Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, 13285-13302 [2017-04713]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Thank you for your cooperation
during our review process. Should your
staff have any questions regarding this
request, they may contact Tom Peake at
(202) 343–9765 or peake.tom@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
Enclosure: List of EPA Completeness
Correspondence and DOE Responses for the
2014 CRA
Dated: January 13, 2017.
Jonathan D. Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2017–04800 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 73
[GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 17–13]
Authorizing Permissive Use of the
‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast
Television Standard
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes to authorize
television broadcasters to use the ‘‘Next
Generation’’ broadcast television
transmission standard associated with
recent work of the Advanced Television
Systems Committee on a voluntary,
market-driven basis, while they
continue to deliver current-generation
digital television broadcast service,
using the ATSC 1.0 standard, to their
viewers. This new standard has the
potential to greatly improve broadcast
signal reception and will enable
broadcasters to offer enhanced and
innovative new features to consumers.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding
are due on or before May 9, 2017; reply
comments are due on or before June 8,
2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 16–142, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although the Commission continues to
experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
D People With Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
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, contact John
Gabrysch, John.Gabrysch@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Engineering Division, at
(202) 418–7152, Sean Mirzadegan,
Sean.Mirzadegan@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, at (202)
418–7111, Evan Baranoff,
Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
7142, or Matthew Hussey,
Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the Office
of Engineering and Technology, (202)
418–3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17–13,
adopted and released on February 23,
2017. The full text 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. This
document 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. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
may result in new or revised
information collection requirements. If
the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection
requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register
inviting the public to comment on such
requirements, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In
addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
the Commission will seek specific
comment on how it might ‘‘further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13285
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to
authorize television broadcasters to use
the ‘‘Next Generation’’ broadcast
television (Next Gen TV) transmission
standard associated with recent work of
the Advanced Television Systems
Committee (ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary,
market-driven basis, while they
continue to deliver current-generation
digital television (DTV) broadcast
service, using the ‘‘ATSC 1.0 standard,’’
to their viewers. ATSC 3.0 is being
developed by broadcasters with the
intent of merging the capabilities of
over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting with
the broadband viewing and information
delivery methods of the Internet, using
the same 6 MHz channels presently
allocated for DTV. According to a
coalition of broadcast and consumer
electronics industry representatives that
has petitioned the Commission to
authorize the use of ATSC 3.0, this new
standard has the potential to greatly
improve broadcast signal reception,
particularly on mobile devices and
television receivers without outdoor
antennas, and it will enable
broadcasters to offer enhanced and
innovative new features to consumers,
including Ultra High Definition (UHD)
picture and immersive audio, more
localized programming content, an
advanced emergency alert system (EAS)
capable of waking up sleeping devices
to warn consumers of imminent
emergencies, better accessibility
options, and interactive services. With
today’s action, we aim to facilitate
private sector innovation and promote
American leadership in the global
broadcast industry.
II. Background
2. On April 13, 2016, America’s
Public Television Stations, the
Advanced Warning and Response
Network Alliance, the Consumer
Technology Association, and the
National Association of Broadcasters
filed a joint petition for rulemaking
asking the Commission to allow local
television stations to adopt the Next Gen
TV broadcast transmission standard,
ATSC 3.0, on a voluntary, market-driven
basis, while continuing to deliver
current-generation DTV broadcast
service using the ATSC 1.0 transmission
standard to their communities of
license. Petitioners state that allowing
broadcasters to use this additional
broadcast transmission standard, the
‘‘physical layer’’ of ATSC 3.0, will make
more efficient use of spectrum, allow
consumers to enjoy new features and
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
13286
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
higher quality picture and sound, and
enable broadcasters to bring innovative
new services and data delivery to homes
and communities. They state that on top
of this new physical layer, IP transport
will allow new services and capabilities
to be provided to consumers much more
rapidly, and will permit seamless
integration with other IP-based services
and platforms. On April 26, 2016, the
Media Bureau issued a Public Notice
seeking comment on the Petition. The
Commission received 35 comments and
14 replies to the Petition.
3. Commenters supporting the
Petition include broadcasters,
equipment manufacturers, and tower
companies. These commenters agree
that authorizing use of the Next Gen TV
transmission standard associated with
ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to
offer innovative technologies and
services to consumers, such as UHD
picture and immersive audio, improved
over-the-air reception, IP-based
transport streams, enhanced mobile
capability, more localized content,
better accessibility options, and
advanced emergency alerting. The
potentially life-saving advancements in
emergency alerting will include geotargeting of emergency alerts to tailor
information for particular communities
and enhanced datacasting to provide
videos, photos, maps, floorplans, and
other critical data to law enforcement,
first responder, and emergency
management organizations. Advanced
emergency alerting will also include the
capability to ‘‘wake up’’ receivers to
alert consumers to sudden emergencies
and disasters, such as tornadoes and
earthquakes. Other industry
stakeholders, including AT&T, CTIA,
DISH, the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association, and
public interest groups, offer support for
broadcaster innovation, but ask the
Commission to ensure that
multichannel video programming
distributors (MVPDs) and their
customers are not burdened with new
carriage obligations or costs on account
of the deployment of ATSC 3.0-based
transmissions; that the deployment of
ATSC 3.0-based stations does not have
any impact on the broadcast television
incentive auction, the post-auction
repacking process, or the post-repacking
600 MHz frequency environment; and
that broadcasters continue to meet their
public interest obligations regardless of
the technology used to deliver broadcast
signals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
III. Discussion
A. Authorization of Voluntary Use of
ATSC 3.0 Transmissions
4. As requested by the Petitioners, we
propose to authorize the ATSC 3.0
transmission standard as an optional
standard that can be used by television
licensees on a voluntary basis while
they continue to deliver current
generation ATSC 1.0 service to their
communities. We also propose to
incorporate by reference into our rules
ATSC A/321:2016 ‘‘System Discovery
and Signaling’’ (A/321), which is one of
the two components of the ‘‘physical
layer’’ of the ATSC 3.0 standard.
According to the Petitioners, this layer
of the standard points to the RF
characteristics of an ATSC 3.0
transmission, which ‘‘determines
interference and coverage.’’ We seek
comment on these proposals and on
whether it is necessary to incorporate
this or any other parts of the ATSC 3.0
standard aside from A/321 into our
rules at this time.
5. According to the Petitioners, the
ATSC 3.0 standard is split into multiple
individual parts under a unifying parent
standard. It is structured as three layers
that roughly correspond to a subset of
the layers found in the Open Systems
Interconnection seven-layer model (OSI)
commonly used to characterize and
standardize telecommunications
systems. The three layers of the ATSC
3.0 standard are (1) the physical layer,
(2) the management and protocols layer,
and (3) the applications and
presentation layer. Each component of
the standard fits into only one layer of
the system, making it possible to
develop and update each part
independently. The physical layer is the
portion of the system that includes the
definition of the RF waveform used in
ATSC 3.0, as well as the coding and
error correction that determine the
robustness of the signal to noise and
interference. The management and
protocols layer organizes data bits into
streams and files and establishes the
protocol for the receiver to direct those
streams to the proper destinations. The
applications and presentation layer
includes audio and video compression
technologies, captions and descriptive
audio, emergency alerts, parental
controls, interactive applications, and
how the station is displayed to the
viewers.
6. The Petitioners seek the approval
only of the ATSC A/321 standard into
our rules. They argue that A/321 is the
only part of the ATSC 3.0 standard that
needs to be approved by the
Commission in order to assure a stable
and predictable RF operating
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environment. If we decide to authorize
television broadcasters to use ATSC 3.0,
we propose that it is necessary to
approve A/321 at a minimum and to
incorporate it by reference into our
rules. We seek comment on this
proposal.
7. LG and others suggest that we also
may need to incorporate A/322:2016
‘‘Physical Layer Protocol’’ (A/322), the
other component of the ATSC 3.0
physical layer, into our rules because it
completes the description of the core RF
waveform used by the standard. At the
time that the Petition was filed, A/321
was the only part of the ATSC 3.0
physical layer that had been ratified by
the ATSC. Subsequent to the Petition,
the ATSC has also ratified the A/322
part of the ATSC 3.0 physical layer. As
discussed below, LG requests the
incorporation of A/322 into our rules in
order to ensure that broadcasters will
have the flexibility to operate certain
types of single frequency networks. LG
further notes that by addressing the
entire physical layer (both ATSC A/321
and A/322) in one rulemaking, the
Commission can avoid the need for a
future, separate rulemaking to authorize
use of A/322. We seek comment on
whether we should incorporate A/322
into our rules. We also seek input on
what the benefits or drawbacks would
be to incorporating it into our rules. We
also seek comment on whether the
Commission should incorporate any
additional details of the ATSC 3.0
technology into FCC regulations. If so,
what specific components of the
standard should we incorporate and
why?
B. Local Simulcasting
8. Local simulcasting is a key
component of the Petition’s proposal for
the voluntary use of the ATSC 3.0
transmission standard. ATSC 3.0 service
is not backward-compatible with
existing TV sets/receivers (which have
only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners). This
means that consumers will need to buy
new TV sets or converter equipment to
receive ATSC 3.0 service. Local
simulcasting would enable broadcasters
to provide both ATSC 3.0 and ATSC 1.0
service to viewers (without the need for
an additional allocation of spectrum to
broadcasters), thereby reducing the
disruption to consumers that may result
from ATSC 3.0 deployment.
Specifically, under the Petition’s local
simulcasting proposal, each television
broadcaster choosing to broadcast its
signal in ATSC 3.0 format from its
current facility will arrange for another
television station (i.e., a ‘‘host’’ station)
in its local television market to
‘‘simulcast’’ its video programming in
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
ATSC 1.0 format in order to mitigate
disruption to over-the-air viewers. As
discussed in more detail below, the
Petition also seeks, for purposes of
broadcast carriage rights, to use local
simulcasting as an alternate means for
Next Gen TV broadcasters to deliver a
good quality ATSC 1.0 signal to MVPDs
that cannot receive and process the
broadcaster’s ATSC 3.0 signal.
9. The Petition seeks one rule change
to authorize its local simulcasting
proposal. Under section 73.624(b) of the
Commission’s Rules, each television
licensee must broadcast one free-to-air
DTV signal in at least standarddefinition (SD) quality. The Petition
asks us ‘‘to specify that this requirement
may be accomplished by stations
deploying Next Generation TV by (1)
broadcasting at least one free-to-air Next
Gen TV signal and (2) arranging for the
simulcast of that signal in the current
DTV standard on another broadcast
facility . . . .’’ The Petition also states
that local simulcasting ‘‘agreements
would be subject to the Commission’s
existing rules and policies as to licensee
responsibility and control.’’ We address
below a number of issues related to the
Petitioner’s proposal regarding local
simulcasting. Among other things, we
propose to require local simulcasting as
a condition to offering ATSC 3.0, seek
comment on whether simulcast
channels should be separately licensed
as second channels of the originating
stations or treated as multicast streams
of the host stations, and seek comment
on whether we should adopt signal
coverage or quality requirements for
local simulcasts.
1. Requiring Next Gen TV Stations to
Simulcast
10. We propose to require Next Gen
TV broadcasters to simulcast their ATSC
3.0 stream in ATSC 1.0 format, as
proposed in the Petition, to ensure that
viewers maintain access to the station
during the period when broadcasters are
voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0
service. We seek comment on this
proposal, including whether such a
mandate is necessary. We assume that,
for purposes of the Petitioners’ local
simulcasting proposal, a ‘‘simulcast’’
means a stream with identical content to
the video programming aired on the
originating station’s primary ATSC 3.0
stream, but we seek comment on this
assumption and whether it is an
appropriate definition for ‘‘simulcast’’
for purposes of our rules. If the
simulcast content will not be identical
to the originating station’s primary
video programming stream, we ask
commenters to explain the reasons for
any deviations in content and/or format
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
(i.e., high definition (HD) versus SD)
and the impact of such deviations on
television viewers and the regulatory
implications. To what extent do
broadcasters intend to simulcast their
subchannels (in addition to their
primary stream), so that consumers can
continue to receive this programming?
11. We also propose to require that
Next Gen TV broadcasters ensure that at
least one free ATSC 3.0 video stream is
available at all times throughout the
ATSC 3.0 coverage area and, as
discussed below, that such ATSC 3.0
signal be at least as robust as a
comparable DTV signal to ensure that
viewers within the protected coverage
area continue to receive service at the
current DTV protection levels. We seek
comment on these proposals and
whether any other requirements should
be imposed on the ATSC 3.0
transmission stream as part of local
simulcasting. Because ATSC 3.0
broadcasters will have the ability to
broadcast more robust signals, which
could effectively expand their consumer
base beyond the current comparable
DTV coverage area or provide coverage
to areas that were previously unserved
due to terrain-limited propagation
conditions within the contour, we seek
comment on how we should treat these
expanded areas.
12. We seek comment on whether to
require simulcasting agreements to be
filed with the Commission, as proposed
by the Petition. If so, should the
Commission have a role in evaluating
individual simulcasting agreements? We
also seek comment on whether we
should require certain provisions to be
included in local simulcasting
agreements and, if so, what
requirements we should adopt.
13. Apart from the host station model
set forth in the Petition, we ask
commenters to address other potential
deployment alternatives that might
accelerate adoption of the ATSC 3.0
standard. For example, during the
marketplace conversion to the new
standard, should we consider allowing
broadcasters to use vacant in-band
channels remaining in a market after the
incentive auction repack to serve as
temporary host facilities for ATSC 1.0 or
ATSC 3.0 programming by multiple
broadcasters?
2. Methods for Licensing or Authorizing
Simulcast Stations
14. We seek comment on what license
modifications would be needed for a
television broadcaster to convert its
current ATSC 1.0 facility to a facility
transmitting ATSC 3.0 signals. At a
minimum, we believe that the
broadcaster would need to modify its
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13287
TV station service class for its broadcast
facility so that we can track and make
publicly available information about the
type of broadcast service provided by
stations during a potential Next Gen TV
transition. We propose that these
modifications be treated as minor
modifications to the license. We seek
comment on these issues. Are other
facility changes required to convert a
station from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0
transmissions?
15. Further, we seek comment on
whether, as a regulatory matter,
simulcasts should be separately licensed
as second channels of the originating
stations or treated as multicast streams
of the host stations. Or should
broadcasters be able to choose between
the two approaches? Under a licensed
simulcast approach, simulcast
arrangements could be implemented via
temporary channel sharing agreements
(following the existing ‘‘channel
sharing’’ model) between the licensee of
the originating station and that of the
host station. For example, a Next Gen
TV broadcaster might choose to deploy
ATSC 3.0 service by converting its
current facility to broadcast in ATSC 3.0
and obtaining a temporary channel
sharing license to share a host station’s
channel during a potential Next Gen TV
transition period in order to broadcast
its simulcast in ATSC 1.0 (from the
host’s facility). Similarly, a Next Gen TV
broadcaster might choose to deploy
ATSC 3.0 service by continuing to
broadcast in ATSC 1.0 from its existing
facility and obtaining a temporary
channel sharing license to share a host
station’s channel during a potential
Next Gen TV transition period in order
to broadcast its simulcast in ATSC 3.0
(from the host’s facility). Under this
approach, the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0
signals would be two separately
licensed channels of the originating
station. This would be similar to the
DTV transition, when both analog and
digital signals were licensed by the
Commission.
16. If we adopt a licensed
simulcasting approach, we propose to
adopt licensing procedures similar to
those we adopted for channel sharing.
Specifically, we propose to require a
station whose program stream will be
changing channels to file an application
for a construction permit specifying the
technical facilities of the host station.
We also propose to treat such
applications as minor modification
applications. Although one of the
originating station’s program streams
will be changing channels, which is a
normally a major change under our
rules, we believe that treating this
change as minor is appropriate because
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
13288
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the originating station will be assuming
the authorized technical facilities of the
host station, meaning that compliance
with our interference and other
technical rules would have been
addressed in licensing the host station.
Should we instead issue a separate
license for the simulcast stream? If so,
should that license application be
subject to competing applications? In
addition, while a full power station
seeking to change its channel normally
must first submit a petition to amend
the DTV Table of Allotments, we
propose not to apply this process in the
context of licensed simulcasting.
Instead, we propose that, after the
application for construction permit is
approved, the Media Bureau will amend
the Table on its own motion to reflect
that shared channels (both ATSC 1.0
and ATSC 3.0) will be allotted to one or
more communities. We invite comment
generally on this approach and any
alternatives we should consider.
17. A licensed simulcast approach
appears to have several potential
attributes on which we seek comment.
First, a licensed approach implemented
via temporary channel sharing could
allow noncommercial educational
television (NCE) stations to serve as
hosts to commercial stations’ simulcast
programming. Because NCE licensees
are prohibited by section 399B of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 399B,
from broadcasting advertisements, an
NCE station would be prohibited from
hosting the simulcast programming of a
commercial station on a multicast
stream under its NCE license. By
contrast, it appears that an NCE station
would be able to serve as a host to a
commercial station if that commercial
station is separately licensed. In
addition, a licensed simulcast approach
could provide certainty that the
originating station (and not the host) is
responsible for regulatory compliance
regarding its simulcast signal, and
therefore could give the Commission
clear enforcement authority over the
originating station in the event of a
violation of our rules. A licensed
simulcast approach also would allow us
to monitor the deployment of ATSC 3.0
service. This information could be
important to the Commission in
managing the broadcasters’ migration to
ATSC 3.0 and informing the public
about changes in their television
broadcast service. If we decide to
license simulcast channels as temporary
shared channels, how should we
implement such an approach? Should
we apply existing rules from the
channel-sharing context? How long
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
should the terms be for temporary
channel sharing licenses?
18. Alternatively, simulcast
arrangements could be implemented
without additional licensing (beyond
conversion of the broadcaster’s current
facility to operate in ATSC 3.0). Under
this approach, a Next Gen TV
broadcaster could choose to deploy
ATSC 3.0 service by converting its
current facility to broadcast in ATSC 3.0
and entering into an agreement with a
host station to simulcast its
programming in ATSC 1.0 via one of the
host’s multicast streams or by
continuing to broadcast in ATSC 1.0
and entering into an agreement with a
host station to simulcast its
programming in ATSC 3.0 via one of the
host’s multicast streams. Thus, under a
multicast approach, some broadcasters
would be licensed to operate only an
ATSC 3.0 facility and others would be
licensed to operate only an ATSC 1.0
facility.
19. This multicast approach to
simulcasting may minimize
administrative burdens and offer more
flexibility to the broadcast industry. On
the other hand, a multicast approach
would appear to preclude NCE stations
from serving as hosts to the simulcast
programming of commercial stations
due to the restrictions of section 399B.
In this regard, we seek comment on
whether the Commission has authority
to waive the restrictions in section
399B. Also, as discussed below, because
multicast signals are not entitled to
carriage rights, treating simulcast signals
as multicast channels under a host’s
license also raises questions about the
carriage rights of such signals, whereas
separately licensing such simulcast
signals to the originating station would
clarify the carriage rights of simulcast
signals. In addition, under a multicast
approach, the host station, not the
originating station, would be subject to
the Commission’s enforcement authority
with respect to the multicast stream.
20. Whether a simulcast signal is
treated as a temporarily shared channel
separately licensed to the originating
station or as a multicast stream under
the host’s license will affect its
regulatory treatment. We seek comment
on the regulatory implications, as well
as the advantages and disadvantages, of
each approach and any others we
should consider. Should we be
concerned about the enforcement
problems created by a multicast
approach, particularly with respect to
program-related requirements such as
children’s commercial limits and
indecency? If we adopt a multicast
approach, should we require stations to
report to the Commission the status of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
their potential transition to ATSC 3.0?
Under either the licensed simulcast or
multicasting approach, are there
circumstances under which the host
station would be deemed an Emergency
Alert System (EAS) Participant and thus
have obligations under the
Commission’s EAS rules independent of
the obligations of the originating
station? Should host stations be
permitted to satisfy their EAS
requirements through the use of the
originating station’s EAS equipment?
21. We also seek comment on whether
there are other procedures we could
adopt to streamline the process of
simulcasting. For example, to avoid
administrative burdens, particularly
during the post-incentive auction
transition period, should we consider
authorizing broadcasters to simulcast
via a host station through grants of
special temporary authority (STA)? If
we were to adopt an approach based on
STAs, it is not clear that NCE stations
would be permitted to host the
simulcast streams of commercial
broadcasters or that simulcast
transmissions authorized via an STA
would have carriage rights. We seek
comment on these issues. We observe
that STA authorizations and subsequent
extensions are limited by statute to 180day terms. In light of this maximum sixmonth term for STAs, would an STA
approach become too burdensome if a
station’s potential transition to ATSC
3.0 occurs over a period of several
years? How would the use of STAs
affect our ability to monitor deployment
of ATSC 3.0 service and provide current
information about broadcast service to
the public through our licensing
databases and Web site? Are there any
other alternative approaches we should
consider, including other approaches
that would maintain broadcasters’
existing carriage rights and allow NCE
licensees to host commercial
broadcasters?
