Digital Television Distributed Transmission System Technologies; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72763-72775 [05-23658]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72763-72775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23658]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 05-312; FCC 05-192]


Digital Television Distributed Transmission System Technologies; 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules that will 
permit television broadcast licensees to use a distributed transmission 
system (``DTS'') in lieu of a single-transmitter to operate their 
television broadcast stations. The proposed rules will apply with 
respect to existing authorized facilities and to use of DTS after 
establishment of the new DTV Table of Allotments, which may afford 
stations the opportunity to apply to maximize their service areas after 
the end of our current freeze on the filing of most applications.

DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before February 6, 
2006; reply comments are due on or before March 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-312, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov

[[Page 72764]]

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 section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov of the Media 
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 05-192, adopted on November 3, 2005, 
and released on November 4, 2005. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington DC, 20554. These documents 
will also be available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 
(Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or 
Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats 
(computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send 
an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This NPRM has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA) and contains modified information collection 
requirements. These modified requirements of FCC Forms 301 and 302-DTV 
will be published in a separate Federal Register notice.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    1. In the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, we approved in 
principle the use of distributed transmission system (DTS) technologies 
but deferred to a separate proceeding the development of rules for DTS 
operation and the examination of several policy issues related to its 
use. (See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies 
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 69 FR 59500, October 4, 
2004, (Second DTV Periodic Report and Order)). With this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we now examine the issues related to the 
use of DTS and propose rules for future DTS operation. The rules we 
propose will apply with respect to existing authorized facilities and 
to use of DTS after establishment of the new DTV Table of Allotments, 
which may afford stations the opportunity to apply to maximize their 
service areas after our current freeze on the filing of most 
applications. In addition, we issue a Clarification Order, which is 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, to clarify 
the interim rules established in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 
Order, which will continue to be available for stations that wish to 
apply to use DTS technology during the pendency of this rulemaking 
proceeding.

II. Background

    2. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM in MB Docket No. 03-15, we 
sought comment on whether we should permit DTV stations to use DTS 
technologies. (See Second Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and 
Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 
03-15, 68 FR 7737, February 18, 2003, (Second DTV Periodic NPRM).). A 
DTV distributed transmission system would employ multiple synchronized 
transmitters spread around a station's service area. Each transmitter 
would broadcast the station's DTV signal on the same channel, relying 
on the performance of ``adaptive equalizer'' circuitry in DTV receivers 
to cancel or combine the multiple signals plus any reflected signals to 
produce a single signal. Such distributed transmitters could be 
considered to be similar to analog TV booster stations, a secondary, 
low power service used to fill in unserved areas in the parent 
station's coverage area, but DTV technology has the ability to enable 
this type of operation in a much more efficient manner. For analog TV 
boosters, in contrast to DTV DTS operation, significant self-
interference will occur unless there is substantial terrain blocking 
the arrival of multiple signals into the same area (for example, 
interference will occur if one signal arrives from the primary analog 
station directly and a second signal arrives from a booster station).
    3. We received 18 comments in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 
Order relating to the use of DTS, with the parties generally supporting 
use of this technology. We agreed with the generally supportive 
comments that DTS technology offers potential benefits to the public 
and noted the encouraging, though limited, reports of the technology 
tested thus far. Accordingly, in the Second DTV Periodic Report and 
Order we approved in principle the use of DTS technology, set forth 
interim guidelines, and committed to undertake a rulemaking proceeding 
to adopt rules for DTS operations. We now initiate that rulemaking to 
propose rules for future DTS operation, seek further comment on DTS 
operations and clarify certain aspects of the interim rules established 
in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order.

III. Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking

    4. In this NPRM, we consider the comments received in the Second 
DTV Periodic proceeding and propose rules for future DTS operation. 
Specifically, we propose to permit DTV station licensees and permittees 
to use DTS technologies where feasible in place of a single transmitter 
to provide service as authorized. Requests for DTS operation and any 
associated issues may be addressed under our interim policy until this 
rulemaking is completed and we have implemented the necessary revisions 
to our processing software. Requests for DTS operation that would 
involve an extension of authorized coverage will not be accepted until 
the freeze is lifted. For purposes of this discussion, we anticipate 
that most stations would focus on DTS operations that would be employed 
after we lift our current freeze on the filing of most applications, 
which was imposed until we complete the new DTV Table of Allotments. 
The Second DTV Periodic Report and Order imposed this freeze to limit 
expansion of coverage that would interfere with maintaining a stable 
database throughout the channel election and allotment process.
A. Comments Received in the Second DTV Periodic Review
    5. The rules and policies we propose in this NPRM are premised, in 
part, on the comments submitted in response to the Second DTV Periodic 
NPRM. Although not affording an adequate basis on which to adopt final 
rules, the record in the Second DTV Periodic proceeding suggests many 
potential benefits of DTS, such as uniform signal levels throughout a 
licensee's service area, the ability to operate at reduced power to 
achieve the same coverage, a reduced likelihood of causing interference 
to neighboring licensees, an ability to overcome terrain limitations, 
and more reliable indoor reception. Merrill Weiss Group (MWG), the 
principal proponent of DTS, cited DTS' potential for improving spectrum 
efficiency by enabling increased levels

