Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
June 14, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3519 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF ROY J. STEWART CHIEF, MASS MEDIA BUREAU AND DALE N.
HATFIELD CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
SUBJECT - HEARINGS ON S. 2454; A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934 TO AUTHORIZE LOW-POWER TELEVISION STATIONS TO PROVIDE DIGITAL DATA SERVICES
TO SUBSCRIBERS
BODY:
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
I am accompanied by Dale Hatfield, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and
Technology. We welcome this opportunity to discuss the importance of
broadband deployment in rural areas. There is no question that
this in an important issue that needs to be addressed. At the Commission, we
have made it a top priority.
The Internet and the capability to transmit
large quantities of data at very high speeds are transforming the
telecommunications industry, and providing tremendous benefits to citizens
around the world. We must make sure that the benefits of the communications
revolution are experienced by all Americans. Those communities without access to
broadband will be placed at enormous risk in the next century. Directly or
indirectly, through our information and telecommunications sectors, the Internet
is linked to one-third of our country's real economic growth. But for the
Internet economy to develop to its full potential in our country, there must be
an available, affordable broadband telecommunications infrastructure throughout
the country. To bring everyone into the Information Age, we must make sure that
rural America reaps the benefits of broadband. As Chairman Bums knows from his
participation in our rural field hearings, the Commission has been actively
working with consumers, industry, the states and other parts of the federal
government to ensure and facilitate broadband deployment to
every community. We have embarked upon a series of outreach hearings so that
consumers and small businesses can tell us in their own words about the
broadband challenge. The Commission adopted an order that is already providing
us firm data on the status of infrastructure deployment, so we do not have to
rely on anecdotal or incomplete information when examining the issue. The
Commission has asked a Federal-State Joint Board to review services supported by
universal service, and to help the FCC keep up with the changes in
telecommunications.
The FCC and state regulators are also creating a
national database to store, monitor, and disseminate information on
broadband deployment. This database will be available on the
Internet and is intended to be a clearinghouse for local communities to share
information about their broadband deployment projects. An
interactive survey will allow local governments, private industry and schools to
provide broadband information. The survey will be accessible at www.nrri.ohio-
state.edu/broadbandsurvey.php. The database will be available at
www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/broadbandquery.php. Finally, the Commission is making
spectrum available for wireless broadband and carving out a deregulatory zone
for companies that want to deploy broadband in under-served markets.
While we commend Chairman Bums for attempting to address the issue of
broadband deployment in rural America, we have serious concerns
about the provisions in S.2454 which would require the FCC to protect from
interference low-power television broadcasting stations providing digital data
services. Specifically, we are concerned that, as introduced, the bill does not
adequately protect the rollout of digital television service (DTV). In addition,
the legislation as introduced would permit primary low-power television services
to operate on spectrum that has been reclaimed and reallocated for new services,
including public safety and commercial wireless broadband. This could adversely
impact the ability of the Commission to auction this spectrum as mandated by the
Congress and thus have an equally adverse budgetary impact. The legislation
could also hinder the expansion of DTV services provided by TV translators to
rural areas, particularly in the western mountainous states.
SPECTRUM
MANAGEMENT
Spectrum is a valuable and finite public resource that must
be allocated and assigned in a manner that will provide the greatest possible
benefit to the American public. The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology
is responsible for advising the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities
for allocating the spectrum in the public interest. In order to do this, we must
help to define policies that maximize the efficient use of the spectrum and
promote the introduction of new services and technologies.
Over time,
technological advances, growth in user demand, and the finite nature of spectrum
have made our spectrum management responsibilities increasingly complex. To
address the continuing growth of demand for radio services, we have focused our
approach to spectrum management on allowing spectrum markets to make more
efficient use of frequency bands through new technologies and on increasing the
amount of spectrum available for use. In addition, we have sought to encourage
the development and deployment of new, more spectrum-efficient technologies that
will increase the amount of information that can be transmitted in a given
amount of bandwidth and allow greater use of the spectrum occupied by existing
services wherever possible.
DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION
The
efficiency of the digital television transmission standard has made it possible
to reduce the amount of spectrum for television broadcasting while at the same
time improving the quality of the service. The Commission provided a second
channel for each existing full-service station to use for DTV service in making
the transition from the existing analog, National Television System Committee
(NTSC) TV technology to the new DTV technology. These second channels were
provided to broadcasters on a temporary basis until the end of the DTV
transition, which is currently scheduled for December 31, 2006. In developing
the DTV channels, the Commission maintained the secondary status of TV
translators and LPTV stations. The Commission also provided for recovery of a
portion of the existing TV spectrum so that it can be reallocated to new uses.
Specifically, the Commission provided for immediate recovery of channels 60-69
stations and for recovery of channels 52-59 at the end of the DTV transition.
THE LOW-POWER TELEVISION SERVICE
Low-power television (LPTV)
stations are broadcast stations that operate on the standard VHF and UHF
television channels, but at much lower power levels than conventional TV
stations. LPTV stations may retransmit programming received from other sources
or originate their own television programming. LPTV stations may also transmit
subscription television broadcast programs intended to be received by the public
for a fee. LPTV stations are secondary to full-power TV stations, which means
that they may not interfere with, and must accept interference from,
conventional "primary" TV stations.
The FCC created the LPTV Service in
1982 as a secondary service. The FCC believed that LPTV stations could increase
television programming diversity in both urban and rural areas and that these
stations would be particularly well suited to provide local programming.
The LPTV Service also includes television translator stations. There are
more than 4,500 licensed television translator stations, the majority of which
operate in the western mountainous states. Many rural communities in these areas
depend on translators as the only means of obtaining free television
programming.
Television translators rebroadcast the programs of
full-service TV stations to geographic areas where full-service stations cannot
be directly received. A translator generally receives the signal of a television
station on one channel, amplifies it, and retransmits the signal on another
channel. Translator stations may be converted to LPTV status at any time upon
notification to the Commission.
THE LPTV SERVICE TODAY
There are
currently more than 2,100 licensed LPTV stations. These stations operate in more
than 1,000 communities of all sizes and in all 50 states. Station operators
include such diverse entities as schools, colleges, churches, local governments,
community groups and radio and TV broadcasters. The service has also provided
first-time ownership opportunities to minority groups, women and a variety of
small businesses. LPTV stations can be operated in a wide variety of ways. FCC
rules do not require minimum hours of station operation or minimum amounts of
locally produced programming. Some stations primarily retransmit programming
imported from full-service television stations, satellites or other sources.
Many others transmit locally oriented programming, including "niche" programming
tailored to audiences with specific interests, as well as local news, weather,
community affairs, local elections and events such as high school football
games.
DIGITAL TELEVISION IMPACT ON LPTV
Despite their secondary
status, until the arrival of the digital television era, primary television
stations had displaced few stations in the LPTV service. Where interference from
LPTV to full power stations occurred, the LPTV affected stations were usually
able to find a suitable replacement channel on which to operate using an FCC
"displacement relief' provision. That provision permits stations with an
interference conflict to seek replacement channels at any time on a
noncompetitive, "first-come" basis.
The prospects for LPTV service
disruption are increased by the emergence of DTV service. The FCC concluded in
its DTV proceeding that there was insufficient spectrum to protect the existing
services of secondary LPTV and translator stations and to provide a second
channel for DTV service to more than 1,600 full-service stations during the
transition to DTV. It also concluded that LPTV and translator stations would
remain secondary, and therefore, must not interfere with DTV service. The
Commission, however, provided several measures designed to mitigate the impact
of the DTV transition on the LPTV service. The channel displacement relief
provisions were extended to stations potentially affected by DTV and operating
on channels 52-69. Applications for replacement channels were accorded the
highest priority among applications in the LPTV service.