3. Coverage and Signal Quality Issues
Related to Local Simulcasting
22. Impact on OTA Service Coverage
of the ATSC 1.0 Signal. We seek
comment on the extent to which a Next
Gen TV station should be permitted to
partner with an ATSC 1.0 host simulcast
station with a different service contour
or community of license. Even with
ATSC 1.0 simulcasting, it is possible, if
not likely, that some over-the-air
consumers will lose ATSC 1.0 service
from stations that begin transmitting in
ATSC 3.0. This is because a host
simulcast station will have a different
service area than the Next Gen TV
(originating) station. Accordingly, we
seek input on how we should ensure
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
that there is not a significant loss of
ATSC 1.0 service by Next Gen TV
stations as a result of local simulcasting
arrangements. Petitioners argue that
Next Gen TV stations should be
permitted to arrange for the simulcast of
their ATSC 1.0 signal on another
broadcast facility ‘‘serving a
substantially similar community of
license.’’ We seek comment on this
proposal. What does it mean to serve ‘‘a
substantially similar community of
license’’? Should we require that the
ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal at a
minimum cover the Next Gen TV
station’s entire community of license?
Should we require the ATSC 1.0
simulcast signal to substantially
replicate the Next Gen TV station’s
noise-limited service contour? If we
adopt a ‘‘substantial replication’’
standard, what degree of existing ATSC
1.0 service loss should be permissible?
We also seek comment on whether we
should phase in more relaxed OTA
ATSC 1.0 service restrictions as a
potential transition progresses based on
the possibility that, as ATSC 3.0 stations
become more prevalent, it may become
more difficult for Next Gen TV
broadcasters to find suitable partners for
local simulcasting.
23. We also seek comment on Next
Gen TV broadcasters’ incentives to
maintain existing service coverage or
quality to viewers. Should broadcasters
be permitted to simulcast in a lower
format than that in which they transmit
today? What is the financial impact on
stations that fail to maintain service
coverage or quality?
4. Other Local Simulcast Issues
24. Market-Wide Simulcasting
Arrangements. The Petition and other
filings in the record appear to
contemplate simulcasting arrangements
between or among two or more stations
in a market, and possibly even entire
market deployment plans. We seek
comment on such arrangements, and
what effect they may have on
consumers. Should we look more
favorably at arrangements among many
or all broadcasters in a market? Should
we encourage broadcasters to coordinate
and submit for Commission
consideration a market-wide plan before
starting on individual deployment and
simulcasting plans? Do we have the
authority to require market-wide
simulcast arrangements? What are the
potential advantages and disadvantages
of a market-based simulcast approach
versus simulcasting arrangements
between individual stations?
25. NCE/LPTV/Small/Rural
Broadcasters. We seek comment on
whether small, rural, low-power, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
NCE broadcasters would face unique
circumstances with regard to the
voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0 that we
should consider in this proceeding. To
what extent are these categories of
stations interested in offering ATSC 3.0
services, and what challenges would
they face in doing so? How might
broadcasters that choose not to provide
ATSC 3.0 service (and only provide
ATSC 1.0 service) be negatively
impacted by a potential Next Gen TV
transition? Should we encourage
participation by these types of stations
in ATSC 3.0 deployment plans to ensure
that all broadcasters are afforded an
opportunity to participate as Next Gen
TV broadcasters or simulcast hosts? Will
such broadcasters have difficulty
finding simulcast partners in a market?
For example, LPTV and Class A stations
may find it difficult to host a full power
originating station because they must
operate at lower power levels and may
not be able to adequately prevent loss of
service of the full power originating
station’s ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal. We
seek comment on whether and how an
LPTV station can be a host simulcast
station for a full power originating
station given its power limitations and
secondary status. Because of difficulties
they may face in serving as hosts for full
power originating stations, we seek
comment on whether to allow LPTV/
Class A stations the option to deploy
ATSC 3.0 service without simulcasting
(i.e., ‘‘flash-cut’’ to ATSC 3.0). If we
were to permit LPTV/Class A stations to
flash-cut to ATSC 3.0, what impact
would the lack of simulcasting have on
the viewing public? How should the
prevalence of equipment that could
receive an ATSC 3.0 signal among
consumers in the viewing community
affect the ability of LPTV/Class A
stations to flash-cut? We also note that,
unlike full power stations, LPTV/Class
A stations do not have a community of
license coverage requirement. If we
were to require an LPTV station seeking
to deploy ATSC 3.0 service to simulcast,
what, if any, kind of community
coverage requirement should we impose
for the simulcast ATSC 1.0 stream?
Instead of a simulcast coverage
requirement, should we instead apply
the existing 30-mile and contour overlap
restrictions that apply to LPTV/Class A
moves to LPTV/Class A stations that
propose to move their ATSC 1.0 stream
as part of their deployment of ATSC 3.0
service?
26. Potential Simulcasting Sunset. If
we approve a voluntary, market-driven
transition to ATSC 3.0 that implements
a simulcast approach, we propose that
the Commission decide in a future
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13289
proceeding when it would be
appropriate for broadcasters to stop
simulcasting in ATSC 1.0. We seek
comment on this proposal. We note that
all parties to this proceeding appear to
agree that this issue should be handled
in a separate proceeding.
C. MVPD Carriage
27. We propose that MVPDs must
continue to carry broadcasters’ ATSC
1.0 signals, pursuant to their statutory
mandatory carriage obligations, and that
MVPDs will not be required to carry
broadcasters’ ATSC 3.0 signals during
the period when broadcasters are
voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0
service. We seek comment on these
proposals, the legal basis for according
carriage rights in this manner, and how
to implement such carriage rights. We
also seek comment on issues related to
the voluntary carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals through the retransmission
consent process.
28. The Petitioners state that MVPDs
‘‘should not be obligated to carry’’ a
Next Gen TV broadcaster’s ATSC 3.0
signal and that MVPDs could satisfy
their obligation to carry a Next Gen TV
station’s signal by carrying the station’s
ATSC 1.0 signal. In response to the
Petition, MVPDs explain that they are
not currently capable of receiving and
retransmitting ATSC 3.0 signals and
raise numerous questions about MVPD
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, including
the potentially significant costs and
burdens associated with MVPD carriage
of ATSC 3.0 signals. In particular,
MVPDs observe that the ATSC’s work
on the new 3.0 standard is not yet
complete, including the development of
recommended standards for MVPD
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, and that
the record is scarce about the practical
aspects of MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals. Therefore, MVPDs ask the
Commission to consider the
implications for MVPDs before
authorizing broadcasters to use the new
standard. In particular, MVPDs ask us to
ensure that they do not bear the costs
associated with carrying ATSC 3.0
signals and ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, even
when such carriage occurs pursuant to
retransmission consent negotiations.
29. The Communications Act
establishes slightly different thresholds
for mandatory carriage depending on
whether the television station is full
power or low-power, or commercial or
noncommercial, and also depending on
whether carriage is sought by a cable
operator or satellite carrier. The mustcarry rights of commercial stations on
cable systems are set forth in section
614 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 534. The mustcarry rights of full power
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13290
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
noncommercial stations on cable
systems are set forth in section 615 of
the Act, 47 U.S.C. 535. The mandatory
carriage rights of full power stations
(both commercial and noncommercial)
on satellite carriers are set forth in
section 338 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 338.
1. Mandatory Carriage Issues
30. Broadcasters and MVPDs appear
to agree on the premise that MVPDs
must continue to carry broadcasters’
ATSC 1.0 signals, pursuant to their
statutory mandatory carriage
obligations, and that MVPDs should not
be required to carry broadcasters’ ATSC
3.0 signals at this time. The Petition,
however, does not clearly explain the
legal basis for achieving this result. In
addition, our legal basis for according
mandatory carriage rights to ATSC 1.0
simulcast streams may depend on
whether, as discussed above in the
Local Simulcasting section, such
streams will be temporary shared
channels separately licensed to the
originating broadcaster, or, alternatively,
will be multicast streams broadcast by a
‘‘host’’ licensee. We seek comment on
how to implement carriage rights and
obligations under both approaches, or
under any other approach we should
consider.
31. ATSC 1.0 Simulcast Carriage
Rights Under a Licensed Approach.
First, we seek comment on how to
implement mandatory carriage rights of
an ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream under a
licensed simulcast approach. Under this
approach, two stations that have a
reciprocal simulcast arrangement would
each have licenses for their ATSC 1.0
and ATSC 3.0 streams, but we would
accord mandatory carriage rights only to
the ATSC 1.0 stream for each station.
This approach would be consistent with
prior Commission proposals in the
channel sharing context and precedent
established in the DTV transition. We
seek comment on whether these
proposals and precedent should be
applied in the context of a licensed
simulcast approach. For channel sharing
outside the context of the incentive
auction, the Commission has tentatively
concluded that both licensees of a
shared channel would have carriage
rights and that such carriage rights
would be based on the shared location.
In the DTV context, the Commission
addressed whether cable operators were
required under the Communications Act
to carry both the digital and analog
signals of a station (also referred to as
‘‘dual carriage’’) during the DTV
transition when television stations were
still broadcasting analog signals. With
regard to licensees that were
simultaneously broadcasting analog and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
digital signals, the Commission declined
to establish ‘‘dual carriage’’ rights,
deciding that analog signals would have
mandatory carriage rights during the
DTV transition and that digital signals
would not. That is, a broadcaster would
choose between must carry or
retransmission consent for its analog
signal but could only pursue carriage
via retransmission consent for its digital
signal.
32. Similarly, under the licensed
simulcast approach, we could conclude
that a broadcaster would choose
between must carry or retransmission
consent for its ATSC 1.0 signal but
could only pursue carriage via
retransmission consent for its ATSC 3.0
signal. By relying on the ATSC 1.0
signal for establishing mandatory
carriage rights, this approach avoids
having to address at this time issues
associated with mandatory carriage of
ATSC 3.0 signals. Under this approach,
a broadcaster’s mandatory carriage
rights would track its relocated ATSC
1.0 simulcast channel. That is, if a
broadcaster converts its current facility
to ATSC 3.0 operation and enters a
temporary channel sharing arrangement
to simulcast its ATSC 1.0 stream at a
new location, then the broadcaster’s
ATSC 1.0 carriage rights would be based
on the new shared location. We seek
comment on this approach, including its
advantages and disadvantages. We also
seek comment on the implications of
mandatory carriage rights following the
ATSC 1.0 simulcast to a new location,
especially in situations involving a
significant shift in the ATSC 1.0
coverage area or change in transmitter
location or community of license.
Alternatively, could we find that,
although a licensed ATSC 1.0 stream is
subject to mandatory carriage, carriage
rights would be determined from the
location of the originating station, rather
than the location of the host station?
33. ATSC 1.0 Simulcast Carriage
Rights Under a Multicast Approach. We
also seek comment on whether, and if
so how, we could implement mandatory
carriage rights and obligations for a
station’s ATSC 1.0 signal under a
multicast approach to simulcasting. We
note that the Commission does not
require cable operators to carry any
more than one programming stream of a
digital television station that multicasts.
Accordingly, we seek comment on the
legal basis for requiring mandatory
carriage of a station’s ATSC 1.0
simulcast stream if that stream is
broadcast by a host station as one of its
multicast streams. For purposes of this
discussion, take the example of a
reciprocal simulcast arrangement
between two stations. That is, if Station
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A is licensed on channel 5 and Station
B is licensed on channel 9, Station A
would transmit on channel 5 two
programming streams in ATSC 1.0 (its
own and Station B’s simulcast), while
Station B would transmit on channel 9
two programming streams in ATSC 3.0
(its own and Station A’s simulcast).
There appears to be no question that
Station A in this example would retain
carriage rights for its ATSC 1.0 signal,
however, there is a question as to
whether Station B, which is transmitting
in ATSC 3.0 on its licensed channel,
would be entitled to must carry rights
for its ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream,
which is being transmitted as a
multicast stream by Station A. This is
because the Commission has
determined that only a station’s primary
stream is entitled to mandatory carriage
and that multicast streams are not
entitled to mandatory carriage and
because Station B’s ATSC 1.0 stream is
not being transmitted on its licensed
channel.
34. We seek comment on whether we
could accord carriage rights to an ATSC
1.0 simulcast that is being transmitted
as a multicast stream of a host station.
Is there is a legal basis for shifting the
carriage obligation from the licensed
ATSC 3.0 stream to the simulcast ATSC
1.0 stream? The record reflects that
MVPDs may not have the technical
capability to receive or retransmit ATSC
3.0 signals for some time during a
potential transition to ATSC 3.0, and
that ATSC 3.0 signals could occupy
more bandwidth than ATSC 1.0 signals.
Accordingly, as discussed below, we
believe that carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals
should be voluntary and driven by
marketplace negotiations between
broadcasters and MVPDs. Can we
interpret the statute to require
broadcasters to deliver their signals to
MVPDs in a manner that minimizes
burdens for MVPDs? Could we find that
a Next Gen TV broadcaster must
effectuate the carriage rights of its ATSC
3.0 signal by delivering an ATSC 1.0
signal to the MVPD via local
simulcasting or some other means?
Under this approach, do we need to
define a ‘‘good quality’’ digital
television signal at the cable system’s
principal headend for purposes of
carriage? In order to use the ATSC 1.0
simulcast to effectuate the carriage
rights of its ATSC 3.0 signal, should we
require the ATSC 1.0 simulcast and the
ATSC 3.0 signal to have identical
content?
35. Mandatory Carriage of ATSC 3.0
Signals. We note that consideration of
technical issues regarding cable carriage
of the ATSC 3.0 signal is still ongoing
at the ATSC Working Group. Given that
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ATSC 3.0 signals would not be accorded
mandatory carriage rights under our
proposals, and because of the current
uncertainty about how MVPDs would
carry ATSC 3.0 signals as a technical
matter, we tentatively conclude that it is
premature to address questions related
to the mandatory carriage of ATSC 3.0
streams at this stage. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
36. Required Notice to MVPDs of
ATSC 3.0 Deployment/ATSC 1.0
Simulcast. We seek comment on the
notice that Next Gen TV broadcasters
that have elected must-carry rights must
provide to MVPDs prior to deploying
ATSC 3.0 service and arranging for an
ATSC 1.0 simulcast. The Petition
proposes that must-carry broadcasters
should give notice to all MVPDs at least
60 days in advance of simulcasting in
ATSC 1.0 format (i.e., relocating ATSC
1.0 streams to another facility). MVPDs
express concern about the adequacy of
such notice. We seek comment on what
appropriate notice would be.
37. We seek comment on what the
notice to MVPDs should contain. We
note that in the Channel Sharing NPRM,
the Commission proposed a number of
notice requirements on stations
participating in channel sharing
agreements (CSAs). We proposed that
stations participating in CSAs must
provide notice to those MVPDs that: (1)
No longer will be required to carry the
station because of the relocation of the
station; (2) currently carry and will
continue to be obligated to carry a
station that will change channels; or (3)
will become obligated to carry the
station due to a channel sharing
relocation. We also proposed that the
notice contain the following
information: (1) Date and time of any
channel changes; (2) the channel
occupied by the station before and after
implementation of the CSA; (3)
modification, if any, to antenna
position, location, or power levels; (4)
stream identification information; and
(5) engineering staff contact
information. In addition, we proposed
that stations be able to elect whether to
provide notice via a letter notification or
provide notice electronically, if prearranged with the relevant MVPD. We
seek comment on whether we should
adopt requirements modeled on these
proposals in this proceeding. If not, we
seek comment on how the requirements
we adopt should differ and why. We
also seek comment on how broadcasters
will deliver their signals to MVPDs that
carry the station if the broadcaster’s
ATSC 1.0 simulcast does not deliver a
good quality signal to the headend; for
example, will they use some alternate
means, such as fiber or microwave?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
2. Retransmission Consent Issues
38. Voluntary Carriage of ATSC 3.0
Signals Through Retransmission
Consent. We also seek comment on
issues related to the voluntary carriage
of ATSC 3.0 signals through the
retransmission consent process. The
Petitioners contemplate that, at some
future time, MVPDs will want to
negotiate for carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals via retransmission consent so
that MVPDs can offer their customers
the improved service and new features
associated with ATSC 3.0 service. As
discussed above, MVPDs claim that they
are not prepared to carry ATSC 3.0
signals at this time. MVPDs, therefore,
express concern that broadcasters may
use the retransmission consent process
to compel MVPDs to upgrade their
equipment before they are ready to do
so in order to carry ATSC 3.0 signals.
They have expressed concern about the
costs associated with carriage of ATSC
3.0 signals and that, even if ATSC 3.0
carriage is deemed ‘‘voluntary,’’ Next
Gen broadcasters will use their
‘‘leverage’’ to require MVPD ATSC 3.0
carriage (such as by tying ATSC 3.0
carriage to ATSC 1.0 carriage). In
response, broadcasters reassert that
MVPDs will not be forced to carry ATSC
3.0 signals. Broadcasters also argue that
larger MVPDs, such as AT&T, do not
lack negotiating power in
retransmission consent negotiations and
that retransmission consent agreements
for ATSC 3.0 signals should be left to
marketplace negotiations. We seek
comment on these MVPD concerns,
including whether and/or how the good
faith rules concerning retransmission
consent should and/or could be applied
and/or adapted to address them.
39. Small, Rural, and CapacityConstrained MVPDs. We seek comment
on whether small, rural, and capacityconstrained MVPDs would face unique
circumstances with regard to the
voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0 that we
should consider in this proceeding. To
what extent are these categories of
MVPDs interested in offering ATSC 3.0
services, and what challenges would
they face in doing so? In particular, to
what extent, if any, could the
retransmission consent process be used
by broadcasters to compel MVPDs,
particularly smaller MVPDs, to carry an
ATSC 3.0 stream as a condition for
obtaining carriage of a 1.0 feed? How, if
at all, should the Commission’s rules
address situations in which a small or
rural MVPD that receives a broadcast
station over-the-air before deployment
of ATSC 3.0 service can no longer do so
during or after the deployment of ATSC
3.0 service? Will the higher-resolution
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13291
carriage requirements of ATSC 3.0 come
at the expense of channel placement for
independent programmers?
40. We also seek comment on what
other issues we may need to resolve
with regard to the potential carriage of
ATSC 3.0 signals given that MVPDs and
broadcasters may negotiate such
carriage privately via retransmission
consent. For example, we seek comment
on whether it is appropriate for us to
address concerns ATVA has raised
about patent royalties that may be
associated with ATSC 3.0 service. What
equipment would be necessary for an
MVPD to carry an ATSC 3.0 stream on
a voluntary basis, and should we take
those equipment needs into
consideration in this proceeding?
41. Alternatively, should we consider
prohibiting MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals through retransmission consent
negotiations until the ATSC Specialist
Group on Conversion and
Redistribution of ATSC 3.0 Service
produces its initial report, which is
expected later this year? What would be
the benefits and detriments of such an
approach? What would be the legal
basis for such a restriction? Would such
a prohibition be consistent with section
325(b), 47 U.S.C. 325(b), including the
reciprocal good faith bargaining
requirements, the First Amendment
rights of MVPDs and broadcasters, and
section 624(f), 47 U.S.C. 544(f)?
D. Service and Interference Protection
42. The proposed authorization of the
ATSC 3.0 transmission standard raises
three potential interference issues that
we address in this section. First, we
consider the issue of interference that
ATSC 3.0 signals may cause to ATSC
1.0 (DTV) signals. Second, we consider
the issue of interference that DTV or
other ATSC 3.0 signals may cause to
ATSC 3.0 signals. Next, we consider the
issue of interference that ATSC 3.0
signals may cause to non-television
services that operate within or adjacent
to the TV band. As set forth below, with
respect to all of these issues we propose
to treat ATSC 3.0 signals as though they
were DTV signals with identical
technical parameters, largely consistent
with the Petitioners’ request. We seek
comment on whether we should modify
any technical parameters based on
physical differences between the ways
that broadcasters would deliver DTV
and ATSC 3.0 signals. Finally, we
propose to amend the Post-Transition
DTV Station Interference Protection rule
to allow updated population inputs in
processing applications, consistent with
the Commission’s decision to use such
inputs in the incentive auction and
repacking process.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13292
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
1. Interference Protection of ATSC 1.0
(DTV) Signals
43. The Petitioners submitted a study
that includes laboratory measurements
of ATSC 1.0 (DTV) and ATSC 3.0
interference signals into six DTV
receivers. They claim that the study
demonstrates the similarity between the
two standards in terms of potential
interference to DTV. The Petitioners
state that the RF emission mask and
effective radiated power limits for the
ATSC 3.0 signal should remain
unchanged and proposed that no
changes be made to the OET Bulletin
No. 69 planning factors which define
service and interference to a DTV signal.
Therefore, for purposes of determining
whether an ATSC 3.0 signal interferes
with any DTV signals, the Petitioners
propose to calculate potential ATSC 3.0
interference to DTV signals using the
same methodology and planning factors
that the Commission presently uses for
calculating potential DTV interference
to other DTV signals, which are
specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 in our
rules.
