``white
area'' as an area where the population does not receive any over-the-
air television service and ``gray area'' as one where the population
receives only one over-the-air television service. The Commission may
also examine whether the loss area is ``underserved,'' i.e., where the
population receives less than five other existing services. The
Commission may also examine whether the loss involves specialized
programming such as that from a network.
19. In terms of counterbalancing factors, the Commission has
examined whether gain areas will be created including establishment of
first television service, second television service, first network
service, etc. However, the mere fact that total gains exceed losses
does not, standing alone, constitute an affirmative factor offsetting
those losses. The Commission may also consider the availability of
other television services in the loss area as well as whether the
population which would lose service is outside the station's DMA and is
predicted to receive the same network programming from a station in
their home DMA. The Commission seeks comment on whether to consider
these factors in a similar fashion when evaluating losses that result
from facility modifications and relocations related to channel sharing.
20. In weighing the public interest benefits that will result from
channel sharing, should the Commission consider mitigating
circumstances such as the percentage of local cable penetration or
satellite use in the loss area? Should sharing stations be allowed to
offset otherwise disqualifying service losses by offering to deploy on-
channel Digital Transmission Systems (DTS) or other technical measures
to restore service to the loss area?
c. Other Issues
21. In addition to the specific areas set forth in this proceeding,
the
[[Page 5525]]
Commission seeks comment on other areas of interest with respect to
channel sharing in conjunction with the recommendations of the Plan.
For instance, what is the impact of channel sharing on the media
ownership rules? The Commission contemplates that stations that share a
channel will continue to be licensed and operated separately, although
they will be sharing a single transmitting facility. What are the
implications of channel sharing for the local TV ownership rule, the
radio/TV cross-ownership rule and the newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownership rule?
Preservation of Must Carry Rights
22. Full power television broadcast stations, and certain qualified
low-power television broadcast stations, have a right to carriage on
cable systems that the Supreme Court has recognized as essential to
preserving ``the widest possible dissemination of information from
diverse and antagonistic sources.'' Full power broadcasters have
similar rights to mandatory carriage on satellite (DBS) systems. The
rules proposed in this proceeding are designed to ensure that stations
voluntarily electing to share a channel retain their existing rights to
mandatory carriage, and the Commission seeks comment on such rules.
23. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the
mandatory carriage, by cable operators and satellite providers, of
certain local broadcast signals. The Act and the Commission's
implementing rules establish slightly different thresholds for
carriage, depending on whether the station is full power or low-power,
or commercial or noncommercial, and also depending on whether carriage
is sought on a cable or DBS system. Stations meeting these thresholds
are guaranteed carriage of only a single ``primary'' stream of
programming, and carriage for any additional streams must always be
negotiated. It is the Commission's intent to adopt a channel sharing
framework that will neither increase nor decrease the carriage rights
of any broadcaster on any type of system. The Commission anticipates,
therefore, that regardless of the number of licensed stations sharing a
six-megahertz channel, each would continue to have at least one, but
only one, ``primary'' stream of programming. The Commission seeks
comment on specific proposals and in general on the rules necessary to
achieve this result.
24. Cable Carriage. A full power commercial station is entitled to
carriage on a cable system when it is ``licensed and operating on a
channel regularly assigned to its community by the Commission,'' and
that community is within the same DMA as the cable system. A qualified
noncommercial educational station (``NCE''), on the other hand, can be
considered ``local,'' and eligible for mandatory carriage on a cable
system, in one of two ways. It may either be licensed to a principal
community within 50 miles of the system's headend, or the system's
headend is within the station's noise limited signal contour (NLSC).
Under very narrow circumstances, certain low-power broadcasters can
also become ``qualified'' and eligible for must carry. Among the
several requirements for reaching ``qualified'' status with respect to
a particular cable operator, the low-power station must be ``located no
more than 35 miles from the cable system's headend.''
25. DBS Carriage. A full power station is entitled to request
carriage by a DBS provider any time that provider relies on the
statutory copyright license to retransmit the signal of any other
``local'' full power station (i.e., one located in the same DMA). The
standards are the same for both commercial and noncommercial
broadcasters, and low-power broadcasters do not have DBS carriage
rights.
26. Carriage of Shared Signals. The Commission seeks comment on
whether the procedures proposed herein would ensure that a television
station operating on a shared channel would continue to be:
``Licensed and operating on a channel regularly assigned
to its community by the Commission (for purposes of cable carriage of a
commercial station)'';
Licensed to a specific ``principal community'' or
configured with technical facilities that have an NLSC that encompasses
the cable system's principal headend (for purposes of cable carriage of
a non-commercial station); and
``Located within'' a designated market area (for purposes
of DBS carriage of commercial and noncommercial stations).
