WPC 2BJZCourier3|Y Kx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRSx6X@`7\#.YX@X01Í ÍX81Í/Í/Ҋ2 Z; 3|Y HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRSXw PE37\#.YXPX01Í ÍX81Í/Í/Ҋ(2cvwpk]DIRECT DIRECT DIAL LETTERHEAD $xG#h [ P֙Q(&P# `  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:[)t  `  #h [ P֙Q(&P#MEMONOTE PA PAPERMEMO NOTE PAD PAPER BjJҗ#h [ P֙Q(&P# 3'3'Standard pMemo Note Pad Stat. pMemo Note Pad Stat.ies II$>[j4  X  TX 2&!K"2!#X%$XC&FAXMEMOFAX MEMO STATIONERY!~# |  `    #\> Ps7;'P#Arent/Fox#&l\> Ps7;8&P#X81Í/Í/X81Í/Í/`   @-  -@   FAXLTR LETERHEADFAX LETTERHEAD"a T# |  `    #\> Ps7;'P#Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn#&l\> Ps7;8&P#X81Í/Í/X81Í/Í/`       P?&  ` \ 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 200365399 Telephone 202/85706000 Cable: ARFOX Telex: WU 892672 ITT 440266 Facsimile: 202/8576395 _____ 8000 Towers Crescent Drive Vienna, Virginia 221822733 7475 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 208143413 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Budapest Representative Office Arent/Fox Europe Vadsz utca 12  P?* H1054 Budapest, Hungary *4   P?  \`  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: xQ oX#WillWill.O}`    4  3'3'Standard<'Legal - (13") Cont.<'Legal - (13") Cont.v4 &D,  &memo head/4+X #\  PCP#footnote tex0'b#Z\  PCP#221w3.2/3Q041memo to1E` hp x` #x\  PCXP#memo date2O #x\  PCXP#memo from33Wy` ` #x\  PCXP#memo rex\4O #x\  PCXP#25526T3738Rf4lhead mainwyer h57 #\  PCP# blockXP#6'#x\  PCXP#dateborrower, in71k X#x\  PCXP#corp sig lin8`` hp x #x\  PCXP#2F95<66f c;main head97 #\  PCP# CG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicUnivers BoldUnivers"i~# ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddoL8doddNopddo8PdN8ppodd┐XXdpLoNpLodPDopoopoȐdXYXodoodddCddCCC/NdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲9dCCȐxȲCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮxȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8dddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2{YFK]QZ!W"i~# ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8ddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCC/NdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddxxdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰9dCCȐxȰCdxdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȤxȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCxxxoxoYxLoYdYC8YooYdYxxdxddoYoYxxoxxxxxCdooxYxxxxCCddddxdddoooxCsdYC"i~'K2^/5JPP|555P5555PPPPPPPPPP55Gtenve_tv5>qevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtFtPtFmFmFnPnPv`cFePePcFtPtPtPtPtPvP5,PPPP5PuYPPqPc-c:ePc-c-vP]vPvPsPtPtj:j:kPV=V=V=VPc:c-vPvPvPvPvPvPttPfFfFfFvPePvPVPePtP`5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PP``yPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎.P55t`tttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttk`|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5tttttttttttttt`eY`YkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGt`\P`PPeGtGk`tY|```tev5Pttt`G````u55PPPPtvPPPttt`5\PG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}"i~'K2^88Vgg888g8888gggggggggg88V{gux`]{x.]oYxckkgxxxrd888SS8Y`Y`Y<``((Y(````;S<`]]]PSSSg/ggggg8ggggggSgd({Y{Y{Y{Y{YuY`Y`Y`Y`Y.(.(.(.(x`````x`x`x`x`r]{Yxa``r]x`c`{Z{g{ZuZuZugugx{aZggggaZ{a{g{g{g{gxg/(gggg/dPggogZ(ZCggZAZ/xaxxaxgagk5,'5ps72f YeFZj",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|9|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt|||||80||||9x`|||l0lD||lHl0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|Hst||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"djd9 dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^+44S?4S4444444444SSS+S>4;<0.><.8-K->->->->-RF;-0-0-0-0-<0?0?0?0?0<0<0<0<09.>-<0?0?09.<010>->4>-:-:-;4;4<>0-44440->0>4>4>4>4<444442D(4484--!44-!-<0<<0<4?0?4SL55545*5*5*544&4<0<0<4<4<0<0SH942(2(2(<444<454449.>**WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN<<<*44+..44P4""SS4 **4S **4SSS4422?S*S*<*9MM22S**SS "SSSS<414SSDS>(4<.40041.*>00*2'<0?28*>*L1<.<(?0D21026'4'91M<<.M0<4?99D06A9<=4444><444999D2*%SSW_lqKf&ZK__bbxx\p::K/2ZNZNKKKKKK0C99NN--KFFF]7FZII7D>><:CIKKKaXP\NNNUM\XAWk>P>KKKK&>RK0XXKKK--KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKSSSSSSSS&KKKKKP&KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKWWWWSSSSSSSSSSiiCCKKKKKKRRKKAAAAXXKKIIIIKKDDXDAAAA( 5AKK=E%?`/4UUUUUUUUUUUUU O(|(   > >" "< <RF RFd dt tT T    e e  x x }. }.n n^ ^I< I<3 3 B B  @ @l lA A3 3  | |E_ E_    . .Pn Pn    $  $ 9[  9[       U  U "! "!K! K!dt! dt!! !! !f! f!! !" "_+" _+"@" @"P" P"S_" S_" k"  k" s"  s"B y" B y" |"  |" z"  z"0 w" 0 w" p"  p"z g" z g" Y"  Y" J"  J"l 9" l 9" ""  "" "  "d ! d ! !  !! !e! e!e! e!;! ;!p! p!!  !    |  | >E  >E     m m,U ,U  s s:B :B  a ao oC Cq q  u u   s sZp ZpE E2 2!c !c      T T  A A  1 1' '9| 9|M# M#d d~s ~s  r r ) )U| U|- -  G GQ Q s s0 0E E t t: :\ \  @k @k= = 2  2       0  0 d   d K   K 6 3  6 3         D  D     U  U     f  f      w  w    *'  *' <  < T  T 2p  2p       2  2    # #'O 'Ot~ t~  W WR R ( (j  j K K # #[ [e e  &L &LS S} }? ? 0s    6  6   ;    !r  !r      -1  K Kc  [Q Q 0j 0jcD \ \3 3 Vm* *   _ S  S! !1" 1"_" 6## #I$` I$`$D %&j& j&"' "'' c(( (H) H)* ** **l+9 l+9",V ",V,s -:. :.. .8/"  0lC0 C00 01 11 i22 2z3 z33_ 44 4C5J C5J5 5 6 6v6 6r7( r7(7 77 8O 8  8 [9I  [9I 9  &:\ 5:q  5:q :  : :  : ;  ; ;  ; ; ;?<( << <=: =: = Z=te= e==P =P= ==( ==p =p=& =&= ==L =L= ==\ =:=q =q=' ='= == b=D=B D=B= =$h# h#T# T#" ?"u! u!   |x  %~ ~ $ $ T08 8 ~  8 8   Z ZJ m 7 7 *- -Y Yk k, Z De De  0s   'y %'y 'y%  ^T  W   M  Q)' U](' '%' s(g|(g |(g(g (g(h (h(k (k(p (p(t (t(z (z( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (w( w(m( m(d( d(]( ](T( T(L( L(F( F(@( @(:( :(7( 7(4( 4(3( 3(3( 3(4( 4(6( 6(9( 9(=( =(C( C(I(z I(zQ(t Q(tX(p X(pa(k a(kj(h j(hs(g s(gs(g (( E(( <(( E(( <(E( E(( O(( E(( X(( O(( j(t(t s((                                                                                                                  ?.4UUUUUUUUUUUUU $$ 7"k" k"" "" "" "# #*#, *#,C# C#X#C X#Cg# g#r#^ r#^x# x#y#y y#yv# v#o# o#a#! a#!Q# Q#;#9 ;#9 #  ##O #O" ""`  "` "  " V"l! V"l!""! ""!!p" !p"!" !"h!m# h!m#"!# "!# `$  `$ $  $6 K% 6 K%% %)& )&)& )&& &e_' e_'' '( (%w( %w(( (C!) C!)o) o)T) T)* *\C* \C** *\* \** *T$+ T$+Q+ Q+Fy+ Fy++ +2+ 2++ ++ +, ,, ,u, u,, ,Z, Z,, ,>, >,+ +$+ $++ ++ ++ + j+  j+u ?+ u ?+ +  +k * k * *  *h j* h j* )*  )*m ) m ) )  )} Q) } Q) )  )( (&U( &U(' 'Q' Q'8' 8'& &)i& )i&% %u% u% %  %$ $1$ 1$:# :#;# ;#" "x=" x="A! A! 6!  6!   *  *  j jN N5 5 v  v \ \ A A  %  % '  ' > >X Xxj xj Y Y "N "NV VI I K KW WX X Bn Bn  O& O& Z Z{ { SA SA   5  5 J   J $  $    v   v 7   7      $  $ h   h 2@  2@    F  F    ]  ]    w  w              :  :    T  T    i  i )  ) |P  |P z  z           O  O           i  i q  q    Re Re ' '  OP OP  +  +X  X       >! >!!~ !~! !"| "|7"          )    zx zxwo wovf vfv\ v\vS vSyJ yJ|A |A8 80 0* *$ $        ! !' '- -5 5< <E EN NW Wa aj js s| |               ss  `` NN ;; )) N \ ")' F%)' )'>& )=0 7"BM)N F'M)N M)NG' M)N* B0".3% J1$.3% .3%A2# /7S7 76= 6=6 66!  6! 6  6 Q6! Q6!6n! 6n!5! 5!5D" 5D"r5" r5"45# 45#4u# 4u#4# 4#`45$ `45$4$ 4$3$ 3$p3C% p3C%3% 3%2% 2%f28& f28&2& 2&1& 1&G1' G1'0S' 0S'|0' |0'0' 0'/( /(;/7( ;/7(.h( .h(].( ].(-( -(z-( z-(-) -),#) ,#),<) ,<)+S) +S).+e) .+e)*r) *r)@*|) @*|))) ))P)) P))() ()`(|) `(|)'r) 'r)o'e) o'e)&S) &S)&>) &>) &$)  &$)%) %)$%( $%($( $(A$( A$(#j( #j(c#:( c#:("( "("' "'""' ""'!V' !V'W!' W!' &  & &  &6 <& 6 <&% %% %,H% ,H%$ $$ $<:$ <:$# #{# {#i# i#(" ("I" I"! !}t! }t!J! J!   '  '  C C jY jYiS A+T Tl> l> U U q q M M~$ ~$ O O+ +l l  A^ A^  1R 1R  : ] : ]      \! \!!C !C(" ("" "" "i#` i#`#1 #1G$ G$$  $ *%  *% %  % &x  &x &^  &^ &J  &J u'8  u'8 '*  '* d(  d( (  ( V)  V) )  ) F*!  F*! *,  *, 4+9  4+9 +M  +M ",a  ",a ,|  ,| -   - -  - -  - c.  c. .7 .7A/h A/h/ /0 00 00N 0NK1 K11 1 2  2k2i k2i2 23  3 t3^ t3^3 34 4c4l c4l4 44, 4,75 75w5 w55^ 5^5 5!64 !64T6 T66 66 66 66e 6e7 707O 07OG7 G7\7= \7=k7 k7w7+ w7+~7 ~77 77 7|7  |7 u7 u7i7 i7Y7s Y7sD7 D7/7S iSS S>g >g/ /#x #x    # #/ /?1 ?1A+ =38 Z438 385?`/4UUUUUUUUUUUUU O(|( ML LL LMy MyOZ OZR: R:V V[ [a ah hq qz zj jL L/ /# f] ]/E /EC/ C/X Xo o       7q 7qQb QbnU nUnU AY  Y y  y      2 2O Oo  o      " "'     1 1I Ia aw w 0 0G G_ _v v   fxl lu u| |   = =[ [z z     / VJ! J!>= >=/X /X!s !s        ! !7 7vN vN_c _cUl  w wZ Z> >   & &/ /7 7< <B BmG mGNJ NJ/M /MN NN NN 4. .% %   l lP P5 5     v vg    q qV V: :   y yp ph han an[P [PV2 V2U)   > >" "< <RF RFd dt tT T    e e  x x }. }.n n^ ^I< I<3 3 B B  @ @l lA A3 3  | |E_ E_    . .Pn Pn    $  $ 9[  9[       U  U "! "!K! K!dt! dt!! !! !f! f!! !" "_+" _+"@" @"P" P"S_" S_" k"  k" s"  s"B y" B y" |"  |" z"  z"0 w" 0 w" p"  p"z g" z g" Y"  Y" J"  J"l 9" l 9" ""  "" "  "d ! d ! !  !! !e! e!e! e!;! ;!p! p!!  !    |  | >E  >E     m m,U ,U  s s:B :B  a ao oC Cq q  u u   s sZp ZpE E2 2!c !c      T T  A A  1 1' '9| 9|M# M#d d~s ~s  r r ) )U| U|- -  G GQ Q s s0 0E E t t: :\ \  @k @k= = 2  2       0  0 d   d K   K 6 3  6 3         D  D     U  U     f  f      w  w    *'  *' <  < T  T 2p  2p       2  2    # #'O 'Ot~ t~  W WR R ( (j  j K K # #[ [e e  &L &LS S} }? ? 0s    6  6   ;    !r  !r      -1  K Kc  [Q Q 0j 0jcD \ \3 3 Vm* *   _ S  S! !1" 1"_" 6## #I$` I$`$D %&j& j&"' "'' c(( (H) H)* ** **l+9 l+9",V ",V,s -:. :.. .8/"  0lC0 C00 01 11 i22 2z3 z33_ 44 4C5J C5J5 5 6 6v6 6r7( r7(7 77 8O 8  8 [9I  [9I 9  &:\ 5:q  5:q :  : :  : ;  ; ;  ; ; ;?<( << <=: =: = Z=te= e==P =P= ==( ==p =p=& =&= ==L =L= ==\ =:=q =q=' ='= == b=D=B D=B= =$h# h#T# T#" ?"u! u!   |x  %~ ~ $ $ T08 8 ~  8 8   Z ZJ m 7 7 *- -Y Yk k, Z De De  0s   'y %'y 'y%   ) ) )D ^T  W   M  Q)' U](' '%' s(g|(g |(g(g (g(h (h(k (k(p (p(t (t(z (z( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (( (w( w(m( m(d( d(]( ](T( T(L( L(F( F(@( @(:( :(7( 7(4( 4(3( 3(3( 3(4( 4(6( 6(9( 9(=( =(C( C(I(z I(zQ(t Q(tX(p X(pa(k a(kj(h j(hs(g s(gs(g (( E(( <(( E(( <(E( E(( O(( E(( X(( O(( j(t(t s(( ii il lo os sy y$ $) )- -0 02 22 20 0/ /* *& &                       | |v vr rm mj ji ii  '   '       vv                                                                                                                  #Xw P7XP#4@Before the  X )W  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION /Washington, DC 20554 *  In the Matter of !(hh/5<) ` `  !(hh/5<)  X_ Advanced Television Systems andhh/5<) ppC MM Docket No. 87268 Their Impact upon the Existinghh/5<) Television Broadcast Servicehh/5<)  Y To: The Commission Mail Stop 1170  Y   COMMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION ă Sherwin Grossman, Presidenthh/5<Peter Tannenwald  Y Michael Sullivan, Executive Director5<Elizabeth A. Sims (admitted in Georgia only) Community Broadcasters Assn. 1600 Aspen Lane !(hh/5<Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, P.C. St. Cloud, MN 56303(hh/5<1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Suite 200 Tel. 3206565942 !(hh/5<Washington, DC 200363101 Fax 3202555276 !(hh/5<Tel. 2027280400 ` `  !(hh/5<Fax 2027280354 ` `  !(hh/5<Counsel for the Community November 22, 1996 !