44. We propose to apply the
methodology and planning factors
specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 to
calculate interference from ATSC 3.0 to
DTV signals. We seek comment on
whether DTV operations would be
sufficiently protected by the OET
Bulletin No. 69 methodology and
planning factors. Accordingly, we
request specific comment and test
measurement results that accurately
reflect DTV receiver performance in the
presence of an interfering ATSC 3.0
signal, either to support or refute the
Petitioners’ measurements and claims
that these two standards may be
considered equally in terms of the
potential interference to DTV. Given the
studies that we have before us, we
tentatively conclude that it is
appropriate to propose to calculate
interference from ATSC 3.0 signals to
DTV in accordance with sections
73.622, 73.623 and 74.703 of the
Commission’s rules and as implemented
by OET Bulletin No. 69. We seek
comment on this proposal.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Service and Interference Protection of
ATSC 3.0 Signals
45. With respect to protection that
ATSC 3.0 signals should receive from
other signals, we propose to rely on OET
Bulletin No. 69 as well, as Petitioners
request. As discussed below, we
propose to use the same methodology
and planning factors defined for DTV to
define the service area of an ATSC 3.0
signal. We also propose to define the
ATSC 3.0 interference criteria for co-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
and adjacent channel interfering signals
at the same levels as specified in OET
Bulletin No. 69 for DTV signals. We
seek comment below on how the
Commission should consider
implementing these service and
interference protections for ATSC 3.0
signals.
46. The DTV transmission standard
has fixed transmission and error
correction parameters and a single
associated minimum signal strength
threshold (or SNR threshold) for service.
The minimum SNR threshold is used as
a basis for determining where a DTV
broadcast television station’s signal can
be received. Whether a DTV broadcast
television station is considered to have
service and receive protection from
interference is determined in part by
this threshold. The minimum expected
signal level for an ATSC 3.0 signal is
much more dynamic. The ATSC 3.0
standard enables broadcasters to choose
from multiple modulation and error
correction parameters, which have the
effect of allowing them to adjust their
data rates and corresponding minimum
SNR thresholds. Further, ATSC 3.0
enables broadcasters to transmit
multiple streams with different
parameters simultaneously. This means
that, as a practical matter, the actual
area where the signal of a television
station broadcasting an ATSC 3.0 signal
can be received may not necessarily
match up to the same area defined by
the single minimum SNR threshold of
DTV. The signal-to-noise-ratio threshold
for the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard
will be variable and station-specific,
enabling tradeoffs depending on each
station’s offerings and quality of service
goals. In consideration of the dynamic
nature of ATSC 3.0 transmission
standard, our proposals seek to maintain
the status quo with regard to
interference protection and provide
certainty with regard to calculating the
coverage areas of ATSC 3.0 stations.
47. Preservation of Service. Because
ATSC 3.0 signals contain multiple video
streams each requiring a SNR threshold,
we propose to require Next Gen TV
broadcasters to provide at least one free
stream comparable to a DTV signal to
ensure viewers within the ‘‘DTVequivalent’’ service area continue to
receive programming service at the
current DTV protection levels. The
ATSC 3.0 transmission standard may
enable Next Gen TV broadcasters to
provide a programming service of a
quality similar to DTV service at an SNR
threshold lower than the level specified
in OET Bulletin No. 69 for DTV service.
We seek comment on how to objectively
determine if a Next Gen TV
programming stream is similar in
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
quality to DTV. Thus a station should
provide at least one ATSC 3.0 video
stream that requires a SNR threshold
equal or less than that needed for
coverage at a level specified in OET
Bulletin No. 69 for DTV service, where
a lower SNR threshold indicates a
possibly more robust transmission. In
other words, a station providing a
mobile video stream requiring a
minimum SNR less than specified in
OET Bulletin No. 69 would satisfy this
requirement. We envision this to be a
benefit to broadcasters who elect to offer
mobile streams while avoiding potential
redundancies in their overall data
stream, by not penalizing those stations
wishing to deploy mobile service
without requiring provision of two
identical program streams for both
mobile and household reception in the
same areas. We seek comment on this
proposal and how to define which types
of Next Gen TV signals could be
considered comparable to DTV signals.
Requiring one comparable free video
stream will afford broadcasters the
flexibility to devote remaining resources
to enhanced services such as UHD
without affecting their underlying
coverage calculations, as requested by
the Petitioners, while ensuring that all
viewers predicted to receive Next Gen
TV signals will have at least one free
video stream available to them. We seek
comment on what rules changes, if any,
would be necessary to implement this
proposal.
48. Next Gen TV Service Area.
Considering the approach to broadly
treat DTV and Next Gen TV interference
equally, the Commission’s convention
would be first to define the area subject
to calculation, which is the noiselimited contour of the station. Within
this contour, the station’s service area is
determined considering terrain, existing
interference, and population
distribution above a minimum field
strength threshold that is derived from
the planning factors given in OET
Bulletin No. 69. We propose to define a
‘‘DTV-equivalent’’ service area for a
station transmitting in ATSC 3.0 using
the methodology and planning factors
defined for ATSC 1.0 in OET Bulletin
No. 69. This means that for a UHF Next
Gen TV station, the ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’
service area would be defined at 41
dBmV/m plus a dipole adjustment factor.
We seek comment on the use of a single
service threshold to define this ‘‘DTVequivalent’’ service area. Should the
definition of a ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’ service
area specify both a minimum field
strength and data rate or is the
specification of a minimum field
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
strength sufficient to ensure an
acceptable data rate?
49. To the extent that commenters
propose alternative definitions of
service area for stations transmitting in
ATSC 3.0 signals, we specifically solicit
technical justification of why the
definition should differ from that of the
existing ATSC 1.0 service and OET
Bulletin No. 69. Manhattan Digital notes
the lack of real world testing of coverage
comparisons between ATSC 1.0 and
ATSC 3.0 and questions whether the
Commission would grant sufficient
power increases to restore lost coverage.
GatesAir and other equipment
manufacturers submitted ATSC 3.0 field
test results that showed equivalent
coverage area thresholds as ATSC 1.0
when an ATSC 3.0 receiver was
stationary and using comparable
reception equipment.
50. Additionally, the service
threshold set by OET Bulletin No. 69 is
based on several planning factors that
may not be applicable to newer Next
Gen TV receivers and deployment
characteristics. We seek comment on
whether OET Bulletin No. 69 planning
factors should be updated or
supplemented as they pertain to Next
Gen TV to reflect current broadcast
reception equipment and conditions,
particularly given the Petitioners’ stated
additional use cases of mobile and
indoor reception. Generally, we seek
comment on appropriate values for OET
Bulletin No. 69 planning factors for
Next Gen TV.
51. Interference Protection. We
propose to define a protection threshold
for Next Gen TV that would provide an
equivalent level of protection as a DTV
signal. Under this approach, an ATSC
3.0 signal would be protected as defined
in OET Bulletin No. 69. As a practical
matter, co-channel interference for DTV
is presently a nonlinear function
designed to approximate the
performance of test receivers when the
ATSC 1.0 standard was under
development. We seek comment on
whether this same nonlinearity would
apply to Next Gen TV receivers in the
presence of co-channel interference.
Additionally, we acknowledge that Next
Gen TV may have multiple video
streams, some of which may not be
sufficiently protected from interference
at a single threshold which was
designed specifically to protect DTV
signals. Next Gen TV broadcasters that
choose to offer higher capacity, i.e. less
robust, programming within their ‘‘DTVequivalent’’ coverage areas may not be
protected from interference at this
threshold. Next Gen TV broadcasters
may also choose to offer lower capacity,
i.e. more robust, programming that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
permits signal to noise ratio thresholds
below the DTV threshold. This could
effectively expand their consumer base
beyond the current ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’
service area or provide coverage to areas
that were previously unserved due to
terrain-limited propagation conditions
within the contour. Should these areas
be given interference protection? We
seek comment on this approach and
alternative threshold protection
approaches that could be better suited to
ATSC 3.0.
52. Should ATSC 3.0 signals only be
protected in areas where their signal
strength reaches a single ‘‘DTVequivalent’’ minimum level or should
protections be provided for such signals
within their ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’ service
contour that fall below the single service
threshold but offer a more robust
service? Should interference protections
be provided for Next Gen TV signals
within the ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’ service
contour which require alternative
adjacent channel D/U ratios for
interference protection? Have there been
advancements in receiver performance
that would warrant the Commission to
consider alternative the adjacent
channel D/U ratios for ATSC 3.0
receivers? Noting the ATSC A/73
standard for DTV receivers, should the
Commission adopt a 33 dB, or some
higher or lower threshold for adjacent
channel interference, or is the existing
26 to 28 dB threshold for DTV
(depending on whether upper- or loweradjacent) prescribed in our rules more
appropriate? If interference protection is
to be afforded to Next Gen TV profiles
other than the ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’
service, what should those interference
protection levels be?
3. Interference Protection Affecting
Other Services
53. The last interference issues that
we must consider concern those related
to interference between ATSC 3.0
transmissions and other services, such
as non-broadcast services, that operate
within or adjacent to the TV band. We
seek comment on whether and how we
should address the impact ATSC 3.0
signals could have on these other
services and how these services could
impact ATSC 3.0 signals.
54. Other Services that Operate in the
TV Band. We seek comment on
whether, in authorizing the ATSC 3.0
transmission standard, there would be
any interference-related issues that arise
with respect to services and operations
in the TV Band other than full-power,
Class A, LPTV and TV translator
television stations. If so, what services
are impacted and how should the
Commission address such interference?
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13293
To what extent would authorization of
the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard
raise interference concerns regarding
Part 22 or Part 90 services? Would
ATSC 3.0 transmissions cause any
additional interference to these services,
or alternatively should ATSC 3.0
transmissions receive any protections in
addition to those afforded today to
DTV? Under our existing rules, lowpower auxiliary station (LPAS) devices
and unlicensed wireless microphones
must protect broadcasting operations
(i.e., those that transmit using ATSC
1.0), and are by rule limited to
operations at locations at least 4
kilometers outside the protected
contours of co-channel TV stations.
Licensed wireless microphone
operations are also permitted closer to
TV stations, including inside the TV
contours, if certain specified conditions
are met. In addition, white-space
devices are required to protect DTV
operations by operating outside of DTV
contours as specified in the rules. Are
any clarifications or modifications to
these rules required if we authorize the
ATSC 3.0 transmission standard?
55. Other Services that Operate in the
Adjacent Bands—the 600 MHz Band
and Channel 37. CTIA expressed
concern that the Petition’s discussion of
the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard
contained no consideration of the
potential interference impact that this
new technology could have on wireless
operations in the 600 MHz band. CTIA
states that the development and
enforcement of carefully drawn
technical rules is necessary to prevent
interference to 600 MHz band
operations, and that the inter-service
interference (ISIX) rules adopted by the
Commission, which were based entirely
on the technical characteristics of DTV
signals, were developed to minimize
interference between TV broadcasting
and 600 MHz band operations. The
Petitioners respond that it is not
possible to test for this interference
because the wireless industry has not
revealed ‘‘what technology wireless
carriers will actually deploy in the 600
MHz band,’’ and argue that there is ‘‘no
technical reason to believe that ATSC
3.0 creates a higher risk of potential
inter-service interference’’ than ATSC
1.0.
56. The ISIX rules referenced by CTIA
were developed for the broadcast
incentive auction in the event that some
UHF broadcasters would remain in the
re-purposed 600 MHz Band creating
impairments for the new wireless
licensees. At this point in the broadcast
incentive auction, there are no
impairments to 600 MHz Band wireless
licenses that are projected to exist after
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13294
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
the post-auction transition period.
Therefore, we tentatively conclude there
is no need for rules to consider potential
interference between Next Gen TV
transmissions and the 600 MHz Band
service. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Alternatively, are
more studies needed to fully address
any potential interference concerns? If
we require broadcasters to ‘‘provide
interested parties with a clear
understanding of how the change to
ATSC 3.0 will impact the interference
environment in the 600 MHz band’’ as
CTIA requests, what information would
be necessary and sufficient to address
any potential concerns?
57. We also seek comment on whether
there are any potential interference
concerns that adoption of ATSC 3.0
transmission standard may raise with
respect to either RAS or WMTS
operations in Channel 37. Finally, we
seek comment on whether any of these
issues related to interference to services
that operate in adjacent bands would
require us to clarify how interference
issues between ATSC 3.0 transmissions
and these other services would be
addressed.
4. Station Interference Protection
Population Inputs
58. We propose to update the
Commission’s rules regarding
acceptable levels of interference
resulting from a broadcaster’s
application for new or modified
facilities. Specifically, we propose that,
for purposes of evaluating such
applications, the Media Bureau should
use the latest official U.S. Census
statistics, as these population statistics
become available and when the
Commission is able to incorporate them
into the Commission’s licensing
processing systems. The Commission’s
rules currently require that in evaluating
a broadcaster’s application for new or
modified facilities, the degree of
permissible interference to populations
served is to be predicted based on the
2000 census population data. For
purposes of the incentive auction and
repacking process, however, the
Commission established updated inputs
for purposes of evaluating interference,
including use of the 2010 census
population data. We now propose to
further update our rules in a manner
that is consistent with this approach by
permitting the Media Bureau to use the
most recent U.S. Census statistics. We
propose that the Media Bureau will
announce when updated census
statistics have been incorporated into
our licensing systems and the date upon
which such updated inputs will be
applied at least 60 days before they are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
used for application processing
purposes. We further propose that the
Commission use 2010 census
population data after the repacking
process for all application compliance
evaluations until the Media Bureau
announces the date that it will begin
using census population data for a
different year. Thus, even after the
repacking process is complete, any
broadcast television service or
interference calculations would be
based on 2010 U.S. Census statistics,
until after 2020, when the next U.S.
Census statistics become available and
the Media Bureau announces the date of
application of such data. We believe
that this process and the use of the most
current population data incorporated
into the Commission’s systems will
provide more accurate predictions of
populations served and benefit the
public interest. We seek comment on
this proposal.
E. Single Frequency Networks (SFN) and
Distributed Transmission Systems (DTS)
59. We propose to authorize broadcast
television stations to operate ATSC 3.0
Single Frequency Networks (SFN) under
our existing Distributed Transmission
Systems (DTS) rules with one
amendment noted below. While a
traditional broadcaster has a single
transmission site, and any fill-in service
is provided using a separately licensed
secondary transmission site that likely
uses a different RF channel, a
broadcaster using DTS provides
television service to its area by two or
more transmission sites using an
identical signal on the same RF channel,
synchronized to manage selfinterference. The rules established by
the DTS Report and Order describe the
authorized service area, maximum
service area, station reference point,
coverage determination, protection from
interference and application
requirements for DTS stations.
60. Multiple commenters claim that
broadcasters that deploy ATSC 3.0
service will have the ability to
efficiently form a SFN, which for the
purposes of broadcast television is a
term that is synonymous with DTS. Like
the DTS network described above, an
ATSC 3.0 SFN would provide television
service by using two or more
transmission sites, using an identical
signal on the same RF channel,
synchronized to manage selfinterference. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that the rules
established to authorize a DTS station
generally are adequate to authorize an
ATSC 3.0 SFN station, and as such an
ATSC 3.0 SFN should be considered a
DTS station for the purposes of our
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rules. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
61. We also tentatively conclude that
it is not necessary to adopt a specific
synchronization standard in order to
authorize an ATSC 3.0 SFN. In the DTS
Report and Order, the Commission
found that it was not necessary for a
station to use a specific synchronization
system as long as (1) the
synchronization used by a station was
effective in minimizing interference
within the system, (2) otherwise
provided service to the population
within the station’s service area
consistent with FCC rules, and (3)
complied with the ATSC standard
adopted by the FCC. It further noted that
this approach avoided implication of
any specific intellectual property held
by companies participating in the
proceeding. Thus, although ATSC had
developed the A/110 ‘‘ATSC Standard
for Transmitter Synchronization,’’ the
Commission determined that it was not
necessary to adopt this as the
synchronization standard for DTS, and
as a result, DTS stations have flexibility
with regard to transmitter
synchronization. In this proceeding, one
commenter, LG Electronics, notes that
the standard that would enable an ATSC
3.0 SFN is ATSC A/322:2016 ‘‘Physical
Layer Protocol.’’ LG claims that A/322
should be incorporated by reference into
the rules along with A/321 to ensure
that SFN is authorized. We seek
comment above on whether A/322
should be incorporated into our rules.
Consistent with our finding in the DTS
proceeding, we tentatively conclude
that as long as the synchronization used
to implement an SFN/DTS minimizes
interference within the network and
provides adequate service, then there is
no need to require a specific
synchronization standard. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
62. We propose to amend our existing
DTS rules to specify that, with regard to
ATSC 3.0 transmissions, not only must
each transmitter comply with the ATSC
3.0 standard ultimately adopted by the
FCC, but all transmitters under a single
license must follow the same standard.
We tentatively find that a DTS
implementation that mixes ATSC 3.0
and ATSC 1.0 would not meet the
requirement to be ‘‘synchronized’’ as
specified in section 73.626(a) of the
Commission’s rules, as it would not
minimize interference within the
system. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
F. ATSC 3.0 Transmissions as
‘‘Television Broadcasting’’
1. Definition of Television Broadcasting
63. We propose that television
stations transmitting both an ATSC 1.0
and an ATSC 3.0 signal are ‘‘television
stations’’ engaged in ‘‘broadcasting’’ as
those terms are defined in the
Communications Act. Although we do
not propose to authorize broadcasters to
transmit solely in ATSC 3.0 at this time,
we also tentatively conclude that
stations transmitting only an ATSC 3.0
signal would be ‘‘television stations’’
engaged in ‘‘broadcasting’’ under the
Act.
64. The Petitioners request that the
Commission ‘‘specify that Next
Generation TV transmission is
‘television broadcasting’ in parity with
the current DTV standard.’’ The Act
imposes certain obligations and
restrictions on stations engaged in
‘‘broadcasting,’’ including the restriction
on foreign ownership and the
requirements that they provide
‘‘reasonable access’’ to candidates for
federal elective office and afford ‘‘equal
opportunities’’ to candidates for any
public office. Television broadcasters
must also make certain disclosures in
connection with advertisements that
discuss a ‘‘political matter of national
importance’’ and must disclose the
identity of program sponsors. In
addition, among other requirements,
television broadcasters must air
educational programming for children,
limit the amount of commercial material
they include in programming directed to
children, restrict the airing of indecent
programming, and comply with
provisions relating to the rating of video
programming. The Commission has
determined that the definition of
‘‘broadcasting’’ in the Act applies to
services intended to be received by an
indiscriminate public and has identified
three indicia of a lack of such intent: (1)
The service is not receivable on
conventional television sets and
requires a licensee or programmerprovided special antennae and/or signal
converter so the signal can be received
in the home; (2) the programming is
encrypted; and (3) the provider and the
viewer are engaged in a private
contractual relationship.
65. Based on the description of ATSC
3.0 transmissions in the Petition and in
the record, and because we propose to
require ATSC 3.0 stations to provide a
free, over-the-air service, it appears that
ATSC 3.0 transmissions would be
intended to be received by all members
of the public and therefore would meet
the definition of ‘‘broadcasting.’’
Accordingly, as noted above, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
tentatively conclude that Next Gen TV
stations are ‘‘television stations’’
engaged in ‘‘broadcasting’’ as those
terms are defined by the Act. No
commenters in response to the Petition
take a different position. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion
and any alternative views. Is there any
basis for determining that ATSC 3.0
transmissions are not ‘‘broadcasting’’?
What would the implications be of such
a determination in terms of regulatory
obligations and Commission oversight?
2. Public Interest Obligations
66. Assuming we adopt our tentative
conclusion that Next Gen TV stations
are engaged in ‘‘broadcasting’’ under the
Act, they—like all broadcast television
licensees—would be public trustees
with a responsibility to serve the
‘‘public interest, convenience, and
necessity.’’
67. We propose to apply all of our
broadcast rules to Next Gen TV stations
including, but not limited to, our rules
regarding foreign ownership, political
broadcasting, children’s programming,
equal employment opportunities, public
inspection file, main studio, indecency,
sponsorship identification, contest
rules, CALM Act, the EAS, closed
captioning, and video description. Are
there any public interest or
programming rules that should not
apply? Are there any changes to these
rules that should be made to
accommodate any ATSC 3.0-based
services? To what extent will the
additional capacity offered through the
ATSC 3.0 standard provide
opportunities for more diverse
programming? While the Petition does
not address broadcaster public interest
obligations in detail, it states that ‘‘[n]o
changes are necessary in the
Commission’s programming-related
policies and rules, as those
requirements will attach to television
licensees regardless of the authorized
standard they use to transmit
programming to their communities of
license.’’ The Petition further states that
licensees implementing ATSC 3.0
technology will ‘‘remain simply
television broadcasters subject to the
Commission’s existing regulatory
structure.’’ We request comment
generally on this view.
68. Although we decline to initiate a
general reexamination of broadcaster
public interest obligations at this time,
we seek comment on specific consumer
issues related to the enhanced
capabilities that may be available
through the use of ATSC 3.0
transmissions. The Petition claims that
the advent of ATSC 3.0 (including the
entire suite of ATSC 3.0-related
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13295
standards and IP-based services that
operate on top of the transmission
standard) will enable improvements to
certain services, including EAS, closed
captioning, and video description, but
that no changes to the relevant rules are
needed to conform them to an
environment in which television
licensees will transmit in either the
ATSC 1.0 or the ATSC 3.0 standard.
With respect to EAS, Petitioners argue
that ATSC 3.0 will offer significantly
enhanced emergency alert capabilities,
including the abilities to alert
consumers of an emergency even when
the receiver is powered off, tailor
information for specific geographic
areas, and provide enhanced datacasting
to serve law enforcement, first
responder, and emergency management
organizations more efficiently. With
respect to closed captioning, Petitioners
state that the ATSC 3.0 transmission
standard offers a different format for
caption data from that used by DTV and
that the Commission’s rules already
anticipate this technology and provide
that data in this format is compliant.
