******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** FCC 97-115 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Advanced Television Systems ) and Their Impact upon the ) MM Docket No. 87-268 Existing Television Broadcast ) Service ) SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: April 3, 1997 ; Released: April 21, 1997 By the Commission: Chairman Hundt and Commissioners Quello, Ness and Chong issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 2 III. ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PRINCIPLES A. Full Accommodation 8 B. Digital TV Service Areas 12 C. Spectrum for DTV 34 D. Allotment Preference 85 E. Assignment Methodology 88 F. Additional Considerations 91 IV. OTHER ISSUES 96 A. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites 97 B. Existing Vacant Allotments, New NTSC Applications 103 and Station Modifications C. Low Power and TV Translator Stations 114 D. Use of TV Channels 3, 4 and 6 148 E. Land Mobile Sharing 152 F. DTV Frequency Labeling Plan 166 G. International Coordination 171 H. Negotiations and Frequency Coordinators 172 V. ALLOTMENT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 183 VI. DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS 197 A. Allotment Computer Software 197 B. DTV Allotments 201 Full Accommodation 205 DTV Service Areas 206 Spectrum for DTV Allotments 207 VII. ALLOTMENT MODIFICATIONS 208 A. Maximum Station Facilities 208 B. Future Allotments and Modifications to the DTV Table 214 VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 223 APPENDIX A- Technical Data APPENDIX B- DTV Table of Allotments APPENDIX C- Commenting Parties APPENDIX D- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis APPENDIX E- Amendments to the Rules I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts a Table of Allotments for digital television (DTV), rules for initial DTV allotments, procedures for assigning DTV frequencies, and plans for spectrum recovery. The new DTV Table accommodates all eligible existing broadcasters, replicates existing service areas, and ensures sound and efficient spectrum management. The Table will also provide for early recovery of 60 MHz of spectrum (channels 60-69) and recovery of an additional 78 MHz of spectrum at the end of the transition period, for a total recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum. As we stated in the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Sixth Further Notice) that we issued last July, our overarching goals in this phase of the proceeding are to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and effectively through reliance on market forces and to ensure that the introduction of digital TV fully serves the public interest. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission first addressed proposals relating to the development of channel allotments for DTV service the 1992 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Second Further Notice) in this proceeding. In that action, the Commission presented proposals for the policies, procedures and technical criteria to be used in allotting and assigning channels for DTV service. Included in that action was a sample DTV Table of Allotments. 3. On July 25, 1996, we adopted the Sixth Further Notice in this proceeding to revisit our earlier proposals and to respond to technical and system developments with regard to digital broadcast television technology. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed policies for developing the initial DTV allotments, procedures for assigning DTV frequencies, and plans for spectrum recovery. We also proposed technical criteria for the allotment of additional DTV frequencies and provided a draft DTV Table of Allotments. This draft Table was based on the principles of full accommodation for all eligible existing broadcasters, replication of existing broadcast service areas, and sound spectrum management, and used the technical and interference characteristics of the ATSC DTV Standard. We also proposed procedures by which broadcasters in a community could request alternative allotments in their market, both before and after adoption of a DTV Table. Our proposals in the Sixth Further Notice were based on the assumptions that 6 MHz DTV channels will be assigned to existing broadcasters, and that there will be a transition period after which broadcasters will return one of their two 6 MHz channels. 4. In the Sixth Further Notice, we also observed that given the efficiencies of the DTV technology it is possible to reduce the amount of spectrum currently allocated for television broadcasting without reducing the number broadcast television stations. We indicated that this approach may permit the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum at the end of the transition period. We also indicated that it may be possible to recover 60 MHz of this spectrum almost immediately from the band 746-806 MHz, i.e., UHF channels 60-69, while protecting the relatively few full-service analog and digital broadcast stations in that spectrum. The draft Table included in the Sixth Further Notice therefore attempted to minimize the number of DTV channels that would be located on channels 60-69. We also indicated that if we decide to recover channels 60-69 early, we would initiate a separate proceeding to decide how this spectrum should be used. 5. We also requested comment on an alternative spectrum allotment/assignment plan for DTV service suggested by the Association of Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV), on behalf of parties within the broadcast industry. This filing also included a preliminary DTV Table of Allotments and Assignments. Under this alternative approach, each broadcaster would be provided with a 6 MHz DTV channel without preference to any specific channels. Since all channels would be available, such an approach could theoretically provide for some degree of improved service area replication and interference performance. On the other hand, this option would place more DTV stations on channels that are less desirable for broadcast operations and would make spectrum recovery more difficult. We requested comment with regard to these two options. 6. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that in order to provide DTV allotments for existing full service stations, it likely will be necessary that we require a significant number of low power TV (LPTV) stations and TV translator stations to make changes in their operation, including the possibility of ceasing operation. In this regard, we proposed to continue the secondary status of LPTV and TV translator stations. At the same time, we also recognized the benefits that low power stations provide to the public and therefore stated that we would seek to minimize the impact of DTV on LPTV and TV translator operations. We proposed a number of technical and administrative measures to mitigate the impact on low power stations and also requested additional suggestions for reducing the impact on low power stations. In addition, we noted that our rules currently provide for sharing of frequencies between television and land mobile service in a number of urban areas, the Gulf of Mexico offshore region and Hawaii. We therefore proposed minimum spacing criteria between DTV and land mobile operations in these areas. We also observed that our existing border agreements with Canada preclude activation of land mobile stations on existing land mobile channels 15 and 16 in Detroit and channels 14 and 15 in Cleveland and therefore proposed to make these channels available for DTV service in those markets. Finally, we requested comment and suggestions regarding conditions that should be applied in congested areas where the proposed DTV-land mobile spacing criteria cannot be met. 7. More than 450 parties representing the interests of full service television stations, low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations, the viewing public, land mobile interests, including members of the public safety community, and equipment manufacturers submitted comments and/or reply comments in response to the Sixth Further Notice. These parties expressed a wide range of views and positions with regard to our various proposals. In addition, as part of their comments, the Joint Broadcasters submitted two alternative DTV Tables. One of these is a "Modified Table" that the Joint Broadcasters submit improves on the draft Table by modifying its technical assumptions and making increased use of channels 2-6 and 52-69. They state that their Modified Table would reduce interference to NTSC and DTV service, increase service replication, reduce displacement of low power TV stations and increase flexibility for stations to make channel and station adjustments over time. The other table is a "Baseline Table" that the Joint Broadcasters state revises the draft Table to reflect technical concerns relating to planning factors, use of adjacent channels, use of channels 3 and 4 in the same market, allotments in the Canadian and Mexican border areas, and corrections to the engineering data base used to develop the DTV Table. Motorola also submitted, as part of its comments, an alternative Table that reflects its efforts to enhance the opportunity for early recovery of channels 60-69. Motorola also states that the Joint Broadcasters' Modified Table greatly reduces the usefulness of early recovery of channels 60-69 without improving the spectrum environment for broadcasters. It submits that the Modified Table provides insignificant improvements as compared to either the FCC's draft Table or its own Table. III. ALLOTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT PRINCIPLES A. Full Accommodation 8. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed that our primary allotment objective be to accommodate all eligible existing broadcasters with a channel for DTV service. We also stated that, subject to any changes resulting from our Fourth Further Notice, parties eligible for a DTV channel will be the following: a) all full-service television broadcast station licensees; b) permittees authorized as of October 24, 1991; and c) all parties with applications for a construction permit on file as of October 24, 1991, who are ultimately awarded full-service broadcast station licenses. We also noted that we would follow the criteria for initial eligibility provided by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telecom Act). We indicated that we believed that we would, in fact, be able to accommodate all eligible broadcasters with a temporary channel for DTV service. In the event that a shortage of allotments might occur, however, we proposed to rank eligible parties in the following order: 1) licensees and permittees with constructed facilities having program test authority; 2) other permittees; and 3) all parties with an application for a construction permit pending as of October 24, 1991. In the Fifth Report and Order in this proceeding, we adopted eligibility criteria that conform with the guidance set forth in Section 201 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. We therefore limited the initial eligibility for DTV licenses to "persons that, as of the date of such issuance, are licensed to operate a television broadcast station or hold a permit to construct such a station or both." 9. Comments. The commenting parties generally support our proposal to provide an allotment in the initial DTV Table for all eligible broadcasters. For example, the Joint Broadcasters submit that full accommodation is important to achieving the goal of implementing DTV service without disrupting the public's free over-the-air television service. They also state that full accommodation will ensure that full service broadcasters are able to provide the new digital TV service and so preserve and improve the nation's broadcast service. The Joint Broadcasters note that full accommodation has been the foundation of their filings in this proceeding since 1987. On the other hand, Abundant Life Broadcasting (ALB), a LPTV licensee, argues that we should consider awarding temporary second channels to fewer than all full service TV licensees. ALB is concerned that our full accommodation proposal would result in the displacement of LPTV stations. It questions whether the public interest requires all stations to have DTV allotments in markets where there are more than 5 or 6 full service stations. 10. A number of parties suggest modifications to our proposed eligibility criteria. For example, the Association of America's Public Television Stations (AAPTS), in its separate comments, states that we should review the applications for NTSC channels that were filed between the DTV eligibility cut-off date and the NTSC application cut-off date and determine whether it is possible to pair DTV channels with any of those NTSC channels. Several parties, such as Davis Television Topeka, LLC, et al., Innovative Television, Inc., and Las Tres Palmas Corporation request that we provide a DTV allotment to applicants for construction permits (CPs) for new stations. Cordon and Kelly argues that we should substitute DTV allotments for the analog NTSC channels applied for by its clients. Also, Gwendolyn A. Christopher is concerned that if we limit DTV frequencies to only full service stations, we would impose an impediment to the "truly" small telecommunications businesses like LPTV, contrary to the diversity goals of Section 257 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. 11. Decision. We continue to believe that our primary allotment objective should be to develop a DTV Table that provides a channel for all eligible broadcasters. This approach will promote an orderly transition to the new service by ensuring that all eligible full service broadcasters are able to provide digital service. Our decision to accommodate all eligible broadcasters is also consistent with the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act regarding initial eligibility for DTV licenses. We disagree with those parties that suggest we provide allotments for fewer than all full service licensees in order to avoid the displacement of low power TV stations. We note that low power television and TV translator operations are authorized only on a secondary basis. We have consistently maintained this approach towards low power service. Our decisions with regard to this issue have, in fact, been upheld on judicial review in Polar Broadcasting v. F.C.C.. However, because we recognize the benefits low power stations provide to the public, we are also implementing a number of measures to mitigate the impact of DTV implementation on low power stations, so that the great majority of these operations should be able to continue to operate. Accordingly, the DTV Table of Allotments adopted herein provides an allotment for all eligible broadcasters, as defined above. We have considered and addressed the comments concerning eligibility for a DTV allotment in our decision on DTV eligibility in the Fifth Report and Order, supra. B. Digital TV Service Areas 12. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels using a "service replication/maximization" concept suggested by a variety of broadcast industry interests and representatives. Under this approach, we would attempt to identify digital TV allotments that, to the extent possible, will allow all existing broadcasters to provide DTV service to a geographic area that is comparable to their existing NTSC service area. Consistent with the comparable coverage objective, we would use the service replication approach to match DTV frequencies with existing NTSC frequencies to create channel pairings/assignments. The goal of this approach would be two-fold: 1) to provide DTV coverage comparable to a station's current coverage area and, 2) to provide the best correspondence between the size and shape of the proposed DTV channel's coverage area and the station's existing coverage. In this regard, we also proposed to specify for each DTV allotment a maximum permissible effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) that would, to the extent possible, provide for replication of the station's existing service area. Furthermore, we proposed to allow stations to maximize or increase their service area, in accordance with our proposed limits on maximum allowable station facilities, where such an increase would not create additional interference. We also requested comment on whether we should specify a minimum ERP for full service DTV stations in the same manner as we specify for NTSC stations in Section 73.614. We further requested comment on whether it might be more desirable instead to allot DTV channels using an approach that maximizes the service areas of all DTV stations. This approach would tend to equalize the coverage areas of all stations within a market and reduce the current disparities among stations. 13. In the draft DTV Table included with the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to specify an effective radiated power (ERP) and an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) for each DTV allotment. The values of these parameters for each station were chosen so as to describe initial DTV allotments that would allow existing broadcasters to provide DTV service to a geographic area that replicates, to the extent feasible, the service area of their existing NTSC station. The antenna HAAT specified for each DTV allotment was the same as antenna HAAT of its associated NTSC station. The ERP for each allotment was then calculated to provide service area replication up to a maximum ERP of 5 megawatts. We also proposed in the draft DTV Table the following minimum values for ERP: 1 kW for lower VHF channels, 3.2 kW for upper VHF channels, and 50 kW for UHF channels. This would allow smaller stations, if they desire, the ability to expand their existing coverage as they transition to DTV. 14. Comments. Many of the commenting parties that address this issue support the basic service replication concept. These parties agree with our tentative conclusion that this approach would foster the transition to DTV, while simultaneously preserving viewers' access to off-the-air TV service and the ability of stations to reach the audiences they now serve. The Joint Broadcasters submit that the first priority in allotting DTV channels should be to replicate service areas of all stations to the maximum degree possible, in order to avoid disenfranchising viewers. They further state that maximization of service areas should be a secondary goal. The Joint Broadcasters submit that smaller stations should have the opportunity to expand their service areas up to the largest station in the market so long as they do not cause interference to neighboring stations. They believe that this ordering of priorities is the most efficient and equitable way of achieving a seamless transition that best fulfills viewers' expectations while recognizing broadcasters' investment in their core business. Joint Broadcasters state that pairing of DTV and NTSC channels should be on the basis of coverage and interference characteristics, with no attempt to enlarge DTV coverage at the expense of NTSC service. 15. AAPTS, IBC, Malrite Communications Group, Inc. (Malrite), Silver King Communications, Inc. (Silver King), and Univision Communications, Inc. (UCI) state that the service replication principle should be coupled with a maximization principle. These parties generally submit that both during and after the transition, every DTV licensee should be permitted to expand its digital service area up to the maximum service area it could attain with the maximum height and power allowed for its NTSC facilities, provided the increase would not cause interference to another station. UCI states that allowing such modifications would not only allow licensees to provide greater levels of service to a larger portion of the public, but would also enable stations to individually address any as yet unknown propagation peculiarities of the DTV signal. AAPTS also states that it may be impractical in some instances due to costs considerations for some stations, including noncommercial stations, to build DTV facilities with the maximum height and power specified in the DTV Table. As an alternative, it suggests that stations be permitted to use boosters or translators to serve any portion of their DTV coverage areas that could be served with maximum facilities. 16. A number of parties representing broadcast engineers and broadcast stations currently operating on UHF channels express concern with regard to the approach used for specification of DTV power levels in the draft Table. These parties observe that in attempting to replicate the service areas of existing VHF stations whose DTV operations would be on UHF channels, the draft Table specifies differences in ERP levels between UHF DTV channels in many markets are much greater than for current UHF service. For example, SHBC notes that the power levels specified for many UHF DTV allotments that replicate the service areas of UHF NTSC stations are only 50 kW, while the power levels for UHF DTV channels that replicate the service of VHF NTSC stations are often several megawatts. These parties generally argue that these power differences would increase the existing disparities between UHF and VHF stations. KSCI-TV also submits that the very high power levels specified in the draft Table would lead to interference with NTSC and other DTV stations. SHBC states that more review is needed to determine if the high UHF power levels listed on the draft Table are actually needed and if the lower power levels listed for many stations will achieve realistic performance. 17. AFCCE, KSCI-TV, and Pappas Telecasting Companies (Pappas) further argue that the very high ERP levels specified for many stations are impractical. For example, AFCCE notes that the draft Table proposes to allow some DTV UHF stations to operate with as much as 5 MW average power, and that this would require a transmitter that could operate at a peak power of 20 MW or more. It states that, based on consultations with several major television transmitter manufacturers, this is nearly four times larger than the largest UHF-TV transmitters being manufactured today and would not be practical given the limitations of existing TV transmitter technology. AFCCE and the California Department of General Services (CDGS) also submit that the very high power levels and co-location of transmitters could lead to problems for stations in meeting the RF exposure regulations. 18. Some of these parties suggest alternative approaches for replicating the service areas of VHF stations on UHF DTV channels. In particular, AFCCE submits that a more reasonable approach to the allotment process would be to define a grade of service within or to the radio horizon (about 45 miles) and a second grade of service beyond the radio horizon based on a different set of planning factors. Under this plan, the principal difference between the two grades of service would be the assumption that receivers (antennas) located beyond the radio horizon would employ a low noise amplifier (LNA) to overcome the significant penalties associated with distance and over-the-horizon propagation and achieve the same degree of replication as now proposed. The actual power authorized for a DTV station would be the higher of: 1) the power needed to provide the specified field strength at the radio horizon using the Longley-Rice F(50,90) model without an LNA assumption, or 2) the power needed to replicate the station's existing NTSC Grade B contour with the specified field strength based on Longley Rice F(50,90), capped at a maximum of 500 kW (for UHF), assuming the use of an LNA. 19. KSCI-TV and the LABCTS recommend that DTV power be limited to that needed to provide a quality signal to an area limited by the radio horizon. They state that during the transition, all DTV stations in a market should be authorized the same ERP value, adjusted for free air attenuation of the higher frequencies. The TCE states that the most equitable approach to maximization of service would be to uniformly increase the percentage of service area for all stations up to the point where interference is caused to signals from neighboring cities. They therefore recommend that we abandon the replication/maximization paradigm in lieu a 107 km Grade B radius model. DLR suggests a plan under which each eligible station would be assigned a second channel for DTV use during the transition and each station would be authorized transmitting facilities for its proposed DTV channel based on the station's current Grade A contour. After the transition, stations would return to their existing NTSC channel for final DTV operation and ultimate replication of their existing NTSC coverage. Fireweed submits that the power required for DTV operation should not be greater than is currently required for NTSC service. It submits that VHF stations should be permitted to operate small temporary DTV stations on UHF channels and then convert back to their original channels. Citadel Communications Corporation, Ltd. (Citadel) suggests a similar approach. 20. Other parties, such as HVB and Pappas, state that more moderate power levels of perhaps 1000 kW would achieve about the same coverage at reasonable capital and operational costs. HVB also submits that lower power levels would eliminate the large areas of interference that would be caused by stations operating at higher power. Pappas states that this maximum power limit, with an antenna height of 2000 feet, would reduce crowding in the DTV Table and make it easier to accommodate the proposed 50 kW minimum power standard. Media General, Inc, and Park Acquisitions, Inc. (Media General/Park) and Pappas states that in order to minimize interference and best serve the public during the transition, it may be better to start with reduced DTV power, such as a 500 kW maximum for UHF. Media General/Park submits that this lower level would be appropriate until additional information is available on appropriate power levels. 21. AAPTS, Maranatha Broadcasting Company (Maranatha), Pappas, and Rural support our proposal to provide a minimum of 50 kW for UHF DTV operations. AAPTS submits that the establishment of minimum power levels would permit existing stations with very small service areas to replicate their existing coverage, and also will improve their coverage to some extent. AAPTS states that this would narrow the coverage gap between stronger and weaker stations and ameliorate the VHF/UHF disparity. Pappas submits that the strict replication plan submitted by the Joint Broadcasters, with power levels less than 50 watts for many stations, would impede the ability of a large number of UHF stations to serve the public adequately. Pappas states that many UHF stations have not constructed their maximum facilities, and that the principle reason for this is that until very recently, high- power UHF broadcast equipment capable of operating with sufficient efficiency to justify its installation in many small markets was simply not available. It submits that by potentially freezing the DTV allotments for such stations into limited coverage operations, the Joint Broadcasters' plan would thwart those broadcasters' efforts to provide programming to a greater number of viewers. Pappas also argues that the Joint Broadcasters' plan will negatively impact emerging networks. It states that most stations affiliated with these networks are UHF stations and that by failing to provide UHF stations with at least minimally adequate levels of power, the Joint Broadcasters' plan would harm the viability and development of those networks. Rural is concerned that because of the limited amount of spectrum available for DTV, the ERP values adopted with a DTV Table will serve as a ceiling on station growth. It states that minimum power levels would ensure that small stations are treated fairly. 22. In its reply comments, the Broadcasters Caucus (Caucus) acknowledges the concerns expressed by other broadcasters with regard to the power levels proposed for DTV operation. It agrees that if the relative close-in and indoor antenna reception coverage of NTSC VHF channels moving to DTV UHF channels (V's-to-U's) would be better than that of NTSC UHF channels moving to DTV UHF channels (U's-to-U's), the relative competitive posture of analog VHF and UHF stations would not be replicated in the DTV environment. The Caucus submits that after many discussions, members of the broadcasting industry have greatly narrowed the gap on this issue and have nearly mapped out an interim plan to manage the uncertainties over the first several years of the DTV roll-out, until more definitive field data is available. Based on these discussions, it suggests a plan, which it states is supported by representatives of the U-to-U community within and outside of the Caucus, under which: 1) industry would commit to field and other research to study the extent to which the relative competitive posture of existing UHF and VHF stations is replicated with respect to Grade A and Grade B coverage and taking into account indoor direct connected antennas and reliability of reception, 2) the Commission would proceed with the Joint Broadcasters' allotment/ assignment approach and include in this decision language recognizing the objectives and issues to be addressed in the field tests. It further recommends that we adopt a five-step plan for addressing the DTV power issue: 1) Allow stations to improve their indoor antenna reception by increasing their overall power beyond the power levels specified in the DTV Table and target such power within their current Grade A service area, provided no interference is caused to other stations operating on the same or first adjacent channel. 2) Implement the principle of service maximization. The Caucus states that this would allow at least 700 of the existing UHF stations to increase their power. It also states, however, that most stations in major markets may not be able to take advantage of the maximization principle. 3) Allow U-to-U stations in any given market to double their power, not to exceed two-thirds of the power level of the lowest V-to-U in the same market or level "X," from that specified in the Modified Table for the initial two-year period that begins with the adoption of the DTV Table, provided that no new material interference is caused to NTSC stations. At the end of two years, we would determine, taking into account the field data to be developed by the broadcast industry and interference concerns, whether and how to adjust the U-to-U power levels in the future so as to replicate in the DTV environment the relative competitive posture of U-to-U and V-to-U stations. The Caucus states that this proposal would be premised on our adoption of the 7 dB receiver noise figure planning factor proposed by the Joint Broadcasters. 