(hh/5< Broadcasters Association  (0*0*0*  Y 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ă Summaryp"(#di Introductionp"(#d1 Suggested Solutionsp"(#d7 Role of a Second Channelp"(#d8 Role of Private Negotationsp"(#d9 Postponing Spectrum Reallocationp`"(#c10 More Efficient Use of Spectrump`"(#c11 ` ` Determination of Powerp`"(#c11 ` ` Precise Frequency Offsetp`"(#c12 ` ` UHF Taboosp`"(#c13 ` ` Advanced Techniques for Avoiding or Demonstrating No Interferencep`"(#c13 ` ` Directional Antennas and Terrain Shieldingp`"(#c13 Liberal Displacement Reliefp`"(#c14 Modified Interference Standardsp`"(#c14 NonCore Channels and LPTV SetAsidep`"(#c15 Cable Carriagep`"(#c15 Broadcaster Channel Sharingp`"(#c16 Penalty for LPTV Displacementp`"(#c16 Freeze on Full Power Applicationsp`"(#c18 Compensationp`"(#c18 The End Resultp`"(#c19 Meaning of "Secondary" Servicep`"(#c19(0*0*0*ԌUnprecedented Destruction of Existing Servicep`"(#c19 Migration of LPTV to Digital Servicep`"(#c20 Creation of New Primary Status Station Classp`"(#c20 Conclusionp`"(#c21 Technical Exhibitp (#]Appendix  w8(2) (0*0*0*  Y 6 SUMMARY ă There is no reason summarily to destroy an entire industry of as many as 400 active, operating television stations, located throughout the nation, serving small communities and niche markets, with significant minority ownership, creating jobs, and growing more rapidly than any other segment of the broadcasting industry. It does not have to be that way, if the Commission makes up its mind that destruction will not be the result of its efforts. The Commission must insist on the use of uptodate engineering techniques by the entire television industry, full power and low power alike, and must not rush to judgment at the auction block by chopping off TV spectrum until the low power problem has been solved. The Commission must reevaluate power levels, UHF "taboos," terrain shielding, directional antennas, precise frequency offset, emission masks, and every other aspect of the television engineering art. The Community Broadcasters Association has located some 350400 operating LPTV stations and will submit evidence of those stations to Mass Media Bureau personnel working on this proceeding. The owners and operators of these stations are worried, frightened, and angry over the death threat hanging over their heads, as are the thousands of families who depend on the LPTV industry for employment. The fact that LPTV was created as a "secondary" service in 1981 does not mean that LPTV can be ignored, because the concept in 1981 was that some LPTV stations would have to change channels and a few might have to go dark, not that draconian steps would be taken that would wipe out an entire industry. The impact of the Commission's digital proposals is worse than the Commission has anticipated, so the problem requires immediate and vigorous attention.$'0*0*0*Ԍ Y Polar Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 3 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1984) does not control, as it was decided prior to the enactment of Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, both of which clearly direct the Commission to pay attention to, and affirmatively to help, small businesses like the LPTV industry. These Comments discuss several areas the Commission should address, and they include a Technical Exhibit that discusses in detail modern approaches to engineering that will help achieve more efficient spectrum use and save LPTV stations. They discuss the role of a second channel for TV; the need for Commission oversight of private negotiations; the need to defer spectrum reallocation; technical issues involving determination of power, precise frequency offset, other transmitter characteristics, UHF taboos, advanced techniques for demonstrating no interference, directional antennas and terrain shielding; displacement relief; modified interference standards; noncore channels and an LPTV setaside; cable issues; the desirability of a penalty for LPTV displacement in the digital allotment algorithm; how full power applications should be handled during the transition; and compensation to LPTV operators who ultimately are forced off the air. Finally, they discuss the need to create a new class of permanent station for LPTV operators who meet all full power programming and local community presence requirements. 7qԩii(0*0*0* 4@#Xw P7XP#  X81Í/Í/X81Í/Í/@-  -@   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A. 1. a. i.(a)(1) i) a)4@Before the  X )W  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION /Washington, DC 20554 *  In the Matter of !(hh/5<) ` `  !(hh/5<)  X_ Advanced Television Systems andhh/5<) ppC MM Docket No. 87268 Their Impact upon the Existinghh/5<) Television Broadcast Servicehh/5<)  Y To: The Commission Mail Stop 1170  Y   COMMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION ă 3Introductionă 1. Why would anyone want summarily to as many as 400 active television broadcast stations the heart of the entire low power (LPTV) television industry with one swipe of the sword? It makes no sense to shut down so many sources of local television service often the only such source in small communities in every state of the nation; the broadcast service with the highest minority ownership; the most rapidly growing broadcast service; a service that is creating new jobs every day, including vital entrylevel jobs that train young people for further broadcasting careers, instead of eliminating jobs through mergers. The Commission may not "want" to do those things, but what it has proposed in this proceeding runs a real risk of doing all of them. And what for? To force the television industry into a new technical format for which it has only lukewarm enthusiasm, as well as to raise money through spectrum auctions in other words, to try to ameliorate the nation's overall budget problems, amassed over decades, by discarding "little guys" of the broadcasting industry, who do not have enough money and lobbying clout to fight the tide.<&0*0*0*Ԍ2. It does not have to be that way, and it must not be that way. But it is not enough for the Commission not to want to destroy LPTV; the Commission must want hard enough not to do it. If the Commission takes a positive approach toward the low power television issue, rolls up its sleeves, and gets to work, insisting on the use of uptodate engineering techniques by the entire television industry, full and low power alike, and does not rush to judgment at the auction block until the LPTV problem has been solved, it can wind up with a largerthanever broadcasting industry, serving more communities than ever before, all on a primary spectrum use basis, and can still repack the spectrum and make some of it available for other uses at the proper time. The Commission must reevaluate power levels, UHF "taboos," terrain shielding, directional antennas, precise frequency offset, emission masks, and every other aspect of the television engineering art. If old assumptions are challenged and creative approaches are taken, many problems will be alleviated, if not solved.  Y 3. These Comments are filed in response to the Commission's Sixth Further Notice of  Y Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, FCC 96317, released August 14, 1996, by the  Y  Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) , the trade association of the nation's LPTV stations. CBA's members represent the most vigorous, fastgrowing, and dynamic segment of today's broadcasting industry. These LPTV operators have built their stations often with their own hands, and virtually always with their own money, without bank or Wall Street financing. Their goals are to build viable businesses that serve their local communities. They measure success in audience acceptance and local service, not the value of their stock on Wall Street. Indeed they do not have any stock on Wall Street.r$0*((Ԍ4. The Commission's own reports indicate that there are at least a third more licensed LPTV stations than licensed full power television stations. That statistic has apparently scared many people into believing that the LPTV displacement problem cannot be solved, or at least it cannot be solved easily enough to be worth doing it. In fact, however, there are fewer LPTV stations on the air than the Commission's database shows, and it should be possible to save many, if not all, of them. Finding out how many stations are actually operating and where they are located has been a daunting task, but CBA has attempted to do it. It has located some 350400 operating LPTV stations, who have submitted written documentation that they are on the air, including the make and serial number of their transmitters. This documentation will be provided to the Mass Media Bureau Staff working on this proceeding. Each sheet of paper that CBA will provide represents a real, television venture, owned and operated by people with hopes and aspirations that must be recognized and addressed. 5. LPTV operators are worried, frightened, and angry over the death threat they face. CBA's telephones are rarely silent these days, as everyone asks "what can we do?" LPTV operators are citizens of this nation as much as anyone else, and they have invested their hearts and life savings into their businesses in pursuit of the American free enterprise dream and in reliance on the protection of their government. Thousands of families depend on the LPTV industry for their livelihood. They are threatened too. Will they receive equal protection of the laws, or will they be forgotten when the auctioneer's gavel slams down with the cry "Sold to the highest bidder!"? 6. The fact that LPTV was created as a "secondary" service in 1981 or that the Court  Y:& of Appeals upheld that status in Polar Broadcasting v. FCC, 3 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1984) is:&0*(( beside the point. Less than two miles from the Commission's offices, the following words, spoken by Thomas Jefferson, are inscribed at the Memorial that bears his name: XI am not an advocate of frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind...We might as well require a man to wear still the coats which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their...ancestors.  The "coat" that may have fit LPTV in 1981 does not fit any more. Did the industry "get away" from the Commission and grow too fast? No the industry is a stunning story of public service and economic success the kind of story on which this nation thrives and which it normally rewards. The Commission must recognize what has happened and give LPTV the position in the nation's broadcasting system that it has earned.  YK 7. Polar Broadcasting is not dispositive, because there are two key elements that were not considered in that case. One is an examination of the actual distribution of operating LPTV stations. These stations very often are the only local television voice in their community. To destroy them in favor of giving every urban full power station a second channel will clearly trample on the statutory mandate of Section 307(b) of the Communications Act that the spectrum be allocated fairly, efficiently, and equitably throughout the nation. The Commission's proposals at this point are not efficient, and they certainly are not fair or equitable to the LPTV industry. The potential destruction of the television translator service also raises serious 307(b) issues.  