Finally, Petitioners state that the ATSC
3.0 standard has functionality for video
description and additional language
support, and can implement these
requirements in compliance with the
FCC’s rules. We invite comment
generally on these asserted benefits. We
also seek input on the public interest
issues discussed above and any others
that may result from enhancements or
other changes to television broadcasting
that may result from the use of Next Gen
TV transmissions.
69. Finally, we invite comment on
which features of ATSC 3.0-based
services will be provided over-the-air to
consumers for free and what additional
services or features will require a fee.
Should broadcasters who choose to use
their ATSC 3.0 transmission for a higher
format, such as 4K resolution, be
required to offer it over-the-air to
consumers for free? What features of
ATSC 3.0 service will be available only
to those with an Internet connection?
Which such services or features will be
‘‘ancillary services’’ within the meaning
of our rules? If the majority of an ATSC
3.0 station’s spectrum/bandwidth is
devoted to paid services, are those
services ‘‘ancillary’’ under our rules?
Are there any services that Next Gen TV
broadcasters might offer that would not
be ancillary or supplementary services
that serve the public interest? What is
the potential regulatory significance of
an ATSC 3.0-based service that is
provided for free versus one that is not?
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13296
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Transition and Consumer Issues
1. Next Gen TV Tuner Mandate
70. Television receivers manufactured
today are not capable of receiving ATSC
3.0 signals. Pursuant to our current
rules, however, if a broadcaster were to
begin transmitting ATSC 3.0 signals,
television receivers would need to
include ATSC 3.0 tuners. Specifically,
section 15.117(b), the rule implementing
the Commission’s authority under the
1962 All Channel Receiver Act, states
that ‘‘TV broadcast receivers shall be
capable of adequately receiving all
channels allocated by the Commission
to the television broadcast service.’’ We
tentatively conclude that a Next Gen TV
tuner mandate is not necessary at this
time because a potential transition
would be voluntary and market-driven,
and under our proposal currentgeneration ATSC 1.0 broadcasting
would continue indefinitely.
Accordingly, we propose to revise
section 15.117(b) to make clear that this
rule does not apply to ATSC 3.0. We
seek comment on this proposal.
71. Alternatively, we seek comment
on whether we should require that new
television receivers manufactured after a
certain date include the capability to
receive ATSC 3.0 signals and if so,
when such a requirement should take
effect. As a further alternative, we note
that it may be possible to upgrade most,
if not all, receivers currently being
manufactured to allow them to receive
ATSC 3.0 signals, but such upgrades
would require over-the-air viewers to
purchase additional equipment, such as
a dongle or other equipment (e.g., a settop box or gateway device) that can be
attached to the receiver’s HDMI port,
assuming that receiver has an HDMI
port. What percentage, if any, of TV
receivers manufactured today do not
have an HDMI port and therefore are not
easily upgradeable to receive ATSC 3.0
transmissions? To account for receivers
that do not have HDMI ports, should we
require that all TV receivers sold after
a specified date have an HDMI port to
permit attachment of an external tuner
dongle or other equipment (e.g., a settop box or gateway device) that can
receive signals from an OTA antenna?
We tentatively conclude that such a
requirement is not necessary at this
time. The Petitioners assert that ‘‘a
market-driven approach will ensure that
both broadcasters and receiver
manufacturers adopt the new
transmission standard in response to
consumer demand.’’ We seek comment
on whether such a market-based
approach will ensure that television
receivers capable of receiving ATSC 3.0
signals are available to consumers. What
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
would the costs be for manufacturers to
ensure that all television receivers are
easily upgradable to receive ATSC 3.0
transmissions, and how quickly could
they do so?
2. On-Air Notice to Consumers About
Deployment of ATSC 3.0 Service and
ATSC 1.0 Simulcasting
72. We seek comment on whether
broadcasters should be required to
provide on-air notifications to educate
consumers about their deployment of
Next Gen TV service and simulcasting
of ATSC 1.0 service. We seek comment
on whether such a requirement could be
useful for broadcasters to inform
consumers that the stations they view
will be changing channels, to encourage
consumers to rescan their receivers for
new channel assignments, and to
educate them on steps they should take
to resolve any potential reception
issues. The Commission imposed
viewer notification requirements during
the DTV transition as well as in
connection with the incentive auction.
Should they be imposed in connection
with the use of ATSC 3.0 transmissions?
Does the Commission have legal
authority to require such on-air notices
in this context?
73. If we were to require broadcasters
to notify consumers during a potential
transition to ATSC 3.0, we invite
comment on the requirements we
should impose regarding these
notifications. How far in advance
should we require broadcasters to notify
viewers before broadcasters shift their
ATSC 1.0 signal to another station’s
broadcast channel? What form should
this notice take—PSAs, crawls, or a
combination of both? What information
should stations be required to include in
the notification?
74. We also seek comment on whether
Commission outreach is necessary to
those communities affected by a
potential transition to ATSC 3.0. Should
the FCC’s existing call center provide
consumer assistance over the phone on
matters such as ‘‘rescanning’’ or to help
resolve other reception issues? What
guidance should the Commission
provide through its Web site
(www.fcc.gov)? Should the Commission
staff prepare maps that would be
available online to inform consumers
about what station signals are affected
by a potential transition to Next Gen TV
signals, as it did for the digital
transition? We seek comment also on
other potential types of Commission
outreach and the appropriate timing of
such efforts.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3. Interplay With Post-Incentive Auction
Transition/Repack
75. The Commission has stated that,
following the completion of the
incentive auction, it will establish a 39month transition period (‘‘post-auction
transition period’’) during which time
all full power and Class A television
stations that are changing frequencies as
a result of the auction must cease
operations in those portions of the
current broadcast UHF television bands
that are being repurposed to wireless
use. The Media Bureau will establish a
set of construction deadlines for stations
that will relocate as a result of the
auction, some of which will be given 36
months to complete construction and
some of which will have shorter
deadlines. The Commission previously
determined that all stations must cease
operating on their pre-auction channels
at the end of the 39-month post-auction
transition period regardless of whether
they have completed construction of the
facilities for their post-auction channel.
We seek comment on the extent to
which the repacking of stations after the
incentive auction presents an
opportunity for repacked stations that
want to upgrade to ATSC 3.0. What
steps should the Commission take to
facilitate ATSC 3.0 deployment
consistent with the repack and ensure
consumers retain the television service
they expect while more quickly
enjoying the benefits of Next-Generation
Television?
76. We also invite comment on how
to ensure that the deployment of ATSC
3.0 does not negatively affect the postincentive auction transition process.
What steps should the broadcast
industry take to address this issue?
77. CTIA asks that we clarify that
ATSC 3.0 equipment is not eligible for
reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster
Relocation Fund (Reimbursement
Fund). All requests for reimbursement
from the Reimbursement Fund,
including those for ATSC 3.0 capable
equipment, will be evaluated consistent
with the standards set forth in the
Incentive Auction Report and Order. In
that order, the Commission recognized
that replacement equipment eligible for
reimbursement from the Reimbursement
Fund ‘‘necessarily may include
improved functionality,’’ but stated
‘‘[w]e do not . . . anticipate providing
reimbursement for new, optional
features in equipment unless the station
or MVPD documents that the feature is
already present in the equipment that is
being replaced. Eligible stations and
MVPDs may elect to purchase optional
equipment capability or make other
upgrades at their own cost, but only the
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
cost of the equipment without optional
upgrades is a reimbursable expense.’’
IV. Procedural Matters
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
78. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications
Commission (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 the 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
on the first page 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
79. In the NPRM, we propose to
authorize television broadcasters to use
the ‘‘Next Generation’’ broadcast
television (Next Gen TV) transmission
standard associated with recent work of
the Advanced Television Systems
Committee (ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary,
market-driven basis, while they
continue to deliver current-generation
digital television (DTV) broadcast
service, using the ‘‘ATSC 1.0 standard,’’
to their viewers. ATSC 3.0 is being
developed by broadcasters with the
intent of merging the capabilities of
over-the-air broadcasting with the
broadband viewing and information
delivery methods of the Internet, using
the same 6 MHz channels presently
allocated for DTV. According to a
coalition of broadcast and consumer
electronics industry representatives that
has petitioned the Commission to
authorize the use of ATSC 3.0, this new
standard has the potential to greatly
improve broadcast signal reception,
particularly on mobile devices and
television receivers without outdoor
antennas, and it will enable
broadcasters to offer enhanced and
innovative new features to consumers,
including Ultra High Definition picture
and immersive audio, more localized
programming content, an advanced
emergency alert system capable of
waking up sleeping devices to warn
consumers of imminent emergencies,
better accessibility options, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
interactive services. With today’s action,
we aim to facilitate private sector
innovation and promote American
leadership in the global broadcast
industry.
80. In this proceeding, we seek to
adopt rules that will afford broadcasters
flexibility to deploy ATSC 3.0-based
transmissions, while minimizing the
impact on, and costs to, consumers and
other industry stakeholders. Among
other matters, we seek public input on
the following issues and proposals:
• Voluntary Use. We propose to
authorize voluntary use of ATSC 3.0
transmissions and to incorporate by
reference the relevant portions of the
ATSC 3.0 standard into our rules. We
seek comment on which components of
the standard should be incorporated
into our rules.
• Local Simulcasting. We propose to
require ‘‘local simulcasting’’ for stations
that choose to deploy Next Gen TV
transmissions so that broadcasters will
continue to provide their existing ATSC
1.0-based services to their viewers. We
seek comment on a number of issues
relating to the implementation of local
simulcasting.
• MVPD Carriage. We propose that
multichannel video programming
distributors (MVPDs) be required to
continue carrying broadcasters’ ATSC
1.0 signals, but not be required to carry
ATSC 3.0 signals during the period
when broadcasters are voluntarily
implementing ATSC 3.0 service. We
also seek comment on issues related to
the voluntary carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals through the retransmission
consent process.
• Service and Interference Protection.
We seek comment on whether Next Gen
TV transmissions will raise any
interference concerns for existing DTV
operations or for any other services or
devices that operate in the TV bands or
in adjacent bands. We propose to
calculate Next Gen TV interference to
DTV signals using the methodology and
planning factors specified in OET
Bulletin 69 (OET–69). We also propose
to define a ‘‘DTV-equivalent’’ service
area for the Next Gen TV signal using
the methodology and planning factors
defined for DTV in OET–69 and to
define a protection threshold for Next
Gen TV signals that would be as robust
as an equivalent DTV signal. Moreover,
we seek comment on what, if any,
additional interference protections are
necessary with respect to other services
and devices that operate in the TV
bands or adjacent bands.
• Public Interest Obligations and
Consumer Protection. We propose that
television stations transmitting signals
in ATSC 3.0 be subject to the public
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13297
interest obligations currently applicable
to television broadcasters. In addition,
we seek comment on our tentative
conclusion that it is unnecessary at this
time to adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner
mandate for new television receivers.
We seek comment on whether
broadcasters should be required to
provide on-air notifications to educate
consumers about Next Gen TV service
deployment and ATSC 1.0 simulcasting
and on how to ensure that deployment
of Next Gen TV-based transmissions
will not negatively impact the postincentive auction transition process.
C. Legal Basis
81. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307,
308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338,
399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303,
307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336,
338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
82. 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. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
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. Below, we
provide a description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the
number of such small entities, where
feasible.
83. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘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 communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
13298
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
84. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation). The Commission has
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. Industry data indicate that
there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this
total, all but nine cable operators
nationwide are small under the 400,000subscriber size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rate regulation
rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
3,900 cable systems have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems
have 15,000 or more subscribers, based
on the same records. Thus, under this
standard as well, we estimate that most
cable systems are small entities.
85. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act 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.’’ There
are approximately 52,403,705 cable
video subscribers in the United States
today. Accordingly, an operator serving
fewer than 524,037 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. Based on available data, we
find that all but nine incumbent cable
operators are small entities under this
size standard. 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. Although it seems
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities
whose gross annual revenues exceed
$250 million, we are unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the
number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the
Communications Act.
86. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service. DBS Service is a nationally
distributed subscription service that
delivers video and audio programming
via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’
antenna at the subscriber’s location.
DBS is now included in SBA’s
economic census category ‘‘Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.’’ By
exception, establishments providing
satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that
they operate are included in this
industry. The SBA determines that a
wireline business is small if it has fewer
than 1,500 employees. Census data for
2012 indicate that 3,117 wireline firms
were operational during that year. Of
that number, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Based on that
data, we conclude that the majority of
wireline firms are small under the
applicable standard. However, based on
more recent data developed internally
by the FCC, currently only two entities
provide DBS service, which requires a
great deal of capital for operation:
DIRECTV and DISH Network.
Accordingly, we must conclude that
internally developed FCC data are
persuasive that in general DBS service is
provided only by large firms.
87. Satellite Master Antenna
Television (SMATV) Systems, also
known as Private Cable Operators
(PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are
video distribution facilities that use
closed transmission paths without using
any public right-of-way. They acquire
video programming and distribute it via
terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
multiple dwelling units such as
apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such
as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
firms in this industry can be considered
small.
88. Home Satellite Dish (HSD)
Service. HSD or the large dish segment
of the satellite industry is the original
satellite-to-home service offered to
consumers, and involves the home
reception of signals transmitted by
satellites operating generally in the Cband frequency. Unlike DBS, which
uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter
and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and
scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to
facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video
programming. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within
the SBA-recognized definition of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered
small.
89. Open Video Services. The open
video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four
statutorily recognized options for the
provision of video programming
services by local exchange carriers. The
OVS framework provides opportunities
for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable
systems. Because OVS operators provide
subscription services, OVS falls within
the SBA small business size standard
covering cable services, which is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered
small. In addition, we note that the
Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing
service. Broadband service providers are
currently the only significant holders of
OVS certifications or local OVS
franchises. The Commission does not
have financial or employment
information regarding the entities
authorized to provide OVS, some of
which may not yet be operational. Thus,
again, at least some of the OVS
operators may qualify as small entities.
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
90. Wireless Cable Systems—
Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service.
Wireless cable systems use the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to
transmit video programming to
subscribers. In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission
established a small business size
standard as an entity that had annual
average gross revenues of no more than
$40 million in the previous three
calendar years. The BRS auctions
resulted in 67 successful bidders
obtaining licensing opportunities for
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the
67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also
includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, we
estimate that of the 61 small business
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are
considered small entities. After adding
the number of small business auction
licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, we find
that there are currently approximately
440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA
or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the
Commission conducted Auction 86, the
sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years (small business) received a
15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3
million and do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years (very small
business) received a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $3 million
for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent
discount on its winning bid. Auction 86
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61
licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two
bidders that claimed small business
status won four licenses; one bidder that
claimed very small business status won
three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six
licenses.
91. In addition, the SBA’s placement
of Cable Television Distribution
Services in the category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is
applicable to cable-based Educational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the
broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which was developed for small wireline
businesses. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small. In
addition to Census data, the
Commission’s internal records indicate
that as of September 2012, there are
2,241 active EBS licenses. The
Commission estimates that of these
2,241 licenses, the majority are held by
non-profit educational institutions and
school districts, which are by statute
defined as small businesses.
92. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (ILECs) and Small Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. ILECs and small
ILECs are included in the SBA’s
economic census category, Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered
small.
93. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant
Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for these service providers.
These entities are included in the SBA’s
economic census category, Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered
small.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13299
94. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by these establishments are:
Transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has
established a size standard for this
industry of 750 employees or less.
Census data for 2012 show that 841
establishments operated in this industry
in that year. Of that number, 819
establishments operated with less than
500 employees. Based on this data, we
conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are
small.
95. Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing electronic audio and
video equipment for home
entertainment, motor vehicles, and
public address and musical instrument
amplification. Examples of products
made by these establishments are video
cassette recorders, televisions, stereo
equipment, speaker systems, householdtype video cameras, jukeboxes, and
amplifiers for musical instruments and
public address systems. The SBA has
established a size standard for this
industry, in which all firms with 750
employees or less are small. According
to U.S. Census data for 2012, 466 audio
and video equipment manufacturers
were operational in that year. Of that
number, 465 operated with fewer than
500 employees. Based on this Census
data and the associated size standard,
we conclude that the majority of such
manufacturers are small.
96. 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.’’
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
studio, from an affiliated network, or
from external sources. The SBA has
created the following small business
size standard for Television
Broadcasting firms: those having $38.5
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13300
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
million or less in annual receipts. The
2012 economic Census reports that 751
television broadcasting firms operated
during that year. Of that number, 656
had annual receipts of less than $25
million per year. Based on that Census
data we conclude that a majority of
firms that operate television stations are
small. We therefore estimate that the
majority of commercial television
broadcasters are small entities.
97. 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. 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.
98. In addition, the Commission has
estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational television
stations to be 395. These stations are
non-profit, and therefore considered to
be small entities.
99. There are also 2,344 LPTV
stations, including Class A stations, and
3689 TV translator stations. Given the
nature of these services, we will
presume that all of these entities qualify
as small entities under the above SBA
small business size standard.
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
100. The NPRM proposes to authorize
television broadcasters to use the Next
Gen TV transmission standard
associated with ATSC 3.0 on a
voluntary, market-driven basis, while
they continue to deliver currentgeneration DTV broadcast service, using
the ATSC 1.0 standard, to their viewers.
Under the proposal, Next Gen TV
broadcasters that have elected mustcarry rights would be required to notify
MVPDs prior to transitioning to ATSC
3.0 and arranging for an ATSC 1.0
simulcast. MVPDs would be required to
continue carrying broadcasters’ ATSC
1.0 signals, but would not be required
to carry ATSC 3.0 signals, during the
period when broadcasters are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0
service. Rather, MVPD carriage of ATSC
3.0 signals would be determined
through retransmission consent
negotiations. With regard to equipment,
the Commission tentatively concludes
that it is unnecessary at this time to
adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate for
new television receivers.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
101. 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 and reporting requirements
under the rule for such 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.’’
102. Broadcasters. As stated above,
the NPRM proposes that broadcaster use
of Next Gen TV would be voluntary. We
note additionally that the Commission
is considering whether small, rural, lowpower, and NCE broadcasters would
face unique circumstances with regard
to the voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0.
In the event that a broadcaster chooses
to use Next Gen TV, the Commission is
considering how to handle issues
related to interference that may occur
with a voluntary transition to Next Gen
TV. The Commission is considering
whether to require broadcasters that
choose to transition to notify MVPDs
and television viewers about the
transition via written and on-air notices,
respectively. The Commission is also
considering an alternative approach,
under which simulcast arrangements
could be implemented without
additional licensing (beyond conversion
of the broadcaster’s current facility to
operate in ATSC 3.0), whereby some
broadcasters would be licensed to
operate only an ATSC 3.0 facility and
others would be licensed to operate only
on ATSC 1.0 facility. The NPRM states
that the multicast approach to
simulcasting may minimize
administrative burdens and offer more
flexibility to the broadcast industry. On
the other hand, it would appear to
preclude NCE stations from serving as
hosts to the simulcast programming of
commercial stations due to the
restrictions of section 399B.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
103. MVPDs. The NPRM considers
issues related to the voluntary carriage
of ATSC 3.0 signals through the
retransmission consent process. As
stated in the NPRM, MVPDs have raised
numerous questions about MVPD
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, including
the potentially significant costs and
burdens associated with MVPD carriage
of ATSC 3.0 signals. The NPRM
specifically considers the alternative
approach of prohibiting MVPD carriage
of ATSC 3.0 signals through
retransmission consent negotiations
until the ATSC Specialist Group on
Conversion and Redistribution of ATSC
3.0 Service produces its initial report,
which would ease any burdens of the
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals on MVPDs.
104. Equipment manufacturers.
Finally, with regard to equipment
manufacturers, the Commission is
considering whether to require
television receivers manufactured after a
certain date to include the capability to
receive ATSC 3.0 signals. In the NPRM,
the Commission reaches the tentative
conclusion that it is unnecessary at this
time to adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner
mandate for new television receivers.
This approach of instead relying on the
market potentially could minimize any
impact of the new rules on equipment
manufacturers, including smaller
manufacturers. If the Commission
decides not to adopt a Next Gen TV
tuner mandate at this time, the
Commission is considering whether it
should revise section 15.117(b) of its
rules to make clear that this rule does
not apply to ATSC 3.0.
105. The NPRM seeks comment on the
above issues, with the goal of easing the
economic burdens of the new rules and
policies on small entities.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
106. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
107. This NPRM may result in new or
revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts
any new or revised information
collection requirements, the
Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on such requirements, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, the Commission will seek specific
comment on how it might ‘‘further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.’’
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Ex Parte Rules
J. Filing Procedures
108. Permit But Disclose. The
proceeding this Notice initiates shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Ex parte
presentations are permissible if
disclosed in accordance with
Commission rules, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period when
presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are
generally prohibited. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of
any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. Memoranda must contain
a summary of the substance of the ex
parte presentation and not merely a
listing of the subjects discussed. More
than a one or two sentence description
of the views and arguments presented is
generally required. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with section
1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings
governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules
or for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
109. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, 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 the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy 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.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D 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.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
110. People with Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
111. Availability of Documents.
Comments and reply comments will be
publically available online via ECFS.