In addition,
several of the interference protection provisions have been eliminated or
relaxed. LPTV and translator stations were afforded additional operating
flexibility and permitted to negotiate interference agreements with other
stations in the LPTV service and the Commission also expanded its policy of
granting waivers of the interference rules based on consideration of terrain
shielding. Further, the Commission has increased LPTV maximum power limits
primarily to enable LPTV and translator stations to operate on channels adjacent
to those of full power stations operating at the same location. Finally, the
Commission modified more than 60 DTV allotments to eliminate conflicts with one
or more LPTV stations.
S. 2454
S.2454, as introduced, seeks to
create opportunities for LPTV stations to provide a variety of digital data
services to subscribers, including one-way and two-way high speed Internet
access, as well as to change the secondary status of those stations. As noted in
our introduction, facilitating access to broadband technology is an important
goal of Chairman Kennard and his fellow Commissioners, and the Commission has
made substantial efforts in this regard. For instance, the Mass Media Bureau
recently completed a comprehensive proceeding to enable two-way cellularized
video and data communications in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional
Fixed Television Services. Our DTV rules also provide for the provision of data
services on a supplementary or ancillary basis. Full-service television stations
must provide a free video broadcast service of comparable quality to today's
analog television, but may use their excess channel capacity for a variety of
data services. The Commission has also created the Local Multipoint Distribution
Service as another means of gaining access to broadband technology and has
auctioned spectrum for such uses in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz frequency bands.
Perhaps of greatest significance, the Congressional provisions for the
reallocation and auction of approximately 20 percent of the television broadcast
spectrum should create very substantial opportunities for new broadband services
throughout the country.
We are greatly concerned about the implications
of S.2454, as introduced, particularly its potential to hinder or even cripple
the roll out of DTV service, eliminate spectrum for new broadband services, and
potentially decrease the availability of free, over-the- air television in rural
America.
As introduced, S.2454 provides that all LPTV stations may use
their authorized broadcast channels to deliver data services to the public. The
bill does not specify the amount of such service, nor does it appear to require
LPTV stations to provide any free broadcast service. Presumably, all LPTV
stations could provide Internet access either on a full-time basis, or to a very
minimal extent. The Commission could not authorize new or modified broadcast
facilities predicted to interfere with such LPTV stations. More than 2,100 LPTV
stations are licensed to operate throughout the United States. Additionally,
there are more than 4,500 licensed television translator stations that may
convert their stations to LPTV status by a simple notification to the
Commission. Thus, it is possible that thousands of stations could seek to
qualify under the interference protections afforded by S.2454. Significantly,
the bill does not limit such protection to existing LPTV stations. The Mass
Media Bureau recently announced an LPTV application filing window that will open
later this summer. The window will geographically restrict where new LPTV and TV
translator stations can be located. Its primary intent is to provide
opportunities for translators to deliver additional TV programming services to
rural communities, such as the new broadcast networks and the Fox network in
some communities. This window could significantly increase the number of LPTV
and potential LPTV stations in rural areas that could qualify for full
interference protection under the LPTV datacasting provisions of S.2454.
The FCC concluded in its DTV proceeding that there was insufficient
spectrum to protect the existing services of all secondary LPTV and translator
stations and to provide a second channel for DTV service to more than 1,600
full-service stations. It also concluded that LPTV and translator stations must
not interfere with DTV service and must accept interference from existing and
future DTV stations. We believe it is well established that there is
insufficient broadcast spectrum to accommodate thousands of LPTV stations with
full interference protection without substantially impacting the transition to
digital television, particularly in the rural areas. This is evidenced by the
more than 1,800 channel displacement applications we have received from LPTV and
translator licensees who believe they cannot continue to operate on their
authorized channels, mainly due to conflicts with DTV service or channel
allotments.
THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS PROTECTION ACT OF 1999
Congress recognized the spectrum impact and the paramount importance of
protecting the digital transition when it enacted legislation to create the
Class A LPTV service. On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the
"Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999" (CBPA). This new law created a
Class A TV service which provides certain interference protections, but not full
protection, for those LPTV stations that qualify by airing locally-produced
programming in their communities and that will operate in the manner of
full-service television stations.