Y In addition, Polar Broadcasting was decided prior to enactment of Section 257 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which became law on February 8, 1996, and the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, which became law on March 29, 1996. Those statutes clearly direct the Commission to pay attention to, and affirmatively to help, small businesses and not erect barriers to their growth and development. Virtually+' 0*(( every LPTV operator in the country is a "small business" under any definition ever suggested by the Small Business Administration or the Commission. The Commission must by law affirmatively seek to help these enterprises. n/Scope of the Problemă 8. LPTV stations do everything that full power stations do: they broadcast local, network, and syndicated programming; they broadcast good and bad programming; they laugh and cry; they succeed or fail in a free market economy. As indicated above, CBA has obtained hard evidence that there are some 350400 LPTV stations that are on the air and originating programming as opposed to simply acting as a translator or rebroadcasting a satellite feed full time. In a very substantial number of cases, LPTV stations broadcast more local programming than their full power counterparts, because they do not have as many network options available to them, and they need local programming to differentiate themselves and to win audiences away from stations with higher power and better signal coverage. 9. It is difficult to determine how many LPTV stations are threatened with displacement by the Commission's proposed digital table of channel allotments, but CBA believes that the  YN Commission has substantially underestimated the damage.]Nez Y ԍ See the attached Technical Exhibit at Section VI.] Here are just a handful of examples taken from questionnaires returned by LPTV operators and compiled by CBA's Executive Director:   LPTV` ` Location(hh/Households <Weekly Hours  PSpecialty ^Status Channel` `  !(hh/Served<of Local Programs  PFormat ^Under 6th ` `  !(hh/5<ppCJ  PxxW ^FNPRM 43` ` Hopkinsville KYhh/ 75,000<ppC25J  P xxW ^Terminatedh$ {0*((Ԍ65` ` Springfield MAhh/500,000<ppC15J  PSpan/Ital ^Terminated 48` ` Washington DChh/400,000< 1020J  PSpanish ^Terminated 27` ` Jasper IN(hh/ 31,000<ppC22J  P xxW ^Terminated 22` ` Opelousas LAhh/ 60,000<ppC40J  P xxW ^Terminated 46` ` Ft. Smith AR(hh/208,000<ppC12J  P xxW ^Terminated 18` ` Hilton Head SChh/ 40,000<ppC20J  P xxW ^Terminated 25` ` Trenton NJ(hh/100,000<ppC20J  P xxW ^Terminated 41` ` Miami FL(hh/420,000<ppC22J  PSpanish ^Terminated 43` ` Dalton GA(hh/ 35,000<ppC40J  P xxW ^Terminated 53` ` Indianapolis INhh/570,000<ppC35J  PAfric.Am. ^Terminated 15` ` Manhattan KShh/ 55,000<ppC10J  P xxW ^Terminated 60/66` ` Portland OR(hh/150,000<ppC15J  PSpanish ^Terminated 41` ` Effingham IL(hh/100,000<ppC17.5J  P xxW ^Terminated 43` ` Topeka KS(hh/ 70,000<ppC10J  P xxW ^Terminated 59` ` Ashland OH(hh/ 79,000<ppC15J  P xxW ^Terminated 25` ` Holly Springs MShh/150,000<ppC35J  P xxW ^Terminated 17` ` New York NYhh/3.5 million<ppC15J  PKorean ^Terminated     10. What does the above list mean? Among other things, all Spanish language television in Washington, D.C., will end. Fox Network service to the Topeka, Kansas, ADI will end. The only local television service in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, which provides local coverage of Ft. Campbell, from which troops often come for overseas peacekeeping missions, will end. The third major Spanish language programming source in Miami, Florida, where Spanish is spoken as often as English, will be silenced. Local programming will end in Trenton, the capital of New Jersey, where the Commission and Congress have bent over backwards for a quarter century to bring local television service to rectify the mistake made in 1956 when all the available VHF TV channels were allotted to New York and Philadelphia. Will the public, let alone LPTV operators, understand the "wisdom" of the government when these services disappear? The Section 307(b) implications are obvious. Community after community will lose local transmission service often the only such service it has to make room for a second channel for each full power station in communities that usually have multiple local services. :&0*(( That result is not a fair and equitable distribution of frequencies, and Section 307(b) of the Communications Act forbids it. 0Suggested Solutionsă  YH  11. The Sixth Further Notice discusses LPTV at some length and makes several constructive suggestions for addressing the displacement problem. CBA acknowledges those suggestions and very much appreciates the fact that the Commission has shown more recognition of the LPTV spectrum problem here than perhaps it has ever done in any major rule making proceeding in the past. It is clear that the Commission does not have a goal of destroying LPTV and in fact would like to see LPTV survive. However, finding the best solutions that will actually achieve that result will not be easy, and CBA is uncertain of the Commission's resolve in this area. The Commission's proposals for full power allotments have been under study for a decade, and not all of the full power accommodation problems have yet been solved. In the three months available for preparing comments in this proceeding, CBA has only been able to begin the job of finding solutions for the future of LPTV. It will take active government participation to find and make LPTV solutions work. CBA hopes the Commission will participate and will encourage, if not demand, cooperative participation from the full power television industry. CBA will likewise contribute to the effort, but it cannot do it alone. CBA has had positive discussions with Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV), but there is a long way to go before sufficient resources are directed toward the LPTV problem to achieve concrete results. Meanwhile, CBA will discuss several desirable approaches in these Comments. As  Y>& noted by the Commission in the Sixth Further Notice, LPTV operator Island Broadcasting>&0*(( Company has already demonstrated how the application of these approaches can alleviate the LPTV displacement problem even in New York City, the nation's largest and probably its most  Y spectrumcongested market.Qez Y ԍ See Technical Exhibit at Section III.Q  12. Role of a Second Channel. There is an evident lack of enthusiasm from some full power stations for the expense to which they will be put to build digital facilities, and especially to operate analog and potentially costly digital facilities sidebyside during a transition period. The transition period is also the time when the available spectrum will be under the most pressure; after the transition, it should be easier to accommodate both full power and LPTV stations. To address these concerns, CBA suggests that the role of the transitional second channel be modified in two respects.  13. First, it should be just a "loaner channel" and be returned at the end of the transition. In other words, digital operation at the end of the transition should revert to the original NTSC channel. That arrangement will minimize consumer confusion and will ameliorate longterm channel identification concerns.  14. Second, the Commission should not attempt full service area replication on the temporary loaner channel. Replication of only the NTSC Grade A service area would provide service to all or nearly all of the viewers in the market area where most stations focus their attention. It would reduce the power required for transitional digital operation and thus reduce both financial burdens and potential interference to other full power stations and displacement of LPTV stations. An exception could be made upon a showing by an individual station that Grade B replication should be authorized during the transition because the Grade B contourh${0*(( includes underserved areas that do not receive other comparable signals from nearby markets. At the end of the transitional period, full NTSC Grade B replication could be restored when  Y digital operation reverts to the licensee's original channel. ez On a more basic level, it is not clear to many CBA members why every full power station should be provided with a second channel for digital use. If a second channel were not allotted for each full power station, then each station could switch from analog to digital service when its own judgment so dictated and could alternate service modes during the transition. The market place, rather than the government, would decide when, or even if, digital television service will commence; no station would have to bear the expense of simultaneous dualchannel operation; and the crunch on LPTV stations would be avoided. The Commission would also escape the Pandora's box of being accused of a spectrum giveaway if it gives every full power broadcaster a temporary second channel or being accused of snuffing out free television service if it puts TV spectrum up for auction early on.  15. Role of Private Negotiations. The Commission has suggested that local broadcasters form coordinating committees to engage in private negotiations to resolve conflicts in the assignment of digital channels to broadcasters. Indeed, according to information on the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Worldwide Web site, the NAB has already established some ten regional coordinators to work with local broadcasters. While CBA recognizes that government resources are limited and that private negotiation is often a more efficient way to resolve conflicts than public adjudication, there is a significant danger in this instance of the fox guarding the chicken coop. The entire concept is based on the false premise of private ownership of digital channels by established television licensees, when the spectrum is supposed to be owned by the public. It also assumes free cooperation and good faith among broadcasters, when in practice the selection and assignment of digital channels will be driven by highly important business considerations affecting the relative market positions of vigorous competitors. | 0*(( Even if full power licensees manage to keep a smile on their face as they bargain over their future survival, LPTV operators will almost certainly come out on the short end of the stick. 16. Private coordinating committees should not be given any authority to make changes in any digital TV assignments unless the committees are required to give notice to, and to be open to participation by, all area broadcasters, including LPTV operators. Any private groups must also be directed to establish a priority for preserving LPTV service; and if any licensee, full or low power, can demonstrate that an alternative digital assignment would result in less harm (interference or displacement) to other stations, there should be presumption in favor of that alternative, even if the recipient of the channel does not endorse the change. Otherwise, the natural incentive to reduce competition will inevitably make it difficult for anyone to participate objectively in the negotiation process. Furthermore, the outcome of any private negotiations must be subject to the review and affirmative approval by the Commission, which is the only entity involved whose sole obligation is advancement of the public interest. 