These documents will also be available
for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, which is located in
Room CY–A257 at FCC Headquarters,
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554. The Reference Information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13301
Center is open to the public Monday
through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m.
112. Additional Information. For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact John Gabrysch,
John.Gabrysch@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, at (202)
418–7152, Sean Mirzadegan,
Sean.Mirzadegan@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, at (202)
418–7111, Evan Baranoff,
Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
7142, or Matthew Hussey,
Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the Office
of Engineering and Technology, (202)
418–3619.
V. Ordering Clauses
113. It is ordered that, pursuant to the
authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535, the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN
Docket No. 16–142 is adopted.
114. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 15 and
73
Communications equipment,
Television.
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 15 and 73 as follows:
PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY
DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304,
307, 336, 544a, and 549.
2. Section 15.117 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 15.117
TV broadcast receivers.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) TV broadcast receivers shall be
capable of adequately receiving all
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
13302
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 46 / Friday, March 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Signaling’’ (March 23, 2016) shall
transmit at least one free video stream
on that signal that requires at most the
signal threshold of a comparable
received DTV signal, and shall
simulcast the video programming on
that signal on another local broadcast
facility using the current DTV standard.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 73.626 is amended by
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310,
334, 336, and 339.
§ 73.626 DTV Distributed Transmission
Systems.
AGENCY:
4. Section 73.616 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(e)(1) and adding paragraph (g) to read
as follows:
*
channels allocated by the Commission
to the television broadcast service that
broadcast digital signals broadcast using
the ATSC 1.0 standard, but need not be
capable of receiving analog signals or
signals using the ATSC 3.0 standard.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
3. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
■
§ 73.616 Post-transition DTV station
interference protection.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) For evaluating compliance with
the requirements of this paragraph,
interference to populations served is to
be predicted based on the most recent
official decennial U.S. Census
population data as identified by the
Media Bureau in a Public Notice issued
not less than 60 days prior to use of the
data for a specific year in application
processing, and otherwise according to
the procedure set forth in OET Bulletin
No. 69: ‘‘Longley-Rice Methodology for
Evaluating TV Coverage and
Interference’’ (February 6, 2004)
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 73.8000), including population served
within service areas determined in
accordance with § 73.622(e),
consideration of whether F(50,10)
undesired signals will exceed the
following desired-to-undesired (D/U)
signal ratios, assumed use of a
directional receiving antenna, and use
of the terrain dependent Longley-Rice
point-to-point propagation model.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(g) The interference protection
requirements contained in this section
apply to television station operations
under ATSC A/321:2016, ‘‘System
Discovery and Signaling’’ (March 23,
2016) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 73.8000).
■ 4. Section 73.624 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 73.624 Digital television broadcast
stations.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) DTV licensees or permittees that
transmit a signal as set forth in A/
321:2016, ‘‘System Discovery and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:00 Mar 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
*
*
*
*
(g) All transmitters operating under a
single DTS license must follow the same
digital broadcast television transmission
standard.
■ 6. Section 73.682 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 73.682
TV transmission standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Alternative digital broadcast
television transmission standard
authorized.
(1) Next Gen TV service. Effective
[DATE], as an alternative to complying
with the requirements set forth in
paragraph (d) of this section,
transmission of digital broadcast
television (DTV) signals may comply
with the standards for such
transmissions set forth in ATSC A/
321:2016, ‘‘System Discovery and
Signaling’’ (March 23, 2016)
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 73.8000).
(2) Continuity of service. The licensee
of a DTV station operating pursuant to
paragraph (f)(1) shall arrange for another
DTV station operating in compliance
with paragraph (d) of this section and
substantially covering such station’s
community of license to simulcast such
station’s primary program stream.
Agreements for simulcast under this
paragraph (g) must be filed with the
Commission.
■ 7. Section 73.8000 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 73.8000
Incorporation by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) A/321:2016, ‘‘System Discovery
and Signaling’’ (March 23, 2016), IBR
approved for §§ 73.616 and 73.682.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–04713 Filed 3–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BG54
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Integrating Electronic
Monitoring Into the North Pacific
Observer Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
management plan amendments; request
for comments; notice of public hearing.
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council submitted
Amendment 114 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area and Amendment 104
to the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(collectively referred to as the FMPs) to
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
for review. If approved, Amendments
114/104 would integrate electronic
monitoring into the North Pacific
Observer Program. This action is
necessary to improve the collection of
data necessary for the conservation,
management, and scientific
understanding of managed fisheries.
Amendments 114/104 are intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
FMPs, and other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than May 9, 2017.
Per section 313 of the MagnusonStevens Act, NMFS will conduct public
hearings to accept oral and written
comments on the proposed rule in
Oregon, Washington, and Alaska during
the public comment period.
The first public hearing will be held
in conjunction with the April meeting of
the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council on April 6, 2017, 6 p.m. to 8
p.m., Alaska local time, at the Hilton
Hotel, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK
99501.
The second public hearing will be on
April 18, 2017, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.,
Pacific daylight time, at the
International Pacific Halibut
Commission office, 2320 West
Commodore Way, Suite 300, Seattle,
WA 98199.
The third public hearing will be held
on April 19, 2017, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.,
Pacific daylight time, at the Hatfield
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10MRP1.SGM
10MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13285-13302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04713]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 73
[GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 17-13]
Authorizing Permissive Use of the ``Next Generation'' Broadcast
Television Standard
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to authorize
television broadcasters to use the ``Next Generation'' broadcast
television transmission standard associated with recent work of the
Advanced Television Systems Committee on a voluntary, market-driven
basis, while they continue to deliver current-generation digital
television broadcast service, using the ATSC 1.0 standard, to their
viewers. This new standard has the potential to greatly improve
broadcast signal reception and will enable broadcasters to offer
enhanced and innovative new features to consumers.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before May 9, 2017;
reply comments are due on or before June 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16-142,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 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, contact
John Gabrysch, John.Gabrysch@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Engineering
Division, at (202) 418-7152, Sean Mirzadegan, Sean.Mirzadegan@fcc.gov,
of the Media Bureau, Engineering Division, at (202) 418-7111, Evan
Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202) 418-7142, or Matthew Hussey, Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the
Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-13, adopted and released on February 23,
2017. The full text 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. This document 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. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may result in new or revised
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new
or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on such requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, the Commission will seek specific comment on how it might
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to
authorize television broadcasters to use the ``Next Generation''
broadcast television (Next Gen TV) transmission standard associated
with recent work of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC
3.0) on a voluntary, market-driven basis, while they continue to
deliver current-generation digital television (DTV) broadcast service,
using the ``ATSC 1.0 standard,'' to their viewers. ATSC 3.0 is being
developed by broadcasters with the intent of merging the capabilities
of over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting with the broadband viewing and
information delivery methods of the Internet, using the same 6 MHz
channels presently allocated for DTV. According to a coalition of
broadcast and consumer electronics industry representatives that has
petitioned the Commission to authorize the use of ATSC 3.0, this new
standard has the potential to greatly improve broadcast signal
reception, particularly on mobile devices and television receivers
without outdoor antennas, and it will enable broadcasters to offer
enhanced and innovative new features to consumers, including Ultra High
Definition (UHD) picture and immersive audio, more localized
programming content, an advanced emergency alert system (EAS) capable
of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent
emergencies, better accessibility options, and interactive services.
With today's action, we aim to facilitate private sector innovation and
promote American leadership in the global broadcast industry.
II. Background
2. On April 13, 2016, America's Public Television Stations, the
Advanced Warning and Response Network Alliance, the Consumer Technology
Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters filed a joint
petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to allow local television
stations to adopt the Next Gen TV broadcast transmission standard, ATSC
3.0, on a voluntary, market-driven basis, while continuing to deliver
current-generation DTV broadcast service using the ATSC 1.0
transmission standard to their communities of license. Petitioners
state that allowing broadcasters to use this additional broadcast
transmission standard, the ``physical layer'' of ATSC 3.0, will make
more efficient use of spectrum, allow consumers to enjoy new features
and
[[Page 13286]]
higher quality picture and sound, and enable broadcasters to bring
innovative new services and data delivery to homes and communities.
They state that on top of this new physical layer, IP transport will
allow new services and capabilities to be provided to consumers much
more rapidly, and will permit seamless integration with other IP-based
services and platforms. On April 26, 2016, the Media Bureau issued a
Public Notice seeking comment on the Petition. The Commission received
35 comments and 14 replies to the Petition.
3. Commenters supporting the Petition include broadcasters,
equipment manufacturers, and tower companies. These commenters agree
that authorizing use of the Next Gen TV transmission standard
associated with ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to offer innovative
technologies and services to consumers, such as UHD picture and
immersive audio, improved over-the-air reception, IP-based transport
streams, enhanced mobile capability, more localized content, better
accessibility options, and advanced emergency alerting. The potentially
life-saving advancements in emergency alerting will include geo-
targeting of emergency alerts to tailor information for particular
communities and enhanced datacasting to provide videos, photos, maps,
floorplans, and other critical data to law enforcement, first
responder, and emergency management organizations. Advanced emergency
alerting will also include the capability to ``wake up'' receivers to
alert consumers to sudden emergencies and disasters, such as tornadoes
and earthquakes. Other industry stakeholders, including AT&T, CTIA,
DISH, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and public
interest groups, offer support for broadcaster innovation, but ask the
Commission to ensure that multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs) and their customers are not burdened with new carriage
obligations or costs on account of the deployment of ATSC 3.0-based
transmissions; that the deployment of ATSC 3.0-based stations does not
have any impact on the broadcast television incentive auction, the
post-auction repacking process, or the post-repacking 600 MHz frequency
environment; and that broadcasters continue to meet their public
interest obligations regardless of the technology used to deliver
broadcast signals.
III. Discussion
A. Authorization of Voluntary Use of ATSC 3.0 Transmissions
4. As requested by the Petitioners, we propose to authorize the
ATSC 3.0 transmission standard as an optional standard that can be used
by television licensees on a voluntary basis while they continue to
deliver current generation ATSC 1.0 service to their communities. We
also propose to incorporate by reference into our rules ATSC A/321:2016
``System Discovery and Signaling'' (A/321), which is one of the two
components of the ``physical layer'' of the ATSC 3.0 standard.
According to the Petitioners, this layer of the standard points to the
RF characteristics of an ATSC 3.0 transmission, which ``determines
interference and coverage.'' We seek comment on these proposals and on
whether it is necessary to incorporate this or any other parts of the
ATSC 3.0 standard aside from A/321 into our rules at this time.
5. According to the Petitioners, the ATSC 3.0 standard is split
into multiple individual parts under a unifying parent standard. It is
structured as three layers that roughly correspond to a subset of the
layers found in the Open Systems Interconnection seven-layer model
(OSI) commonly used to characterize and standardize telecommunications
systems. The three layers of the ATSC 3.0 standard are (1) the physical
layer, (2) the management and protocols layer, and (3) the applications
and presentation layer. Each component of the standard fits into only
one layer of the system, making it possible to develop and update each
part independently. The physical layer is the portion of the system
that includes the definition of the RF waveform used in ATSC 3.0, as
well as the coding and error correction that determine the robustness
of the signal to noise and interference. The management and protocols
layer organizes data bits into streams and files and establishes the
protocol for the receiver to direct those streams to the proper
destinations. The applications and presentation layer includes audio
and video compression technologies, captions and descriptive audio,
emergency alerts, parental controls, interactive applications, and how
the station is displayed to the viewers.
6. The Petitioners seek the approval only of the ATSC A/321
standard into our rules. They argue that A/321 is the only part of the
ATSC 3.0 standard that needs to be approved by the Commission in order
to assure a stable and predictable RF operating environment. If we
decide to authorize television broadcasters to use ATSC 3.0, we propose
that it is necessary to approve A/321 at a minimum and to incorporate
it by reference into our rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
7. LG and others suggest that we also may need to incorporate A/
322:2016 ``Physical Layer Protocol'' (A/322), the other component of
the ATSC 3.0 physical layer, into our rules because it completes the
description of the core RF waveform used by the standard. At the time
that the Petition was filed, A/321 was the only part of the ATSC 3.0
physical layer that had been ratified by the ATSC. Subsequent to the
Petition, the ATSC has also ratified the A/322 part of the ATSC 3.0
physical layer. As discussed below, LG requests the incorporation of A/
322 into our rules in order to ensure that broadcasters will have the
flexibility to operate certain types of single frequency networks. LG
further notes that by addressing the entire physical layer (both ATSC
A/321 and A/322) in one rulemaking, the Commission can avoid the need
for a future, separate rulemaking to authorize use of A/322. We seek
comment on whether we should incorporate A/322 into our rules. We also
seek input on what the benefits or drawbacks would be to incorporating
it into our rules. We also seek comment on whether the Commission
should incorporate any additional details of the ATSC 3.0 technology
into FCC regulations. If so, what specific components of the standard
should we incorporate and why?
B. Local Simulcasting
8. Local simulcasting is a key component of the Petition's proposal
for the voluntary use of the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard. ATSC 3.0
service is not backward-compatible with existing TV sets/receivers
(which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners). This means that consumers
will need to buy new TV sets or converter equipment to receive ATSC 3.0
service. Local simulcasting would enable broadcasters to provide both
ATSC 3.0 and ATSC 1.0 service to viewers (without the need for an
additional allocation of spectrum to broadcasters), thereby reducing
the disruption to consumers that may result from ATSC 3.0 deployment.
Specifically, under the Petition's local simulcasting proposal, each
television broadcaster choosing to broadcast its signal in ATSC 3.0
format from its current facility will arrange for another television
station (i.e., a ``host'' station) in its local television market to
``simulcast'' its video programming in
[[Page 13287]]
ATSC 1.0 format in order to mitigate disruption to over-the-air
viewers. As discussed in more detail below, the Petition also seeks,
for purposes of broadcast carriage rights, to use local simulcasting as
an alternate means for Next Gen TV broadcasters to deliver a good
quality ATSC 1.0 signal to MVPDs that cannot receive and process the
broadcaster's ATSC 3.0 signal.
9. The Petition seeks one rule change to authorize its local
simulcasting proposal. Under section 73.624(b) of the Commission's
Rules, each television licensee must broadcast one free-to-air DTV
signal in at least standard-definition (SD) quality. The Petition asks
us ``to specify that this requirement may be accomplished by stations
deploying Next Generation TV by (1) broadcasting at least one free-to-
air Next Gen TV signal and (2) arranging for the simulcast of that
signal in the current DTV standard on another broadcast facility . . .
.'' The Petition also states that local simulcasting ``agreements would
be subject to the Commission's existing rules and policies as to
licensee responsibility and control.'' We address below a number of
issues related to the Petitioner's proposal regarding local
simulcasting. Among other things, we propose to require local
simulcasting as a condition to offering ATSC 3.0, seek comment on
whether simulcast channels should be separately licensed as second
channels of the originating stations or treated as multicast streams of
the host stations, and seek comment on whether we should adopt signal
coverage or quality requirements for local simulcasts.
1. Requiring Next Gen TV Stations to Simulcast
10. We propose to require Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast
their ATSC 3.0 stream in ATSC 1.0 format, as proposed in the Petition,
to ensure that viewers maintain access to the station during the period
when broadcasters are voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0 service. We
seek comment on this proposal, including whether such a mandate is
necessary. We assume that, for purposes of the Petitioners' local
simulcasting proposal, a ``simulcast'' means a stream with identical
content to the video programming aired on the originating station's
primary ATSC 3.0 stream, but we seek comment on this assumption and
whether it is an appropriate definition for ``simulcast'' for purposes
of our rules. If the simulcast content will not be identical to the
originating station's primary video programming stream, we ask
commenters to explain the reasons for any deviations in content and/or
format (i.e., high definition (HD) versus SD) and the impact of such
deviations on television viewers and the regulatory implications. To
what extent do broadcasters intend to simulcast their subchannels (in
addition to their primary stream), so that consumers can continue to
receive this programming?
11. We also propose to require that Next Gen TV broadcasters ensure
that at least one free ATSC 3.0 video stream is available at all times
throughout the ATSC 3.0 coverage area and, as discussed below, that
such ATSC 3.0 signal be at least as robust as a comparable DTV signal
to ensure that viewers within the protected coverage area continue to
receive service at the current DTV protection levels. We seek comment
on these proposals and whether any other requirements should be imposed
on the ATSC 3.0 transmission stream as part of local simulcasting.
Because ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will have the ability to broadcast more
robust signals, which could effectively expand their consumer base
beyond the current comparable DTV coverage area or provide coverage to
areas that were previously unserved due to terrain-limited propagation
conditions within the contour, we seek comment on how we should treat
these expanded areas.
12. We seek comment on whether to require simulcasting agreements
to be filed with the Commission, as proposed by the Petition. If so,
should the Commission have a role in evaluating individual simulcasting
agreements? We also seek comment on whether we should require certain
provisions to be included in local simulcasting agreements and, if so,
what requirements we should adopt.
13. Apart from the host station model set forth in the Petition, we
ask commenters to address other potential deployment alternatives that
might accelerate adoption of the ATSC 3.0 standard. For example, during
the marketplace conversion to the new standard, should we consider
allowing broadcasters to use vacant in-band channels remaining in a
market after the incentive auction repack to serve as temporary host
facilities for ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 programming by multiple
broadcasters?
2. Methods for Licensing or Authorizing Simulcast Stations
14. We seek comment on what license modifications would be needed
for a television broadcaster to convert its current ATSC 1.0 facility
to a facility transmitting ATSC 3.0 signals. At a minimum, we believe
that the broadcaster would need to modify its TV station service class
for its broadcast facility so that we can track and make publicly
available information about the type of broadcast service provided by
stations during a potential Next Gen TV transition. We propose that
these modifications be treated as minor modifications to the license.
We seek comment on these issues. Are other facility changes required to
convert a station from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 transmissions?
15. Further, we seek comment on whether, as a regulatory matter,
simulcasts should be separately licensed as second channels of the
originating stations or treated as multicast streams of the host
stations. Or should broadcasters be able to choose between the two
approaches? Under a licensed simulcast approach, simulcast arrangements
could be implemented via temporary channel sharing agreements
(following the existing ``channel sharing'' model) between the licensee
of the originating station and that of the host station. For example, a
Next Gen TV broadcaster might choose to deploy ATSC 3.0 service by
converting its current facility to broadcast in ATSC 3.0 and obtaining
a temporary channel sharing license to share a host station's channel
during a potential Next Gen TV transition period in order to broadcast
its simulcast in ATSC 1.0 (from the host's facility). Similarly, a Next
Gen TV broadcaster might choose to deploy ATSC 3.0 service by
continuing to broadcast in ATSC 1.0 from its existing facility and
obtaining a temporary channel sharing license to share a host station's
channel during a potential Next Gen TV transition period in order to
broadcast its simulcast in ATSC 3.0 (from the host's facility). Under
this approach, the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 signals would be two
separately licensed channels of the originating station. This would be
similar to the DTV transition, when both analog and digital signals
were licensed by the Commission.
16. If we adopt a licensed simulcasting approach, we propose to
adopt licensing procedures similar to those we adopted for channel
sharing. Specifically, we propose to require a station whose program
stream will be changing channels to file an application for a
construction permit specifying the technical facilities of the host
station. We also propose to treat such applications as minor
modification applications. Although one of the originating station's
program streams will be changing channels, which is a normally a major
change under our rules, we believe that treating this change as minor
is appropriate because
[[Page 13288]]
the originating station will be assuming the authorized technical
facilities of the host station, meaning that compliance with our
interference and other technical rules would have been addressed in
licensing the host station. Should we instead issue a separate license
for the simulcast stream? If so, should that license application be
subject to competing applications? In addition, while a full power
station seeking to change its channel normally must first submit a
petition to amend the DTV Table of Allotments, we propose not to apply
this process in the context of licensed simulcasting. Instead, we
propose that, after the application for construction permit is
approved, the Media Bureau will amend the Table on its own motion to
reflect that shared channels (both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0) will be
allotted to one or more communities. We invite comment generally on
this approach and any alternatives we should consider.
17. A licensed simulcast approach appears to have several potential
attributes on which we seek comment. First, a licensed approach
implemented via temporary channel sharing could allow noncommercial
educational television (NCE) stations to serve as hosts to commercial
stations' simulcast programming. Because NCE licensees are prohibited
by section 399B of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 399B, from
broadcasting advertisements, an NCE station would be prohibited from
hosting the simulcast programming of a commercial station on a
multicast stream under its NCE license. By contrast, it appears that an
NCE station would be able to serve as a host to a commercial station if
that commercial station is separately licensed. In addition, a licensed
simulcast approach could provide certainty that the originating station
(and not the host) is responsible for regulatory compliance regarding
its simulcast signal, and therefore could give the Commission clear
enforcement authority over the originating station in the event of a
violation of our rules. A licensed simulcast approach also would allow
us to monitor the deployment of ATSC 3.0 service. This information
could be important to the Commission in managing the broadcasters'
migration to ATSC 3.0 and informing the public about changes in their
television broadcast service. If we decide to license simulcast
channels as temporary shared channels, how should we implement such an
approach? Should we apply existing rules from the channel-sharing
context? How long should the terms be for temporary channel sharing
licenses?