4) Implement a phased-in approach to power for all DTV stations for a two-year period from the adoption of the DTV Table. Under this provision, DTV stations would be licensed at the powers specified on the Modified Table, but would operate at no more than level "X" for this two-year period (unless operating under the conditions specified in the next step). During this first two-year phase, all stations would have protected service areas out to their replicated coverage area. In order to enable the collection of field data, a certain number of V-to-U stations participating in the testing process would be permitted to operate at more than level "X," up to the levels specified in the Modified Table. 5) Recognize the importance of finding solutions to the problem of any failure to replicate the relative competitive posture of analog VHF and UHF stations in the new DTV environment and consider the recommendations of the organizations conducting research on this matter. It states that should the field tests show that fixes are necessary, we should adopt appropriate solutions, including power increases or decreases for DTV stations as necessary, individual DTV station facility changes and the assignment of unassigned channels if available. The Caucus states that broadcasters could not achieve a consensus on the "X" level of power, and that they reached a stalemate at a difference of 3 dB. It indicates that some organizations, including ABC, CBS, NBC and MSTV, proposed a 1000 kW level and others, including ALTV, AAPTS/PBS, Sinclair, Tribune and Viacom, proposed a 500 kW level. 23. The Joint Broadcasters argue that rather than establish minimum power levels, we should adopt minimum DTV service areas that use a combination of power and tower height parameters to achieve the minimum service contours. They state that such minimum service areas should be determined after more study and should assure all stations of a reasonable service area without impinging on the ability of all stations to at least replicate their NTSC service. In its reply comments, the Broadcasters Caucus further states that we should incorporate a minimum DTV service area of 65 km (40 miles) into the DTV Table. It states that this proposal would allow 14% of existing stations (primarily in the UHF band) to increase their service areas. The Caucus also submits that the interference that would result from a 65 km minimum service area would be minimal. 24. A number of parties, including the Joint Broadcasters, KUPN-TV, Costa del Oro, Inc. (Costa), UCI and others, express concern that if we base service replication on the May 13, 1996, data base we used in preparing the draft Table, stations that received an authorization to modify their technical facilities (power, antenna height, and/or location) after that date would receive a DTV allotment that only represents their former facilities. These parties submit that the DTV allotment for a station whose application for modification was granted after May 13, 1996, should be based on replication of the station's new service area. For example, KUPN-TV states that this change would ensure that stations making a good faith effort to improve their Grade B service would not be hampered in their transition to DTV. Some of these parties argue that using the May 13, 1996, data base would be particularly unfair to stations that filed their application for modification before the date of adoption of the Sixth Further Notice. In this regard, UCI states that if we use the May 13, 1996, data base as the standard against which service replication will be measured, it will not receive digital replication capability for any of the NTSC contours for which it has applied since 1994, even though the applications for the changes to achieve these new contours were filed prior to the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice. Costa argues that there is no reason why viewers should suffer NTSC or DTV service losses due to the selection of a cut-off date after a station has filed an application for facilities change. These parties submit that at a minimum we should include grants of applications for facility changes that were filed prior to the Sixth Further Notice in the data base used to determine existing service areas. 25. A number of broadcasters disagree with our proposal to base DTV service areas on replication of the service areas of existing stations. These parties, who represent primarily the interests of existing UHF stations, generally express concern that the service replication plan would perpetuate the existing competitive disparities between UHF and VHF stations. For example, Blade, DeSoto and Grant submit that limiting DTV coverage to an area comparable to a station's existing NTSC coverage would prolong inequities that result from the more favorable propagation characteristics of VHF signals compared to UHF signals. In statements generally representative of this group, Grant argues that with the implementation of DTV service, we have the opportunity to remove these inequities. It states that such action would serve not only UHF broadcasters, but also the public interest in that it would result in a wider variety of free television choices for viewers. DeSoto and WBN are concerned that the strategy of allotting first and maximizing later would provide no guarantee, or reasonable expectation, that a station will be able to maximize its service area. BET also submits that if we equalize service areas, new entrants that acquire spectrum through acquisition will be able to more effectively enter the DTV market. 26. Most of the broadcasters opposing the service replication approach ask that we ensure that stations in a market have comparable technical facilities. For example, Cannell argues that all UHF stations in a market should be allowed the same maximum power, so long as this would not result in interference. Grant and DeSoto submit that if we decide to base DTV service areas on service replication, then we should build in flexibility to permit stations with smaller service areas to maximize their coverage once the transition to and development of DTV is completed. Aries Telecommunications Corporation (Aries), Lewis, and TV-52 support our earlier proposal to maximize the service areas of all DTV stations as a means to resolve the current disparities between stations, particularly with respect to the inequalities that currently exist between VHF and UHF stations. Aries and Lewis also state that broadcasters would be motivated to construct DTV facilities if they perceive an opportunity to improve an inferior market position. 27. The Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) argues that we should not attempt to replicate the full service areas of existing stations. It is concerned that replication of stations' existing service areas would result in greater impact on LPTV and TV translator stations. CBA observes that accommodating both full power and low power television will be most difficult during the transition, when the demand for broadcast spectrum will be highest. It therefore recommends an alternative approach under which the second channels would only replicate stations' existing Grade A contours. CBA submits that replication of a station's Grade A contour would provide service to all or nearly all of the viewers in the its market area. Under CBA's approach, the second channels would be "loaner" channels for interim DTV operations; stations would revert back to their existing channels at the end of the transition, when it should be easier to accommodate both full power and low power stations. 28. The Joint Broadcasters, on the other hand, continue to oppose the Commission's earlier proposal to allot DTV channels using an approach that maximizes the service areas of all DTV stations. They state that such an approach would disenfranchise significant numbers of viewers of the larger NTSC stations and would actually have the effect of reducing the service areas of a majority of the nation's television stations. The Joint Broadcasters argue that these considerations would result in a disincentive for broadcasters to implement DTV service, rather than roll out service as quickly as possible. 29. Decision. We continue to believe that our service replication proposal, with some modifications, is the appropriate approach for implementation of DTV. We believe that providing DTV allotments that replicate the service areas of existing stations offers important benefits for both viewers and broadcasters. This approach will ensure that broadcasters have the ability to reach the audiences that they now serve and that viewers have access to the stations that they can now receive over-the-air. At the same time, we recognize, as pointed out by many of the commenting parties, that the service replication approach proposed by the broadcast community and presented in the Sixth Further Notice could lead to increased disparities among stations. The basic compromise plan set forth in the reply comments of AAPTS, the Broadcasters Caucus and others, addresses many of these concerns. We believe that many aspects of the compromise would be useful in developing a more equitable service replication approach. 30. In considering the DTV power issue, we believe that it is important to adopt an approach that provides for a high degree of service replication by all stations, while at the same time ensuring that all stations are able to provide DTV service competitively within their respective markets. We therefore believe that it is appropriate to develop the DTV Table based on a minimum power level of 50 kW and a maximum power level of 1000 kW. We find that a 50 kW minimum power level will ensure that stations have a sufficient service area to compete effectively in the provision of DTV services and is consistent with the maximization concept supported by the industry. We further believe that this minimum power approach, along with maximization, will provide more opportunities for stations, in particular existing UHF stations, to provide larger DTV service areas than the minimum service area approach suggested by the Joint Broadcasters and the Broadcasters Caucus. We also expect that the results of the broadcasters' studies will show that 1000 kW is sufficient to provide a very high degree of service replication for almost all stations. Accordingly, we believe that 1000 kW is an appropriate maximum power level for use in development of the DTV Table. We also believe that the 1000 kW power limit may help to reduce the impact on low power TV stations and poses less potential for interference among full service stations. This power level will also allow us to provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities for maximization of service areas to full service DTV stations of all sizes. Furthermore, as indicated below, we are considering whether to maintain use of the lower VHF channels for DTV service. If service replication proves difficult for existing VHF stations operating on UHF channels with 1000 kW, those stations may have the option to revert to their VHF channels, if such channels prove feasible for DTV operation. In addition, if future field testing and studies show that higher power is needed to provide a satisfactory level of replication or changes in the treatment of interference are warranted, we will be able to evaluate those results at our planned two-year review and consider whether adjustments are needed. In order to allow broadcasters to study this matter, we will entertain requests for a limited number of stations to experiment at power levels higher than those specified for individual allotments in the DTV Table. 31. With regard to permitting stations to maximize or increase their service areas by operating with additional power or higher antennas than specified in the DTV Table, we agree that stations should be able to maximize their facilities provided that no new interference is caused to other stations. We therefore will permit stations to request an increase in their operating power and/or height of antenna from that specified in the DTV Table, up to the maximum permissible limits on DTV power and antenna height set forth below or up to that needed to provide the same geographic coverage as the largest station within their market. Such requests must be accompanied by a technical showing that the increase would not result in new interference or statements agreeing to the change from any co-channel or adjacent channel stations that might be affected. If such requests are approved by the Commission, the larger service area resulting from an authorized power or antenna height increase will be protected in the same manner as the initial replicated service area. 32. For purposes of service replication, the service or coverage area of a DTV allotment is the predicted noise-limited service area, contained within the Grade B contour of the NTSC station associated with that allotment, less any area where interference from other DTV or NTSC operations may occur. DTV service areas are calculated using the parameters specified in the DTV Table, including maximum ERP, HAAT, and the actual antenna patterns of the associated NTSC stations. This definition of service area shall also be used for purposes of determining whether a "maximization" of facilities or other type of modification causes interference to a DTV allotment. 33. With respect to comments requesting that we update the May 13, 1996, engineering data base, we concur and, as stated previously, the Table included in the Sixth Further Notice was a draft. It has always been our intention to use the most current station data available in developing the DTV Table. Accordingly, the DTV Table of Allotments adopted herein is based on a data base that is current as April 3, 1997. This data base includes new station parameters corresponding to modifications of facilities granted to date, and to the extent possible, provides for replication of modified facilities that were granted on a conditional basis. As discussed in the Fifth Report and Order, broadcasters will be allowed to begin DTV operations at power levels less than those needed for achieving full service area replication. That is, broadcasters will be allowed to operate at power levels lower than those specified for their operation in the DTV Table. This will afford them an opportunity to increase their power over time and thereby "grow into" the power level needed for full service area replication, as specified in the DTV Table. We plan to review this policy two years after the adoption of this Report and Order. C. Spectrum for DTV 34. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that the primary goal of this proceeding is to ensure that the implementation of DTV is accomplished in a manner that serves the public interest. We also stated that it is important to provide the new digital TV stations with the spectrum that is the most appropriate and technically suitable for their operation. In addition, we stated that given our obligation to manage the spectrum efficiently in the public interest and the increased number of stations that the TV spectrum can accommodate, we believe it is important that the recovery of spectrum that is not needed for DTV continue to be a key component of its implementation of DTV service. In this regard, we stated that we remain committed to the recovery of the channels temporarily assigned for the transition and to ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently. 