17. Postponing Spectrum Reallocation. The Commission should not reallocate any spectrum away from television broadcasting until more is known about the transition process to digital service, actual field experience is gained with respect to when and how interference is caused and how it can be alleviated, and, most importantly, until the LPTV problem has been solved. CBA has seen an advance draft of the Broadcasters' Caucus comments in this proceeding, and it is clear that all broadcasters full and low power alike agree that the rush to reallocate is unseemly and illadvised. There are problems to be solved for everyone, and the spectrum will only increase in value, and thus bring greater auction revenues, over time. It is not fair, equitable, or reasonable to lay the entire nation's budget burdens on the LPTV and:& 0*(( translator industries by chopping off Channels 6069, which are much more heavily populated by LPTV stations and translators than by full power stations, and leaving all those stations to fend for themselves in a freeforall scramble for dualchannel operation in a shrinking channel pool. The rush to auction is nothing less than a government grab at the expense of citizens who have positively utilized spectrum and who are serving the public well. 18. More Efficient Use of Spectrum. The Commission has recognized in many contexts in the past two decades the critical importance of using the spectrum more efficiently, in order to accommodate the rapidly increasing demand for the wireless distribution of entertainment and information. From narrowbanding in the land mobile services, to digital compression in the mass media Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), and elsewhere as well, the Commission has encouraged the rapid introduction of more efficient technologies. It should do the same thing with television broadcasting. Spectrum efficiency has not been a hallmark of NTSC television to date; and while an effort has been made to make digital television more efficient, there are additional steps that should be taken. X` ` a. Determination of Power. LPTV stations are currently subject to a transmitter power output (TPO) limit but no effective radiated power (ERP) limit; yet it is ERP (along with antenna height), not TPO, that determines signal coverage and interference potential. Relative ERP and antenna heights will be especially important in the digital TV environment, as firstadjacent channel operation becomes feasible for the first time if the ratios between desired and undesired signals are kept within specified limits to eliminate interference. Thus LPTV stations should be regulated by ERP rather than TPO and should be permitted to operate with whatever power level is appropriate to minimize:& 0*(( interference a level that will depend on whether the LPTV and full power stations are  Y collocated and, if not, how far apart their transmitters are.Pez YK ԍ See Technical Exhibit at Section IV.P (# X` ` b. Precise Frequency Offset. It is well known that two television transmitters may transmit on the same channel in closer proximity if their frequencies are offset by a specific amount (normally 10 kHz) rather than attempting to operate as close as possible to a common center frequency. The amount of offset can be critical to reducing or eliminating interference. As good frequency stability is much easier to achieve today than it was a halfcentury ago when the television industry was born, in the 1990's every television station should be required to operate with precise offset, at its own expense, at least when needed to minimize interference from another full or low power station. Further, in an NTSCDTV adjacentchannel environment, very precise frequency stability is required between an upper channel DTV station and lower channel NTSC station to avoid chroma interference to the NTSC station. The Commission should thus require DTV stations operating firstadjacent above, and collocated or in close proximity to, an LPTV station to use precise frequency control and to match the offset that the LPTV  YN station is required to use.UN{ez Yz ԍ See Technical Exhibit, Sections II and V.U(# X` ` c. Other Transmitter Characteristics. Modern transmitter technology will permit the application of other techniques that will minimize the likelihood of interference being caused in practice. These include a tighter emission mask, to minimize outofband  .0*(( interference, and improved linearity, both of which should be mandated by the Commission.(# X` ` d. UHF Taboos. It is likely that few UHF taboos, if any, are required any longer in an era of solidstate, sophisticated television receivers. Island Broadcasting Company's previous submissions in this proceeding demonstrate that the present taboo rules are more restrictive than necessary. LPTV stations should immediately be permitted to disregard all signals other than cochannel and firstadjacent channel in finding spectrum if they are displaced, with the LPTV station assuming the risk that it  Y may not cause interference to television reception in actual practice.Pez Y  ԍ See Technical Exhibit at Section II.P(# X` ` e. Advanced Techniques for Avoiding or Demonstrating No Interference. The  Y4 Sixth Further Notice describes the use by the Commission of directional receive antenna grid analysis, a new method for determining interference effects and ratios, as the basis for the proposed DTV allotment table. This method shows that actual interference would be less than theoretically calculated using conventional methods. The Commission should permit displaced LPTV stations to use the same methodology to show that operation on a proposed new channel would not cause interference to any established station.(# X` ` f. Directional Antennas and Terrain Shielding. The Commission's recognition of directional antennas and terrain shielding as techniques to reduce interference between stations has already made it possible for many new LPTV stations to be established and for many existing station facilities to be modified. These techniques should continue to be fully recognized and their use expanded. For example, it should be permissible tol$ {0*(( offer a showing that terrain shielding limits the coverage of a full power station as well as the coverage of a low power station. Furthermore, LPTV stations seeking to demonstrate that they can occupy a channel without causing interference should be permitted to elect to use uptodate, sophisticated methods of predicting signal coverage, such as the LongleyRice method.(#  Y 19. Liberal Displacement Relief. As proposed in the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission should continue to facilitate continued service from LPTV stations threatened with displacement by permitting them to apply for any other available channel, on a firstcome, firstserved basis, without waiting for an application filing window. In a time when extreme pressure may be brought on some LPTV stations, and there may not be enough spectrum to go around, a clear priority must be given to preserving existing service over the establishment of new services of any kind. 20. Modified Interference Standards. As a matter of general principle, interference is of course never desirable. The public is entitled to good overtheair television reception. Nevertheless, the complete absence of interference would be extremely inefficient and would result in a far less diverse broadcast service than we have today. When spectrum is at a premium and efficiency is important, a balancing process is necessary. With respect to LPTV, CBA notes that the interference requirements in Subpart G of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules are more stringent than the assumptions underlying the fixed mileageseparation requirements for full power stations in Part 73 and this docket. It is no longer justified to impose on LPTV what is essentially a "zero tolerance" interference rule when a lesser standard is imposed on full power stations. The LPTV standard, while it should remain interferencebased rather than based>&0*(( on mileage separations, should be conformed to the assumptions underlying the full power rules. Further, LPTV stations should always be permitted to receive whatever interference they are willing to risk, as long as they do not cause interference beyond what the Rules permit, as interference in practice is often less than in theory, and many LPTV stations operate successfully  YH today in environments that are questionable based on computerized theoretical predictions.OHez Y ԍ See Technical Exhibit at Section I.O 21. NonCore Channels and LPTV SetAside. The Commission has suggested in the  Y Sixth Further Notice that LPTV stations unable to find channels otherwise might be permitted to occupy channels outside whatever "core" remains after reallocation of TV spectrum to other uses, and it might even set aside some channels in the 5059 range exclusively for LPTV stations. CBA applauds these proposals but observes that they are at best a last resort. CBA vigorously opposes any spectrum reallocation until the LPTV survival problem has been solved. CBA is also not optimistic that LPTV stations can occupy reallocated spectrum on a temporary basis during a transition period, especially if it requires the expense and service disruption of more than one channel change by the LPTV station or it results in an LPTV station having to attract viewers to a region that is otherwise full of nonbroadcast users. A setaside in the Channel 5059 range might be more realistic, but receiver manufacturers must then be required to continue to include those channels in receivers sold in this country. 22. Cable Carriage. The Commission has suggested that greater incentives for cable systems to carry LPTV stations might help alleviate harm to LPTV stations that are displaced by digital television. CBA wholeheartedly agrees and has for a long time urged the Commission to create incentives for cable carriage through permitting a 20cent subscriber rate increase inl${0*(( return for adding an LPTV signal (without regard to the number of other channels previously added at 20 cents each) and through establishing reasonable leased access channel rates. However, LPTV is for the most part a free, overtheair broadcast service; and its fundamental character should not be changed to a wired service any more than full power broadcasters should be banished to wires. Moreover, the cable industry has consistently resisted carrying LPTV stations except where the mustcarry law (47 USC Sec. 614) applies. Thus while CBA supports positive incentives, it is skeptical about the efficacy of attempts to compel conduct by unwilling cable operators. The Commission's resources are already sufficiently strained without having to adjudicate more disputes between cable operators and LPTV stations. It should not rely on the cable industry to solve the LPTV problem. 23. Broadcaster Channel Sharing. The concept of two broadcasters sharing the capacity of a 6 MHz channel when one digital signal can deliver four or more "standard definition" (SDTV) program signals is intriguing. LPTV operators should clearly be permitted to enter into private arrangements to have LPTV programming carried through part of the capacity of a full power station's digital facility. However, while it would be nice for full power broadcasters to make SDTV capacity available to displaced LPTV stations, and full power stations should be permitted to do so voluntarily, again to the extent that compelled conduct is involved, CBA is skeptical that the system would work in practice. Litigation would ensue, absorbing great time and financial resources, during which time LPTV operators could be forced out of business. 