[[Page 72765]]

of service while maintaining or reducing the levels of interference. 
MWG has patent interests in the technology contained in the Transmitter 
Synchronization Standard recently approved by the ATSC. MWG has 
committed to the ATSC to license its technology under reasonable terms 
and conditions without unfair discrimination to all parties that 
demonstrate financial resources to meet their obligations. MWG also 
indicated that urban area service can be improved by DTS transmitting 
antennas being closer to receivers so that higher signal levels are 
made available from multiple directions, which can enable reception 
with set-top antennas instead of roof-mounted antennas. MWG claimed 
that DTS will often use shorter towers that may avoid zoning problems 
and that they can be located to overcome obstacles of rough terrain in 
some markets and urban canyons in others. Finally, MWG suggested that 
DTS transmitters can help make a staged rollout of maximized service 
possible. In joint comments, the Association for Maximum Service 
Television (MSTV) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 
supported quick Commission action to allow DTS.
    6. Others specifically supported MWG, including Axcera, a 
manufacturer of transmitters and related equipment, WPSX/Penn State 
Public Broadcasting (WPSX/Penn State), which has an experimental 
authorization to test distributed transmission technology, and Tribune 
Broadcasting Company (Tribune) and Golden Orange Broadcasting (Golden 
Orange), TV licensees that face specific situations where they may want 
to use DTS technology. Others, such as transmission equipment 
manufacturer Harris Corporation (Harris) and Siete Grande Television, 
Inc. (Siete Grande), which operates four analog channel 7 transmitters 
covering different parts of Puerto Rico, also supported allowing DTS. 
Ronald Brey (Brey), a TV consumer, and Thomas C. Smith (Smith), a TV 
broadcast technician, each expressed concern that not enough is known 
about the performance of DTS technology and that increased interference 
could be caused.
    7. As noted in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, the record 
did not provide information on the practical operation of DTS 
technology. Consequently, we seek additional comment here on the use of 
DTS technologies, as well as on the asserted benefits of this 
technology. Specifically, we seek comment on how DTS operation will 
serve the public interest and on how such operation will advance the 
DTV transition. We also seek comment on the impact of allowing the use 
of DTS technologies. How will DTS work with all DTV receivers, 
including small or inexpensive digital televisions and the digital-to-
analog converters many viewers will have for their analog-only 
televisions? Will consumers, cable headends and satellite local receive 
facilities need additional equipment to ensure reliable and high 
quality reception as compared with the equipment associated with 
reception of a single transmitter station's signal? Will DTS operation 
impact the service provided by traditional single-transmitter stations? 
What, if any, is the burden on local communities in permitting DTS 
operation? Will DTS operation require the erection of multiple 
telecommunications towers rather than collocation on existing towers? 
How will the timing of the build-out of digital service be affected by 
DTS? How will DTS affect the costs experienced by licensees? How will 
DTS technology impact small business broadcasters?
B. Regulatory Status
    8. In the Second DTV Periodic NPRM, we asked whether DTS facilities 
should have primary or secondary regulatory status. We propose to 
afford primary regulatory status to the multiple transmitters used in 
DTS within the areas that such DTS transmitters are authorized to 
serve. The record in MB Docket 03-15 supports the grant of primary 
status to DTS transmitters used to serve a DTV station's authorized 
service area. MWG, among others, urges that primary status should be 
afforded to achieve at least the same maximized coverage that a DTV 
station would be able to achieve from a single transmitter and that DTS 
stations should not be required to protect secondary low power TV and 
TV translator stations within whatever allowable coverage area the 
Commission establishes.
    9. Based on the comments received thus far, we believe DTS would 
facilitate the digital transition, and we agree with commenters that 
primary status within a licensee's service area is essential to obtain 
the benefits of spectrum efficiency offered by DTS techniques. The 
anticipated benefits include reaching populations that would not 
otherwise be served by conventional means. A station would be able to 
design its arrangement of DTS transmitters so that it reaches populated 
areas that have been obstructed by terrain or buildings from prior 
direct reception of its signal. It could also provide a potentially 
viable alternative to stations whose single-tower proposals may have 
been stymied by tower height and placement limits associated with 
aeronautical safety or local zoning concerns. DTS techniques are 
expected to enable increased levels of service while at the same time 
maintaining or reducing the levels of interference. DTS offers an 
opportunity to licensees to provide better service within their 
coverage area, while minimizing the preclusive impact on existing and 
future surrounding stations.
    10. Primary status for DTS transmitters is needed to protect this 
increased service. Without primary status, stations would be encouraged 
to use the less efficient conventional means (i.e., increased power) to 
expand their service or would not enhance their service at all. If we 
require a station to give up primary status to any significant portion 
of its potential service population in order to implement DTS, we 
believe that few, if any stations would opt for this technology. In 
granting primary status, we propose to license such DTS transmitters 
under 47 CFR part 73 of the rules. We seek comment on the anticipated 
benefits of DTS and our tentative conclusion to provide primary status 
within a licensee's service area, as described below. We intend to use 
application filing and processing procedures similar to the current 
procedures. We seek comment on these rules and procedures.
C. Location and Service Area
    11. Licensees that opt to use DTS in lieu of the traditional single 
transmitter should be allowed to apply for facilities to serve an area 
generally comparable to the area they could cover with a single 
transmitter. We believe we should balance the primary coverage rights 
between stations choosing to employ DTS and those choosing not to do 
so. In general, we do not believe that stations employing DTS 
technology should be afforded dramatically expanded primary coverage 
rights. Such special treatment is not necessary to implement DTS 
service. Accordingly, we propose to limit the area that a station can 
serve from its DTS operation to the equivalent of the area it could 
serve using a single-transmitter.
    12. MWG offered two alternative approaches to this issue in its 
comments in MB Docket 03-15. One approach would allow DTS transmitters 
and the service they provide to be located anywhere within the 
designated market area (DMA) in which the station is located. This 
``DMA approach'' would allow broadcasters to expand their DTS service 
to cover their DMA limited only by the requirement that they do not 
cause unacceptable interference to