35. We stated that believe that an approach that uses portions of both the VHF and UHF TV spectrum for DTV service appears desirable. Based on studies by our staff in developing DTV allotments, we indicated that a core region of 270 MHz between channels 7 and 51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that this region would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV frequencies for new entrants. We therefore asked for comment on two spectrum plans. Under the first, our "core spectrum" option, all future digital TV service would be located in a core region of the existing VHF and UHF broadcast spectrum, namely the spectrum at VHF channels 7 to 13 (174-216 MHz), and the spectrum at UHF channels 14-51 (470-698 MHz). Figures 1 and 2 below show the existing NTSC television channels and the proposed spectrum to be used for digital television: Figure 1 - Current NTSC TV Channels Figure 2 - Proposed DTV Spectrum (Shaded Areas) 36. Under this core spectrum plan, we would attempt to provide all existing broadcasters with access to a 6 MHz channel for digital broadcasting within the core digital TV spectrum, i.e., channels 7 to 51. Because of the limited availability of spectrum and the need to accommodate all existing facilities with minimal interference among stations, however, during the transition some broadcasters would be provided DTV channels outside of this area. These broadcasters would have to move their DTV operations to a channel in the core spectrum when one became available. Broadcasters whose existing NTSC channels were in the core spectrum could move their DTV operations to their NTSC channel at some time in the future. Broadcasters whose DTV transition channel and existing NTSC channel were both outside of the core area could obtain a new DTV channel when channels in the core spectrum are recovered. 37. We also indicated that this plan would allow the spectrum outside the core region to be recovered without a full channel repacking that would force many broadcasters to move to new channels twice. Specifically, this option would permit the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum nationwide. This spectrum would be obtained from the lower VHF channels, i.e., channels 2-6 (54-72 MHz and 76-88 MHz), and upper UHF channels, i.e., 52-69 (698-806 MHz). We observed that one advantage of this option was that it could facilitate the early recovery of a portion of the TV spectrum. For example, we stated that it may be possible to recover 60 MHz of spectrum almost immediately from the band 746-806 MHz, i.e., UHF channels 60-69, while protecting the relatively few full-service analog and digital broadcasters in that spectrum. In this regard, we noted that only 97 of the almost 1600 television licensees operate on channels 60-69. In the draft DTV Table of Allotments included with the Sixth Further Notice, we attempted to minimize the number of DTV channels that would be located on channels 60-69. The draft DTV Table was based on a "core spectrum" design that minimized -- but that did not eliminate -- digital allotments at channels 60-69. Where necessary to avoid undesirable interference, the draft Table used channels 60-69. The draft Table did so roughly 30 times. 38. We also requested comment on the alternative spectrum allotment/assignment plan for DTV service suggested by MSTV. The plan suggested by MSTV was based on principles that are similar to our proposals. That is, the MSTV preliminary Table was based on full accommodation of all broadcasters, attempts to provide stations with DTV coverage comparable to their existing NTSC coverage, and uses service replication to assign DTV channels. The principle difference between our draft DTV Table and MSTV's preliminary Table was with regard to the use of spectrum. While the two approaches use both VHF and UHF channels, the MSTV proposed approach does not attempt to concentrate all DTV operations within a core area of the spectrum. Under this alternative approach, each broadcaster would be provided with a 6 MHz DTV channel without preference to any specific channels. Since all channels would be available, such an approach could theoretically provide for some degree of improved service area replication and interference performance. We also observed that such an approach might also have less impact on low power TV and TV translator stations. On the other hand, we noted that there were disadvantages with this plan. For example, this option would place more DTV stations on channels that are less desirable for broadcast operations; the MSTV Table included over 350 allotments on channels 60 and above. We requested comment with regard to these two options. Commenting parties were also invited to address whether the different plans would have different effects on specific segments of the broadcasting industry such LPTV and TV translator stations and the emerging networks. 39. We also requested comment on specific issues relating to the "core area" option. We asked that comments address whether our proposed choice of the spectrum for the core area was appropriate and whether there are any other considerations relating to this choice that should be addressed. In particular, we requested comment on our tentative conclusion that the upper UHF frequencies are less desirable for broadcasting purposes and more appropriate for other uses. Similarly, we requested comment on our assessment that VHF channels 2-6 are less suitable for digital broadcasting because of high levels of noise. 40. We further requested comment on what mechanisms and criteria we should use to determine the channel that will become the permanent DTV spectrum for each existing station. We tentatively proposed to allow broadcasters with both NTSC and DTV frequencies in the core DTV spectrum to choose one of those channels for their permanent DTV spectrum. Under this plan, broadcasters would be required to make their spectrum choices within a specific period of time, e.g., three to five years, after the implementation of DTV service begins. Once these choices were made, the Commission would identify new DTV allotments that would be available for relocation of stations initially operating on frequencies outside the core area or for new DTV assignments. 41. We requested comment on whether we should adopt special transition provisions for broadcasters with NTSC channels or DTV allotments outside the core area. For example, where such a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is outside the core should we allow the broadcaster to cease NTSC operation and permit early transition to a DTV channel in the core? In addition, where a broadcaster's existing NTSC channel is in the core and its DTV allotment is outside the core, we asked whether we should allow the broadcaster to convert its NTSC channel to DTV operation, rather than activate its "temporary" out-of-core DTV allotment. Finally, where a broadcasters' existing NTSC channel and DTV allotment are both outside the core area, we asked for comment on whether we should allow such broadcasters to wait to begin DTV operations until spectrum becomes available in the core area? This would allow some broadcasters to avoid making a second transition to convert to DTV. We specifically ask whether the above special transition approaches should apply to broadcasters with NTSC or DTV frequencies on channels 60-69. 42. In considering the spectrum issues relating to DTV implementation, we also observed that digital licensees may be willing to temporarily reduce the power of their digital signals to avoid interference to analog signals. We proposed to permit such agreements, including those that involve compensation. In addition, we noted that in some cases interference to NTSC stations can be minimized or eliminated by increasing the transmitter power or antenna height of the affected NTSC station. We proposed to permit such changes provided that they do not cause more than de minimis interference to neighboring DTV operations, and we proposed to permit agreements including compensation under which a DTV licensee would temporarily agree to accept a slightly elevated level of interference so that reception of an NTSC station is improved. 43. Comments. Most parties with broadcasting interests oppose proposals that would reduce the spectrum that is available for television broadcast purposes. These parties argue that no spectrum should be recovered prior to the end of the transition to DTV service. They argue that using all the channels without preference will provide increased flexibility for DTV implementation and mitigate interference and service area concerns. Parties representing LPTV and TV translator interests state that using all the spectrum would minimize the impact of DTV on their operations. The public safety community and most other land mobile interests, on the other hand, support the core approach and argue that spectrum recovery is needed to meet important communications needs, such as public safety. 44. The Joint Broadcasters, in their comments, oppose the core spectrum approach. They submit that we should adopt their Modified Table, subject to further adjustments. They state that their Modified Table demonstrates that use of the full television band reduces interference to existing NTSC and to new DTV stations and improves opportunities for replication and maximization. The Joint Broadcasters argue that a channel plan that uses that entire band will provide for more flexibility during the transition to DTV. They state that experience is needed to identify the optimal spectrum into which DTV stations may be re-packed, thereby vacating contiguous spectrum for other uses. They also argue that the core approach would result in increased interference and would impact service replication. They assert that the core approach would increase new interference to NTSC by 18%, and that interference to DTV service would be 28% less under a full band plan. In addition, they claim that under their plan, 95% of stations would achieve 95% replication or better as compared to 91% of stations achieving 95% replication under a core approach. They argue that these service differences are important and contend that the Commission has held that the loss of service to even a relatively few viewers has been definitive in past relocation, deintermixture and maximum spacing decisions. 45. The Joint Broadcasters also argue that eliminating the core and spectrum recovery approaches would lessen the impact LPTV and TV translator stations. They state that while there is not enough spectrum to preserve all existing low power stations, their approach would displace fewer LPTV and TV translator stations than the proposed core approach. They estimate that approximately 20% of all low power stations would be displaced under their Baseline Table and that an additional 16% would be displaced if channels 60-69 were recovered and made available for other uses during the transition. The Joint Broadcasters submit that they worked with the low power community in constructing their Modified Table, and include with their comments a list of the LPTV and TV translator stations that they believe would be displaced. 46. The Joint Broadcasters also contend that the selection of permanent channels for DTV is premature. They argue that excluding channels 2-6 from the ultimate DTV spectrum is particularly problematic. They argue that in the absence of evidence that the lower VHF band is unsuitable for DTV operation, it is unwise and could be extremely disruptive to inform stations operating on the lower VHF channels -- long among the most desirable for their longer propagation range and lower power requirements -- that they will have to abandon their facilities at the end of the transition. They also argue that their modified full band approach would provide many stations with the opportunity to increase their service areas beyond their NTSC service area. They argue that the benefits of the core spectrum approach are speculative and uncertain and that their approach would result in the eventual return of essentially the same amount of spectrum. They further argue that the assumed economic benefits of the core approach and spectrum recovery proposals have been greatly overrated and contend that the proposed early auction of segments of channels 60-69 would earn far less than a later auction of contiguous spectrum. 47. Other broadcasting parties expressed similar views. AAPTS, for example, states that the full broadcast band should be used for DTV during the transition period. It states that such an approach will afford more opportunities for coverage maximization and will reduce the adverse impact of DTV allotments on noncommercial translators. Chris- Craft/United Group (Chris-Craft) recommends that we maintain maximum flexibility for modifying the initial allotments. To this end, it argues that we should not adopt the core spectrum proposal. Similarly, Freedom Communications, Inc. (Freedom) believes that the full amount of spectrum currently allocated for TV should continue to be available in the future, particularly in the transition period. KARK-TV, Inc., opposes the core spectrum proposal. It argues that because the DTV has not been thoroughly tested, broadcasters will need flexibility to work out allotment problems during the transition and for a considerable period thereafter. It also contends that there has been no immediate demand for more frequencies by other services demonstrated. 48. Harris Corporation (Harris), a manufacturer of television transmitters, states that it is important to maintain flexibility during the DTV implementation stage by utilizing the full television spectrum for DTV allotment purposes. Similarly, AFCCE recommends that we retain the entire UHF TV spectrum until DTV interference issues are resolved. Thomas C. Smith believes that our DTV spectrum plan should consider the future growth of broadcast television, the need for additional full service stations and the future of secondary TV translators and low power TV stations. He is concerned that the overriding consideration in this proceeding is to raise revenue for the U.S. Treasury, rather than the technical and growth needs of the existing industry. 49. National Broadcasting Company (NBC) submits that a critical element in maintaining the flexibility to make changes to the DTV Table is not to arrive at a premature conclusion as to which parts of the spectrum may be best for DTV operation. It states that, for example, it believes that the low band VHF channels are entirely suitable to carry DTV signals. It states that the advantages of longer range propagation with significantly lower power compensate for the characteristics of the low-band VHF frequencies that can impair DTV service. 50. Several other parties also argue that the low VHF channels should continue to be available for future DTV operations. DLR, for example, urges that we retain the low VHF channels for TV use. It disagrees with our initial assessment that the low VHF channels are less suitable for DTV service because of high levels of atmospheric and man-made noise. It submits that the DTV field tests performed on channel 6 at Charlotte, NC, while limited in sample size and interference experienced, indicate that DTV service was substantially better than NTSC service in the presence of impulse noise. Citadel Communications Co., Ltd. (Citadel) proposes that VHF channels 2 to 6 be retained and that stations currently licensed on those channels be permitted to return to those channel locations for final DTV operations. It believes that the various technical penalties of operating there (leaky power lines, ignition noise, and educational FM interference) deserve more study before the band is discarded for DTV. 51. Silver King Communications, Inc. (Silver King) states that our plan for early recovery of channels 60-69 would create additional interference, impede the maximization and modification of NTSC and DTV facilities, and give TV receiver manufacturers an incentive to omit channels 60-69 from new TV sets. It states that this would unfairly and uniquely limit the ability of Silver King, with eight major market stations on channels between 60 and 69, to compete in the NTSC and DTV marketplaces. Silver King states that new service providers should be required to compensate broadcasters for the cost of relocating their DTV channels to the core spectrum area. Telemundo Group, Inc. (Telemundo) and UCI argue that we should reject the core spectrum plan and retain the current broadcast spectrum. Telemundo is concerned that as spectrum outside the core is recovered for other uses, the non-core channels will become subject to increasing levels of interference. It also argues that TV set manufacturers may stop building receivers that tune channels outside of the core spectrum. UCI argues that the proposals for mitigating the impact on low power stations will have little impact if an artificial contraction of the broadcast spectrum, as would occur under our core spectrum plan, leaves no digital or replacement channels available for LPTV licensees. Pappas Telecasting Companies (Pappas) submits that the benefits that might accrue from auctioning spectrum from channels 60-69 before the completion of the transition to DTV are at best speculative and states that this spectrum could be worth significantly more if it were to be auctioned as a cleared block. 