24. Penalty for LPTV Displacement. Assuming that the Commission proceeds with its plan to assign a second channel to each full power station for digital use, significant progress toward resolving the LPTV problem would be made if the digital channel allotment program:&0*(( included a penalty for displacing an operating LPTV station. For example, if the current program found two digital channels available for a particular NTSC full power station, it would prefer one that provided 99% digital replication of analog service area and would reject another that provided 98% replication, even if the 99% channel displaced an LPTV station and the 98% channel did not. There is no good reason for that result. Even if a substitute channel can be found for the LPTV station, changing channels is a major project, requiring significant expense (usually including a new, expensive antenna plus transmitter modifications), along with disruption of the business goodwill associated with a change of channel number. Thus even assuming that LPTV stations can survive technically by changing channels, perhaps even two or three times during the digital transition, that approach is often economically unrealistic. Instead, when there is a conflict between LPTV and full power, the first attempt should be to find an alternative digital channel, and one digital channel should be deemed equivalent to another if NTSC service area replication on one channel is within 5% of the other, assuming there are no other serious countervailing considerations. Further, there should be a pool of digital channels in each market, which should be assigned to individual full power stations only when each station is individually ready and firmly committed to construct digital facilities. Not all the stations will construct at the same time, and digital channels that will displace LPTV stations should be assigned from the pool last, never first. In other words, the priorities should be (a) finding digital channels that will not displace LPTV's, (b) displacing LPTV's only as the latest stations to convert come on line with digital service, and (c) displacing LPTV's early on only as a last resort.h$0*((Ԍ25. Freeze on Full Power Applications. In 1987, the Commission imposed a freeze on full power television applications and allotments in the vicinity of 100 urban areas, 52 Fed.  Y Reg. 28346 (July 29, 1987). Moreover, in the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission established a cutoff date of October 20, 1996, after which no further NTSC full power applications could be filed. CBA understands that several hundred applications were filed by October 20, including many requesting waivers of the top market freeze. If some of these applications are granted, there will be a substantial disruption of both the proposed digital allotment table and the LPTV industry. CBA urges that priority must be given to preserving established services of all kinds, including LPTV services, and that freeze waivers and applications for new stations should not be granted until a specific effort has been made to minimize damage to LPTV facilities. 26. Compensation. It may be that despite all efforts, some LPTV stations will have to go dark during the digital transition, and their owners will not be able to survive a dark period and resume operation after the transition. In that case, they should be compensated for the loss of their investment. Compensation should not be based on whether an LPTV station operates inside or outside a "core" group of channels, if the "core" concept is adopted. Compensation should also be given for the cost of displacement to another channel, if not in all cases then at least after one displacement. Such compensation could come from the full power station that insists on displacing the LPTV station rather than using a different digital channel; but it appears more appropriate to CBA to have it come from auction revenues, if the Commission proceeds to auction television spectrum despite the obvious reasons not to do so at this early date, as pointed out by CBA and undoubtedly to be pointed out by the Broadcasters Caucus as well.l$0*((ԌH 8 i2The End Resultă 27. Meaning of "Secondary" Service. LPTV stations have been in existence for some 15 years; and during that time, CBA doubts that more than a half dozen have been displaced withH no available substitute channel. This very limited casualty rate demonstrates that there is enough spectrum to accommodate the LPTV industry in the NTSC environment. The extremely high casualty rate that is anticipated as a result of the Commission's having ignored LPTV in structuring its proposed digital allotment table proves that we are now embarking on a journey into a new area that was never contemplated when the Commission decided to make the LPTV service "secondary" when it created the service in 1981. The concept of "secondary" at that time meant that LPTV stations might have to change channels from time to time, and in a few instances, LPTV stations might have to go dark, not that the entire industry would someday be summarily destroyed. LPTV operators who accepted their licenses knowing about "secondary" status cannot be attributed with clairvoyance to anticipate the draconian actions the Commission is now proposing. 28. Unprecedented Destruction of Existing Service. Never before has the Commission summarily wiped out an existing, viable service, broadcast or otherwise, without providing alternative spectrum and/or compensation for displaced users. The migration of pointtopoint microwave systems out of spectrum reallocated to Personal Communications Services (PCS), which was accompanied by a guaranty of replacement spectrum and full financial compensation, is the most significant recent example. Even unlicensed Part 15 operations in the 902928 MHz band were recognized as having important value to the public and were and preserved when the licensed Location and Monitoring service was established in the same band. The Commission must do the same here as it has in the past, making every effort to preserve the maximum (+))88 number of LPTV stations and providing for compensation to those for whom survival becomes impossible or who are required to change channels. 29. Migration of LPTV to Digital Service. Furthermore, the crisis now at hand should never arise again. Those LPTV stations that survive the transition should be permitted to migrate to digital operation themselves on any available channel where interference will not be caused, when and as they are ready to do so. As existing serviceproviders, they should be given access to any available broadcasting spectrum before the general public is permitted to apply. Further, full power broadcasters should be subject to a "useitorloseit" timetable that allows LPTV operators to apply for digital channels that are first made available, but are not used promptly by full power broadcasters. And most importantly, those LPTV stations that do migrate to digital service should become permanent spectrum occupants after that migration. 30. Creation of New Primary Status Station Class. Indeed, the success of the LPTV industry and the important and widespread services it provides dictate that the entire issue of secondary status be revisited, in both the NTSC and DTV environments. A station that meets an established set of public service requirements, including all programming and local community presence requirements imposed on full power stations, should be eligible to apply for a new class of station with permanent status. Multiple station classes with different power limits have long been the hallmark of both AM and FM licensing. There is no reason not to apply the same concept to television broadcasting and to create a class of TV station under Part 73 of the Rules that is the equivalent of a Class A FM station or a Class C AM station. The creation of such a class of permanent station is clearly within the scope of this proceeding in the digital environment, if not the NTSC environment as well. :&+))88Ԍz"4Conclusionă  Y 31. The Sixth Further Notice recognizes the value LPTV service and the predicament of how to preserve that service, but it appears to underestimate the impact of the Commission'sz digital allotment process on the service. The way to approach the problem is to make up one's mind to find solutions at the outset that avoid destruction, not to plunge ahead and destroy and then try to pick up and save the pieces. 32. CBA is aware that the Broadcaster Caucus will be proposing an allotment table different from the Commission's proposal. The differences will go beyond whether or not digital service is confined to "core" channels or uses all of Channels 269. The fact that two different tables can be proposed establishes clearly that there is more than one way to achieve a transition from analog to digital broadcast service. A way must be found now, at the outset, starting with the suggestions made in these Comments, to keep the LPTV and translator services intact and to find a permanent home for qualifying LPTV stations. It makes good sense, and it is good policy to preserve the LPTV service. And the law Sections 307(b) and 257 of the Communications Act the Small Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996 requires it. Sherwin Grossman, Presidenthh/5<Respectfully submitted, Michael Sullivan, Executive Director Community Broadcasters Assn. 1600 Aspen Lane !(hh/5<__________________________ St. Cloud, MN 56303(hh/5< Peter Tannenwald  Y Tel. 3206565942 !(hh/5< Elizabeth A. Sims (admitted only in Georgia) Fax 3202555276 ` `  !(hh/5<Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, P.C. ` `  !(hh/5<1710 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Suite 200 ` `  !(hh/5<Washington, DC 200363101 ` `  !(hh/5<Tel. 2027280400 November 22, 1996 !(hh/5<Fax 2027280354 ` `  !(hh/5<Counsel for the Community ` `  !(hh/5< Broadcasters Association     Y #Xw PE37XP#  @-  --  -@  1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT ă  X  I. NTSC: LPTV Comparable Interference Standards As indicated by the FCC in the 6th FNPRM, the proposed allotment of DTV channels is not on a "no interference" basis. UHF NTSC television channels have been allotted on a simple distance separation basis. The FCC's minimum cochannel separation requirements are contained in Section 73.610 of the FCC rules. The cochannel separations are: ` ` Zone I(hh/5248.6 km (154.5 mi) ` ` Zone II(hh/5280.8 km (174.5 mi) ` ` Zone III(hh/5329.0 km (204.5 mi) UHF stations meeting the FCC's minimum separation requirements are permitted transmitting facilities consisting of a visual effective radiated power (ERP) of 5000 kilowatts (kW) and an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of 610 meters (2000 feet). Let us assume 2 cochannel UHF stations operating with ERPs of 2000 kW and antenna HAATs of 305 meters (1000 feet). The predicted Grade B contour extends 75.1 kilometers (46.7 miles). Using a 28 dB desiredtoundesired (D/U) interference ratio for cochannel, offset stations, the predicted 36 dBu interfering contour extends 257.8 kilometers (160.2 miles). In  Y order for there to be no overlap of the contours (i.e., no predicted interference), the separation between the stations must be at least 332.9 kilometers (206.9 miles). #ip?7CP#! ?