[[Page 72766]]

another licensee. The other approach offered by MWG would allow DTS 
transmitters to be located within a station's ``theoretically maximized 
DTV service contour.'' MWG describes the ``theoretically maximized DTV 
service contour'' as being based at the station's DTV allotment 
reference coordinates, with the coverage contour extended to correspond 
to the coverage that would be achieved if the station were authorized 
at the maximum effective radiated power and antenna height specified in 
the Commission rules. In addition, MWG suggests that a station with an 
authorization at a transmitter location different from the DTV 
allotment reference coordinates should be allowed to locate its DTS 
transmitters within the combination of the authorized coverage contour 
and the ``theoretically maximized DTV service contour.'' This 
``maximized DTV contour'' approach would also allow a DTS transmitter 
to extend service. In MWG's proposal, if a station is allowed a DTS 
transmitter site that is 60 miles from its reference site, the service 
from that DTS transmitter could extend to a distance 50 percent 
farther, (90 miles for this example) from the allotment reference 
point. (See 47 CFR 73.215(b)(2)(i): ``For vacant allotments, contours 
are based on the presumed use, at the allotment's reference point, of 
the maximum ERP that could be authorized for the station class of the 
allotment, and antenna HAAT in the directions of concern that would 
result from a non-directional antenna mounted at a standard eight-
radial antenna HAAT equal to the reference HAAT for the station class 
of the allotment.''). In support of both of its proffered alternatives 
that would permit greater primary coverage, MWG contends that station 
service contours are less important in DTV than in analog TV, being 
used only to define the area where interference analysis is conducted. 
MWG claims that using any currently specified contour would be entirely 
too limiting in the placement and service of DTS transmitters, noting 
that maximization of service is a DTV objective. MWG argues that, at 
the very least, DTV facilities should be able to be maximized to the 
same extent whether a single transmitter or DTS is used.
    13. Other commenters in MB Docket 03-15 support various aspects of 
MWG suggested approaches. Tribune agrees with the alternative suggested 
by MWG that primary DTS transmitters should be allowed within a 
theoretically maximized DTV service contour. For restrictions on both 
DTS transmitter location and coverage, Golden Orange supports MWG's 
``DMA contour'' approach where the DMA extends beyond a station's 
predicted Grade B service area.
    14. Other commenters propose a less expansive approach. Harris 
recommends that DTS transmitters be located within their station's DTV 
service contour and not extend service outside that contour. Axcera 
suggests that DTS transmitters be allowed to serve beyond a station's 
authorized coverage area as long as the station does not increase the 
interference contour from a real or theoretical single transmitter 
system that would otherwise be permitted. Siete Grande suggests limits 
like the analog operation it is authorized in Puerto Rico where each 
transmitter's proposed Grade B service contour is contained within the 
licensed main station predicted Grade B coverage contour.
    15. We are troubled by the implications of allowing significantly 
greater coverage for DTS than the coverage that can be achieved by a 
traditional single-transmitter station. We do not believe it is 
appropriate to expand significantly the coverage rights of some 
stations by allowing DTS operation anywhere within a station's DMA. 
Many DMAs cover extensive areas and the DMA approach could allow some 
stations to provide service into communities 100 or more miles away 
from their current station location. Such service could be inconsistent 
with our traditional focus on localism. If stations were allowed to 
extend their service areas through DTS operations, those extended 
services could conflict with exclusive territories based on contractual 
arrangements. Such expansion, particularly throughout a geographically 
large DMA, would subvert our current licensing rules by allowing a 
station to obtain the rights to serve a new community where a new 
station might otherwise be licensed. (See 47 CFR 73.623(h).) 
Disallowing such expansion is consistent with the statutory requirement 
to award new licenses through competitive bidding (auctions), as 
appropriate. (See 47 U.S.C. 309(j).) Such expansions may also reduce 
the availability of channels for new stations and thereby similarly 
reduce opportunities for new stations in a manner inconsistent with our 
TV channel allotment and licensing policies. We thus tentatively reject 
MWG's DMA approach.
    16. Similarly, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow 
stations with DTS operations to extend coverage by an additional 50 
percent beyond the distance that a station would be allowed to cover if 
it operated from a single transmitter. Instead of either MWG approach, 
we believe the service areas of DTS and single-transmitter licensees 
should be treated as comparably as feasible. Consistent with this 
principle, we propose a ``table of distances'' below that we believe is 
comparable to a theoretically maximized DTV service contour. To the 
extent that MWG's suggested approaches seek an expansion of service 
areas beyond what would be permitted under our rules, we tentatively 
reject them. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
    17. Accordingly, we propose to permit stations to utilize DTS to 
provide service over the same area that they are authorized to serve 
with a single transmitter. To that end, and to afford stations an 
opportunity to provide service using DTS over an area comparable to the 
area they would be authorized to serve using a single transmitter, we 
propose to require DTS coverage to be confined within a circle from a 
station's reference coordinates based on the DTV service field 
strengths specified in 47 CFR 73.622(e) of our rules and the maximum 
power and antenna height restrictions specified in 47 CFR 73.622(f). 
Also, zones are defined in 47 CFR 73.609. Zone 1 is generally the more 
heavily populated states in the northeast U.S. (extending west to the 
Mississippi River and south to include Norfolk and Richmond, VA, while 
excluding northern sections of Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont, 
New Hampshire and Maine). This approach is based on a set of distances 
from stations' reference points that reflect DTV stations' potential 
maximized facilities, generally allowing stations using DTS to achieve 
the coverage that would be achieved if the station were authorized at 
the maximum effective radiated power and antenna height specified in 
the Commission's rules. (See 47 CFR 73.622). We believe using this 
limited set of distances instead of individual calculation of the 
theoretically maximized DTV service contours as suggested by MWG will 
simplify determinations of allowable DTS coverage areas and will offer 
equal treatment of similarly situated stations. The approaches for DTS 
that we are considering and offering for comment are intended for use 
with respect to currently authorized facilities that licensees have 
certified in the channel election process and for future facilities 
changes that may be authorized after the freeze is lifted and new 
applications are filed. No station is automatically entitled to use the 
areas described by the parameters set forth in this chart to