52. WB Television Network (WB) states that the core plan would reduce the number of channels that are available for new TV stations and thereby impact new networks. Rather than adopt the core spectrum option, WB urges that we delay making any decision about the precise amount of spectrum to be recovered until after the transition to DTV is complete and after the pending applications and rule making proceedings for new NTSC stations have been acted on. 53. Parties with interests in low power operations, both LPTV and translators, are generally concerned that the core approach and channel 60-69 spectrum recovery efforts would result in additional impact to their operations. Acadiana Cable Advertising, Inc. (Acadiana), for example, opposes the core spectrum approach and the plan for early recovery of channels 60-69. It argues that shrinking the available spectrum would effectively eliminate LPTV and TV translator stations and would result in loss of program diversity. Apogee Broadcasting Corp. (Apogee) submits that our proposed core spectrum plan makes finding a replacement channel more difficult. Apogee acknowledges that eventual auctioning of unused spectrum would offer taxpayers a financial benefit, but urges that any such action be deferred until the end of the transition. 54. The Community Broadcasters Association (CBA) argues that we should postpone any spectrum reallocation until more is known about the transition process. CBA states that channels 60-69 are more heavily populated by LPTV and translators than full power stations. The National Translator Association (NTA) submits that all the TV spectrum should be retained until all stations are converted to digital. It argues that it would be unfair to people in rural areas to require translator operations to move again as they have done from above channel 69. F. A. Bibeau & Associates (Bibeau) states that in the Southwest area of the U.S., especially the Mountain States, there are few full power TV stations and a greater portion of the population receive their only television service by translators. It submits that channels 60-69 are needed for TV translators to provide service to these unserved areas. Blue Mountain Translator District (Blue Mountain) states that the TV spectrum in central and eastern Oregon is being used in its entirety and that removing channels 60-69 would impact reliable broadcast services to communities in northeastern Oregon. WatchTV states that if we move to reclaim channels 60-69, the new service providers should be required to compensate LPTV licensees for their existing investment or for moves to new channels to accommodate new entrants. 55. The Department of Special Districts, San Bernardino County, CA (DSD) submits that we should not re-allocate channels 60-69 until after the transition to DTV is completed in order to protect the operation of LPTV and TV translator services. It argues that no spectrum reallocation, the purpose of which would be to garner revenue for the U.S. Treasury, should result in any direct or indirect cost to Special Districts' taxpayer-created and financed services without 100% restitution, paid by either the U.S. Government or by the successful bidder at auction or other new user. The DSD also submits that, to the extent possible the DTV Table should be modified, to encourage all stations to revert to their existing channel after the transition. 56. KUED-TV and KULC-TV (KUED-TV) argue that further consideration should be given to preservation of the existing TV translators and LPTV stations in allotting DTV channels. KUED-TV submits that the loss of one translator could cause loss of service to many communities. It argues that because of this "domino" effect, the number of translators affected by DTV could be up to 3 or 4 times higher than estimated. The International Broadcasting Network (IBN) argues that our DTV proposals must accommodate all existing television stations, including the nation's approximately 2,000 low power stations and more than 1,500 full power television stations, on a fair and equitable basis. 57. Tiger Eye Broadcasting Corporation (Tiger Eye) submits that community broadcast television is perhaps the only source where viewers can consistently watch locally- televised events. It requests that channels 60-69 be retained in order to preserve low power television service. Raoul Lowery Contereras argues that LPTV stations provide for minority/ethnic participation in mass communications and provide coverage of minority/ethnic events that are ignored by full power broadcasters. He asks that we revise our proposed rules and policies for DTV to protect LPTV. WJYL-LP 26 (WJYL) urges that LPTV service be preserved at all costs. It states that many in the low power industry have invested their life savings and credit into the financing of their stations. WJYL recommends that we allocate a group of channels for LPTV service. Community Teleplay, Inc. (CTI) submits that frequencies between 52-59 should be set-aside band for displaced LPTV stations. 58. The Benton Foundation (Benton) argues that we should adopt an allotment plan that includes LPTV stations and provides for their continued success in the DTV era. Independent Broadcasting Company (IBC) states that we should attempt to facilitate the transition of TV translators to DTV operations in a manner that will not impact full service DTV conversion. It argues, however, that LPTV is a failed experiment and that we should not treat LPTV stations any different than TV translators. 59. Several parties with broadcast interests support the core approach, suggest modifications to the core concept or support approaches that would limit DTV allotments to the UHF band or portions of the UHF band. KSCI-TV and LABCTS, for example, support the concept of a core spectrum. They submit that excess spectrum should be returned for other purposes but that enough spectrum should be maintained for broadcasting to provide an interference free transition and continued operation of DTV. KSCI-TV and LABCTS recommend that DTV be implemented in a core spectrum of channels 22-66. They state that this would simplify receiver design and antenna problems. They submit that this would release the existing VHF TV spectrum and make channels 14-21 contiguous with the existing land mobile spectrum now ending at 470 MHz. 60. National Public Radio (NPR) supports our proposal to allot DTV channels in a manner that would permit the early recovery and auction of channels 60-69. It states that a portion of the auction proceeds should be used to support public broadcasting. It asks that if there are insuperable technical barriers to the early recovery of this spectrum, we continue to pursue and support other appropriate mechanisms to sustain the public broadcasting system. BET states that we should adopt our core spectrum proposal and other mechanisms to recover spectrum quickly and efficiently in order to be able to conduct auctions for the recovered spectrum in a manner that encourages new entrant participation. It also states that the core spectrum approach will promote rapid efficient recovery of vacated spectrum and is far superior to the first-come/first-served approach we proposed earlier. 61. Lewis supports our earlier proposal to allot all DTV channels to the UHF band. It submits that this approach would provide strong encouragement for medium and small market stations to participate in the transition to DTV technology. The LABCTS believe that DTV should be implemented in a core spectrum of contiguous UHF channels. They submit that this approach would simplify receiver design and antenna problems. VictoriaVision, Inc. (VVI) requests that we locate all DTV allotments in the UHF band. It argues that locating all TV stations in the same band would eliminate the existing disparities between VHF and UHF stations and simplify receiver and antenna designs. 62. Fox recommends that low band VHF channels generally not be used for DTV allotments due to the crowded nature and propagation characteristics of this band. Cannell Cleveland, L.P. (Cannell) argues that both our core spectrum plan and the alternative approach supported by the Joint Broadcasters appear to exacerbate the disparities between UHF and VHF stations. To address these concerns, Cannell recommends that we establish a DTV core spectrum that is entirely within the UHF band. Holston also recommends that all DTV channels be located in the UHF band as a means to avoid impulse noise in the VHF bands and to avoid repacking stations at the end of the transition. It submits that modern UHF transmitters can be operated throughout the band with only minor modifications and that this would minimize the cost of any re-packing that would be necessary. Kentuckiana believes that in order to place all broadcasters on a level playing field, DTV service should be located entirely in the UHF band. It submits that locating all DTV stations in the UHF band would finally eliminate the disadvantages that UHF stations face with respect to VHF stations. It states that the result would be a stronger overall television system. 63. The public safety community and other land mobile parties strongly support proposals that would permit spectrum recovery. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc., (APCO) supports the plan to allot DTV channels in a manner that would allow for reallocation of channels 60-69 for other services. APCO notes that one of the key findings of the Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, September 11, 1996, is that public safety needs an additional 25 MHz of spectrum within the next five years. It states that the spectrum now allocated for channels 60-69 would be extremely valuable for public safety and is immediately adjacent to the 800 MHz frequency bands already allocated for public safety operations. It further observes that the impact on existing TV service and DTV implementation would be de minimis. APCO asks that at least 24 MHz be made available to public safety within five years. 64. APCO also states that we should reduce and, if possible, avoid channel 60-69 DTV allotments altogether. It submits that to the extent that it is necessary to place any DTV allotments on channels 60-69, we should adopt strict guidelines by which stations must either initiate DTV service or relinquish the channel for reallocation. It states that we should also attempt to concentrate the DTV allotments on particular channels rather than scattering them across all ten channels. APCO indicates that such concentration would allow the reallocation of common frequencies to public safety across the country. APCO argues that while it understands the situation of low power TV stations, the radio spectrum is a finite resource subject to reallocation in the public interest. It states that low power TV stations were granted licenses on a secondary basis, and have always been on notice that their operations could be temporary. APCO opposes requiring new users of channels 60-69 to compensate low power licensees for their displacement, at least insofar as it would apply to new users that are state and local government agencies. It argues that public agencies have limited resources that will be needed to implement the new public safety systems on those frequencies. 65. APCO further states that there is a substantial need for new public safety spectrum in the lower VHF band above 174 MHz (adjacent to current 150-174 MHz land mobile bands) and in the lower UHF band at 470-512 MHz (channels 14-20, where land mobile sharing already exists in eleven major markets). APCO states that additional spectrum is needed in these bands to provide for enhanced interoperability, especially for wide area operations for state police and similar agencies. It therefore recommends that we modify our core spectrum proposal to allow for the eventual recovery of spectrum in the range of VHF channels 7-8 (174-186 MHz) and UHF channels 14-20 (470-512 MHz). It states that to offset the impact of making additional spectrum below 512 MHz available for public safety, we could either use VHF channels 5-6 as part of the DTV core spectrum, or extend the DTV core spectrum one or two channels above channel 51. 66. In a joint letter submitted on February 26, 1997, APCO et. al., states that we must not delay any further in addressing public safety needs. These parties disagree with the broadcasting interests that reallocation of channels 60-69 should be delayed for several years. These parties further observe that the process of making new public safety spectrum available and constructing systems to operate on that spectrum will not be completed overnight. APCO et. al. therefore urge that we allocate spectrum in channels 60-69 now, so that implementation of new public safety systems can begin as soon as possible. To facilitate this process, they also urge that the DTV allotment plan eliminate or at least minimize, the number of DTV allotments on these channels. 67. The County of Los Angeles (LA County) states that it supports our DTV allotment proposals, including the plan for recovery of channels 60-69 for other uses. It urges that a significant portion of reallocated spectrum be made available for public safety use and states that many governmental entities in Southern California have substantial need for more spectrum to modernize overburdened communications, to provide interoperability, and allow for the implementation of new communications technologies for public safety. LA County also states that it supports the suggestion made in APCO's comments that we modify the core spectrum plan to allow for eventual public safety use of VHF channel 7, and to facilitate additional land mobile sharing of UHF channels 14-20. It argues that elimination of channels 60-69 would have minimal impact on current television broadcasters. It also supports the proposal to continue the secondary status of low power television stations and argues that public safety agencies should not be required to compensate such secondary licensees for terminating operation or relocating to other spectrum. 