27. NCE Issues. The Commission seeks comment on whether an NCE
television station sharing a channel with a commercial television
station could affect the NCE station's continued eligibility for
carriage. This is particularly relevant in the cable context, because,
as discussed, commercial stations and NCEs must meet different criteria
in order to be eligible for mandatory carriage. Because the Commission
anticipates that sharing stations would continue to be licensed and
operated separately, it does not anticipate that an NCE television
station would lose its NCE status or eligibility by sharing a channel
with a commercial station. The Commission seeks comment on this issue.
28. Technical Issues. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
a station sharing a channel with one or more other stations, or the
redesignation of a given 6 MHz channel as a ``shared'' channel, would
affect the stations' ability to request local carriage on cable and DBS
systems serving subscribers within the stations' market. Are there any
unique aspects of channel sharing that could prevent a broadcaster, of
any type, from achieving the necessary thresholds for mandatory
carriage on any cable or DBS system on which it is currently carried?
Cable and DBS systems are currently receiving the full 6 MHz signal
from broadcasters but only carrying certain streams; would there be any
technical differences, from the carrier's perspective, if two or more
of these streams on a shared channel were the ``primary'' streams of
different, individually licensed stations? Are there other technical
issues that would be unique to a sharing scenario?
29. Differing Elections. Even if a commercial station meets the
threshold for carriage, it may elect to pursue retransmission consent
agreements with one or more MVPDs. When a station has made such an
election, it may not be carried by the MVPD without its consent. The
Commission seeks comment on how stations' carriage rights would be
affected if one sharing station elects retransmission consent and the
other elects must carry. The Commission anticipates that each station
operating on a shared channel will be licensed and operated as a
totally distinct entity with its own ``primary'' stream of programming,
and that the sharing of a channel would not affect a sharing station's
carriage election options or rights. The Commission seeks comment on
this issue, particularly any technical implications for carrying one
stream of a broadcast channel while not carrying another.
30. Shared signal issues. There are certain essential issues
inherent to sharing a channel that we expect will be resolved by
stations sharing a channel. For example, in addition to the threshold
requirements discussed earlier, local stations are only eligible for
mandatory carriage if they provide a ``good quality signal'' of at
least -61 dBm to the cable or satellite provider. Failure to provide
this signal level would therefore affect the carriage rights of all
stations using the same channel. The Commission anticipates that
stations will make any necessary
[[Page 5526]]
changes to their proposed shared transmission facility to ensure
continued carriage for sharing stations. The Commission seeks comment
on what those changes might be, and, in general, what matters must be
resolved by the stations themselves to ensure the success of channel
sharing.
31. New Stations. Currently, licensees of newly operating stations
that are otherwise qualified local stations may seek mandatory carriage
of such stations, even outside of the standard election cycle. If the
Commission permits new stations, or permittees with unbuilt stations,
to operate on shared channels, will any revisions to its rules be in
order to ensure that they are eligible to seek mandatory carriage as
new stations after they commence broadcasting? The Commission seeks
comment on this issue.
32. Low-power Stations. The Commission is considering allowing
LPTV, Class A, and translator stations to operate on shared channels,
both among themselves and with full power stations. If it does permit
low-power stations to operate on shared channels, the Commission is
also proposing to provide that currently qualified low-power stations
retain their eligibility for must carry rights, but to create no new
rights. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Are there
other issues that should be considered with regard to allowing low
power stations to channel share?
33. Other Carriage Issues. There are a number of other issues that
may be relevant to the mandatory carriage of shared signals. For
instance, if, as proposed, one stream of each individually licensed
station on a single 6 MHz channel will be ``primary'' for purposes of
must carry rights, should sharing broadcasters have any special
obligation to identify the ``primary'' signals at the time they elect
carriage? Given the variety of questions that may have some bearing on
the development of these rules, the Commission seeks comment on any
additional issues pertaining to the mandatory carriage of shared
broadcast signals, including those not specifically raised in this
NPRM.