[[Page 72767]]

provide DTS. Rather, DTS stations, like single-transmitter stations, 
can apply to use these areas to request authorization to maximize after 
the freeze is lifted. The circles described by the chart are the 
maximum DTS stations can apply for, and are derived from the maximum 
height and power that a single-transmitter station is and would be able 
to apply for.
    18. We propose the following table of distances. As explained 
below, the distances represent circles within which all DTS station 
coverage contours must be contained. In the vast majority of cases, the 
appropriate circle will equal or exceed a station's currently 
authorized coverage contour, including the contour within which the 
station certified it will provide service at the end of the transition. 
The rule proposed will provide for those exceptional situations in 
which this is not the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Zone (see 47 CFR
              Channel                       73.609)           F(50,90) field strength             ERP at HAAT                        Distance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6...............................  1......................  28 dBu...................  10 kW at 305 m.................  108 km. (67 mi.).
2-6...............................  2 and 3................  28 dBu...................  10 kW at 610 m.................  128 km. (80 mi.).
7-13..............................  1......................  36 dBu...................  30 kW at 305 m.................  101 km. (63 mi.).
7-13..............................  2 and 3................  36 dBu...................  30 kW at 610 m.................  123 km. (77 mi.).
14-69.............................  1, 2 and 3.............  41 dBu...................  1000 kW at 365 m...............  103 km. (64 mi.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to use a reference point for each DTV station that is 
based on its certification in the post-transition DTV channel election 
process that was detailed in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order. 
We seek comment on whether a different reference point should be used, 
for example based on a station's initial DTV allotment or the allotment 
established in its individual DTV channel change rule making. We note 
that some stations may desire a different reference point and request 
comment on what process could be used to change reference points 
without circumventing the limits created by the proposed distance 
table. We seek comment on these proposals and conclusions.
    19. In parts of the country where the terrain is uniform, the 
proposed ``table of distances'' illustrates the area that a station 
could serve if it operated a single-transmitter at maximum power and 
height allowed by our current rules. Reliance on this table can 
facilitate licensees' use of DTS by eliminating the need for a two-step 
process: First calculating the antenna height necessary to match the 
maximum allowed average antenna height and power for a single 
transmitter and then calculating the distances to the service contour 
in every direction based on the antenna height above the terrain in 
that direction. Because most stations are not in areas where variations 
in the terrain result in significant variations in the coverage 
dependent on which direction from the transmitter is being considered, 
the table shows the distance most stations could serve if they operated 
a single-transmitter at maximum power and height allowed by our current 
rules.
    20. We also propose to use the table of distances in areas in which 
irregular terrain is an issue. In such locations, single-transmitter 
stations' maximum service areas are distorted from a circular coverage 
contour to varying degrees. Coverage contours of stations using non-
directional transmitting antennas will be circular except where the 
surrounding terrain has a different average height in different 
directions. For example, if the average terrain to the North is 500 
feet above mean sea level and the average terrain to the South is 1000 
feet above mean sea level, the coverage contour will extend further to 
the north than it does to the south. Where coverage does not reach as 
far due to terrain in one direction, a station would have a 
correspondingly larger coverage distance in other directions. In these 
cases, stations' single-transmitters may be authorized to serve people 
outside of the circular coverage contour because the average terrain 
calculation has allowed the station to be authorized for a larger 
coverage contour in one direction (one that would not have been reached 
if there was no terrain issue). In these circumstances, stations would 
be authorized to provide DTV service within their authorized coverage 
area. We seek comment on this.
    21. We seek comment on the usefulness of this Table and the 
validity of the underlying assumptions. We also seek comment on the 
effect of such assumptions on the scope and range of the service area 
and populations to be served by stations that use DTS. Would this 
inadvertently result in significantly expanded areas of service beyond 
what our current maximization rules contemplate? Or would the result be 
more effective service over the typical potential area? We seek comment 
on alternative ways to determine the service areas appropriate for DTS 
operation, as well as alternate methods to determine or limit 
incidental expansion of service areas.
    22. Finally, as we noted in the Interim Rules adopted in the Second 
DTV Periodic Report and Order, we are concerned that DTS operators not 
use DTS technology to favor some populations within their service area 
over others, a practice sometimes referred to as ``cherry-picking.'' We 
propose to maintain the protections against cherry-picking that we 
adopted in the Interim Rules and continue to require that licensees 
using DTS technology provide, at a minimum, essentially the same level 
of service they would using their single-transmitter facilities. We 
recognize that some difference in coverage between conventional and DTS 
operations may be unavoidable, but we intend to keep this concern and 
public service obligation in mind when we review applications to use 
DTS technology. We seek comment on how best to account for these 
differences while maintaining that DTS systems comply with the 
requirement to serve essentially the same population as conventional 
systems. At a minimum, we propose that we would deny any application to 
construct DTS facilities that would result in loss of service to the 
population currently served within the licensee's service contour. We 
note that, under our interim policy, we now consider this issue on a 
case-by-case basis to determine if the DTS operator would serve 
``essentially all of its replication coverage area,'' which would 
include all viewers within the station's replicated service area who 
are predicted to be served by the station's current analog transmitter. 
We expect that these viewers would be predicted to receive the 
minimally necessary signal strength (based on the FCC curves F(50,90) 
propagation model) from at least one DTS transmitter. We seek comment 
on this approach, but also ask whether a more objective standard can be 
used to prevent cherry-picking while allowing for differences in 
technologies.