68. Department of Communications, County of Bucks, Pennsylvania (DOCBC) submits that there is an urgent need in many parts of the country, including the Philadelphia area, for additional public safety radio channels. It points out that the PSWAC, in its recently released Final Report found that public safety agencies need at least 2.5 MHz of additional spectrum immediately for interoperability, at least 25 MHz within 5 years, and an additional 70 MHz within the next 15 years. AC Transit submits that the San Francisco Bay area has a serious shortage of available frequencies to support the communications needs of its transit systems. 69. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) states that our proposal for recovery of a portion of the existing broadcast television spectrum for new uses is a win-win situation that accommodates both DTV operations and new mobile operations. It submits that the spectrum in channels 60-69 is adjacent to existing mobile service allocations at 800 MHz and therefore would be of significant benefit for land mobile use. It states that this spectrum could, for example as noted in the Sixth Further Notice, be licensed through competitive bidding for flexible mobile operations; a portion of it could be used to meet public safety needs; and/or a portion could be designated temporarily or permanently for LPTV and TV translator stations. The LMCC also suggest some of the recovered spectrum could be used to meet the communications needs of electric and water utilities, petroleum producers, railroads, transportation facilities and many smaller businesses. LMCC suggests several modifications to our DTV allotment proposals. First, it recommends that we reexamine the draft Table to determine whether alternative solutions exist that would avoid the need to make any DTV allotments on channels 60-69. Second, it states that we should establish some mechanism to retire NTSC operation on channels 60-69 in a timely manner. It suggests that, given the relatively poor propagation of broadcast signals in this band, we should examine the extent to which the audience share for the approximately 100 NTSC stations on channels 60-69 is actually achieved over cable rather than over-the-air. 70. In a letter submitted March 14, 1997, the LMCC states that the Commission and the American public will not reap the full benefits of the DTV allotment plan unless prompt action is taken to make more efficient use of the spectrum represented by TV channels 60- 69. It urges that we pursue a schedule that would lead to: 1) adoption of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making by May 1, 1997, for the reallocation of channels 60-69 for public safety, critical industries/businesses and CMRS uses, and licensing and service rules to implement the reallocation, 2) adoption of a Report and Order finalizing the reallocation by August 1, 1997, or sooner; and 3) adoption of a Report and Order finalizing service rules for land mobile use of channels 60-69 by December 31, 1997, or sooner. 71. UTC, the Telecommunications Association, urges that we initiate a proceeding to immediately allocate the channel 60-69 band to meet the needs of public safety and to address the needs of the private radio community. In particular, UTC argues that a portion of the recovered spectrum could be used to 1) address congestion in the private land mobile bands below 512 MHz, 2) accommodate relocated users from the 800 MHz band, 3) meet anticipated growth in private land mobile operations, and 4) permit the introduction of new and innovative technologies. UTC also states that entities, such as utilities and pipelines, have a need to interoperate with public safety agencies. It believes that the channel 60-69 band would be ideal for this interoperability band. 72. Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson) supports the core spectrum concept but suggests that by repacking the UHF broadcast spectrum it may be possible to free up additional radio spectrum for other uses or more broadcast channels. Ericsson believes that it is likely that a core spectrum area smaller than the 44 channels proposed in the Sixth Further Notice could provide all broadcasters with DTV facilities comparable to their existing NTSC facilities. It notes that the UHF TV channels are lightly packed with only about 18 stations per channel. Ericsson submits that if the post transition core spectrum were packed only as tightly as VHF stations are packed now, i.e., 58 stations per channel, then only about 30 channels would be needed to accommodate DTV. It states that such a compact plan would ultimately free up more than 200 MHz of spectrum. Ericsson also recommends that we modify our core spectrum proposal to free spectrum at the lower UHF TV band and to leave channels 7 and 8 out of the core spectrum. While it acknowledges that it would be extremely difficult and disruptive to relocate existing channel TV operations, it states that freeing these channels after this transition would be less difficult. It notes that our draft Table proposes only 10 DTV allotments for channel 7 and 14 allotments for channel 8. It submits that these allotments could be moved to other channels so that channels 7 and 8 could be left free of DTV operations. 73. Motorola supports our proposals to adopt DTV allotment criteria that promote both the near term and long term recovery of underutilized broadcast television spectrum. It states that this proceeding presents perhaps the last opportunity to foster major improvements in the efficient use of the spectrum below 1 GHz. Motorola agrees with our initial assessment that recovery of significant portions of the television spectrum can occur without reducing the number of broadcast outlets. It states that given the more robust nature of the DTV technology, as opposed to the existing NTSC service, we will be able to use a higher percentage of the television allocation. It agrees that once the transition is complete, all existing broadcast operations will be able to co-exist within channels 7-51 with capacity remaining for additional allotments. 74. Motorola states that it strongly supports the proposal to provide for early recovery of channels 60-69. To this end, it submitted two DTV Tables or "solutions" that it says would further limit the number of DTV allotments on channels 60-69. Motorola states that by focusing on the allotment of new channels for the DTV allotments proposed for channels 60-69, while attempting to maintain a constant "cost" factor imposed on broadcasters, it was able to reduce the number of DTV allotments on channels 60-69 from 30 to 5. It states that this Table was achieved with only a minor increase in the "cost" of the solution as calculated by the software. It submits that this solution would result in no DTV operations on 5 of the 10 channels between 60-69. It also indicates that by "short-spacing" a few DTV allotments it was able to further reduce the number of DTV allotments in channels 60-69 from 5 to 2. In addition, it states that these solutions maintain interference protection for land mobile stations now occupying portions of the 470-512 MHz band (channels 14-20) in certain cities. In its reply comments, Motorola states that the performance of the Joint Broadcaster's Modified Table is insignificantly different (1.5% vs. 1.6% reduction in service area) from the Motorola solution considering that its cost precludes the possibility of early recovery of channels 60-69. 75. Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, et al. (CSEF) submits that our proposal to locate DTV channels in the core spectrum area constitutes a more efficient assignment of the spectrum, and that to the extent that it obviates the need for later repacking will permit swifter recovery of spectrum, which could then be used for other purposes. It states that to the extent that our proposal permits channels 60-69 to be made available for other uses, it would provide some immediate compensation for the broadcasters' use of 12 MHz. It urges that we reallocate these channels as soon as possible in a subsequent proceeding. 76. Decision. We continue to believe that the spectrum principles set forth in the Sixth Further Notice are appropriate. We believe that it is important to provide broadcasters with spectrum that is most appropriate and technically suitable for DTV. In this regard, we have developed a Table of DTV Allotments that attempts to provide all eligible broadcasters with a DTV allotment within channels 2-51 without bias against the use of any channel in this band. Where necessary, however, channels outside this region are also used. We believe that approach will provide for full accommodation of all eligible broadcasters in a manner that minimizes interference to existing NTSC service and provides for a high degree of service area replication by new DTV facilities. We also continue to believe that we can accomplish these goals in a manner that ensures that the radio spectrum is used efficiently and effectively. In this regard, we believe that the public interest is best served by developing a Table of DTV Allotments that meets the DTV spectrum needs of broadcasters during the transition; facilitates the early recovery of spectrum from channels 60 to 69; and also facilitates the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum currently being used for analog broadcasting. 77. In this regard, we do not believe that either the early recovery of channels 60-69 or our core approach will have a significant impact on the flexibility needed for the implementation of DTV. We note that the ATSC digital system has been rigorously tested and studied. We also note that significant industry efforts have gone into developing the technical planning criteria to be used in the implementation of DTV. We believe that the Table we are adopting is fully consistent with these technical decisions. We also note that if DTV implementation problems do arise, they are most likely to do so in the most congested markets where channels within the 60 to 69 range will already be in use by either NTSC or DTV operations and thus will not be available to solve such implementation problems. Accordingly, while we are confident that problems in implementation will not arise, we believe that if they do they will better be addressed through technical solutions other than relying on channels 60-69. For example, some technical solutions to unexpected interference could include using directional antennas or limiting power and/or antenna height during the transition. 78. We find that the impact of our core and spectrum recovery approaches on interference and service replication to be insubstantial. We disagree with those parties that assert that these approaches would impact the implementation of DTV by full service broadcasters. Under the DTV Table we are adopting, almost 99% of all existing NTSC service areas and viewers will be unaffected by the implementation of DTV operations. In addition, 93% of all DTV allotments would provide at least 95% service area replication. Further, the DTV Table accommodates more than 100 additional new NTSC stations and provides DTV allotments for these stations. It also eliminates all but one of the land mobile sharing problems that were present in both the draft and the Joint Broadcasters' Tables. In summary, we find that the DTV Table will fully meet the needs of broadcasters during the DTV transition. We believe that cumulative differences in interference and service replication between the Table we are adopting and approaches suggested by the Joint Broadcasters are de minimis and are clearly outweighed by the benefits to be achieved through our core and spectrum recovery plans. 79. We also disagree with those broadcasting parties that assert that we should not recover early channels 60 to 69 because there is no need for additional spectrum by other services. We believe that the record clearly demonstrates that additional spectrum is required to meet the needs of public safety and other land mobile services. As indicated by APCO, LA County, the Governor of New Jersey and the many governmental organizations that filed comments in this proceeding, there is an urgent need for additional spectrum to meet important public safety needs, such as broadband data transmissions of fingerprints, mugshots, criminal histories, building diagrams, hazardous material information, medical images and related emergency response data. The record also strongly supports a conclusion that spectrum in the region of channels 60-69 is appropriate to meet some of these needs. As indicated by several parties, the proximity of existing land mobile communications systems to channels 60-69 would permit equipment economies and could enhance interoperability between future public safety systems and current systems now operating in the 800 MHz land mobile bands. Accordingly, as indicated above, our DTV Table of Allotments minimizes the use of channels 60-69 to facilitate that early recovery of this portion of the spectrum. 80. We will initiate a separate proceeding in the very near future to address how to allocate available spectrum at channels 60-69. In our recent Report and Order in the WCS proceeding, we stated that we would give serious consideration to allocating 24 MHz for public safety use. We will also consider whether some or all of the remaining 36 MHz could be assigned by auction. All existing NTSC and DTV full service broadcast operations on these channels will be fully protected during the transition. We will also address whether to require compensation by new service providers to full service or low power operations for the displacement or relocation of such operations from channels 60-69. With regard to eventual recovery of spectrum beyond channels 60-69, our planning for the future recovery of such additional spectrum does not in any way prejudge the potential uses of that additional spectrum or the services that might operate thereon. 81. With regard to LPTV and TV translator stations, we continue to believe that the principal impact on low power operations will be from the accommodation of all full service broadcasters with a second channel for DTV. Further, we find that the potential benefits of recovering channels 60-69, as discussed above, outweigh any additional impact this plan may have on low power operations. Nevertheless, as we discuss below at paragraphs 141 to 146, we are taking a number of significant steps to mitigate this impact. We therefore continue to conclude that LPTV and TV translator stations should retain their secondary allocation status. 82. DTV Core Spectrum. One of our principal concerns is to provide broadcasters with the best possible spectrum for DTV operation. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated our belief that channels 7-51 are the most suitable frequencies for DTV service. We noted that TV operations on the lower VHF channels 2-6 are subject to a number of technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels due to leaky power lines, vehicle ignition systems, and other impulse noise sources and interference to and from FM radio service. At the same time, we recognized that the lower VHF channels 2-6 offer unique technical characteristics for broadcasting, particularly with regard to propagation. Finally, we observed there are propagation limitations for TV service on higher UHF channels. 