18. Alternatively, simulcast arrangements could be implemented
without additional licensing (beyond conversion of the broadcaster's
current facility to operate in ATSC 3.0). Under this approach, a Next
Gen TV broadcaster could choose to deploy ATSC 3.0 service by
converting its current facility to broadcast in ATSC 3.0 and entering
into an agreement with a host station to simulcast its programming in
ATSC 1.0 via one of the host's multicast streams or by continuing to
broadcast in ATSC 1.0 and entering into an agreement with a host
station to simulcast its programming in ATSC 3.0 via one of the host's
multicast streams. Thus, under a multicast approach, some broadcasters
would be licensed to operate only an ATSC 3.0 facility and others would
be licensed to operate only an ATSC 1.0 facility.
19. This multicast approach to simulcasting may minimize
administrative burdens and offer more flexibility to the broadcast
industry. On the other hand, a multicast approach would appear to
preclude NCE stations from serving as hosts to the simulcast
programming of commercial stations due to the restrictions of section
399B. In this regard, we seek comment on whether the Commission has
authority to waive the restrictions in section 399B. Also, as discussed
below, because multicast signals are not entitled to carriage rights,
treating simulcast signals as multicast channels under a host's license
also raises questions about the carriage rights of such signals,
whereas separately licensing such simulcast signals to the originating
station would clarify the carriage rights of simulcast signals. In
addition, under a multicast approach, the host station, not the
originating station, would be subject to the Commission's enforcement
authority with respect to the multicast stream.
20. Whether a simulcast signal is treated as a temporarily shared
channel separately licensed to the originating station or as a
multicast stream under the host's license will affect its regulatory
treatment. We seek comment on the regulatory implications, as well as
the advantages and disadvantages, of each approach and any others we
should consider. Should we be concerned about the enforcement problems
created by a multicast approach, particularly with respect to program-
related requirements such as children's commercial limits and
indecency? If we adopt a multicast approach, should we require stations
to report to the Commission the status of their potential transition to
ATSC 3.0? Under either the licensed simulcast or multicasting approach,
are there circumstances under which the host station would be deemed an
Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participant and thus have obligations
under the Commission's EAS rules independent of the obligations of the
originating station? Should host stations be permitted to satisfy their
EAS requirements through the use of the originating station's EAS
equipment?
21. We also seek comment on whether there are other procedures we
could adopt to streamline the process of simulcasting. For example, to
avoid administrative burdens, particularly during the post-incentive
auction transition period, should we consider authorizing broadcasters
to simulcast via a host station through grants of special temporary
authority (STA)? If we were to adopt an approach based on STAs, it is
not clear that NCE stations would be permitted to host the simulcast
streams of commercial broadcasters or that simulcast transmissions
authorized via an STA would have carriage rights. We seek comment on
these issues. We observe that STA authorizations and subsequent
extensions are limited by statute to 180-day terms. In light of this
maximum six-month term for STAs, would an STA approach become too
burdensome if a station's potential transition to ATSC 3.0 occurs over
a period of several years? How would the use of STAs affect our ability
to monitor deployment of ATSC 3.0 service and provide current
information about broadcast service to the public through our licensing
databases and Web site? Are there any other alternative approaches we
should consider, including other approaches that would maintain
broadcasters' existing carriage rights and allow NCE licensees to host
commercial broadcasters?
3. Coverage and Signal Quality Issues Related to Local Simulcasting
22. Impact on OTA Service Coverage of the ATSC 1.0 Signal. We seek
comment on the extent to which a Next Gen TV station should be
permitted to partner with an ATSC 1.0 host simulcast station with a
different service contour or community of license. Even with ATSC 1.0
simulcasting, it is possible, if not likely, that some over-the-air
consumers will lose ATSC 1.0 service from stations that begin
transmitting in ATSC 3.0. This is because a host simulcast station will
have a different service area than the Next Gen TV (originating)
station. Accordingly, we seek input on how we should ensure
[[Page 13289]]
that there is not a significant loss of ATSC 1.0 service by Next Gen TV
stations as a result of local simulcasting arrangements. Petitioners
argue that Next Gen TV stations should be permitted to arrange for the
simulcast of their ATSC 1.0 signal on another broadcast facility
``serving a substantially similar community of license.'' We seek
comment on this proposal. What does it mean to serve ``a substantially
similar community of license''? Should we require that the ATSC 1.0
simulcast signal at a minimum cover the Next Gen TV station's entire
community of license? Should we require the ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal
to substantially replicate the Next Gen TV station's noise-limited
service contour? If we adopt a ``substantial replication'' standard,
what degree of existing ATSC 1.0 service loss should be permissible? We
also seek comment on whether we should phase in more relaxed OTA ATSC
1.0 service restrictions as a potential transition progresses based on
the possibility that, as ATSC 3.0 stations become more prevalent, it
may become more difficult for Next Gen TV broadcasters to find suitable
partners for local simulcasting.
23. We also seek comment on Next Gen TV broadcasters' incentives to
maintain existing service coverage or quality to viewers. Should
broadcasters be permitted to simulcast in a lower format than that in
which they transmit today? What is the financial impact on stations
that fail to maintain service coverage or quality?
4. Other Local Simulcast Issues
24. Market-Wide Simulcasting Arrangements. The Petition and other
filings in the record appear to contemplate simulcasting arrangements
between or among two or more stations in a market, and possibly even
entire market deployment plans. We seek comment on such arrangements,
and what effect they may have on consumers. Should we look more
favorably at arrangements among many or all broadcasters in a market?
Should we encourage broadcasters to coordinate and submit for
Commission consideration a market-wide plan before starting on
individual deployment and simulcasting plans? Do we have the authority
to require market-wide simulcast arrangements? What are the potential
advantages and disadvantages of a market-based simulcast approach
versus simulcasting arrangements between individual stations?
25. NCE/LPTV/Small/Rural Broadcasters. We seek comment on whether
small, rural, low-power, and NCE broadcasters would face unique
circumstances with regard to the voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0 that
we should consider in this proceeding. To what extent are these
categories of stations interested in offering ATSC 3.0 services, and
what challenges would they face in doing so? How might broadcasters
that choose not to provide ATSC 3.0 service (and only provide ATSC 1.0
service) be negatively impacted by a potential Next Gen TV transition?
Should we encourage participation by these types of stations in ATSC
3.0 deployment plans to ensure that all broadcasters are afforded an
opportunity to participate as Next Gen TV broadcasters or simulcast
hosts? Will such broadcasters have difficulty finding simulcast
partners in a market? For example, LPTV and Class A stations may find
it difficult to host a full power originating station because they must
operate at lower power levels and may not be able to adequately prevent
loss of service of the full power originating station's ATSC 1.0
simulcast signal. We seek comment on whether and how an LPTV station
can be a host simulcast station for a full power originating station
given its power limitations and secondary status. Because of
difficulties they may face in serving as hosts for full power
originating stations, we seek comment on whether to allow LPTV/Class A
stations the option to deploy ATSC 3.0 service without simulcasting
(i.e., ``flash-cut'' to ATSC 3.0). If we were to permit LPTV/Class A
stations to flash-cut to ATSC 3.0, what impact would the lack of
simulcasting have on the viewing public? How should the prevalence of
equipment that could receive an ATSC 3.0 signal among consumers in the
viewing community affect the ability of LPTV/Class A stations to flash-
cut? We also note that, unlike full power stations, LPTV/Class A
stations do not have a community of license coverage requirement. If we
were to require an LPTV station seeking to deploy ATSC 3.0 service to
simulcast, what, if any, kind of community coverage requirement should
we impose for the simulcast ATSC 1.0 stream? Instead of a simulcast
coverage requirement, should we instead apply the existing 30-mile and
contour overlap restrictions that apply to LPTV/Class A moves to LPTV/
Class A stations that propose to move their ATSC 1.0 stream as part of
their deployment of ATSC 3.0 service?
26. Potential Simulcasting Sunset. If we approve a voluntary,
market-driven transition to ATSC 3.0 that implements a simulcast
approach, we propose that the Commission decide in a future proceeding
when it would be appropriate for broadcasters to stop simulcasting in
ATSC 1.0. We seek comment on this proposal. We note that all parties to
this proceeding appear to agree that this issue should be handled in a
separate proceeding.
C. MVPD Carriage
27. We propose that MVPDs must continue to carry broadcasters' ATSC
1.0 signals, pursuant to their statutory mandatory carriage
obligations, and that MVPDs will not be required to carry broadcasters'
ATSC 3.0 signals during the period when broadcasters are voluntarily
implementing ATSC 3.0 service. We seek comment on these proposals, the
legal basis for according carriage rights in this manner, and how to
implement such carriage rights. We also seek comment on issues related
to the voluntary carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through the
retransmission consent process.
28. The Petitioners state that MVPDs ``should not be obligated to
carry'' a Next Gen TV broadcaster's ATSC 3.0 signal and that MVPDs
could satisfy their obligation to carry a Next Gen TV station's signal
by carrying the station's ATSC 1.0 signal. In response to the Petition,
MVPDs explain that they are not currently capable of receiving and
retransmitting ATSC 3.0 signals and raise numerous questions about MVPD
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, including the potentially significant
costs and burdens associated with MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals. In
particular, MVPDs observe that the ATSC's work on the new 3.0 standard
is not yet complete, including the development of recommended standards
for MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, and that the record is scarce
about the practical aspects of MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals.
Therefore, MVPDs ask the Commission to consider the implications for
MVPDs before authorizing broadcasters to use the new standard. In
particular, MVPDs ask us to ensure that they do not bear the costs
associated with carrying ATSC 3.0 signals and ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, even
when such carriage occurs pursuant to retransmission consent
negotiations.
29. The Communications Act establishes slightly different
thresholds for mandatory carriage depending on whether the television
station is full power or low-power, or commercial or noncommercial, and
also depending on whether carriage is sought by a cable operator or
satellite carrier. The must-carry rights of commercial stations on
cable systems are set forth in section 614 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 534.
The must-carry rights of full power
[[Page 13290]]
noncommercial stations on cable systems are set forth in section 615 of
the Act, 47 U.S.C. 535. The mandatory carriage rights of full power
stations (both commercial and noncommercial) on satellite carriers are
set forth in section 338 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 338.
1. Mandatory Carriage Issues
30. Broadcasters and MVPDs appear to agree on the premise that
MVPDs must continue to carry broadcasters' ATSC 1.0 signals, pursuant
to their statutory mandatory carriage obligations, and that MVPDs
should not be required to carry broadcasters' ATSC 3.0 signals at this
time. The Petition, however, does not clearly explain the legal basis
for achieving this result. In addition, our legal basis for according
mandatory carriage rights to ATSC 1.0 simulcast streams may depend on
whether, as discussed above in the Local Simulcasting section, such
streams will be temporary shared channels separately licensed to the
originating broadcaster, or, alternatively, will be multicast streams
broadcast by a ``host'' licensee. We seek comment on how to implement
carriage rights and obligations under both approaches, or under any
other approach we should consider.
31. ATSC 1.0 Simulcast Carriage Rights Under a Licensed Approach.
First, we seek comment on how to implement mandatory carriage rights of
an ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream under a licensed simulcast approach. Under
this approach, two stations that have a reciprocal simulcast
arrangement would each have licenses for their ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0
streams, but we would accord mandatory carriage rights only to the ATSC
1.0 stream for each station. This approach would be consistent with
prior Commission proposals in the channel sharing context and precedent
established in the DTV transition. We seek comment on whether these
proposals and precedent should be applied in the context of a licensed
simulcast approach. For channel sharing outside the context of the
incentive auction, the Commission has tentatively concluded that both
licensees of a shared channel would have carriage rights and that such
carriage rights would be based on the shared location. In the DTV
context, the Commission addressed whether cable operators were required
under the Communications Act to carry both the digital and analog
signals of a station (also referred to as ``dual carriage'') during the
DTV transition when television stations were still broadcasting analog
signals. With regard to licensees that were simultaneously broadcasting
analog and digital signals, the Commission declined to establish ``dual
carriage'' rights, deciding that analog signals would have mandatory
carriage rights during the DTV transition and that digital signals
would not. That is, a broadcaster would choose between must carry or
retransmission consent for its analog signal but could only pursue
carriage via retransmission consent for its digital signal.
32. Similarly, under the licensed simulcast approach, we could
conclude that a broadcaster would choose between must carry or
retransmission consent for its ATSC 1.0 signal but could only pursue
carriage via retransmission consent for its ATSC 3.0 signal. By relying
on the ATSC 1.0 signal for establishing mandatory carriage rights, this
approach avoids having to address at this time issues associated with
mandatory carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals. Under this approach, a
broadcaster's mandatory carriage rights would track its relocated ATSC
1.0 simulcast channel. That is, if a broadcaster converts its current
facility to ATSC 3.0 operation and enters a temporary channel sharing
arrangement to simulcast its ATSC 1.0 stream at a new location, then
the broadcaster's ATSC 1.0 carriage rights would be based on the new
shared location. We seek comment on this approach, including its
advantages and disadvantages. We also seek comment on the implications
of mandatory carriage rights following the ATSC 1.0 simulcast to a new
location, especially in situations involving a significant shift in the
ATSC 1.0 coverage area or change in transmitter location or community
of license. Alternatively, could we find that, although a licensed ATSC
1.0 stream is subject to mandatory carriage, carriage rights would be
determined from the location of the originating station, rather than
the location of the host station?
33. ATSC 1.0 Simulcast Carriage Rights Under a Multicast Approach.
We also seek comment on whether, and if so how, we could implement
mandatory carriage rights and obligations for a station's ATSC 1.0
signal under a multicast approach to simulcasting. We note that the
Commission does not require cable operators to carry any more than one
programming stream of a digital television station that multicasts.
Accordingly, we seek comment on the legal basis for requiring mandatory
carriage of a station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream if that stream is
broadcast by a host station as one of its multicast streams. For
purposes of this discussion, take the example of a reciprocal simulcast
arrangement between two stations. That is, if Station A is licensed on
channel 5 and Station B is licensed on channel 9, Station A would
transmit on channel 5 two programming streams in ATSC 1.0 (its own and
Station B's simulcast), while Station B would transmit on channel 9 two
programming streams in ATSC 3.0 (its own and Station A's simulcast).
There appears to be no question that Station A in this example would
retain carriage rights for its ATSC 1.0 signal, however, there is a
question as to whether Station B, which is transmitting in ATSC 3.0 on
its licensed channel, would be entitled to must carry rights for its
ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream, which is being transmitted as a multicast
stream by Station A. This is because the Commission has determined that
only a station's primary stream is entitled to mandatory carriage and
that multicast streams are not entitled to mandatory carriage and
because Station B's ATSC 1.0 stream is not being transmitted on its
licensed channel.
34. We seek comment on whether we could accord carriage rights to
an ATSC 1.0 simulcast that is being transmitted as a multicast stream
of a host station. Is there is a legal basis for shifting the carriage
obligation from the licensed ATSC 3.0 stream to the simulcast ATSC 1.0
stream? The record reflects that MVPDs may not have the technical
capability to receive or retransmit ATSC 3.0 signals for some time
during a potential transition to ATSC 3.0, and that ATSC 3.0 signals
could occupy more bandwidth than ATSC 1.0 signals. Accordingly, as
discussed below, we believe that carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals should be
voluntary and driven by marketplace negotiations between broadcasters
and MVPDs. Can we interpret the statute to require broadcasters to
deliver their signals to MVPDs in a manner that minimizes burdens for
MVPDs? Could we find that a Next Gen TV broadcaster must effectuate the
carriage rights of its ATSC 3.0 signal by delivering an ATSC 1.0 signal
to the MVPD via local simulcasting or some other means? Under this
approach, do we need to define a ``good quality'' digital television
signal at the cable system's principal headend for purposes of
carriage? In order to use the ATSC 1.0 simulcast to effectuate the
carriage rights of its ATSC 3.0 signal, should we require the ATSC 1.0
simulcast and the ATSC 3.0 signal to have identical content?
35. Mandatory Carriage of ATSC 3.0 Signals. We note that
consideration of technical issues regarding cable carriage of the ATSC
3.0 signal is still ongoing at the ATSC Working Group. Given that
[[Page 13291]]
ATSC 3.0 signals would not be accorded mandatory carriage rights under
our proposals, and because of the current uncertainty about how MVPDs
would carry ATSC 3.0 signals as a technical matter, we tentatively
conclude that it is premature to address questions related to the
mandatory carriage of ATSC 3.0 streams at this stage. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion.
36. Required Notice to MVPDs of ATSC 3.0 Deployment/ATSC 1.0
Simulcast. We seek comment on the notice that Next Gen TV broadcasters
that have elected must-carry rights must provide to MVPDs prior to
deploying ATSC 3.0 service and arranging for an ATSC 1.0 simulcast. The
Petition proposes that must-carry broadcasters should give notice to
all MVPDs at least 60 days in advance of simulcasting in ATSC 1.0
format (i.e., relocating ATSC 1.0 streams to another facility). MVPDs
express concern about the adequacy of such notice. We seek comment on
what appropriate notice would be.
37. We seek comment on what the notice to MVPDs should contain. We
note that in the Channel Sharing NPRM, the Commission proposed a number
of notice requirements on stations participating in channel sharing
agreements (CSAs). We proposed that stations participating in CSAs must
provide notice to those MVPDs that: (1) No longer will be required to
carry the station because of the relocation of the station; (2)
currently carry and will continue to be obligated to carry a station
that will change channels; or (3) will become obligated to carry the
station due to a channel sharing relocation. We also proposed that the
notice contain the following information: (1) Date and time of any
channel changes; (2) the channel occupied by the station before and
after implementation of the CSA; (3) modification, if any, to antenna
position, location, or power levels; (4) stream identification
information; and (5) engineering staff contact information. In
addition, we proposed that stations be able to elect whether to provide
notice via a letter notification or provide notice electronically, if
pre-arranged with the relevant MVPD. We seek comment on whether we
should adopt requirements modeled on these proposals in this
proceeding. If not, we seek comment on how the requirements we adopt
should differ and why. We also seek comment on how broadcasters will
deliver their signals to MVPDs that carry the station if the
broadcaster's ATSC 1.0 simulcast does not deliver a good quality signal
to the headend; for example, will they use some alternate means, such
as fiber or microwave?
2. Retransmission Consent Issues
38. Voluntary Carriage of ATSC 3.0 Signals Through Retransmission
Consent. We also seek comment on issues related to the voluntary
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through the retransmission consent
process. The Petitioners contemplate that, at some future time, MVPDs
will want to negotiate for carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals via
retransmission consent so that MVPDs can offer their customers the
improved service and new features associated with ATSC 3.0 service. As
discussed above, MVPDs claim that they are not prepared to carry ATSC
3.0 signals at this time. MVPDs, therefore, express concern that
broadcasters may use the retransmission consent process to compel MVPDs
to upgrade their equipment before they are ready to do so in order to
carry ATSC 3.0 signals. They have expressed concern about the costs
associated with carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals and that, even if ATSC 3.0
carriage is deemed ``voluntary,'' Next Gen broadcasters will use their
``leverage'' to require MVPD ATSC 3.0 carriage (such as by tying ATSC
3.0 carriage to ATSC 1.0 carriage). In response, broadcasters reassert
that MVPDs will not be forced to carry ATSC 3.0 signals. Broadcasters
also argue that larger MVPDs, such as AT&T, do not lack negotiating
power in retransmission consent negotiations and that retransmission
consent agreements for ATSC 3.0 signals should be left to marketplace
negotiations. We seek comment on these MVPD concerns, including whether
and/or how the good faith rules concerning retransmission consent
should and/or could be applied and/or adapted to address them.
39. Small, Rural, and Capacity-Constrained MVPDs. We seek comment
on whether small, rural, and capacity-constrained MVPDs would face
unique circumstances with regard to the voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0
that we should consider in this proceeding. To what extent are these
categories of MVPDs interested in offering ATSC 3.0 services, and what
challenges would they face in doing so? In particular, to what extent,
if any, could the retransmission consent process be used by
broadcasters to compel MVPDs, particularly smaller MVPDs, to carry an
ATSC 3.0 stream as a condition for obtaining carriage of a 1.0 feed?
How, if at all, should the Commission's rules address situations in
which a small or rural MVPD that receives a broadcast station over-the-
air before deployment of ATSC 3.0 service can no longer do so during or
after the deployment of ATSC 3.0 service? Will the higher-resolution
carriage requirements of ATSC 3.0 come at the expense of channel
placement for independent programmers?
40. We also seek comment on what other issues we may need to
resolve with regard to the potential carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals given
that MVPDs and broadcasters may negotiate such carriage privately via
retransmission consent. For example, we seek comment on whether it is
appropriate for us to address concerns ATVA has raised about patent
royalties that may be associated with ATSC 3.0 service. What equipment
would be necessary for an MVPD to carry an ATSC 3.0 stream on a
voluntary basis, and should we take those equipment needs into
consideration in this proceeding?
41. Alternatively, should we consider prohibiting MVPD carriage of
ATSC 3.0 signals through retransmission consent negotiations until the
ATSC Specialist Group on Conversion and Redistribution of ATSC 3.0
Service produces its initial report, which is expected later this year?
What would be the benefits and detriments of such an approach? What
would be the legal basis for such a restriction? Would such a
prohibition be consistent with section 325(b), 47 U.S.C. 325(b),
including the reciprocal good faith bargaining requirements, the First
Amendment rights of MVPDs and broadcasters, and section 624(f), 47
U.S.C. 544(f)?