[[Page 72768]]

D. Power, Antenna Height and Emission Mask
    23. We received several comments in MB Docket 03-15 concerning 
power, antenna height and other operational standards of DTS 
transmitters. MWG suggested that for these parameters, the existing 
rules for DTV stations can be applied to distributed transmitters with 
little or no modification. MWG described distributed transmitters as 
being inherently limited by the need to meet interference requirements 
with respect to neighboring stations. Thus, MWG concluded there was no 
reason to impose different limits on the maximum power and antenna 
height for each distributed transmitter than the limits specified in 47 
CFR 73.622(f)(5) for single transmitter DTV stations. MWG also stated 
that the relative powers of distributed transmitters in a network must 
be carefully chosen to optimize the service the network provides and 
should not be unnecessarily constrained. MWG also argued there is no 
reason to impose different emission mask requirements on distributed 
transmitters than those imposed on single DTV transmitters. Siete 
Grande suggested that each distributed transmitter should meet the 
requirements that apply to single main transmitters, including maximum 
operating power and compliance with radio frequency exposure guidelines 
and other environmental rules. WPXS/Penn State supports the positions 
and proposed rules submitted by MWG.
    24. For each distributed transmitter in a DTS system, we propose to 
apply the existing Part 73 DTV effective radiated power, antenna height 
and emission mask rules applicable to single-transmitter DTV stations. 
Specifically, we believe there will be no adverse impact on other 
stations if we require that each transmitter in a DTS system conform to 
the maximum power and emission mask requirements applicable to single-
transmitter DTV stations. This approach should offer DTS stations 
flexibility in designing their system to maximize DTV service while 
limiting their potential interference in light of the service area 
limitations and interference protection requirements proposed in this 
NPRM.
E. Licensing Issues
    25. We propose that DTS transmitters will not be separately 
licensed, but will be part of a linked group that will be covered by 
one construction permit and license. Unless otherwise indicated, we 
propose to apply the current requirements and processes for DTV 
stations, or, where appropriate, analog TV stations. For example, the 
normal CP expiration dates will apply. (See 47 CFR 73.624(d) and 
73.3598.) We seek comment on this approach and on how to provide 
licensees and permittees with flexibility to serve viewers as quickly 
as possible but without the risk of commencing service in one area 
while delaying service to another area containing fewer or less 
affluent viewers (i.e., cherry-picking). Under our proposal, licensees 
will request authority to construct DTS facilities by filing a single 
application that includes either a main transmitter and one or more 
additional transmitters that will collectively use the DTS technology, 
or two or more smaller DTS transmitters. For example: 47 CFR 73.1690(b) 
requires a construction permit be granted before a new tower structure 
is built for broadcast purposes, or a station's geographic coordinates 
are changed or effective radiated power is increased; 47 CFR 73.3533 
requires that a Form 301 be used by commercial broadcast stations 
seeking a construction permit and Form 340 be used by noncommercial 
educational broadcast stations; 47 CFR 73.3572 describes the processing 
of TV broadcast station applications; and 47 CFR 73.3598 specifies the 
period of construction (but 47 CFR 73.624(d) specifies DTV build-out 
dates). A licensee may add to its DTS network of transmitters using a 
minor change application for a construction permit to change a licensed 
DTV facility, or for a modified construction permit to change a DTV 
facility authorized by a construction permit. Such applications will be 
processed in accordance with our processing rules and guidelines. 
However, at least one of a licensee's DTS transmitters must provide 
coverage of the station's community of license in accordance with 47 
CFR 73.625 of our rules. We request specific comment on whether service 
in the principal community can be relied upon if it is provided from 
multiple transmitters (where the interaction between the signals from 
the different transmitters may make reception difficult or impossible 
in some part of the overlapping coverage areas). We seek comment on our 
proposals. We also seek comment on whether additional or different 
restrictions would be appropriate for DTS transmitters.
F. Interference Protection
    26. We received several comments in MB Docket No. 03-15 concerning 
the standards needed to protect DTS operations from interference and 
the standards needed to protect other stations from interference from 
DTS transmitters. MWG suggested that distributed transmitters should be 
subject to the same interference calculations as for single-transmitter 
stations, except that, first, the service provided by a DTS operation 
would include each location predicted to be served by at least one of 
the DTS transmitters, and second, the interference effect on each 
protected station should be the accumulated effect of all of the 
distributed transmitters in the network. MWG contends that this 
approach is necessary to avoid double counting of the interference 
caused or received. MWG argued that the single-transmitter standards 
for de minimis interference should apply to the overall service and 
interference. MWG noted that allotment of adjacent channels in the same 
area can preclude DTS use, especially in the case of analog TV stations 
within four channels above or below the intended DTS channel. MWG 
asserted that the Commission's interference analysis software can be 
extended to account for DTS stations without requiring a major overhaul 
of the program. MWG said the distributed transmitters would have to be 
linked in the Commission database so the software could consider the 
service and interference effects of all the transmitters of a DTS 
station as a single composite service area or interference source. 
Finally, MWG suggested that for purposes of analyzing interference from 
its neighbors, internal interference between DTS transmitters in a 
single system should be ignored.
    27. We seek comment on these issues. In particular, we seek comment 
on whether to calculate interference based on each DTS transmitter 
individually, as proposed by MWG, or based more conservatively on the 
combined signals of all the DTS transmitters. In either case, the 
cumulative population predicted to lose service due to interference 
from all DTS transmitters would be used to determine compliance with 
the same de minimis interference standard as used for single-
transmitter stations. We do not believe that there is a significant 
difference between the two approaches, but seek comment on this point.
    28. We seek comment concerning ongoing experimental operations that 
might help us develop a more appropriate mechanism for considering the 
interference caused or received by a DTS operation. We note that the 
timing of introducing regular DTS service will depend on completing 
this rule making and making necessary modifications to our application 
processing software. As we approach the end of the transition, the key 
interference considerations will