Noting that not all LPTV stations
could be guaranteed a certain future, the CBPA limited eligibility for Class A
status to a very specific group of LPTV stations: those that were broadcasting
television programming produced in their communities. The Mass Media Bureau
recently issued a public notice granting Class A eligibility to more than 900
LPTV stations that certified compliance with the qualification thresholds of the
CBPA. The Mass Media Bureau is also now accepting applications for these new
Class A LPTV licenses. It is yet unclear, however, how many of these stations
can meet the interference protection requirements of the CBPA to obtain Class A
licenses. Further, the proposed legislation could permit stations that received
their Class A status because of their commitment to local television programming
to abandon that programming.
In view of the complexities of the DTV
rollout, Congress also found it necessary to limit the interference protections
afforded to Class A stations by DTV stations. For instance, Congress stipulated
a higher priority for certain application proposals to maximize (or enlarge) the
service areas of DTV stations and provided DTV broadcasters the flexibility to
make necessary adjustments to their facilities, including channel changes,
without regard to protection of Class A LPTV stations. The Commission Report and
Order implementing the CBPA further provided that Class A stations must protect
and would not be protected from DTV operations on a broadcaster's assigned,
incore channel at the end of the transition period.
S. 2454, as
introduced, provides none of these necessary safeguards, nor is it even clear
that the Commission could authorize a station on a broadcaster's allotted DTV
channel under this bill if the proposed facilities would be predicted to
interfere with a protected LPTV station. Nor does the bill clearly define the
requirements of LPTV stations to protect full-service television stations and
station proposals, for example, DTV allotments, authorized service, and pending
requests for DTV channel changes.
Even with the inclusion of the
safeguards that were included in the Class A legislation, we believe that
because of the much larger number of LPTV stations that would be protected, the
current bill could affect the provision of television service, both analog and
digital, in rural areas. If broadcasters convert their translators to LPTV
service and then opt for protection under this legislation, many rural
communities will lose free, over-the-air television services.
Likewise,
it is expected that DTV service will be delivered to many communities by
television translator stations. Translator licensees will need additional
channels for this purpose. We are concerned that entities seeking to provide
LPTV data service will file applications in the forthcoming filing window and
operate new LPTV stations that could preclude translator operators from
obtaining channels for the rebroadcast of DTV stations.
The Commission
is committed to ensuring that spectrum use is flexible and put to the maximum
possible use. Accordingly, when the public interest demonstrates that testing
new technology and sharing arrangements are warranted, the Commission will seek
to accommodate such situations. We have granted experimental licenses to
stations interested in providing data services on a secondary basis. For
example, in Houston, Texas, the Commission authorized as an experiment the
testing of a digitally based interactive broadcast service using low-power
television. Following a year and one-half period during which no interference to
other broadcast services was encountered, we authorized the station to provide a
one-way Internet service to limited subscribers on a secondary basis. In Alaska,
we similarly authorized on a secondary basis the provision of Internet service
to secondary schools. These types of requests must be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
Having to provide primary, interference-protected status
to thousands of existing and potential LPTV stations would not be possible under
the current proposed spectrum allocation for digital television. There simply is
not enough room. The Commission would be forced to reduce the amount of spectrum
being reclaimed for new services. This spectrum, the first segment of which is
scheduled for auction in September of this year, has been allocated for advanced
wireless services. FCC Chairman Kennard has repeatedly noted that this spectrum
offers the potential for the third residential, two-way broadband pipe, a
wireless pipe that will enable affordable broadband access, including to rural
areas.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we agree with the Committee's
objective to facilitate broadband deployment in rural America.
However, the approach taken in S.2454, as introduced,could undermine the digital
transition, eliminate spectrum for new broadband services,and potentially
decrease the availability of free, over-the-air television in rural
America.Nonetheless, we look forward to working with Chairman Bums, his staff
and the Congress to address the critical issue of broadband
deployment in rural areas. This concludes our testimony and we would be
pleased now to answer your questions.
END
LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2000 