D. Service and Interference Protection
42. The proposed authorization of the ATSC 3.0 transmission
standard raises three potential interference issues that we address in
this section. First, we consider the issue of interference that ATSC
3.0 signals may cause to ATSC 1.0 (DTV) signals. Second, we consider
the issue of interference that DTV or other ATSC 3.0 signals may cause
to ATSC 3.0 signals. Next, we consider the issue of interference that
ATSC 3.0 signals may cause to non-television services that operate
within or adjacent to the TV band. As set forth below, with respect to
all of these issues we propose to treat ATSC 3.0 signals as though they
were DTV signals with identical technical parameters, largely
consistent with the Petitioners' request. We seek comment on whether we
should modify any technical parameters based on physical differences
between the ways that broadcasters would deliver DTV and ATSC 3.0
signals. Finally, we propose to amend the Post-Transition DTV Station
Interference Protection rule to allow updated population inputs in
processing applications, consistent with the Commission's decision to
use such inputs in the incentive auction and repacking process.
[[Page 13292]]
1. Interference Protection of ATSC 1.0 (DTV) Signals
43. The Petitioners submitted a study that includes laboratory
measurements of ATSC 1.0 (DTV) and ATSC 3.0 interference signals into
six DTV receivers. They claim that the study demonstrates the
similarity between the two standards in terms of potential interference
to DTV. The Petitioners state that the RF emission mask and effective
radiated power limits for the ATSC 3.0 signal should remain unchanged
and proposed that no changes be made to the OET Bulletin No. 69
planning factors which define service and interference to a DTV signal.
Therefore, for purposes of determining whether an ATSC 3.0 signal
interferes with any DTV signals, the Petitioners propose to calculate
potential ATSC 3.0 interference to DTV signals using the same
methodology and planning factors that the Commission presently uses for
calculating potential DTV interference to other DTV signals, which are
specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 in our rules.
44. We propose to apply the methodology and planning factors
specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 to calculate interference from ATSC
3.0 to DTV signals. We seek comment on whether DTV operations would be
sufficiently protected by the OET Bulletin No. 69 methodology and
planning factors. Accordingly, we request specific comment and test
measurement results that accurately reflect DTV receiver performance in
the presence of an interfering ATSC 3.0 signal, either to support or
refute the Petitioners' measurements and claims that these two
standards may be considered equally in terms of the potential
interference to DTV. Given the studies that we have before us, we
tentatively conclude that it is appropriate to propose to calculate
interference from ATSC 3.0 signals to DTV in accordance with sections
73.622, 73.623 and 74.703 of the Commission's rules and as implemented
by OET Bulletin No. 69. We seek comment on this proposal.
2. Service and Interference Protection of ATSC 3.0 Signals
45. With respect to protection that ATSC 3.0 signals should receive
from other signals, we propose to rely on OET Bulletin No. 69 as well,
as Petitioners request. As discussed below, we propose to use the same
methodology and planning factors defined for DTV to define the service
area of an ATSC 3.0 signal. We also propose to define the ATSC 3.0
interference criteria for co- and adjacent channel interfering signals
at the same levels as specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 for DTV signals.
We seek comment below on how the Commission should consider
implementing these service and interference protections for ATSC 3.0
signals.
46. The DTV transmission standard has fixed transmission and error
correction parameters and a single associated minimum signal strength
threshold (or SNR threshold) for service. The minimum SNR threshold is
used as a basis for determining where a DTV broadcast television
station's signal can be received. Whether a DTV broadcast television
station is considered to have service and receive protection from
interference is determined in part by this threshold. The minimum
expected signal level for an ATSC 3.0 signal is much more dynamic. The
ATSC 3.0 standard enables broadcasters to choose from multiple
modulation and error correction parameters, which have the effect of
allowing them to adjust their data rates and corresponding minimum SNR
thresholds. Further, ATSC 3.0 enables broadcasters to transmit multiple
streams with different parameters simultaneously. This means that, as a
practical matter, the actual area where the signal of a television
station broadcasting an ATSC 3.0 signal can be received may not
necessarily match up to the same area defined by the single minimum SNR
threshold of DTV. The signal-to-noise-ratio threshold for the ATSC 3.0
transmission standard will be variable and station-specific, enabling
tradeoffs depending on each station's offerings and quality of service
goals. In consideration of the dynamic nature of ATSC 3.0 transmission
standard, our proposals seek to maintain the status quo with regard to
interference protection and provide certainty with regard to
calculating the coverage areas of ATSC 3.0 stations.
47. Preservation of Service. Because ATSC 3.0 signals contain
multiple video streams each requiring a SNR threshold, we propose to
require Next Gen TV broadcasters to provide at least one free stream
comparable to a DTV signal to ensure viewers within the ``DTV-
equivalent'' service area continue to receive programming service at
the current DTV protection levels. The ATSC 3.0 transmission standard
may enable Next Gen TV broadcasters to provide a programming service of
a quality similar to DTV service at an SNR threshold lower than the
level specified in OET Bulletin No. 69 for DTV service. We seek comment
on how to objectively determine if a Next Gen TV programming stream is
similar in quality to DTV. Thus a station should provide at least one
ATSC 3.0 video stream that requires a SNR threshold equal or less than
that needed for coverage at a level specified in OET Bulletin No. 69
for DTV service, where a lower SNR threshold indicates a possibly more
robust transmission. In other words, a station providing a mobile video
stream requiring a minimum SNR less than specified in OET Bulletin No.
69 would satisfy this requirement. We envision this to be a benefit to
broadcasters who elect to offer mobile streams while avoiding potential
redundancies in their overall data stream, by not penalizing those
stations wishing to deploy mobile service without requiring provision
of two identical program streams for both mobile and household
reception in the same areas. We seek comment on this proposal and how
to define which types of Next Gen TV signals could be considered
comparable to DTV signals. Requiring one comparable free video stream
will afford broadcasters the flexibility to devote remaining resources
to enhanced services such as UHD without affecting their underlying
coverage calculations, as requested by the Petitioners, while ensuring
that all viewers predicted to receive Next Gen TV signals will have at
least one free video stream available to them. We seek comment on what
rules changes, if any, would be necessary to implement this proposal.
48. Next Gen TV Service Area. Considering the approach to broadly
treat DTV and Next Gen TV interference equally, the Commission's
convention would be first to define the area subject to calculation,
which is the noise-limited contour of the station. Within this contour,
the station's service area is determined considering terrain, existing
interference, and population distribution above a minimum field
strength threshold that is derived from the planning factors given in
OET Bulletin No. 69. We propose to define a ``DTV-equivalent'' service
area for a station transmitting in ATSC 3.0 using the methodology and
planning factors defined for ATSC 1.0 in OET Bulletin No. 69. This
means that for a UHF Next Gen TV station, the ``DTV-equivalent''
service area would be defined at 41 dB[mu]V/m plus a dipole adjustment
factor. We seek comment on the use of a single service threshold to
define this ``DTV-equivalent'' service area. Should the definition of a
``DTV-equivalent'' service area specify both a minimum field strength
and data rate or is the specification of a minimum field
[[Page 13293]]
strength sufficient to ensure an acceptable data rate?
49. To the extent that commenters propose alternative definitions
of service area for stations transmitting in ATSC 3.0 signals, we
specifically solicit technical justification of why the definition
should differ from that of the existing ATSC 1.0 service and OET
Bulletin No. 69. Manhattan Digital notes the lack of real world testing
of coverage comparisons between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 and questions
whether the Commission would grant sufficient power increases to
restore lost coverage. GatesAir and other equipment manufacturers
submitted ATSC 3.0 field test results that showed equivalent coverage
area thresholds as ATSC 1.0 when an ATSC 3.0 receiver was stationary
and using comparable reception equipment.
50. Additionally, the service threshold set by OET Bulletin No. 69
is based on several planning factors that may not be applicable to
newer Next Gen TV receivers and deployment characteristics. We seek
comment on whether OET Bulletin No. 69 planning factors should be
updated or supplemented as they pertain to Next Gen TV to reflect
current broadcast reception equipment and conditions, particularly
given the Petitioners' stated additional use cases of mobile and indoor
reception. Generally, we seek comment on appropriate values for OET
Bulletin No. 69 planning factors for Next Gen TV.
51. Interference Protection. We propose to define a protection
threshold for Next Gen TV that would provide an equivalent level of
protection as a DTV signal. Under this approach, an ATSC 3.0 signal
would be protected as defined in OET Bulletin No. 69. As a practical
matter, co-channel interference for DTV is presently a nonlinear
function designed to approximate the performance of test receivers when
the ATSC 1.0 standard was under development. We seek comment on whether
this same nonlinearity would apply to Next Gen TV receivers in the
presence of co-channel interference. Additionally, we acknowledge that
Next Gen TV may have multiple video streams, some of which may not be
sufficiently protected from interference at a single threshold which
was designed specifically to protect DTV signals. Next Gen TV
broadcasters that choose to offer higher capacity, i.e. less robust,
programming within their ``DTV-equivalent'' coverage areas may not be
protected from interference at this threshold. Next Gen TV broadcasters
may also choose to offer lower capacity, i.e. more robust, programming
that permits signal to noise ratio thresholds below the DTV threshold.
This could effectively expand their consumer base beyond the current
``DTV-equivalent'' service area or provide coverage to areas that were
previously unserved due to terrain-limited propagation conditions
within the contour. Should these areas be given interference
protection? We seek comment on this approach and alternative threshold
protection approaches that could be better suited to ATSC 3.0.
52. Should ATSC 3.0 signals only be protected in areas where their
signal strength reaches a single ``DTV-equivalent'' minimum level or
should protections be provided for such signals within their ``DTV-
equivalent'' service contour that fall below the single service
threshold but offer a more robust service? Should interference
protections be provided for Next Gen TV signals within the ``DTV-
equivalent'' service contour which require alternative adjacent channel
D/U ratios for interference protection? Have there been advancements in
receiver performance that would warrant the Commission to consider
alternative the adjacent channel D/U ratios for ATSC 3.0 receivers?
Noting the ATSC A/73 standard for DTV receivers, should the Commission
adopt a 33 dB, or some higher or lower threshold for adjacent channel
interference, or is the existing 26 to 28 dB threshold for DTV
(depending on whether upper- or lower-adjacent) prescribed in our rules
more appropriate? If interference protection is to be afforded to Next
Gen TV profiles other than the ``DTV-equivalent'' service, what should
those interference protection levels be?
3. Interference Protection Affecting Other Services
53. The last interference issues that we must consider concern
those related to interference between ATSC 3.0 transmissions and other
services, such as non-broadcast services, that operate within or
adjacent to the TV band. We seek comment on whether and how we should
address the impact ATSC 3.0 signals could have on these other services
and how these services could impact ATSC 3.0 signals.
54. Other Services that Operate in the TV Band. We seek comment on
whether, in authorizing the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard, there would
be any interference-related issues that arise with respect to services
and operations in the TV Band other than full-power, Class A, LPTV and
TV translator television stations. If so, what services are impacted
and how should the Commission address such interference? To what extent
would authorization of the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard raise
interference concerns regarding Part 22 or Part 90 services? Would ATSC
3.0 transmissions cause any additional interference to these services,
or alternatively should ATSC 3.0 transmissions receive any protections
in addition to those afforded today to DTV? Under our existing rules,
low-power auxiliary station (LPAS) devices and unlicensed wireless
microphones must protect broadcasting operations (i.e., those that
transmit using ATSC 1.0), and are by rule limited to operations at
locations at least 4 kilometers outside the protected contours of co-
channel TV stations. Licensed wireless microphone operations are also
permitted closer to TV stations, including inside the TV contours, if
certain specified conditions are met. In addition, white-space devices
are required to protect DTV operations by operating outside of DTV
contours as specified in the rules. Are any clarifications or
modifications to these rules required if we authorize the ATSC 3.0
transmission standard?
55. Other Services that Operate in the Adjacent Bands--the 600 MHz
Band and Channel 37. CTIA expressed concern that the Petition's
discussion of the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard contained no
consideration of the potential interference impact that this new
technology could have on wireless operations in the 600 MHz band. CTIA
states that the development and enforcement of carefully drawn
technical rules is necessary to prevent interference to 600 MHz band
operations, and that the inter-service interference (ISIX) rules
adopted by the Commission, which were based entirely on the technical
characteristics of DTV signals, were developed to minimize interference
between TV broadcasting and 600 MHz band operations. The Petitioners
respond that it is not possible to test for this interference because
the wireless industry has not revealed ``what technology wireless
carriers will actually deploy in the 600 MHz band,'' and argue that
there is ``no technical reason to believe that ATSC 3.0 creates a
higher risk of potential inter-service interference'' than ATSC 1.0.
56. The ISIX rules referenced by CTIA were developed for the
broadcast incentive auction in the event that some UHF broadcasters
would remain in the re-purposed 600 MHz Band creating impairments for
the new wireless licensees. At this point in the broadcast incentive
auction, there are no impairments to 600 MHz Band wireless licenses
that are projected to exist after
[[Page 13294]]
the post-auction transition period. Therefore, we tentatively conclude
there is no need for rules to consider potential interference between
Next Gen TV transmissions and the 600 MHz Band service. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion. Alternatively, are more studies needed to
fully address any potential interference concerns? If we require
broadcasters to ``provide interested parties with a clear understanding
of how the change to ATSC 3.0 will impact the interference environment
in the 600 MHz band'' as CTIA requests, what information would be
necessary and sufficient to address any potential concerns?
57. We also seek comment on whether there are any potential
interference concerns that adoption of ATSC 3.0 transmission standard
may raise with respect to either RAS or WMTS operations in Channel 37.
Finally, we seek comment on whether any of these issues related to
interference to services that operate in adjacent bands would require
us to clarify how interference issues between ATSC 3.0 transmissions
and these other services would be addressed.
4. Station Interference Protection Population Inputs
58. We propose to update the Commission's rules regarding
acceptable levels of interference resulting from a broadcaster's
application for new or modified facilities. Specifically, we propose
that, for purposes of evaluating such applications, the Media Bureau
should use the latest official U.S. Census statistics, as these
population statistics become available and when the Commission is able
to incorporate them into the Commission's licensing processing systems.
The Commission's rules currently require that in evaluating a
broadcaster's application for new or modified facilities, the degree of
permissible interference to populations served is to be predicted based
on the 2000 census population data. For purposes of the incentive
auction and repacking process, however, the Commission established
updated inputs for purposes of evaluating interference, including use
of the 2010 census population data. We now propose to further update
our rules in a manner that is consistent with this approach by
permitting the Media Bureau to use the most recent U.S. Census
statistics. We propose that the Media Bureau will announce when updated
census statistics have been incorporated into our licensing systems and
the date upon which such updated inputs will be applied at least 60
days before they are used for application processing purposes. We
further propose that the Commission use 2010 census population data
after the repacking process for all application compliance evaluations
until the Media Bureau announces the date that it will begin using
census population data for a different year. Thus, even after the
repacking process is complete, any broadcast television service or
interference calculations would be based on 2010 U.S. Census
statistics, until after 2020, when the next U.S. Census statistics
become available and the Media Bureau announces the date of application
of such data. We believe that this process and the use of the most
current population data incorporated into the Commission's systems will
provide more accurate predictions of populations served and benefit the
public interest. We seek comment on this proposal.
E. Single Frequency Networks (SFN) and Distributed Transmission Systems
(DTS)
59. We propose to authorize broadcast television stations to
operate ATSC 3.0 Single Frequency Networks (SFN) under our existing
Distributed Transmission Systems (DTS) rules with one amendment noted
below. While a traditional broadcaster has a single transmission site,
and any fill-in service is provided using a separately licensed
secondary transmission site that likely uses a different RF channel, a
broadcaster using DTS provides television service to its area by two or
more transmission sites using an identical signal on the same RF
channel, synchronized to manage self-interference. The rules
established by the DTS Report and Order describe the authorized service
area, maximum service area, station reference point, coverage
determination, protection from interference and application
requirements for DTS stations.
60. Multiple commenters claim that broadcasters that deploy ATSC
3.0 service will have the ability to efficiently form a SFN, which for
the purposes of broadcast television is a term that is synonymous with
DTS. Like the DTS network described above, an ATSC 3.0 SFN would
provide television service by using two or more transmission sites,
using an identical signal on the same RF channel, synchronized to
manage self-interference. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the
rules established to authorize a DTS station generally are adequate to
authorize an ATSC 3.0 SFN station, and as such an ATSC 3.0 SFN should
be considered a DTS station for the purposes of our rules. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
61. We also tentatively conclude that it is not necessary to adopt
a specific synchronization standard in order to authorize an ATSC 3.0
SFN. In the DTS Report and Order, the Commission found that it was not
necessary for a station to use a specific synchronization system as
long as (1) the synchronization used by a station was effective in
minimizing interference within the system, (2) otherwise provided
service to the population within the station's service area consistent
with FCC rules, and (3) complied with the ATSC standard adopted by the
FCC. It further noted that this approach avoided implication of any
specific intellectual property held by companies participating in the
proceeding. Thus, although ATSC had developed the A/110 ``ATSC Standard
for Transmitter Synchronization,'' the Commission determined that it
was not necessary to adopt this as the synchronization standard for
DTS, and as a result, DTS stations have flexibility with regard to
transmitter synchronization. In this proceeding, one commenter, LG
Electronics, notes that the standard that would enable an ATSC 3.0 SFN
is ATSC A/322:2016 ``Physical Layer Protocol.'' LG claims that A/322
should be incorporated by reference into the rules along with A/321 to
ensure that SFN is authorized. We seek comment above on whether A/322
should be incorporated into our rules. Consistent with our finding in
the DTS proceeding, we tentatively conclude that as long as the
synchronization used to implement an SFN/DTS minimizes interference
within the network and provides adequate service, then there is no need
to require a specific synchronization standard. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
62. We propose to amend our existing DTS rules to specify that,
with regard to ATSC 3.0 transmissions, not only must each transmitter
comply with the ATSC 3.0 standard ultimately adopted by the FCC, but
all transmitters under a single license must follow the same standard.
We tentatively find that a DTS implementation that mixes ATSC 3.0 and
ATSC 1.0 would not meet the requirement to be ``synchronized'' as
specified in section 73.626(a) of the Commission's rules, as it would
not minimize interference within the system. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.
[[Page 13295]]
F. ATSC 3.0 Transmissions as ``Television Broadcasting''
1. Definition of Television Broadcasting
63. We propose that television stations transmitting both an ATSC
1.0 and an ATSC 3.0 signal are ``television stations'' engaged in
``broadcasting'' as those terms are defined in the Communications Act.
Although we do not propose to authorize broadcasters to transmit solely
in ATSC 3.0 at this time, we also tentatively conclude that stations
transmitting only an ATSC 3.0 signal would be ``television stations''
engaged in ``broadcasting'' under the Act.
64. The Petitioners request that the Commission ``specify that Next
Generation TV transmission is `television broadcasting' in parity with
the current DTV standard.'' The Act imposes certain obligations and
restrictions on stations engaged in ``broadcasting,'' including the
restriction on foreign ownership and the requirements that they provide
``reasonable access'' to candidates for federal elective office and
afford ``equal opportunities'' to candidates for any public office.
Television broadcasters must also make certain disclosures in
connection with advertisements that discuss a ``political matter of
national importance'' and must disclose the identity of program
sponsors. In addition, among other requirements, television
broadcasters must air educational programming for children, limit the
amount of commercial material they include in programming directed to
children, restrict the airing of indecent programming, and comply with
provisions relating to the rating of video programming. The Commission
has determined that the definition of ``broadcasting'' in the Act
applies to services intended to be received by an indiscriminate public
and has identified three indicia of a lack of such intent: (1) The
service is not receivable on conventional television sets and requires
a licensee or programmer-provided special antennae and/or signal
converter so the signal can be received in the home; (2) the
programming is encrypted; and (3) the provider and the viewer are
engaged in a private contractual relationship.
65. Based on the description of ATSC 3.0 transmissions in the
Petition and in the record, and because we propose to require ATSC 3.0
stations to provide a free, over-the-air service, it appears that ATSC
3.0 transmissions would be intended to be received by all members of
the public and therefore would meet the definition of ``broadcasting.''
Accordingly, as noted above, we tentatively conclude that Next Gen TV
stations are ``television stations'' engaged in ``broadcasting'' as
those terms are defined by the Act. No commenters in response to the
Petition take a different position. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion and any alternative views. Is there any basis for
determining that ATSC 3.0 transmissions are not ``broadcasting''? What
would the implications be of such a determination in terms of
regulatory obligations and Commission oversight?
2. Public Interest Obligations
66. Assuming we adopt our tentative conclusion that Next Gen TV
stations are engaged in ``broadcasting'' under the Act, they--like all
broadcast television licensees--would be public trustees with a
responsibility to serve the ``public interest, convenience, and
necessity.''
67. We propose to apply all of our broadcast rules to Next Gen TV
stations including, but not limited to, our rules regarding foreign
ownership, political broadcasting, children's programming, equal
employment opportunities, public inspection file, main studio,
indecency, sponsorship identification, contest rules, CALM Act, the
EAS, closed captioning, and video description. Are there any public
interest or programming rules that should not apply? Are there any
changes to these rules that should be made to accommodate any ATSC 3.0-
based services? To what extent will the additional capacity offered
through the ATSC 3.0 standard provide opportunities for more diverse
programming? While the Petition does not address broadcaster public
interest obligations in detail, it states that ``[n]o changes are
necessary in the Commission's programming-related policies and rules,
as those requirements will attach to television licensees regardless of
the authorized standard they use to transmit programming to their
communities of license.'' The Petition further states that licensees
implementing ATSC 3.0 technology will ``remain simply television
broadcasters subject to the Commission's existing regulatory
structure.'' We request comment generally on this view.