Improving Reception of VHF TV Service
34. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is highly desirable for flexible
use, the Commission is interested in exploring the steps needed to
increase the utility of VHF spectrum for television broadcasts. VHF
channels have certain characteristics that have posed challenges for
their use in providing digital television service. In particular, the
propagation characteristics of these channels allow undesired signals
and noise to be receivable at relatively farther distances, nearby
electrical devices tends to emit noise in this band that can cause
interference, and reception of VHF signals requires physically larger
antennas that are generally not well suited to the mobile applications
expected under flexible use, relative to UHF channels. The Commission
recognizes that television broadcasters have had some difficulty in
ensuring consistent reception of VHF signals, and it seeks comment
through this NPRM on technical changes to the Commission's rules,
broadcast transmission equipment, or television receiver technology
that would improve the performance of VHF channels for television
broadcasts, including the costs and benefits associated with such
changes. The Commission's intent is to treat stakeholders in a fair and
equitable manner through procedures established in later actions.
35. Solutions for VHF Reception Challenges. It is plain from the
channel choices being made by broadcasters that reception issues are
posing problems for use of the VHF channels. The Commission is
therefore seeking solutions to the VHF digital TV reception
difficulties. In this regard, it is considering changes to the DTV
operating rules to mitigate or overcome these challenges. The
Commission also intends to consider other solutions, including the
possibility of indoor antenna performances standards, to make the VHF
channels more useful to broadcasters. The Commission also noted that it
has seen no indications that there are issues with the performance of
television receivers, either traditional models with display screens or
stand-alone set-top tuners, in receiving VHF channels.
36. VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. One of the problems with indoor
VHF reception is noise from nearby (typically in the same room)
consumer electronics equipment. While it would be desirable to reduce
that noise, the rules limiting spurious emissions from unintentional
radiators have been crafted to provide protection of licensed services
while allowing production of economically viable devices. Further, any
more stringent emissions limits the Commission might impose would not
reduce emissions from existing products, nor would such limits reduce
noise from incidental emitters (electric motors, switches, etc.),
atmospheric disturbances and long range propagation effects that occur
in the VHF bands (the latter especially at the low-VHF channels). Thus,
at least at this time, the Commission does not believe it would be
fruitful to attempt to reduce the permitted level of noise in the VHF
bands. The Commission requests comment on whether there are actions it
might take to reduce noise levels in the VHF bands used by the
television service.
37. The other approach to overcoming noise is to increase the
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio) by raising the transmitted power,
i.e., effective radiated power (ERP). A number of stations operating on
high-VHF channels have already improved their service by increasing
their transmitted power. Those stations received special temporary
authorizations from the Commission for power increases that exceed the
existing maximum power limits. In each of these cases, either the power
increase does not cause increased interference to other stations or the
station licensee has negotiated with another station to accept some
minimum level of new interference. While the Commission is cognizant of
the views regarding the limited expectations from power increases
expressed at the Broadcast Engineers' Forum, the Commission nonetheless
believes that, as demonstrated by the stations that have already
increased their transmitted power, such increases can provide some
level of improvement in reception of VHF television service. The
Commission therefore believes it may be desirable to amend its rules to
increase the maximum allowed ERP for VHF stations at least in Zone I,
where the current maximum power levels are relatively low. The
Commission is specifically proposing to raise the maximum allowed ERP
for low-VHF stations in Zones I to 40 kW and for high-VHF stations in
Zone I to 120 kW if the station's antenna height above average terrain
is 305 meters or less. At antenna heights above 305 meters, the maximum
power for both low-VHF and high-VHF stations would be lower in
accordance with the table in the proposed rules in Appendix A. This
proposal would effectively increase the maximum power for low-VHF and
high-VHF stations in Zone I by 6 dB, a level consistent with that
indicated as achievable by the VHF Reception Panel. The Commission does
not propose to raise the maximum power limits for VHF stations in Zones
II and III, as the existing limits still afford those stations the
ability to provide stronger signals indoors to consumers who view their
signals at locations close to their transmitters. The proposed new
maximum power limits for VHF stations would allow such stations to
provide signal strengths to areas close to their
[[Page 5527]]
transmitters, i.e., generally their principle community areas, that are
higher by an amount that would help to compensate for some of the
higher noise levels that tend to be present where consumers use indoor
antennas.