83. Our core concept was designed to facilitate and minimize the cost to broadcasters of spectrum recovery. A number of commenting parties, however, strongly urge that the core spectrum be modified to include channels 2-6. Other parties agree with our initial assessment that these channels may not be appropriate for DTV. We, therefore, believe that best approach at this time is to develop the DTV Table of Allotments based on use of channels 2-51. Accordingly, we have modified our allotment software to attempt to locate all DTV channels within this portion of the spectrum. If the lower VHF channels 2-6 prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 2-46 rather than channels 7-51. We do not believe that expansion of the core, or elimination of our computer allotment penalties, to include channels above channel 51 is warranted or would significantly reduce interference. Further, such an approach would lead to additional assignments outside the DTV spectrum core area, thereby increasing the number of second channel moves, with concomitant costs, for broadcasters. Accordingly, the DTV Table of Allotments, adopted herein, is based on use of channels 2-51. This approach will allow us to monitor closely the experiments and early implementation of DTV operations before determining the core spectrum for DTV. 84. We also will allow broadcasters, wherever feasible, to switch their DTV service to their existing NTSC channels at the end of the transition if they so desire. Such channel switches would be permitted provided that the station's existing channel is within the final DTV core spectrum. Stations, with both NTSC and DTV channels outside the core spectrum, will be assigned new channels within the core from recovered spectrum. We note that the new Table contains 68 instances where both channels are outside of channels 7-51 and 89 instances where both channels are outside of channels 2-46. D. Allotment Preference 85. In most instances, the choice of channels for a DTV allotment will involve consideration of other nearby DTV allotments and existing NTSC stations. We noted that any plan that provides all eligible broadcasters with a new DTV allotment will unavoidably result in some degree of interference to both NTSC and DTV stations. This is true whether the digital frequencies are distributed throughout the existing broadcast spectrum or whether the digital frequencies are generally placed in the spectrum at channels 7-51. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels using an approach that is neutral in protecting both existing NTSC stations and new DTV allotments. The draft Table therefore attempted to minimize interference to all stations and to balance unavoidable interference among NTSC and DTV stations equally. We also asked questions about how to mitigate interference to NTSC service. 86. Comments. AAPTS supports our proposal to employ a neutral approach in protecting NTSC and DTV stations from interference. It also states that we should take the additional step of requiring DTV stations to operate at reduced power where necessary to protect NTSC stations from interference during the transition. AAPTS argues that broadcast stations, which must compete with many other video distributors, cannot afford to alienate a substantial portion of their viewers by suddenly delivering a deteriorated level of NTSC service. Joint Broadcasters maintain their longstanding position that the DTV allotment process should attempt to reduce interference to NTSC service to the maximum degree possible, in order to avoid disenfranchising viewers. On the other hand, BET supports our earlier proposal to provide a relative preference to new DTV operations when a choice must be made between providing greater service area for a new DTV allotment or minimizing interference to an existing NTSC station. It states that maximizing a DTV station's service area will result in rapid, comprehensive DTV overage, thereby encouraging the transition to DTV. Other commenting parties did not address this issue. 87. Decision. We believe it is important that our approach for development of DTV allotments minimize the amount of interference that would be caused to both existing TV service as well as the new DTV service. It is important to protect the existing NTSC service in designing the DTV Table so that the public does not lose television service during the transition. At the same time, we believe it is equally important to avoid interference to new DTV stations wherever possible in order to provide for the best possible DTV service in the future. We therefore have attempted to minimize interference to all stations and to balance unavoidable interference between both NTSC and DTV stations equally in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. The DTV Table we are adopting today will fully protect 98.8 percent of existing geographic service area and 98.6 percent of the population now served within the Grade B contours of existing stations. At the same time, the service replication allotment approach we are using and the superior performance characteristics of the ATSC DTV system have allowed us to provide for DTV coverage that is equal or superior in coverage to today's NTSC service. We also find that the DTV Table sufficiently minimizes interference among stations such that it is not necessary to adopt special provisions to mitigate interference during the transition. E. Assignment Methodology 88. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to assign DTV channels to eligible broadcasters in a manner consistent with our plan to employ service replication in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. We therefore proposed to designate DTV channels for existing stations based on the results of the matching process that is an intrinsic feature of the service replication approach used in developing the Table. We also requested comment on whether a first-come/first-served or some other approach for assigning channels would better meet our goal of implementing digital television in an efficient, effective manner. 89. Comments. The commenting parties addressing this issue support our proposal to assign channels to existing broadcasters based on the matching process involved in replicating the service areas of those stations. For example, the Joint Broadcasters submit that an assignment method based on replication of service areas provides the greatest opportunity for an orderly and successful transition to the digital environment. They state that replication of a station's service area will maintain viewer continuity. AAPTS also specifically endorses the paired channel approach. It states that the pairing of channels will avoid the "first-come/first serve" spectrum free-for-all that would place noncommercial stations at a severe disadvantage to their counterparts. 90. Decision. We continue to believe that the most advantageous approach for assignment of DTV channels is to match stations with the channel that best replicates their existing service areas. We agree with the commenting parties that this approach will preserve both viewers' access to the existing stations in their market and stations' access to their existing populations of viewers, and thereby ensure an orderly transition to DTV service for both commercial and noncommercial stations. Accordingly, we are offering eligible broadcasters DTV assignments in accordance with the matched plan of DTV allotments specified on the DTV Table set forth in Appendix B. These assignments will be offered to eligible broadcasters pursuant to the schedules and conditions established in our Fifth Report and Order in this proceeding. F. Additional Considerations 91. In the Sixth Further Notice, we observed that during the transition, in most communities, digital allotments will use up all of the available spectrum for full service broadcasting. But in some communities -- mainly rural areas -- unused channels may remain even after all existing broadcasters receive allotments. Assuming that some channels will be vacant in certain geographic areas during the transition, and more after the transition, we requested comment on whether and how we should make those channels available. We asked, for example, if once we have identified any remaining channels, we should accept applications for new primary stations? Or should we consider other possibilities, such as permitting existing broadcasters, either individually or jointly, to use the available channel or channels for additional broadcast or subscription programming? We also asked whether we should permit broadcasters in a community to propose, as an alternative to the allotment plan in the attached Table, an allotment plan that would allow them to use, jointly or individually, more than one vacant channel apiece? We asked whether we would be required in this situation to consider other mutually exclusive applications ? We further requested comment on whether, if we permit such proposals, should the channels be used on a primary or secondary basis? Finally, we asked that if we adopt the core spectrum approach, should our policies depend on whether the spectrum at issue is inside or outside the core? We also asked that in evaluating allotment plans for DTV, commenting parties consider the costs and benefits under alternative approaches to spectrum recovery. We requested comment on the affect such approaches would have on new entry to broadcasting. 92. Comments. Several parties responded to our inquiries with regard to these issues. WB, for example, submits that we should assign DTV channels to NTSC broadcasters currently not eligible for a DTV channel (non-eligible broadcasters) on a priority basis if spectrum is or becomes available. It urges that we make vacant channels available to non-eligible NTSC licensees and permittees both during and after the transition. WB also states that to the extent that an additional channel does not become available or if an non-eligible broadcaster wishes to keep its existing channel, we should allow that broadcaster to convert its existing channel to DTV operation. It further submits that wherever feasible we should make new DTV allotments available to non-eligible broadcasters at the same time channels are made available to eligible broadcasters. It states that this would facilitate a smooth transition of all broadcasters from NTSC to DTV service and thereby foster diversity. 93. CSEF argues that we should not permit existing broadcasters to have the exclusive right to use any vacant channels that might be available after the DTV assignments have been made. It states that to do so would be contrary to our goals of competition and diversity, and would run afoul of the Supreme Court's holding in Ashbacker. CSEF submits that broadcasters should not be given more free spectrum than they will already receive through the proposed assignment of a second DTV channel. It states that it would be more appropriate to make this spectrum available to displaced low power TV stations, to mutually exclusive applicants, or, if Congress permits, to competitive bidders and/or for flexible use. 94. BET urges that we provide measures to compensate for the effects of the freeze on new broadcast applications, mega-mergers, and the loss of LPTV stations to promote diversity in media ownership. It argues that although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that we provide the initial allotment of DTV channels to incumbent full service broadcast licensees, we must also take steps promote distribution of DTV broadcast licenses to new entrants under Section 307 of the Communications Act. In this regard, BET submits that we should make all vacant DTV allotments available to new entrants via auction following adoption of the DTV Table of Allotments for all full service broadcasters. It further recommends that we: 1) adopt rules that promote partnerships, joint ventures, and local marketing arrangements between TV broadcasters and minority- and women-owned businesses, 2) allow geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation for ancillary and supplementary services, and 3) provide for early recovery and auction of spectrum for new entrants. BET suggests that we adopt rules that encourage LPTV, TV translator and noncommercial operators to form partnerships with new entrants. BET also states that the revenues from supplementary/ancillary DTV services could provide incentives for noncommercial/new entrant partnerships and additional funding for noncommercial broadcast DTV operations. It urges that we encourage partnerships between incumbent television broadcasters and new entrants, particularly minority- and women-owned entities, by requiring incumbent broadcasters who are assigned DTV licenses to form partnerships with minority and women-owned entrants as a condition for the flexibility to provide supplementary services. 95. Decision. We concur with the commenting parties that it is important to continue to foster our longstanding broadcast policy goals of diversity and encouraging new entry, particularly by minorities and women. We also believe that fostering these goals is consistent with our spectrum management responsibilities to ensure that the DTV spectrum is used efficiently. Accordingly, we will permit unused DTV spectrum to be used by both new and displaced LPTV and TV translator stations. We will also allow new entrants and non- eligible broadcasters to seek and apply for new DTV allotments. In addition, as suggested by WB, we will allow non-eligible broadcasters to convert their existing NTSC operations to DTV service at any time during the transition, provided those operations are within the core spectrum area. We believe that this action will further our diversity goals and promote the development and expansion of new networks. We further encourage incumbent broadcasters to seek partnerships with new entrants in developing new stations in areas where additional unused spectrum may be available. IV. OTHER ISSUES 96. In addition to the principles and objectives discussed above, there are several other matters that need to be resolved in developing the DTV Table of Allotments. These matters include use of existing transmitter sites for DTV service, treatment of vacant NTSC allotments, displacement of low power TV stations and TV translators, use of TV channels 3, 4 and 6, and protection of land mobile services. These matters are addressed below. A. Use of Existing Transmitter Sites 97. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to allot DTV channels on the basis of current transmitter sites, rather than community reference points. Under this proposal, the current NTSC transmitter sites would be used to develop the DTV Table and to determine whether DTV allotments met the proposed minimum allotment requirements. In recognition of the fact that many broadcasters will not be able to locate their DTV operations at the same exact site as their NTSC station, we proposed to permit a broadcaster to locate its DTV facility at any site within a three-mile radius of the actual transmitter location, so long as the station would continue to serve its community of license. We also proposed to permit a licensee to operate its DTV station at a site different from that of its NTSC operation where the alternate site would meet the proposed DTV minimum spacing requirements and the station would continue to serve its community of license. We noted that such site relocations could include movement to a common local TV transmission site. We also requested comment regarding any circumstances where it might be desirable to evaluate DTV allotments on the basis of sites other than those occupied by existing TV stations. 98. Comments. Most of the commenting parties who address this issue support our proposal to allot DTV channels on the basis of stations' current transmitter sites. For example, the Joint Broadcasters and AAPTS note that this strategy will facilitate replication of NTSC service areas, thereby assuring continued service to viewers and minimizing disruption during the transition, and encourage co-location of NTSC and DTV operations. AAPTS also states that co-location of NTSC and DTV facilities will permit stations to realize cost savings both in converting to DTV service and in operating dual facilities during the transition. 