[[Page 72769]]

become DTV to DTV, which relieves concerns expressed by MWG that 
potential interference to adjacent channel NTSC stations may make DTS 
unusable in some areas.
G. Technical Standards
    29. We received several comments in MB Docket 03-15 concerning the 
technical standards to be used for the synchronization of multiple DTV 
transmitters. At the time of those comments, the Advanced Television 
Systems Committee (ATSC) was developing a new standard for such 
synchronization. (See ATSC A/110A, Synchronization Standard for 
Distributed Transmission (July 19, 2005). ATSC standards are available 
at www.atsc.org/standards.html). According to an ATSC press release, 
``The new standard defines the mechanisms for synchronization of 
transmitters emitting 8-VSB signals in accordance with the ATSC DTV 
Standard (A/53C). It also provides for adjustment of transmitter timing 
and other characteristics through additional information carried within 
the specified packet structure.'' ATSC indicated that transmissions 
pursuant to the then candidate standard comply fully with the ATSC A/53 
standard that the Commission has mandated for DTV stations, so use of 
the then candidate standard would not require Commission action. MWG 
also stated that the technical standard for distributed transmitters 
should be the same as for single transmitters and that it was 
unnecessary to add additional technical requirements unrelated to 
providing interference protection to neighboring stations. MWG 
suggested that the internal workings of DTS should follow the standard 
that was then in the ATSC approval process, and would not require 
Commission rules. MWG further indicated that the Commission should 
limit its restrictions on DTS operation so that necessary adjustments 
can be made without the need for amending Commission rules or modifying 
station authorizations.
    30. We note that ATSC has approved standard A/110A, titled 
``Synchronization Standard for Distributed Transmission.'' As 
consistently suggested by comments, at this early stage in the 
introduction of this technology, we do not believe it is necessary or 
appropriate to propose to mandate compliance with this, or any other, 
synchronization standard. Operation that is consistent with the current 
standard or other future appropriate technologies will likely minimize 
the internal interference that a station effectively would be causing 
to itself. However ATSC standard A/110A, Sec.  1.2 of the Commission's 
rules advised that ``* * *, while Distributed Transmission holds the 
potential to greatly improve the coverage and service areas of DTV 
transmission, it also holds the potential to cause interference within 
the network that some receivers, particularly early designs, may not be 
able to handle. Consequently, Distributed Transmission Networks must be 
carefully designed to minimize the burden placed on the adaptive 
equalizers in such legacy receivers while maximizing the improvement in 
signals delivered to the public. The impact on any specific receiver 
will depend upon the receiver's location, the use of directional 
antennas, and other factors related to the design of the receiver.'' At 
the same time, the interference effect on other stations would not be 
affected by the synchronization or lack of synchronization of the DTS 
transmitters in accordance with the standard. It is clearly in the DTS 
station's self-interest to minimize its internal interference. We 
encourage stations that are using DTS technology to provide us with 
data on the performance of the technology and the extent to which 
internal interference is minimized.
    31. We note that stations must comply with the ATSC standards for 
digital television. We do not intend to require compliance with a 
particular synchronization standard, provided that the synchronization 
technology used is effective and otherwise consistent with our rules 
(47 CFR 73.682(d); ATSC A/53B, Standard: Digital Television Standard, 
Revision B with Amendments 1 and 2 (May 19, 2003)). We propose to avoid 
requiring licensees to use a particular synchronization approach that 
would necessarily require use of a patented technology. We note that 
MWG has patent interests in the technology contained in the 
Synchronization Standard for Distributed Transmission document that has 
been approved by the ATSC. What is the likely effect of such patents on 
potential users of DTS technology? Would such patent interests 
adversely affect licensees' use of the proposed DTS service? Does the 
Commission need to take steps to ensure that licenses to MWG's 
technology and any other patented technology that might be developed to 
implement DTS are offered on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis? 
Are there other means of using DTS that would not necessitate obtaining 
a license for patented technology or equipment?
H. Class A, Low Power, Translator and Booster Television Stations
    32. In the proceeding that established the Class A television 
service, the Commission required certain proposals for new or modified 
DTV service to protect Class A and digital Class A TV service (e.g., 
application proposals for DTV service maximization filed after May 1, 
2000) (Establishment of a Class A Television Service, 65 FR 29985-01, 
paragraph 72 (May 10, 2000), on recon, 66 FR 21681, May 1, 2001 and 47 
CFR 73.623(c)(5)). Full-service licensees wishing to use DTS technology 
must protect Class A stations to the same extent as stations using a 
single transmitter.
    33. We propose to permit Class A TV licensees to use DTS 
technologies to operate a single frequency network of a group of 
commonly owned digital Class A stations that carry common locally 
produced programming within the market area served by the station 
group. The market area for locally produced programming of a digital 
Class A station is the area within the station's predicted DTV noise-
limited contour, as defined in Sec.  73.622(e) of the Commission's 
rules, based on the station's authorized facilities (Amendment of Parts 
73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low 
Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster 
Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations, 69 
FR 69325, November 29, 2004 (Digital LPTV Report and Order)). With 
respect to a group of commonly owned stations, digital Class A stations 
whose predicted noise-limited contours are physically contiguous to 
each other comprise the market area for locally produced programming 
(47 CFR 73.6000(2)). In conventional arrangements of commonly owned 
stations, the individual stations generally operate on different TV 
channels in order to avoid interference to reception. Use of a common 
channel in a Class A station group using DTS technology would promote 
spectrum efficiency and might also provide an alternative for licensees 
whose stations face channel displacement. Under this proposal, in most 
respects, the operation of the Class A stations in such DTS networks 
would be the same as their operation as stand-alone digital stations 
(e.g., protected service area and permitted effective radiated power). 
As a significant difference, these stations would be interconnected and 
operate on a common TV channel. Thus, these stations would be 
authorized with the same ``primary'' regulatory status