38. Stations requesting power increases under the proposed new
limits would be required to afford protection to other full power
television stations from new interference under the existing regime of
desired-to-undesired (D/U) signals limits. The Commission believes such
an increase would allow many VHF stations experiencing difficulties in
reaching viewers indoors to raise their signal levels by a reasonable
level to overcome localized noise indoors, consistent with maintaining
the approximate range of service provided by the existing maximum power
limits. It does, however, recognize that higher power operation would
increase the service range of VHF stations by as much at 14 km (9
miles). The Commission stated that is intention is not generally to
extend the service range of these stations, as such expansions can to
some degree limit the potential for introduction of new stations and
changes by other co-channel and first-adjacent channel stations by
enlarging the service area that must be protected. Nonetheless, it
believes the interests of making the VHF channels more useful to
stations and consumers outweigh these concerns about limiting
opportunities of other stations. The Commission requests comment on
this proposal and suggestions for alternative approaches, including
both power limits and protection of service. In this regard, any
increases in VHF power under this proposal by existing stations and new
stations that are located within 300 kilometers (183 miles) of our
border with Canada or within 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) of our border
with Mexico will need to be coordinated with the appropriate foreign
administration.
39. The Commission also observes that the provisions governing
transmission of television signals in Sec. Sec. 73.682(a)(14) and
73.625(c) of the rules specify that it shall be standard to employ
horizontal polarization. The ERP of a television station is therefore
considered to be that of its horizontally polarized component. However,
Sec. 73.682(a)(14) also provides that circular or elliptical
polarization may be employed and that, in such cases, transmission of
the horizontal and vertical components in time and space quadrature
shall be used. Where such polarizations are used, the ERP of the
vertically polarized component may not exceed the ERP of the
horizontally polarized component. Stations therefore could achieve an
increase in signal levels at indoor locations of perhaps 3 dB by using
circular polarization. This step could also be combined with an
increase in ERP (horizontal ERP) under the proposal to allow higher VHF
maximum power levels. We encourage stations to make use of the option
to use increased power under the vertical polarization provisions as a
means to improve reception of their signals by indoor viewers.
40. A collateral issue that arises in the context of consideration
of increases in the power limits for digital television stations on VHF
channels is whether the Commission should also increase the minimum
distance requirements for new, post-transition VHF channel allotments
with regard to other stations or channel allotments on the same and
first-adjacent channels, as specified in Sec. Sec. 73.616 and
73.623(d) of the rules. Stations on new allotments that operate at the
proposed new power limits and are at or close to the current minimum
distances with regard to other stations could cause more interference
to such stations (and vice versa) than would occur under the current
power limits. Increasing those distances would resolve the interference
concerns but would also tend to limit opportunities or new stations or
for stations desiring to change channels (which necessitates modifying
the allotment on which they operate). The Commission generally believes
it would be desirable to maintain the current distance standards for
new and changed allotments in order to avoid further limiting
opportunities for new allotments. The Commission therefore is not
proposing to change the minimum distance requirements for new and
modified allotments.
41. In taking this approach, the Commission observes that the rules
require a station that operates on a new allotment that meets the
distance standards to protect other co-channel and adjacent channel
stations from new interference in accordance with the desired-to-
undesired (D/U) ratio interference protection criteria in Sec.
73.616(e). In describing the services to be protected, this paragraph
provides that ``[f]or this purpose, the population served by the
station receiving additional interference does not include portions of
the population within the noise-limited service contour of that station
that are predicted to receive interference from the post-transition DTV
allotment facilities of the applicant * * *'' The rules are not
specific, however, as to the post-transition DTV allotment facilities
of the applicant, that is, the facilities that a station would be
allowed under the allotment without concern for new interference. The
Commission proposes to amend Sec. 73.616(e) to clarify that the post-
transition DTV allotment facilities are the maximum facilities allowed
currently under Sec. 73.622(f). Thus, an applicant for a new station
would be allowed to operate up to the current maximum facilities of ERP
and antenna height on a new allotment that meets the distance
requirements.
42. A station on a new allotment could also operate with facilities
that exceed the post-transition allotment facilities if such operation
would not cause new interference to other stations as defined under
Sec. 73.616(e). In addition, a licensee could apply to operate a
station on a new allotment at facilities that exceed the post-
transition allotment facilities (up to the proposed new limits) and
could possibly cause new interference to another station by taking
steps to avoid such interference. Such steps could include use of a
directional antenna and/or location of the station's transmitter at a
site that is different from the site of the allotment (such sites are
generally farther from any stations that would otherwise receive
interference). The Commission requests comment on its plan to maintain
the existing distance requirements as it increases the maximum allowed
power for digital TV stations on VHF channels and on whether it should
alternatively increase the minimum distance requirements to match the
changes in the power limits. The Commission also asks parties that
advocate that it increase the minimum distance requirements to submit
suggestions for new minimum distance standards.