`/ddEXH2.PLT<)I2#X~xP7KXP# "` Zone II CoChannel Example `  36 dBu Interfering Contour 280.8 km 257.8 km 75.1 km Contour Dist. Contour Dist. Grade B 64 dBu *+++88Ԍ Y #Xw P7XP#The same scenario obtains for adjacent channel assignments. The FCC's minimum separation requirement between adjacent channel UHF stations is 87.7 kilometers (54.5 miles). Assuming the same transmitting facilities for the adjacent channel UHF stations (2000 kW, 305 meters or 1000 feet), the predicted Grade B contour extends 75.1 kilometers (46.7 miles). Using a conservative D/U interference ratio of 15 dB as contained in the FCC's LPTV rules, the predicted 79 dBu interfering contour extends approximately 51.3 kilometers (31.9 miles). The separation between the adjacent channel station would need to be at least 126.4 kilometers (78.5 miles) to avoid predicted interference. #ip?7CP#A ?.ddEXH3.PLT<)p  S #X~xP7KXP#Adjacent Channel Example `  ` `  ! 75.1 km 51.3 km #5p?7#  }Kl #ip?7CP# 87.7 km 79 dBu Interfering Contour GRADE B 64 dBu #Xw P7XP# The FCC's 6th FNPRM employs adjacent channel D/U interference ratios of 3 dB (interference to upper channel) and 13 dB (interference to lower channel). With these ratios, the interference contour extends further, requiring more separation to avoid predicted adjacent channel interference. Even assuming half the permitted antenna height and less than half the permitted power, the above examples demonstrate that predicted interference will obtain. In other words, the FCC's allotment of television channels is not based on "no interference". A certain level of interference is anticipated. The interference caused is considered to be acceptable in order to provide service. This is considered a more efficient use of the spectrum. Unlike full service TV assignments, LPTV assignments have been traditionally made on a no predicted interference basis. This is much more restrictive and is believed to be less spectrum efficient. During the television industry's transition from NTSC to DTV, LPTV assignments will need some relief in order to continue providing its service to the public. Instead of the FCC requiring "no predicted interference" from the numerous anticipated displaced LPTV assignments, a "no new interference" basis is suggested. '+))88ԌBy no new interference it is meant that if a full service or LPTV station would be predicted to receive interference from other authorized services, a displaced LPTV station should be able to cause up to the same level of predicted interference. An example is given below. Predicted interference is assumed to be caused to full service station A from full service station B. It is proposed that displaced LPTV station C be permitted to provide predicted interference to that portion of station A's predicted Grade B service area where predicted interference would be caused by a fully spaced full service TV station B. #ip?7CP#ya i ?`/ddEXH1.PLT<y Station B Interfering Contour A B C LPTV Station C Interfering Contour Station A Grade B Contour #Xw P7XP#  X  II. NTSC High Stability Oscillator Issues It is inevitable that some LPTV stations will be displaced and be forced to seek a new channel. LPTV stations which are not designated as offset (including zero offset) block the further use of their channel over a much larger area than those with offset, as there is a 17 dB difference in the required protection. An LPTV station can rarely be located closer than 80 miles to a nonoffset cochannel station compared to a typical 50 mile separation between cochannel LPTV stations with different offsets. To gain the maximum flexibility in finding new channels for displaced stations the following is proposed: a) A prospective new user of a channel which is cochannel with a nonoffset station should be allowed to calculate the predicted interference to the existing nonoffset station as though offset existed as well on a nonoffset basis. If the ratio is within the 28 dB offset limit but does not meet the nonoffset 46 dB rule, then the prospective new user should be required to notify the nonoffset station which could respond by either going offset or accepting whatever interference resulted from his continued operation without offset. u(+))88Ԍb) If the new station is predicted to receive interference from an existing nonoffset, the first station should be required, on request, to go on an offset different from the offset chosen by the prospective new station. In retrospect it would have been better if the original LPTV rules had required offset operation for LPTV station above some minimal ERP; and, since maintaining the frequency accuracy and stability required for offset is neither difficult nor costly, it appears reasonable to leave the cost of establishing offset operation of the existing station with the owner of the station. It is suggested, however, that an exemption be provided from any requirement to change to offset operation for very small power stations which do not have a large protected contour or represent much outgoing interference potential. Probably the limit should be 1 kW ERP and stations not exceeding this ERP should be exempt, or if absolutely necessary, the change should be at the expense of the proposed new station.  X  III. Relaxation of Interference Protection Ratios  1) Adjacent Channel Taboo Eleven pair of adjacent channels can now be received in New York City. Measurements indicate that the currently permitted 15 dB maximum difference between adjacent channels is sound, although with weak signals up to 20 dB can be tolerated. It is proposed that a LPTV application be accepted for filing if the applicant demonstrates that 1) the LPTV signal will not exceed the signal of an adjacent channel NTSC full service station by more that 15 dB in any area in which the full service station signal is significantly received over the air and 2) the LPTV signal will not be more than 20 dB different in level from the signal received by an LPTV operating on an adjacent channel in any area in which the potential victim LPTV is, or is predicted to be, significantly viewed over the air. It is recognized that colocation, or near colocation, with a full service station may be required, and that the LPTV risks being overwhelmed by the adjacent channel full service station. However, the LPTV must decide if the potential viewership which can receive acceptable picture and sound is sufficient to make it worthwhile. There will be no chance of interference to a full service station. 2) Oscillator (+7 Channel) Taboo At least six oscillator taboo violations exist in the New York City area, most involving one low power station, but two of these involve pairs of full service stations (Ch 47 and 54 and Ch 43 and 50) which share large coverage areas of significant viewing, and have coexisted successfully for decades. This interference occurs between two TV receivers tuned to channels 7 apart, the upper channel receiving interference. Current taboos require 100 km spacing LPTV to full service, and significant LPTV to LPTV separation between stations. Test indicate clearly that newer(+))88 receivers radiate much lower signal levels; for example a new medium screen size Sony receiver shows no interference whatever to adjacent receivers set seven channels higher (at UHF). This oscillator interference only exists when older receivers are physically close (e.g. under 50 feet apart) and receiving over the air signals seven channels apart, and even then the interference is minor. It is proposed that this taboo be eliminated for LPTV to LPTV (or a LPTV station be given the option to "accept" such interference). It is also proposed that an LPTV applicant be accepted for filing if the applicant demonstrates that a full service station seven above is not significantly viewed over the air in the area in which the LPTV applied for is likely to be significantly viewed over the air. Based on the above, there is negligible risk, and the probability of interference will diminish as newer receivers are used. 3) Aural Image (14 Channel) Taboo Six examples exist in the New York City area wherein major areas of coverage exceed the permitted 23 dB aural image taboo by a large amount. Two of these (ch 68 and 54 and Ch 55 and 41) involve full service stations, the others low power and full service stations. Of particular interest is low power ch 17 located 4 1/2 miles from full power ch 31. Measurements were made at various power levels with ch 17 at least 33 dB below ch 31, with no evidence of interference. Similar results were obtained with the two sets of full service channels cited above. It is difficult to achieve a difference greater that 33 dB and still have good clear sound on the weaker signal, but tests are continuing to achieve larger values than 33 dB. It is proposed that this taboo be eliminated for LPTV to LPTV (or a LPTV station be given the option to "accept" such interference). It is also proposed that an LPTV applicant be accepted for filing if the applicant demonstrates that a full service station on a channel 14 below will not be more than 33 dB (more if later demonstrated to be acceptable) lower in received level at any location at which significant over the air reception of the full service station is probable. Here also the probability of interference is small, and possibly can be corrected if both stations are actually broadcasting. 4) Intermodulation (+/2,3,4,5 channel) Taboo Interference from this source can be created by many combinations of received signals, but the most common and severe is two signal third order modulation. This situation has been analyzed and approximate mathematical models derived, from which the current 32 km taboo was determined. Many channel combinations involving full service station as cause, victim, or both, exist in the New York City area. In some cases interference is predicted and observed; in other cases no interference is predicted and none is observed. An example of the former is full service ch 47 and 50, about 13 miles apart, predicting to interfere strongly at the full service ch 52 B grade, and confirmed by tests (this channel combination also causes interference to full  Y:& service ch 43 and 54, and low power ch 44 and 53). An example of the latter (i.e., no predicted interference) involves full service ch 50 and low power ch 53 both received strongly in the city grade area of full service ch 47. No interference was observed on ch 47, as expected from the(+))88 mathematical analysis (based on FCC Report LAB7401 Project Number 222963, June 1974; and B.C. Docket 78253, Sept. 1980). Because the methodology developed in the above referenced reports is supported by tests, and because the example in which no interference was predicted or observed clearly violates the current taboo, it is proposed here that an LPTV applicant be permitted to demonstrate, using these methods, that the specific situation proposed will not cause objectionable interference. A brief summary of the calculations, based on the above referenced FCC reports, which show that LPTV ch 53 can operate less than 32 km from full service ch 50 without causing interference, will now be given: W53AA, ch 53, operates on Empire State Building, 13 1/2 miles from full service WNJN channel 50. Since twice the ch 50 visual carrier frequency minus the ch 53 visual carrier frequency, intermodulation interference is predicted to occur on full service ch 47, and current rules would not permit ch 53 LPTV to operate, even with a waiver request. Channel 53 operates at 6.8 Kw ERP with an approx. 