68. Although we decline to initiate a general reexamination of
broadcaster public interest obligations at this time, we seek comment
on specific consumer issues related to the enhanced capabilities that
may be available through the use of ATSC 3.0 transmissions. The
Petition claims that the advent of ATSC 3.0 (including the entire suite
of ATSC 3.0-related standards and IP-based services that operate on top
of the transmission standard) will enable improvements to certain
services, including EAS, closed captioning, and video description, but
that no changes to the relevant rules are needed to conform them to an
environment in which television licensees will transmit in either the
ATSC 1.0 or the ATSC 3.0 standard. With respect to EAS, Petitioners
argue that ATSC 3.0 will offer significantly enhanced emergency alert
capabilities, including the abilities to alert consumers of an
emergency even when the receiver is powered off, tailor information for
specific geographic areas, and provide enhanced datacasting to serve
law enforcement, first responder, and emergency management
organizations more efficiently. With respect to closed captioning,
Petitioners state that the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard offers a
different format for caption data from that used by DTV and that the
Commission's rules already anticipate this technology and provide that
data in this format is compliant. Finally, Petitioners state that the
ATSC 3.0 standard has functionality for video description and
additional language support, and can implement these requirements in
compliance with the FCC's rules. We invite comment generally on these
asserted benefits. We also seek input on the public interest issues
discussed above and any others that may result from enhancements or
other changes to television broadcasting that may result from the use
of Next Gen TV transmissions.
69. Finally, we invite comment on which features of ATSC 3.0-based
services will be provided over-the-air to consumers for free and what
additional services or features will require a fee. Should broadcasters
who choose to use their ATSC 3.0 transmission for a higher format, such
as 4K resolution, be required to offer it over-the-air to consumers for
free? What features of ATSC 3.0 service will be available only to those
with an Internet connection? Which such services or features will be
``ancillary services'' within the meaning of our rules? If the majority
of an ATSC 3.0 station's spectrum/bandwidth is devoted to paid
services, are those services ``ancillary'' under our rules? Are there
any services that Next Gen TV broadcasters might offer that would not
be ancillary or supplementary services that serve the public interest?
What is the potential regulatory significance of an ATSC 3.0-based
service that is provided for free versus one that is not?
[[Page 13296]]
G. Transition and Consumer Issues
1. Next Gen TV Tuner Mandate
70. Television receivers manufactured today are not capable of
receiving ATSC 3.0 signals. Pursuant to our current rules, however, if
a broadcaster were to begin transmitting ATSC 3.0 signals, television
receivers would need to include ATSC 3.0 tuners. Specifically, section
15.117(b), the rule implementing the Commission's authority under the
1962 All Channel Receiver Act, states that ``TV broadcast receivers
shall be capable of adequately receiving all channels allocated by the
Commission to the television broadcast service.'' We tentatively
conclude that a Next Gen TV tuner mandate is not necessary at this time
because a potential transition would be voluntary and market-driven,
and under our proposal current-generation ATSC 1.0 broadcasting would
continue indefinitely. Accordingly, we propose to revise section
15.117(b) to make clear that this rule does not apply to ATSC 3.0. We
seek comment on this proposal.
71. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should require
that new television receivers manufactured after a certain date include
the capability to receive ATSC 3.0 signals and if so, when such a
requirement should take effect. As a further alternative, we note that
it may be possible to upgrade most, if not all, receivers currently
being manufactured to allow them to receive ATSC 3.0 signals, but such
upgrades would require over-the-air viewers to purchase additional
equipment, such as a dongle or other equipment (e.g., a set-top box or
gateway device) that can be attached to the receiver's HDMI port,
assuming that receiver has an HDMI port. What percentage, if any, of TV
receivers manufactured today do not have an HDMI port and therefore are
not easily upgradeable to receive ATSC 3.0 transmissions? To account
for receivers that do not have HDMI ports, should we require that all
TV receivers sold after a specified date have an HDMI port to permit
attachment of an external tuner dongle or other equipment (e.g., a set-
top box or gateway device) that can receive signals from an OTA
antenna? We tentatively conclude that such a requirement is not
necessary at this time. The Petitioners assert that ``a market-driven
approach will ensure that both broadcasters and receiver manufacturers
adopt the new transmission standard in response to consumer demand.''
We seek comment on whether such a market-based approach will ensure
that television receivers capable of receiving ATSC 3.0 signals are
available to consumers. What would the costs be for manufacturers to
ensure that all television receivers are easily upgradable to receive
ATSC 3.0 transmissions, and how quickly could they do so?
2. On-Air Notice to Consumers About Deployment of ATSC 3.0 Service and
ATSC 1.0 Simulcasting
72. We seek comment on whether broadcasters should be required to
provide on-air notifications to educate consumers about their
deployment of Next Gen TV service and simulcasting of ATSC 1.0 service.
We seek comment on whether such a requirement could be useful for
broadcasters to inform consumers that the stations they view will be
changing channels, to encourage consumers to rescan their receivers for
new channel assignments, and to educate them on steps they should take
to resolve any potential reception issues. The Commission imposed
viewer notification requirements during the DTV transition as well as
in connection with the incentive auction. Should they be imposed in
connection with the use of ATSC 3.0 transmissions? Does the Commission
have legal authority to require such on-air notices in this context?
73. If we were to require broadcasters to notify consumers during a
potential transition to ATSC 3.0, we invite comment on the requirements
we should impose regarding these notifications. How far in advance
should we require broadcasters to notify viewers before broadcasters
shift their ATSC 1.0 signal to another station's broadcast channel?
What form should this notice take--PSAs, crawls, or a combination of
both? What information should stations be required to include in the
notification?
74. We also seek comment on whether Commission outreach is
necessary to those communities affected by a potential transition to
ATSC 3.0. Should the FCC's existing call center provide consumer
assistance over the phone on matters such as ``rescanning'' or to help
resolve other reception issues? What guidance should the Commission
provide through its Web site (www.fcc.gov)? Should the Commission staff
prepare maps that would be available online to inform consumers about
what station signals are affected by a potential transition to Next Gen
TV signals, as it did for the digital transition? We seek comment also
on other potential types of Commission outreach and the appropriate
timing of such efforts.
3. Interplay With Post-Incentive Auction Transition/Repack
75. The Commission has stated that, following the completion of the
incentive auction, it will establish a 39-month transition period
(``post-auction transition period'') during which time all full power
and Class A television stations that are changing frequencies as a
result of the auction must cease operations in those portions of the
current broadcast UHF television bands that are being repurposed to
wireless use. The Media Bureau will establish a set of construction
deadlines for stations that will relocate as a result of the auction,
some of which will be given 36 months to complete construction and some
of which will have shorter deadlines. The Commission previously
determined that all stations must cease operating on their pre-auction
channels at the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period
regardless of whether they have completed construction of the
facilities for their post-auction channel. We seek comment on the
extent to which the repacking of stations after the incentive auction
presents an opportunity for repacked stations that want to upgrade to
ATSC 3.0. What steps should the Commission take to facilitate ATSC 3.0
deployment consistent with the repack and ensure consumers retain the
television service they expect while more quickly enjoying the benefits
of Next-Generation Television?
76. We also invite comment on how to ensure that the deployment of
ATSC 3.0 does not negatively affect the post-incentive auction
transition process. What steps should the broadcast industry take to
address this issue?
77. CTIA asks that we clarify that ATSC 3.0 equipment is not
eligible for reimbursement from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund
(Reimbursement Fund). All requests for reimbursement from the
Reimbursement Fund, including those for ATSC 3.0 capable equipment,
will be evaluated consistent with the standards set forth in the
Incentive Auction Report and Order. In that order, the Commission
recognized that replacement equipment eligible for reimbursement from
the Reimbursement Fund ``necessarily may include improved
functionality,'' but stated ``[w]e do not . . . anticipate providing
reimbursement for new, optional features in equipment unless the
station or MVPD documents that the feature is already present in the
equipment that is being replaced. Eligible stations and MVPDs may elect
to purchase optional equipment capability or make other upgrades at
their own cost, but only the
[[Page 13297]]
cost of the equipment without optional upgrades is a reimbursable
expense.''
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
78. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (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 the 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 on the first page 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
79. In the NPRM, we propose to authorize television broadcasters to
use the ``Next Generation'' broadcast television (Next Gen TV)
transmission standard associated with recent work of the Advanced
Television Systems Committee (ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary, market-driven
basis, while they continue to deliver current-generation digital
television (DTV) broadcast service, using the ``ATSC 1.0 standard,'' to
their viewers. ATSC 3.0 is being developed by broadcasters with the
intent of merging the capabilities of over-the-air broadcasting with
the broadband viewing and information delivery methods of the Internet,
using the same 6 MHz channels presently allocated for DTV. According to
a coalition of broadcast and consumer electronics industry
representatives that has petitioned the Commission to authorize the use
of ATSC 3.0, this new standard has the potential to greatly improve
broadcast signal reception, particularly on mobile devices and
television receivers without outdoor antennas, and it will enable
broadcasters to offer enhanced and innovative new features to
consumers, including Ultra High Definition picture and immersive audio,
more localized programming content, an advanced emergency alert system
capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent
emergencies, better accessibility options, and interactive services.
With today's action, we aim to facilitate private sector innovation and
promote American leadership in the global broadcast industry.
80. In this proceeding, we seek to adopt rules that will afford
broadcasters flexibility to deploy ATSC 3.0-based transmissions, while
minimizing the impact on, and costs to, consumers and other industry
stakeholders. Among other matters, we seek public input on the
following issues and proposals:
Voluntary Use. We propose to authorize voluntary use of
ATSC 3.0 transmissions and to incorporate by reference the relevant
portions of the ATSC 3.0 standard into our rules. We seek comment on
which components of the standard should be incorporated into our rules.
Local Simulcasting. We propose to require ``local
simulcasting'' for stations that choose to deploy Next Gen TV
transmissions so that broadcasters will continue to provide their
existing ATSC 1.0-based services to their viewers. We seek comment on a
number of issues relating to the implementation of local simulcasting.
MVPD Carriage. We propose that multichannel video
programming distributors (MVPDs) be required to continue carrying
broadcasters' ATSC 1.0 signals, but not be required to carry ATSC 3.0
signals during the period when broadcasters are voluntarily
implementing ATSC 3.0 service. We also seek comment on issues related
to the voluntary carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through the
retransmission consent process.
Service and Interference Protection. We seek comment on
whether Next Gen TV transmissions will raise any interference concerns
for existing DTV operations or for any other services or devices that
operate in the TV bands or in adjacent bands. We propose to calculate
Next Gen TV interference to DTV signals using the methodology and
planning factors specified in OET Bulletin 69 (OET-69). We also propose
to define a ``DTV-equivalent'' service area for the Next Gen TV signal
using the methodology and planning factors defined for DTV in OET-69
and to define a protection threshold for Next Gen TV signals that would
be as robust as an equivalent DTV signal. Moreover, we seek comment on
what, if any, additional interference protections are necessary with
respect to other services and devices that operate in the TV bands or
adjacent bands.
Public Interest Obligations and Consumer Protection. We
propose that television stations transmitting signals in ATSC 3.0 be
subject to the public interest obligations currently applicable to
television broadcasters. In addition, we seek comment on our tentative
conclusion that it is unnecessary at this time to adopt an ATSC 3.0
tuner mandate for new television receivers. We seek comment on whether
broadcasters should be required to provide on-air notifications to
educate consumers about Next Gen TV service deployment and ATSC 1.0
simulcasting and on how to ensure that deployment of Next Gen TV-based
transmissions will not negatively impact the post-incentive auction
transition process.
C. Legal Basis
81. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4,
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534,
and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403,
534, and 535.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
82. 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. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
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. Below, we
provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of
the number of such small entities, where feasible.
83. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``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 communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
[[Page 13298]]
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
84. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has 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.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems
are small entities.
85. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act 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.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 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. Based
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators
are small entities under this size standard. 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. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
86. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic
census category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry. The SBA determines that a wireline business is small if
it has fewer than 1,500 employees. Census data for 2012 indicate that
3,117 wireline firms were operational during that year. Of that number,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on that data, we
conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small under the
applicable standard. However, based on more recent data developed
internally by the FCC, currently only two entities provide DBS service,
which requires a great deal of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH
Network. Accordingly, we must conclude that internally developed FCC
data are persuasive that in general DBS service is provided only by
large firms.
87. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for
small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all
such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012
shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
88. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
89. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small
business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of
all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for
2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers
are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or
local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or
employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide
OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least
some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
[[Page 13299]]
90. Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video
programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction,
the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity
that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition
of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized
prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small
business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In
addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there
are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small
entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees
to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that
there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in
the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits:
(i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years
(small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid;
(ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed
$3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years
(very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning
bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.
Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the 10
winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won
four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won
three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won
six licenses.
91. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small. In addition to Census data, the
Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there
are 2,241 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these
2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as
small businesses.
92. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) and Small Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. ILECs and small ILECs are included in the
SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
93. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically for these service providers.
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category,
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that
year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry
can be considered small.
94. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for
this industry of 750 employees or less. Census data for 2012 show that
841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that
number, 819 establishments operated with less than 500 employees. Based
on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this
industry are small.
95. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic
audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and
public address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of
products made by these establishments are video cassette recorders,
televisions, stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video
cameras, jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public
address systems. The SBA has established a size standard for this
industry, in which all firms with 750 employees or less are small.
According to U.S. Census data for 2012, 466 audio and video equipment
manufacturers were operational in that year. Of that number, 465
operated with fewer than 500 employees. Based on this Census data and
the associated size standard, we conclude that the majority of such
manufacturers are small.
96. 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.'' 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
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA
has created the following small business size standard for Television
Broadcasting firms: those having $38.5
[[Page 13300]]
million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 economic Census reports
that 751 television broadcasting firms operated during that year. Of
that number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25 million per year.
Based on that Census data we conclude that a majority of firms that
operate television stations are small. We therefore estimate that the
majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.
97. 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. 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.
98. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 395. These
stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.
99. There are also 2,344 LPTV stations, including Class A stations,
and 3689 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services, we
will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under
the above SBA small business size standard.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
100. The NPRM proposes to authorize television broadcasters to use
the Next Gen TV transmission standard associated with ATSC 3.0 on a
voluntary, market-driven basis, while they continue to deliver current-
generation DTV broadcast service, using the ATSC 1.0 standard, to their
viewers. Under the proposal, Next Gen TV broadcasters that have elected
must-carry rights would be required to notify MVPDs prior to
transitioning to ATSC 3.0 and arranging for an ATSC 1.0 simulcast.
MVPDs would be required to continue carrying broadcasters' ATSC 1.0
signals, but would not be required to carry ATSC 3.0 signals, during
the period when broadcasters are voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0
service. Rather, MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals would be determined
through retransmission consent negotiations. With regard to equipment,
the Commission tentatively concludes that it is unnecessary at this
time to adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate for new television receivers.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
101. 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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.''
102. Broadcasters. As stated above, the NPRM proposes that
broadcaster use of Next Gen TV would be voluntary. We note additionally
that the Commission is considering whether small, rural, low-power, and
NCE broadcasters would face unique circumstances with regard to the
voluntary provision of ATSC 3.0. In the event that a broadcaster
chooses to use Next Gen TV, the Commission is considering how to handle
issues related to interference that may occur with a voluntary
transition to Next Gen TV. The Commission is considering whether to
require broadcasters that choose to transition to notify MVPDs and
television viewers about the transition via written and on-air notices,
respectively. The Commission is also considering an alternative
approach, under which simulcast arrangements could be implemented
without additional licensing (beyond conversion of the broadcaster's
current facility to operate in ATSC 3.0), whereby some broadcasters
would be licensed to operate only an ATSC 3.0 facility and others would
be licensed to operate only on ATSC 1.0 facility. The NPRM states that
the multicast approach to simulcasting may minimize administrative
burdens and offer more flexibility to the broadcast industry. On the
other hand, it would appear to preclude NCE stations from serving as
hosts to the simulcast programming of commercial stations due to the
restrictions of section 399B.
103. MVPDs. The NPRM considers issues related to the voluntary
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through the retransmission consent
process. As stated in the NPRM, MVPDs have raised numerous questions
about MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals, including the potentially
significant costs and burdens associated with MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0
signals. The NPRM specifically considers the alternative approach of
prohibiting MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through retransmission
consent negotiations until the ATSC Specialist Group on Conversion and
Redistribution of ATSC 3.0 Service produces its initial report, which
would ease any burdens of the carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals on MVPDs.
104. Equipment manufacturers. Finally, with regard to equipment
manufacturers, the Commission is considering whether to require
television receivers manufactured after a certain date to include the
capability to receive ATSC 3.0 signals. In the NPRM, the Commission
reaches the tentative conclusion that it is unnecessary at this time to
adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate for new television receivers. This
approach of instead relying on the market potentially could minimize
any impact of the new rules on equipment manufacturers, including
smaller manufacturers. If the Commission decides not to adopt a Next
Gen TV tuner mandate at this time, the Commission is considering
whether it should revise section 15.117(b) of its rules to make clear
that this rule does not apply to ATSC 3.0.
105. The NPRM seeks comment on the above issues, with the goal of
easing the economic burdens of the new rules and policies on small
entities.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
106. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
107. This NPRM may result in new or revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information
collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission will seek specific comment on how it might ``further reduce
the information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees.''
[[Page 13301]]
I. Ex Parte Rules
108. Permit But Disclose. The proceeding this Notice initiates
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are
permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except
during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or
otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must
contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally
required. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section
1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
J. Filing Procedures
109. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 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 the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy 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.
[ssquf] 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
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] 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.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
110. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
111. Availability of Documents. Comments and reply comments will be
publically available online via ECFS. These documents will also be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at
FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through
Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m.
112. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact John Gabrysch, John.Gabrysch@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Engineering Division, at (202) 418-7152, Sean Mirzadegan,
Sean.Mirzadegan@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Engineering Division, at
(202) 418-7111, Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142, or Matthew Hussey,
Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the Office of Engineering and Technology,
(202) 418-3619.
V. Ordering Clauses
113. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in
sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338,
399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
GN Docket No. 16-142 is adopted.
114. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 15 and 73
Communications equipment, Television.
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 15 and 73 as
follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and
549.
0
2. Section 15.117 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.117 TV broadcast receivers.
* * * * *
(b) TV broadcast receivers shall be capable of adequately receiving
all
[[Page 13302]]
channels allocated by the Commission to the television broadcast
service that broadcast digital signals broadcast using the ATSC 1.0
standard, but need not be capable of receiving analog signals or
signals using the ATSC 3.0 standard.
* * * * *
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.
0
4. Section 73.616 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (e)(1) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.616 Post-transition DTV station interference protection.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) For evaluating compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph, interference to populations served is to be predicted based
on the most recent official decennial U.S. Census population data as
identified by the Media Bureau in a Public Notice issued not less than
60 days prior to use of the data for a specific year in application
processing, and otherwise according to the procedure set forth in OET
Bulletin No. 69: ``Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage
and Interference'' (February 6, 2004) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 73.8000), including population served within service areas
determined in accordance with Sec. 73.622(e), consideration of whether
F(50,10) undesired signals will exceed the following desired-to-
undesired (D/U) signal ratios, assumed use of a directional receiving
antenna, and use of the terrain dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point
propagation model. * * *
* * * * *
(g) The interference protection requirements contained in this
section apply to television station operations under ATSC A/321:2016,
``System Discovery and Signaling'' (March 23, 2016) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 73.8000).
0
4. Section 73.624 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.624 Digital television broadcast stations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) DTV licensees or permittees that transmit a signal as set forth
in A/321:2016, ``System Discovery and Signaling'' (March 23, 2016)
shall transmit at least one free video stream on that signal that
requires at most the signal threshold of a comparable received DTV
signal, and shall simulcast the video programming on that signal on
another local broadcast facility using the current DTV standard.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 73.626 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.626 DTV Distributed Transmission Systems.
* * * * *
(g) All transmitters operating under a single DTS license must
follow the same digital broadcast television transmission standard.
0
6. Section 73.682 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.682 TV transmission standards.
* * * * *
(f) Alternative digital broadcast television transmission standard
authorized.
(1) Next Gen TV service. Effective [DATE], as an alternative to
complying with the requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this
section, transmission of digital broadcast television (DTV) signals may
comply with the standards for such transmissions set forth in ATSC A/
321:2016, ``System Discovery and Signaling'' (March 23, 2016)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 73.8000).
(2) Continuity of service. The licensee of a DTV station operating
pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) shall arrange for another DTV station
operating in compliance with paragraph (d) of this section and
substantially covering such station's community of license to simulcast
such station's primary program stream. Agreements for simulcast under
this paragraph (g) must be filed with the Commission.
0
7. Section 73.8000 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.8000 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) A/321:2016, ``System Discovery and Signaling'' (March 23,
2016), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 73.616 and 73.682.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-04713 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P