[[Page 72770]]

accorded stand-alone digital Class A stations. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    34. More generally, we seek comment on whether to permit a Class A 
or LPTV licensee or permittee to use DTS technology to operate single 
frequency networks within the protected contour of its authorized 
station. We note that the service area of a Class A or LPTV station is 
typically much smaller than that of a DTV broadcast station and, thus, 
Class A and low power licensees may have less need for distributed 
stations. Yet, there may be situations in which licensees could benefit 
from use of DTS technology (e.g., the ability to overcome terrain 
limitations or for purposes of interference avoidance).
    35. To the extent, if any, that we were to permit use of DTS 
technology in the Class A and LPTV services, we seek comment on 
appropriate rules to govern the authorization and operation of such 
service. How should we determine permissible transmitter locations in 
such DTS systems and protected service areas? For example, we envision 
that the protected area of a DTS network of a group of commonly owned 
Class A stations would be the combined area of the protected signal 
contours of the stations comprising the group. Should we apply the 
power and emission limits that now govern digital LPTV and Class A 
stations? We would be inclined to use the general approach for 
interference analysis that we would adopt for DTS in the DTV service 
(i.e., interference predictions based on individual transmitters or 
aggregation of the transmitters in the system), using the desired-to-
undesired (``D/U'') signal strength ratios and other prediction 
criteria applicable to digital Class A and LPTV stations (e.g., 47 CFR 
73.6010, 73.6016, 73.6017, 73.6018, 73.6019 and 73.6022).
    36. We also seek comment on the impact of our DTS proposals on the 
need for low power digital booster stations. Will DTS transmitters, as 
MWG suggests, reduce the need for such stations, or is there a purpose 
for both types of stations (e.g., due to differences in the costs and 
technical complexity of digital boosters and DTS stations)? In the 
digital LPTV proceeding, we declined to establish a digital TV booster 
station class. We concurred with commenters that ``we should resolve 
issues regarding distributed transmission systems before further 
considering whether to authorize on-channel digital boosters.'' (See 
Digital LPTV Report and Order, 69 FR 69325, November 29, 2004). In so 
doing, we noted our expectation that such stations would be primarily 
used by full-service broadcasters to serve terrain-shadowed portions of 
their service areas, in the manner of analog boosters. To what extent 
does our allowance in the digital LPTV proceeding for on-channel 
digital TV translators reduce the need for digital boosters? The 
regulation of on-channel digital translator stations differs in several 
respects from that of analog booster stations. Unlike on-channel 
digital translators, analog boosters are licensed only to TV broadcast 
licensees and permittees, must be located inside the station's 
protected contour (analog Grade B contour), and the predicted service 
contour of the booster may not extend beyond that of the signal being 
retransmitted. Applications for analog booster stations may be filed at 
any time; applications for on-channel digital TV translators must be 
filed under the procedures for new digital stations in the LPTV 
service.
    37. In addition, MWG suggests that DTS technology can effectively 
replace networks of translators using the primary station channel and a 
single additional channel as part of the translator license. An example 
of such a two-channel scenario would start with a station transmitting 
from a main tower site on its original channel, providing adequate 
reception to a distance of about 30 miles. Communities at the edge of 
that service range would receive a stronger, more reliable signal from 
transmitters located near those communities using the additional 
channel that would not have an interference interaction with the 
original channel. Communities 40 miles from the main tower site might 
be at the edge of service from the transmitters using the additional 
channel, but could be served by more transmitters using the original 
channel with less chance of interference. In such cases, MWG urges that 
the operation on the additional (relay) channel should also be treated 
as primary. We do not believe that use of the ``single additional 
channel,'' as suggested by MWG, is an essential component of DTS 
service, and we reject the suggestion that it be afforded primary 
status as inconsistent with our desire to avoid favoring DTS stations 
over non-DTS stations, but we note that for either category of DTV 
station, we would permit use of an ``additional channel'' for a DTV 
translator with secondary regulatory status.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
    38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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 
provided in Section V.D. of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy 
of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
B. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules
    39. The NPRM proposes rules that will permit television broadcast 
licensees to use a distributed transmission system (DTS) in lieu of a 
single-transmitter to operate their television broadcast stations. The 
proposed rules will apply with respect to existing authorized 
facilities and to use of DTS after establishment of the new DTV Table 
of Allotments, which may afford stations the opportunity to apply to 
maximize their service areas after the end of our current freeze on the 
filing of most applications. (A DTV distributed transmission system 
would employ multiple synchronized transmitters spread around a 
station's service area. Each transmitter would broadcast the station's 
DTV signal on the same channel, relying on the performance of 
``adaptive equalizer'' circuitry in DTV receivers to cancel or combine 
the multiple signals plus any reflected signals to produce a single 
signal.)
C. Legal Basis
    40. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is 
contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 5(c)(1), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 
308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 155(c)(1), 157, 301, 302, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 324, 336, and 337.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    a. Entities Directly Affected By Proposed Rules. 41. The RFA 
directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, 
an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by 
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same