90 degree beam facing NE, and ch 50 is 13 1/2 miles west of ch 53 and ch 47 is 3 miles south of ch 53. The ERP of ch 50 is 33 dbk at 1000'; ERP of ch 47 is 37 dbk at 1400'. An approximate determination of potential interference at any chosen location involves determination of the signal levels from each station at that location involves determination of the signal levels from each station at that location using 50/10 curves and the formula P=(F dB + ERP dbk K) dbm where K=75.120 log Fmhz+3.3= 128 in this case. Using this equation, the P level found for ch 47 id the maximum desired level, and figure 4b if the second reference is used to determine the maximum of undesired signal, Pu (from the "mean" curve). Equation (5) of the same reference states that 2Pa+Pb=3Pu, and since the factor 2 is here associated with the ch 50 level, Pa relates to ch 50, and Pb relates to channel 53 for each case. Four locations were chosen for analysis: 1) 1 mile from ch 47 north toward ch 53, at which Pch50=28dbm=Pa; Pch47 desired=11 dbm from which Pch47 undesired = 4dbm; Pb max.=44dbm, and Pb actual =53dbm, much below maximum; 2) 1 mile from ch50 toward ch53, at which Pch50=7dbm=Pa; Pch47 desired=21dbm, from which Pch47 undesired=11dbm; Pbmax.=47dbm, and Pb actual =79dbm, much below maximum; 3) QueensNassau line and Little Neck Bay, in beam of ch53, 13 miles away, at which Pch50=39dbm=Pa; Pch47 desired=24dbm, from which Pch47 undesired=12dbm; Pb max.=42dbm, and Pb actual=57dbm, much below maximum; 4) 1 mile from ch53 due east, in main beam of ch53, at which Pch50=31dbm=Pa; Pch47 desired=3dbm, from which Pch47 undesired=6dbm; Pb max.=44dbm, and Pb actual=24dbm. much below maximum. In all locations, the actual predicted level of Pb, the signal due to LPTV ch 53, is very much below the calculated allowable level to cause intermodulation interference. Two locations were chosen in the ch53 beam, one close and one far, and one location was chosen near ch50 and one near ch47. This is sufficient to show that nowhere will there be predicted intermodulation interference, based on the approximate model used. This proves that the blanket 32 km current taboo is "sufficient but not necessary," and that a case by case study is warranted. The examples chosen shows that ch 53 will probably not interfere with ch 47, confirmed by measurements, despite being only 13 1/2 mile (22 km) from ch 50.  (+))88ԌIn summary, it has been shown that four current taboos governing LPTVNTSC application acceptability: adjacent channel, oscillator, image and intermodulation are very likely too strict. In their current blanket form, they are unnecessarily limiting use of spectrum, a situation which can no longer be tolerated. Since any relaxation can be easily and readily remedied if proven improper, it is strongly recommended that the proposals contained herein be adopted as part of the FCC's DTV rules.  XH  IV. Effective Radiated Power and Adjacent Channel Operation As stated in the discussion of proposed NTSC taboo changes for LPTV, we can no longer afford the luxury of wasting spectrum with unneeded restrictions. In addition to certain taboos, a totally devastating and totally unnecessary on LPTV operation is the very low permitted transmitter output power (TPO). Since only ERP (Effective Radiated Power, the product of TPO and antenna "gain") governs coverage (and therefore interference), full service quite properly limits only ERP. LPTV, on the other hand, puts no limit on ERP, but limits TPO severely. It is essential that the subtle, esoteric, but enormous, difference this makes on the ability of LPTV to use spectrum be understood. In the face of the new DTV service and the second channel, use of an adjacent channel, both NTSC and DTV, is the last remaining hope for LPTV to remain a large viable service. It is accepted that an LPTV, colocated or near located with an adjacent NTSC or DTV channel can survive the interference from this adjacent channel if the LPTV is no weaker than 15 to 20 dB below it. (There is virtually no chance that an LPTV could, or would be permitted to, interfere with a full service NTSC or DTV adjacent channel.) Present taboos do not permit this colocation, and more important, do not in practice allow the LPTV to be within the required 15 to 20 dB of the full service adjacent channel. This is because, to achieve a high ERP with a limited TPO, an LPTV must use a very high gain antenna. Such an antenna is very large, very expensive, and has either narrow sector coverage, or narrow vertical beamwidth, or both. An LPTV operator cannot afford such an antenna, cannot find or afford an antenna to hold it, and cannot live with the severe coverage restrictions of narrow beams; these beams not only cut the area covered, but reduce the signal within e.g. 10 miles of the antenna, something full service can well afford but LPTV cannot. If LPTV was allowed a larger TPO, but was still, of course, was held strictly to interference standards, as now, LPTV could easily, in many cases raise the close in received power level so that it could operate and survive collocated with adjacent full service channels. This spectrum is now being totally wasted, for no valid reason. The FCC can easily see to it that no increase in potential or real interference is permitted, since the FCC must, of course, approve every application. And, obviously, any interference found could be summarily eliminated. PROPOSED TABOO AND POWER LIMIT RULE CHANGES Based on the above discussions, specific rule changes are recommended below. It is believed that the adoption of these changes will greatly improve the survival probability of many, if not most,(+))88 potentially displaced LPTV licensees and permittees without causing any noticeable additional interference to NTSC of DTV full service TV operations in areas where they are or will be significantly viewed over the air. 1.ADJACENT CHANNEL (+/ 1 CHANNEL) PROPOSAL An application for an NTSC LPTV or translator station will not be refused acceptance for filing due to the proximity of an NTSC full service license or CP on an adjacent channel if it is shown that the signal received from the proposed LPTV or translator will never be greater than 15 dB above the signal received NTSC adjacent channel at any location in which the NTSC adjacent channel is significantly viewed directly over the air. 2.OSCILLATOR (+ 7 CHANNEL) PROPOSAL An application for an NTSC LPTV or translator station will not be refused acceptance for filing due to the proximity of an NTSC full service license or CP on a channel 7 above the LPTV/translator if it is shown that the NTSC full service station is not or predicts not to be significantly viewed directly over the air. 3.AURAL IMAGE ( 14 CHANNEL) PROPOSAL An application for an NTSC LPTV or translator station will not be refused acceptance for filing due to the proximity of an NTSC full service license or CP on a channel 14 below the LPTV/translator if it is shown that the full service station is not predicted to receive a signal lower than 33 db below the LPTV/translator predicted received signal level in any area in which the full service station is, or is predicted to be significantly viewed directly over the air. 4.INTERMODULATION (+/ 2,3,4,5 CHANNEL) PROPOSAL An application for an NTSC LPTV or translator station will not be refused acceptance for filing due to the proximity of a full service NTSC station on a channel 2,3,4 or 5 above or below the LPTV/translator, if it is shown that two channel third order intermodulation products predict to be below the maximum allowable level, calculated based on the procedure outlined in B.C.Docket 78253, Sept. 1980 using the mean curve of Fig. 4b, at every location at which a potential victim channel; is significantly viewed directly over the air. 5.ERP LIMIT PROPOSAL An application for an NTSC LPTV or translator will be accepted for filing with the only power limitation being specification of an ERP value in any azimuth or elevation direction which is no greater than 3 KW for low VHF, 10 KW for high VHF, and 150 KW for UHF, and meets all other interference criteria then in effect and not waived. However, such interference shall not be avoided by a predicted signal level more than 30db lower than the maximum ERP proposed, unless supported by a special showing.  (+))88ԌIn all of the above, full support for claims by a applicant concerning areas of significant viewership directly over the air, and areas in which a directive receiving antenna can be assumed, must be provided as part of the application. Any interference to a cable head end only may be cured by the LPTV or translator through use of an alternate signal delivery method, at the expense of the applicant.  Xv  V. Adjacent Channel and High Stability Oscillator Issues Situations will certainly arise where an NTSC, LPTV station will be on a channel which is adjacent to a DTV station. Cooperation of the DTV station should be required to minimize the impact of the adjacent channel operation. a) Maintaining the optimum frequency difference: The new DTV station should be required to cooperate with the LPTV station to make it possible to maintain the precise frequency separation of the two stations within the 6 Hz tolerance that minimizes the beat between the DTV carrier and the NTSC Color subcarrier which shows up as interference in the NTSC picture. The requirement for cooperation will become most critical when the NTSC LPTV station must operate with a (+) or () 10 kHz, as appropriate, from the nominal frequency for its channel. Only in this way can the NTSC station establish the optimum "delta f" from the higher DTV carrier while at the same time satisfying its offset requirement. Further, the DTV station should be required to cooperate in such matters as locking to an external reference which is also available to the NTSC LPTV station whether this is a frequency source on a collocated site or a more remote source such as a global positioning satellite or Loran station. In short, whatever ground rules are established for the combination of a lower adjacent full service NTSC station and an upper adjacent DTV station should also apply as a minimum requirement when the lower adjacent station is an NTSC LPTV station. b) DTV Adjacent Channel Spurious Emissions: In most instances the LPTV station will be considerably lower in power than the adjacent DTV station. Whether the NTSC LPTV station can operate successfully is heavily dependent upon the spurious output energy from the adjacent channel DTV station. 1) Emission Mask of the DTV Station: The adjacent DTV station should be required to provide the tightest emission mask (minimum sideband spurious energy) that the state of the art allows, and, as the state of the art improves, the DTV station should be required to install available improvements if adjacent channel spurious energy is impacting the NTSC LPTV station. 