43. Indoor Antennas. The antenna used to receive signals is a
critical element in the television service path. The antenna component
of a TV receive system (which consists of an antenna, connecting cable
and receiver) should be able to pick up as much of the available signal
energy as possible. If an antenna has a very low ability to receive
signals or if the level of the desired signal is low, reception may not
be possible. In view of the observed poor high-VHF reception
capabilities of the majority of the indoor antennas examined in two
studies by Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace and the FCC Laboratory
mentioned in the NPRM and the likelihood that the low-VHF performance
of those antennas is even poorer, the Commission intends to consider
establishing standards to ensure that indoor antennas are effective for
low-VHF channel reception. While the Commission has not regulated these
[[Page 5528]]
products previously, it believes that it has authority to set standards
to ensure that the performance of indoor antennas is adequate to allow
reception of low-VHF channels by TV receive systems under the All
Channel Receiver Act, which is codified in section 303(s) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In this regard, section 303(s)
specifically provides that the Commission shall ``[h]ave authority to
require that apparatus designed to receive television pictures
broadcast simultaneously with sound be capable of adequately receiving
all frequencies allocated by the Commission to television broadcasting
* * *'' Because an antenna capable of adequately picking up low-VHF
channels is necessary to allow all-channel reception of over-the-air
broadcast signals, the Commission believes that the standards proposed
would further its section 303(s) mandate. The Commission requests
comment on its authority to establish standards for the ability of
indoor antennas to receive all of the channels allocated for television
service.
44. The Commission request comment, information and suggestions
regarding the need for, and desirability of, standards for indoor
antennas. The Commission is specifically proposing to require that
indoor antennas comply with the industry set standards in ANSI/CEA-
2032-A, ``Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard,'' February
2009. The ANSI/CEA-2032-A standard defines test and measurement
procedures for determining the performance of indoor TV receiving
antennas. Section 3.2.2 of this standard provides that to meet the
standard, an antenna must have measured gain that exceeds:
-12 dBd on all CEA test channels 2, 4, and 6 in the VHF
low band
-8 dBd on all CEA test channels 7, 9, 11 and 13 in the VHF
high band and
-8 dBd on all CEA test channels contained in the UHF band
(channels 14-[51])
ANSI/CEA-2032-A further specifies that the test procedures in CEA-
744-B are to be employed to measure the antenna performance. It also
provides standards for active (amplified) antennas, including gain,
intermodulation and spurious emission. Further, ANSI/CEA-2032-A
provides for labeling antenna packaging and antennas to indicate the
channels or bands of channels for which the antenna meets the specified
technical requirements. The Commission observes that the high-VHF and
UHF performance levels under this industry-developed standard are well
within the capabilities of the antennas tested in the MSW and FCC
Laboratory studies of indoor antennas. Under this proposal, all indoor
television antennas would be required to meet the ANSI/CEA-2032-A
standards for reception of low-VHF, high-VHF and UHF signals. In
addition, to ensure compliance with these standards indoor antennas
would be subject to the Commission's ``verification'' equipment
procedure in part 2 of the rules. This would promote the Commission's
objective of improving indoor reception in the VHF bands and well as
ensure that indoor antennas are able to adequately receive UHF signals.
Antennas that are built-in to, or designed for use with, specific
devices such as portable television receivers, dongles, laptop
computers, and similar TV reception equipment would not be subject to
this requirement. Given the findings of the antenna studies by MSW and
its Laboratory staff the Commission believes that the performance
levels set forth in ANSI/CEA-2032-A are well within the capabilities of
currently available consumer grade television receive antennas.
45. The Commission requests comment on whether the ANSI/CEA-2032-A
performance standards are sufficient to ensure adequate reception of
digital television signals at most indoor locations and whether the
CEA-744-B measurement procedures are appropriate for determining
compliance. The Commission also asks whether there might be other
standards or measurement methods that might be more appropriate. Its
intent is to ensure that consumers are able to achieve indoor reception
of digital television signals, and especially of VHF signals, that are
comparable to indoor reception of the signals of the former analog
television system. The Commission also asks for comment an alternative
approach under which it would require only that manufacturers measure
indoor antennas using the CEA-744-B test procedure and comply with the
labeling requirements of ANSI/CEA-2032-A. Under that approach, antennas
would also be subject to the Commission's verification equipment
authorization procedure. The Commission invites interested parties to
submit comment, information and suggestions for alternative standards
regarding all aspects of the indoor antenna issue.