99. Freedom Communications, Inc. (Freedom), however, opposes allotment of DTV channels based on stations' existing transmitter sites. It contends that using existing transmitter sites will perpetuate current inequities of the current NTSC Table in cases where there is short-spacing to other stations and/or where transmitter sites are located away from a main local antenna farm, so that most viewers' antennas tend to be oriented away from the station's transmitter. KSCI-TV and the LABCTS support co-location of all DTV transmitters within a market to a common site. They state that a common transmitter site would help reduce interference, provide more available channels and eliminate receiving antenna orientation problems. KSCI-TV also submits that if a station moves its transmitter to a different site which is co-located with the other stations in the market, the station should be allowed to use repeaters to provide service to areas currently served that would not be served from the new site. 100. The Joint Broadcasters oppose our proposal to allow a station to locate its DTV facility at any site within a three-mile radius of its NTSC transmitter. While they support our recognition of the need to provide broadcasters flexibility in locating their DTV operations, they are concerned that any decision to choose a different transmitter site, even one as close as one mile away, may significantly affect other stations. Broadcasters therefore believe that relocations should be considered on a case-by-case basis and recommend that this task be assigned to the proposed industry coordinating committees. They further state that requests for DTV transmitter relocation should be granted freely. 101. Aries, Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., Sunbelt, and TV-52 submit that stations need greater flexibility to locate their DTV transmitters than the three-mile radius proposed in the Sixth Further Notice. For example, Sarkes Tarzian supports allowing licensees the flexibility to operate their DTV service from locations at other than their NTSC transmitter site where such operation would not create unacceptable new interference to either the DTV or NTSC service of other stations. It submits that this approach would result in significant maximization of DTV service and better NTSC/DTV matching. TV-52 submits that greater flexibility in locating DTV transmitter sites may be needed given the difficulty inherent in locating existing tower space or in constructing new towers. It further states that if we grant authority to a licensee to relocate its authorized NTSC site, its DTV site should be relocated as well, even if the move would require a change of the DTV allotment. Sunbelt asks that we be flexible in permitting waivers or variations where the circumstances warrant choice of a different location. 102. Decision. Given our decision on service replication, we continue to believe that DTV allotments should be based on current transmitter sites, rather than community references. We also find that allowing broadcasters the flexibility to locate their transmitting facilities at any site within a three mile radius of their existing antenna site coordinates is appropriate. Accordingly, we adopt these proposals. While we understand the concern of those commenting parties who suggest that permitting such location flexibility may impact the operations of other stations, we also recognize that existing transmitter sites may not always be available and that use of alternative sites must be accommodated to permit DTV operations. We further believe that the impact of allowing stations to move their transmitter sites within a three mile area should be minimal, providing existing antenna patterns are maintained, and can be taken into account through minor adjustments in power and antenna height if problems arise. We also agree with those parties who suggest that we should provide as much flexibility as possible with regard to changes in transmitter locations. To provide broadcasters' flexibility, we will allow stations to relocate to other locations or co-locate their facilities with other broadcasters where such relocations and co-locations would not increase interference. B. Existing Vacant Allotments, New NTSC Applications and Station Modifications 103. In the Sixth Further Notice, we proposed to eliminate all vacant NTSC allotments to facilitate development of the DTV Table. We also requested comment on whether allotments for noncommercial service deserve special consideration. 104. Consistent with our proposal to eliminate all existing vacant NTSC allotments, we stated that we would not accept additional applications for new NTSC stations that are filed after 30 days from the publication of the Sixth Further Notice in the Federal Register. We stated that as we process the applications on file now and those that are filed before the end of this filing opportunity, we would continue our current policy of considering requests for waiver of our 1987 freeze Order on a case-by-case basis. We also stated that when applications for new stations are accepted for filing, we would continue our process of issuing Public Notices that "cut-off" the opportunity for filing competing, mutually-exclusive applications. In connection with these cut-off notices, we stated that we would allow additional competing applications to be filed after the end of this filing opportunity. We anticipated that these applications for new NTSC TV stations on existing allotments will not have a significant negative impact on the development of the DTV Table of Allotments, but reserved the right, in specific cases, to determine that the public interest is better served if they are not granted, granted only if amended to specify reduced facilities, or granted only with a condition that limits the interference that the station would be allowed to cause. 105. We also stated that, effective as of the close of business on the date of adoption of the Sixth Further Notice, i.e., July 25, 1996, we would no longer accept petitions for rule making proposing to amend the existing TV Table of Allotments in Section 73.606(b) of our rules to add an allotment for a new NTSC station. We indicated that other petitions to amend the TV Table of Allotments (for example, proposing to change a station's community of license or altering the channel on which it operates, including changes in which channel allotment in a community is reserved for noncommercial educational use) could continue to be filed, but any such changes to the TV Table that include a modification of a station's authorization would be conditioned on the outcome of this DTV rule making proceeding. We stated that any petitions that were on file and any rule making proceedings that were open would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account their impact on the draft DTV Table. For those pending cases in which a new NTSC channel is allotted, we indicated that we would make an exception to our decision to cease accepting applications for new NTSC stations, and that the accompanying allotment Report and Order would specify the period of time for filing applications. 106. We stated that we would continue to permit the filing of applications by existing or authorized NTSC TV stations to modify their technical facilities, i.e., maximum effective radiated power (ERP), antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), and transmitter locations. However, in order to preserve our ability to develop the DTV Table, we stated that we would henceforth condition the grant of applications for modifications of technical facilities, including those for applications on file before the date of the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice, but granted after that date, on the outcome of our final decision on the DTV Table of Allotments. We indicated that to the extent that an existing station's service or potential for causing interference are extended into new areas by grant of an application, the condition may require the station's authorized facilities to be reduced or modified. We sought comment on whether this condition should involve different consequences for applications for modifications on file as of the date of adoption of the Sixth Further Notice, as opposed to such applications filed after that date. 107. Comments. The commenting parties support our proposal to eliminate vacant NTSC allotments. These parties agree that recovery of the vacant commercial NTSC allotments is necessary to facilitate the creation of new DTV allotments. For example, the Joint Broadcasters state that we should use unassigned/unallotted NTSC channels to increase new service while protecting NTSC and predicted DTV service. BET submits that provision of a DTV channel for a vacant NTSC commercial or noncommercial allotment is not the most efficient use of the spectrum and suggests that such vacant allotments be recovered and made part of an auction to new entrants for DTV and other supplementary and other services. LA County and LeSEA state that elimination of the existing vacant commercial and noncommercial NTSC allotments would allow us to maximize the number of DTV allotments for existing stations in both the commercial and noncommercial services and more effectively free-up spectrum for new uses. SHBC submits that vacant channels should be deleted if they prevent a DTV channels from being assigned elsewhere in a market. 108. AAPTS, the Joint Broadcasters, and Rural ask that we take steps to protect vacant noncommercial allotments. AAPTS and Rural argue that maintaining public broadcasting capacity is a bedrock Congressional and Commission policy that should not lightly be cast aside. The Joint Broadcasters state that they have long recognized the importance of preserving noncommercial vacant allotments in the DTV world. AAPTS states that we should not delete vacant noncommercial channels unless we find on the basis of an engineering analysis that there is no other way to accommodate existing broadcasters with DTV channels. AAPTS states that it often takes years to lay the ground work for a noncommercial application, and that it would be unjust if we were to reallocate a vacant reserved NTSC channel for DTV service at the eleventh hour and deny an application to use that channel for noncommercial service. It states that we should be particularly careful to protect vacant reserved noncommercial NTSC channels in cases where a party has already applied for the channel during the filing period that closed on September 20, 1996. AAPTS and the Joint Broadcasters also submit that we should replace any deleted noncommercial NTSC channels with noncommercial DTV channels, where possible, and that we should pair DTV channels with vacant NTSC channels. It further submits that we should replace the rest of the vacant channels that we delete with digital channels reserved for noncommercial use when analog channels are returned at the end of the transition. 109. Many of the commenting parties address our decision to place a condition on modifications of facilities granted after the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice. AAPTS and the Joint Broadcasters support this decision. They submit that in processing such applications, we should determine whether the proposed change would cause new interference to the protected service of any new DTV channel. Most of the parties addressing this issue argue that we should not condition facility modifications in cases where the application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice. For example, MVM argues that conditioning grant of pre-existing modification applications on the outcome of the DTV allotment proceedings would penalize broadcasters who improve their service to the public. It states that few if any licensees would spend money in the improvement of service if the public and financial benefits of that improved service would be lost or compromised upon implementation of the DTV Table. The Modifiers argue that because of the condition, communities that now receive service from a modified NTSC stations may lose that service during the transition. They further submit that the applications for modification filed for before the adoption of the Sixth Further Notice were developed as a routine part of the business of providing and improving current television service to viewers. The Modifiers also argue that the applicants did not cause the delays in granting their own applications. The Modifiers further submit that with the advent of the fledgling UPN and WB networks, a substantial number of independent stations that either were not built or were operating with inferior facilities have now found the resources to upgrade their facilities. They argue that these stations should not be held to that inferior status in the digital environment. 110. Pulitzer Broadcasting Company (Pulitzer) argues that many applicants relied on our previous decision, in the Second Further Notice, not to restrict modifications in preparing and filing their pending modification applications and that these parties would be unfairly prejudiced by this reversal. It also notes that some older applications remain pending, while other applications, filed more recently, have been granted. Pulitzer states that each pending application should be considered on a case by case basis to determine whether the factual and legal circumstances warrant application of this new policy. It also argues that applications for modification filed after July 25, 1996, have less of a claim of prejudice because they undertook the investment in the facilities changes with full knowledge of the uncertainties that might stem from this proceeding. 111. WB states that because new networks have acute need for additional affiliates now, it urges us to consider and act on all pending applications and rule makings for new NTSC stations before we allot DTV channels for eligible broadcasters. It argues that we should not sacrifice diversity of over-the-air television in the process of implementing DTV service and that we should consider the role that networks play in promoting programming and ownership diversity. CBA argues that waivers and new applications should not be granted until a specific effort has been made to minimize damage to LPTV. Meredith agrees we should freeze new facilities. 112. Decision. As we stated in the Sixth Further Notice, eliminating existing vacant NTSC allotments will help us better achieve our goals of full accommodation, service area replication and spectrum recovery in the development of DTV allotments. If vacant allotments were retained, it would not be possible to accommodate all existing broadcasters in some areas and the expected service areas of many of the DTV allotments would be reduced. Such crowding could also result in increased interference to existing NTSC stations. Moreover, we believe that new television broadcast stations should operate with the new DTV technology. In this regard, the licensing of new NTSC stations will come to an end as provided in the Sixth Further Notice. Thus, there is no need to maintain vacant NTSC allotments that are not the subject of a pending application or rule making proceeding. Accordingly, as proposed, we are deleting all existing vacant NTSC allotments. With regard to noncommercial vacant allotments, the DTV Table replaces existing vacant noncommercial NTSC allotments with new noncommercial reserved DTV allotments where feasible, in a manner similar to the approach suggested b