2) Linearity of the DTV Station: The outofband spurious energy is partly generated by the nonlinearity of the amplifiers in the DTV transmitter. Thus the transmitter linearity has a major impact on the adjacent channel spurious energy. If extra suppression of adjacent channel spurious energy is required by an NTSC station, either full service or LPTV, the DTV station should be required to operate with(+))88 the highest achievable linearity. For instance, running the output stage of the transmitter more nearly class A than normal will improve the linearity. However, the transmitter becomes less efficient and generates a larger power bill. A DTV license might be reluctant to so operate, but should be required to do so when necessary to protect an adjacent channel station. Just because LPTV station are secondary is no excuse for DTV stations not be required to take all technically feasible measures to minimize interference, going beyond the normally required technical standards in the final FCC DTV rules to a higher performance standard when necessary.  X  VI. Predicted DTV: LPTV Interference According to footnote 68 in the 6th Further Notice of Rulemaking, it is presumed by the Commission that the impact of DTV on the LPTV stations could be estimated by calculating a separation distance approach. The Commission proposes the use of a cochannel separation distance of 7080 Miles and an adjacent channel distance of 60 to 70 miles. Due to the fact that there is a wide range of ERP power levels used in the proposed DTV facilities, and that the cochannel and adjacent channel interferences are based on the ratio of signal strengths received at the viewers' homes, further analysis was done on the LPTV to DTV interference and the DTV to LPTV interference. A different conclusion about the cochannel and adjacent channel spacing was reached, based on the ratios of interference caused by the various DTV ERPs. In analyzing the LPTV to DTV cochannel interference, the following calculations were made (UHF example): DTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppC43.80 dBu Cochannel Protection Ratio (From Appendix A, II)ppC 1.81 dB  X Cochannel LPTV to DTV Interference Contour<ppC 41.99 dBu  LPTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppC74.0 dBu Cochannel Protection Ratio (From Appendix A,II)ppC34.44 dB  X  Cochannel DTV to LPTV Interference Contour<ppC 39.56 dBu  The interference contours are the signal strengths which would cause interference from one station to the protected contour of the other stations, and these areas can be plotted on a map, much the same way that coverage contours can be plotted. In plotting these contours, it can be presumed that any cochannel station's coverage area within the interference contour of the other station would receive interference, unless terrain shielding is a factor. In this analysis, it is shown that the signal strength of the DTV to LPTV interference contour is 2.43 dB lower than the LPTV to DTV interference contour. The average 43.4 dBu 50/90 DTV protected contour is 90 km (from Proposed Table of Allotments ERP, HAAT and 50/90 curves) and the typical LPTV protected contour is(+))88 approximately 24 km ( 20 Kw ERP at 182 meters HAAT). The average DTV 50/10 39.56 dBu interference contour is 192 km (119 mi) and the typical LPTV 50/10 41.99 dBu contour is 97 km (60 mi.). Therefore, using a spacing criteria for cochannel yields the following figures: Average DTV 43.4 dBu Protected Contour:<ppCJ  P 90 km Typical LPTV Interference Contour:5<ppCJ  P 97 km  Yv Typical Spacing Requirement LPTV to DTV to prevent interference:  P 187 km  (116 mi) Typical LPTV Protected Contour:hh/5<ppCJ  P 24 km Average DTV to LPTV Interference Contour:<ppCJ  P192 km  Y Typical Spacing Requirement DTV to LPTV to prevent interference:  P 216 km (134 mi)(#(#e Using the FCC 50/10 interference contours, the LPTV 74 dBu protected contour and the TV 43.8 dBu protected contour, it is shown that an LPTV station is more likely to receive interference from a DTV station than to cause it. All of these analyses presume an omnidirectional antenna, which represent a worst case situation. However, in the FCC's analysis for the proposed Table of Allotments, an advanced technique of using directionality of receive antennas (in a grid within the protected station's contour) was used to indicate the received cochannel interference more accurately. Using the directional antenna analysis, it appears that the average DTV to LPTV spacing could be reduced by at least an additional 24 km to 192 km (119 mi.) and the LPTV to DTV spacing could be reduced by at least 90 km to a typical 97 km. In this case, as well, the LPTV is more likely to receive interference than to cause it. In some instances, LPTV stations accept interference from NTSC TV stations, and this will likely occur with DTV stations. However, it appears that the typical LPTV station will receive interference from the average DTV facility at a distance of 119 to 134 miles. This will have a greater cochannel impact on LPTV than the 7080 mile figure predicted by the Commission in footnote 68. With regard to adjacent channel spacing, an analysis was done using the worst case desired to undesired ratio of upper DTV to lower LPTV and the lower channel LPTV into the upper channel DTV. These two conditions represent the worst case ratios. For adjacent channel protection, the following calculations were made: In the adjacent channel scenario, an analysis was made under three conditions; colocated, mid range nearby (at 40 km) and close to the contour edge of the DTV protected contour. " +))88Ԍ řFor non colocated LPTVDTV stations where the LPTV transmitter is located outside the DTV contour: DTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppCJ  PxxW 43.4 dBu Lower LPTV into DTV Protection Ratio (from Appendix A, II)J  PxxW47.73 dB  Y LPTV Signal Strength Required to Cause InterferenceppCJ  PxxW 91.13 dBu (#(#e DTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppCJ  PxxW 43.4 dBu Upper LPTV into DTV Protection Ratio (from Appendix A, II)J  PxxW48.71 dB  Y2 LPTV Signal Strength Required to Cause InterferenceppCJ  PxxW 92.11 dBu (#(#e LPTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppCJ  PxxW 74 dBu Upper DTV into NTSC Protection Ratio (from Appendix A, II)   PxxW11.95 dB  Y Upper DTV into LPTV Signal Strength Required to Cause Interference  PxxW  85.95 dBu   It is shown in these calculations that the LPTV station is more likely to receive interference than to create it. In the worst case scenario of the lower adjacent LPTV channel into the DTV channel it is shown that an LPTV could overlap a DTV station with its protected contour and not cause interference, providing the LPTV did not exceed 91.13 dBu. In the upper LPTV to DTV case, the LPTV contour at the DTV protected contour could be 92.11 dBu. In the areas where the LPTV is located outside the contour of a DTV station, the Commission should permit LPTVs where this ratio is met. With the LPTV located at a distance of 40 km from the DTV transmitter: Average DTV Signal Strength at 40 km (1.0 MW @ 390 meter HAAT)xxW  ^ 84.3 dBu Lower LPTV into DTV Protection Ratio (from Appendix A, II)J  PxxW 47.73 dB  Yh LPTV Signal Strength Required to Cause InterferenceppCJ  PxxW 132.03 dBu (#(#e LPTV Protected Contour(hh/5<ppCJ  PxxW 74 dBu Upper DTV into NTSC Protection Ratio (from Appendix A, II)   PxxW11.95 dB  Y Upper DTV into LPTV Signal Strength Required to Cause Interference  PxxW  85.95 dBu  According to the calculations for the LPTV station located at an arbitrary distance of 40 km from the DTV station, it can be shown that the two stations can coexist without causing or receiving interference. In the case of the potential for interference to be caused by the LPTV into the DTV station, in this area it would require an extremely high signal level (132.03 dBu) which is very unlikely to be caused by the LPTV station at any location on the ground. Therefore, no interference would be caused by the LPTV to the DTV. In the other case, where the LPTV would receive interference at that location, it is shown that the average DTV station would not create a high enough signal strength to cause interference to the LPTV station. (!+))88ԌAll of the DTV stations in the proposed table of Allotments were analyzed to determine the distances where the DTV station would create a signal which would exceed the LPTV protected contour by greater than 11.95 dB and which would therefore cause interference to a lower adjacent channel LPTV. These figures were averaged and found to be 31.5 km., average. In many instances in the UHF frequencies, it was found that the DTV channel was assigned to an adjacent channel NTSC TV station and many LPTVs which were adjacent to the DTV allotments were already spaced over 32 km from the DTV by requirement of 47 C.F.R.  74.705(b),(5). In the midrange area, the Commission should permit the location of an LPTV station within the contour of a DTV station where a showing can be made that there would be no interference would be caused to the DTV station, according to the proposed ratios. In both of the above cases, additional accuracy could be achieved by the use of the Commission's directional antenna and grid analysis and this should also be permitted in any required showings of interference protection. For colocated (and nearlocated) LPTV stations and DTV stations, the LPTV would have to exceed the power of the DTV by a huge amount to cause interference to the DTV. The LPTV in a worst case would have to be 59,292 times greater power than the DTV to cause interference (lower LPTV channel into DTV). This is an impossibility, and this interference scenario would not be caused. In the case of the DTV causing interference to the LPTV, with the worst case scenario of upper DTV into LPTV, if the DTV station is more than 11.95 dB above the LPTV station (or 15.66 times the power of the LPTV station), then interference will be caused to the LPTV station. In this case, the Commission should permit colocation of adjacent channel LPTV and DTV stations without any showing of interference protection, and permit colocated LPTV stations to increase their power to reduce received adjacent channel interference from the DTV stations. In conclusion, as is shown by the calculations of cochannel and adjacent channel spacing, the cochannel impact will be significantly greater than indicated in footnote 68. However, according to the calculations, adjacent channel stations can exist without causing or receiving interference in colocated situations, provided the Commission permits the LPTVs to adjust their power to the necessary ratios with the DTV stations. They can also exist without interference in areas in the middle of the DTV coverage areas, and if they accepted interference from the DTV could operate in most areas within the DTV stations contour. Only in the areas near the edge of the DTV station's contour would the LPTV station be predicted to cause interference. Therefore, the Commission should permit colocated stations and should permit the location of LPTV stations within the DTV station's contour, providing that a showing is made that no interference is caused to the DTV station. With the Commission permitting the colocation, near location and "midlocation" of LPTVs within the DTV contour, the adjacent channel impact would be dramatically less than that indicated in footnote 68, and in mostQ%"+))88 instances would eliminate the adjacent channel DTV to LPTV impact. This is significant because an adjacent channel restriction would block two LPTV channels for each DTV station. ` `  !(hh/5<Robert W. Fisher ` `  !(hh/5<Richard Bogner November 22, 1996 !(hh/5<Byron W. St. Clair