46. Other Approaches/Solutions for Improving Reception of VHF TV
Services. In addition to power increases for VHF band stations and
standards for indoor antennas, the Commission also intends to consider
additional options for improving television service in the VHF bands.
Interested parties are invited to submit ideas and suggestions for
additional measures we could take to improve reception of television
signals on VHF channels. The Commission requests that parties submit
materials information and analyses describing conditions and phenomenon
that contribute to VHF reception difficulties and ideas for overcoming
or mitigating them.
Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (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 specified on the first page of this NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 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).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
48. In this NPRM the Commission is initiating a process to address
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing
innovation and investment in mobile and ensure that America keeps pace
with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant amount of
new spectrum available for broadband. Through this NPRM, we take
preliminary steps to repurpose a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency
bands that are currently used by the broadcast television service,
which in later actions we expect to make available for flexible use by
fixed and mobile wireless communications services, including mobile
broadband. This approach is consistent with the National Broadband Plan
(the ``Plan'') \3\ recommendation to repurpose 120 megahertz from the
broadcast television
[[Page 5529]]
bands for new wireless broadband uses through revising (repacking) the
channel assignments of TV stations and voluntary contributions of
spectrum to an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as
proposed will provide the Commission flexibility in providing
additional spectrum resources for meeting the needs of these new
applications. At the same time, we recognize that over-the-air TV
serves important public interests, and our approach will help preserve
this service as a healthy, viable medium. We remain mindful of the
informational and entertainment benefits broadcast television provides
the public, and our goal is to provide additional options for broadcast
licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, DC (March 2010); available at
http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. The Plan was developed by the
Commission pursuant to the direction of Congress in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), see American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat.
115 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Legal Basis
49. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
50. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\4\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the
RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless
an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
\7\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound. These establishments operate television
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.'' \8\ The SBA has created the
following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting
firms: Those having $14 million or less in annual receipts.\9\ The
Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,395.\10\ In addition, according to Commission staff
review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer
Database (BIA) on March 30, 2007, about 986 of an estimated 1,395
commercial television stations (or approximately 72 percent) had
revenues of $13 million or less.\11\ We therefore estimate that the
majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``515120
Television Broadcasting'' (partial definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
\9\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in
2008).
\10\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of June
30, 2009,'' dated September 4, 2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
\11\ We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the
FCC total given supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations \12\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
an element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity
not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time
to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a
specific television station is dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply
does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small
business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that
extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one
concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.'' 13 CFR
21.103(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be
390.\13\ These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be
small entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of June
30, 2009,'' dated September 4, 2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
\14\ See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. In addition, there are also 2,386 low power television stations
(LPTV).\15\ Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all
LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small
business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of June
30, 2009,'' dated September 4, 2009; http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' \16\ The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable
services we must, however, use current census data that are based on
the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its
associated size standard; that size standard was: All such firms having
$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.\17\ According to Census
Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this
previous category that operated for the entire year.\18\ Of this total,
1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had
receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million.\19\ Thus,
the majority of these firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``517110 Wired
Telecommunications Carriers'' (partial definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
\17\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
\18\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).
\19\ Id. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25
million or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.\20\
[[Page 5530]]
Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all
but eleven are small under this size standard.\21\ In addition, under
the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving
15,000 or fewer subscribers.\22\ Industry data indicate that, of 6,635
systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an
additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.\23\ Thus, under
this second size standard, most cable systems are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or
less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
\21\ These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\22\ 47 CFR 76.901(c).
\23\ Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook
2008, ``U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,'' page F-2 (data
current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for
which classifying data were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' \24\ The Commission has determined that an operator
serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate.\25\ Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators
nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.\26\ We note
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,\27\ and therefore we are unable to
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small under this size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
\25\ 47 CFR 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New
Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, DA 01-
158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).
\26\ These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting &
Cable Yearbook 2006, ``Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators,'' pages A-8
& C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications
News, Television & Cable Factbook 2006, ``Ownership of Cable Systems
in the United States,'' pages D-1805 to D-1857.