[[Page 72771]]

meaning as the terms ``small business,'' small organization,'' and 
``small government jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act. 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.
    42. The proposed rules contained in this NPRM will permit 
television broadcast licensees to use a distributed transmission system 
(DTS) in lieu of a single-transmitter to operate their television 
broadcast stations. We believe television broadcast licensees will be 
directly affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. We do not believe 
any other types of entities will be directly affected by the proposed 
rules, but request comment on this tentative conclusion. Therefore, in 
this IRFA, we invite comment on the impact of the proposed rules on 
small television broadcast stations. A description of such small 
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, 
is provided below.
    43. Television Broadcasting. The proposed rules and policies could 
apply to television broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of 
television service. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a 
small business if such station has no more than $12 million in annual 
receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those 
``primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' (This 
category description continues, ``These establishments operate 
television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also 
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own 
studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' 
Separate census categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in 
producing programming.) According to Commission staff review of the BIA 
Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on 
October 18, 2005, about 873 of the 1,307 commercial television stations 
(or about 67 percent) have revenues of $12 million or less and thus 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, 
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under 
the above definition, business (control) affiliations 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.
    44. 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 do not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive 
to this extent.
    45. Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations. The proposed 
rules and policies could also apply to licensees of Class A TV 
stations, low power television (LPTV) stations, and TV translator 
stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television 
services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast 
licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television 
broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than 
$12 million in annual receipts.
    46. Currently, there are approximately 598 licensed Class A 
stations, 2,098 licensed LPTV stations, 4,491 licensed TV translators 
and 11 TV booster stations. Given the nature of these services, we will 
presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the 
SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition, 
revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated 
with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is 
small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities 
since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or 
aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not have 
data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but virtually 
all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of less than $12 
million and thus may be categorized as small, except to the extent that 
revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be 
considered.
    b. Entities Believed To Be Not Directly Affected By Proposed Rules. 
47. Because the rules proposed in this NPRM pertain only to the 
technology employed in broadcasting, we do not believe the rules will 
directly affect program distribution and, therefore, we do not believe 
that our proposed rules will directly affect cable operators or 
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), such as Direct 
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, private cable operators (PCOs), 
also known as satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems, home 
satellite dish (HSD) services, multipoint distribution services (MDS)/
multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS), Instructional 
Television Fixed Service (ITFS), local multipoint distribution service 
(LMDS) and open video systems (OVS). Nevertheless, we seek comment on 
this tentative conclusion and, although such comment is not required by 
the RFA, we invite comment from any small cable operators or small 
MVPDs who believe they might be directly affected by our proposed rules 
contained in the Notice.
    48. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Cable system operators 
fall within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program 
Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 
million or less in revenue annually. According to the Census Bureau 
data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the 
entire year in the category of Cable and Other Program Distribution. Of 
this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an 
additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more, but less than 
$25 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997. Economics and Statistics 
Administration, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 
Economic Census, Subject Series--Establishment and Firm Size, 
Information Sector 51, Table 4 at 50 (2000). The amount of $10 million 
was used to estimate the number of small business firms because the 
relevant Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at 
$10,000,000. No category for $12.5 million existed. Thus, the number is 
as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available 
information.) In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 
indicates that the total number of Cable and Other Program Distribution 
entities increased approximately 46 percent between 1997 and 2002. (See 
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series: 
``Information,'' Table 2, Comparative Statistics for the United States 
(1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and

[[Page 72772]]

1997, NAICS code 513220 (issued Nov. 2004). The preliminary data 
indicate that the number of total ``establishments'' increased from 
4,185 to 6,118. In this context, the number of establishments is a less 
helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of 
``firms,'' because the latter number takes into account the concept of 
common ownership or control. The more helpful 2002 census data on 
firms, including employment and receipts numbers, will be issued in 
late 2005.) The Commission estimates that the majority of providers in 
this category of Cable and Other Program Distribution are small 
businesses.
    49. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed, with SBA's approval, its own definition of a 
small cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under 
the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 
400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. (See 47 CFR 76.901(e). The 
Commission developed this definition based on its determinations that a 
small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million 
or less. For ``regulatory simplicity,'' the Commission established the 
company size standard in terms of subscribers, rather than dollars; in 
the cable context, $100 million in annual regulated revenues equates to 
approximately 400,000 subscribers.) We last estimated that there were 
1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable companies at the 
end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to 
serve more than 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved 
in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable 
operators. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 
small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the 
proposals contained in this NPRM.
    50. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for a ``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one 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.'' The Commission has determined that 
there are 67.7 million subscribers in the United States. Therefore, 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 of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Based on available data, we estimate that the number of 
cable operators serving 677,00