\27\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
pursuant to Sec. 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR
76.909(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
58. The specific bands under consideration are the low VHF spectrum
at 54-72 MHz (TV channels 2-4) and 76-88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the
high VHF spectrum at 174-216 MHz (TV channels 7-13), and the UHF bands
at 470-608 MHz (TV channels 14-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV channels 38-51);
for purposes of this NPRM, we will refer to this spectrum as the ``U/V
Bands.'' \28\ This NPRM proposes three actions that will establish the
underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless broadband uses
of the U/V Bands, without affecting current license assignments in the
band. First, we are proposing to add new allocations for fixed and
mobile services in the U/V Bands to be co-primary with the existing
broadcasting allocation in those bands. The additional allocations
would provide the maximum flexibility for planning efforts to increase
spectrum available for flexible use, including the possibility of
assigning portions of the U/V Bands for new mobile broadband services
in the future. Second, we are proposing to establish a framework that
permits two or more television stations to share a single six-megahertz
channel, thereby enhancing efficient use of the U/V Bands. Third, we
intend to consider approaches to create value for television viewers
and broadcasters by increasing the utility of the VHF bands for the
operation of television services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The band 608-614 MHz, i.e., TV channel 37, is used for
radio astronomy and is not part of the spectrum being considered for
reallocation. See 47 CFR 2.106., US 74 and US 246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. By establishing the underlying regulatory framework to
facilitate wireless broadband uses in the U/V Bands, this NPRM is the
first in a series of actions that will allow us to make progress toward
our goal of improving efficient use of the bands and enable ongoing
innovation and investment through flexible use. We will propose further
actions consistent with other of the Plan's recommendations for the U/V
Bands, including, but not limited to, the process of voluntarily
returning broadcast licenses to the Commission and the licensing
process and service rules for new fixed and mobile wireless
communications services.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. We do not propose in this NPRM to specify a band plan for the
spectrum to be recovered, we do, however, request comment on how we
should re-configure the current U/V Bands to ensure that the services
involved, i.e., broadcast television as well as new fixed and mobile
services, can best be supported. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is
useful for mobile services, one approach would be to select the
spectrum to be recovered from the upper portion of the UHF band and
designate it for use by the wireless communications service (WCS). This
would effectively extend the current allocation plan and WCS spectrum
in the adjacent WCS bands at 700 MHz (WCS 700 MHz bands) to include new
lower adjacent frequencies. Alternatively, it might be technically
desirable to configure the bands to provide paired spectrum in separate
bands for broadband applications, or to designate a portion of the
spectrum for unpaired uses or different wireless services. For example,
current rules in the U/V Band allow for unlicensed use of unassigned
channels (``white spaces''), and the Plan recommended the creation of a
nationwide contiguous band for unlicensed use. We also request comment
on whether a new U/V Band plan should incorporate an unlicensed block
of spectrum, or if other bands would be better suited to this purpose.
62. We seek comment on other areas of interest with respect to
channel sharing in conjunction with the recommendations of the National
Plan. We welcome comments from stations that anticipate that they may
participate in channel sharing as well as from other interested
parties.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
63. None.
[[Page 5531]]
Ordering Clauses
64. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.154(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
adopted.
65. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 73
Communications equipment, Incorporation by reference, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 15, and 73
to read as follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:
a. Pages 19, 20, 24, and 28 are revised.
b. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnotes
NG66 and NG149 are removed.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 5532]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE11.001
[[Page 5533]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE11.002
[[Page 5534]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE11.003
[[Page 5535]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE11.004
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
* * * * *
[[Page 5536]]
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
3. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
4. Section 15.38 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(14) and
(b)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.38 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(14) ANSI/CEA-2032-A: ``Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance
Standard,'' May 2005, IBR approved for Sec. 15.117(l).
(15) ANSI/CEA-744-B: ``TV Receiving Antenna Performance
Presentation and Measurement,'' February 2009, IBR approved for Sec.
15.117(l).
* * * * *
5. Section 15.117 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.117 TV broadcast receivers.
* * * * *
(l) Indoor Antennas. Effective [12 MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION OF THE
FINAL ORDER IN THIS PROCEEDING], antennas intended for indoor reception
of television broadcast service shall comply with the standards set
forth in ANSI/CEA-2032-A: ``Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance
Standard,'' May 2005, (incorporation by reference, see Sec. 15.38(c)),
including the requirement for measurements in accordance with the
procedures set forth in ANSI/CEA-744-B: ``TV Receiving Antenna
Performance Presentation and Measurement,'' February 2009,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 15.38(c). Antennas that are
built-in to, or designed for use with specific devices, such as
portable television receivers, dongles, laptop computers, and similar
TV reception equipment are not be subject to this requirement.
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
6. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
7. Section 73.616 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.616 Post-transition DTV station interference protection.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) The facilities of a post-transition DTV allotment are as
follows:
(i) (A) For a station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment, the
allotment ERP is 40 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters
and the station is located in Zone I or 45 kW if its HAAT is at or
below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III. For
a station located in Zone I that operates on channels 2-6 with HAAT
that exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP, expressed in decibels above
1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT
expressed in meters:
ERP = 92.57 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
(B) For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on
channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the
allotment ERP level is determined from the following table (the
allotment ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using
linear interpolation based on the units employed in the table):
Allotment ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III on
Channels 2-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna HAAT (meters) ERP (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
610........................................................ 10
580........................................................ 11
550........................................................ 12
520........................................................ 14
490........................................................ 16
460........................................................ 19
425........................................................ 22
395........................................................ 26
365........................................................ 31
335........................................................ 37
305........................................................ 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) For a DTV station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates
on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the
allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined
using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 57.57 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
(ii)(A) For a station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment,
the allotment ERP is 120 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305
meters and the station is located in Zone I or 160 kW if its HAAT is at
or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III.
For a station located in Zone I that operates on channels 7-13 with
HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP, expressed in decibels
above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT
expressed in meters:
ERP = 97.35 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
(B) For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on
channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT above 305 meters, the allotment ERP
level is determined from the following table (the allotment ERP for
intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation
based on the units employed in the table):
Allotment ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III on
Channels 7-13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna HAAT (meters) ERP (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
610........................................................ 30
580........................................................ 34
550........................................................ 40
520........................................................ 47
490........................................................ 54
460........................................................ 64
425........................................................ 76
395........................................................ 92
365........................................................ 110
335........................................................ 132
305........................................................ 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on
channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the
allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined
using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 62.34 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
(iii)(A) For a station that operates on a channel 14-51 allotment,
the allotment ERP is 1000 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 365
meters. At higher antenna HAAT levels, the allotment ERP level for such
a station is determined from the following table (the allotment ERP for
intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation
based on the units employed in the table):
Allotment ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations on Channels 14-51, All
Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna HAAT (meters) ERP (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
610........................................................ 10
580........................................................ 11
550........................................................ 12
520........................................................ 14
490........................................................ 16
460........................................................ 19
425........................................................ 22
395........................................................ 26
365........................................................ 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) For a station located in Zone I, II or III that operates on
channels 14-51 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the
allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined
using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
[[Page 5537]]
ERP = 72.57-17.08*log10(HAAT)
* * * * *
8. Section 73.622 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(6) and
(f)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.622 Digital television table of allotments.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) A DTV station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment will be
allowed a maximum ERP of 40 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305
meters and the station is located in Zone I or a maximum ERP of 45 kW
if its HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in
Zone II or Zone III. An existing DTV station that operates on a channel
2-6 allotment may request an increase in power and/or HAAT up to these
power levels, provided that the increase also complies with the
provisions of paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(i) For DTV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 2-6
with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum
ERP, expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the
following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 98.57 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate
on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the
allowable maximum ERP level is determined from the following table (the
allowable maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined
using linear interpolation based on the units employed in the table):
Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or
III on Channels 2-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna HAAT (meters) ERP (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
610........................................................ 10
580........................................................ 11
550........................................................ 12
520........................................................ 14
490........................................................ 16
460........................................................ 19
425........................................................ 22
395........................................................ 26
365........................................................ 31
335........................................................ 37
305........................................................ 45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate
on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the
allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is
determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 57.57 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
(7) A DTV station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment will be
allowed a maximum ERP of 120 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305
meters and the station is located in Zone I or a maximum ERP of 160 kW
if its HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in
Zone II or Zone III. An existing DTV station that operates on a channel
7-13 allotment may request an increase in power and/or HAAT up to these
power levels, provided that the increase also complies with the
provisions of paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(i) For DTV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 7-
13 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum
ERP, expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the
following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 103.35 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate
on channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT above 305 meters, the allowable
maximum ERP level is determined from the following table (the allowable
maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear
interpolation based on the units employed in the table):
Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or
III on Channels 7-13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna HAAT (meters) ERP (kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
610........................................................ 30
580........................................................ 34
550........................................................ 40
520........................................................ 47
490........................................................ 54
460........................................................ 64
425........................................................ 76
395........................................................ 92
365........................................................ 110
335........................................................ 132
305........................................................ 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate
on channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the
allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is
determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 62.34 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-2102 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P