Commission Document

• Print
• Email

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands:
)
Allocations, Channel Sharing and Improvements
)
ET Docket No. 10-235
to VHF
)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Adopted: November 30, 2010

Released: November 30, 2010

Comment Date: [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [75 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]

By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski, Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Clyburn, and Baker
issuing separate statements.

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice, we initiate a process to further our ongoing commitment to addressing
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing innovation and investment in
mobile and ensure that America keeps pace with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant
amount of new spectrum available for broadband. Through this Notice, we take preliminary steps to
enable the repurposing of a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands that are currently used by the
broadcast television service, which in later actions we expect to make available for flexible use by fixed
and mobile wireless communications services, including mobile broadband. At the same time, we
recognize that over-the-air TV serves important public interests, and our approach will help preserve this
service as a healthy, viable medium. The approach we are proposing is consistent with the goal set forth
in the National Broadband Plan (the "Plan")1 to repurpose up to 120 megahertz from the broadcast
television bands for new wireless broadband uses through, in part, voluntary contributions of spectrum to
an incentive auction. Reallocation of this spectrum as proposed will provide the necessary flexibility for
meeting the requirements of these new applications.
2. The specific bands under consideration are the low VHF spectrum at 54-72 MHz (TV
channels 2-4) and 76-88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the high VHF spectrum at 174-216 MHz (TV
channels 7-13), and the UHF bands at 470-608 MHz (TV channels 14-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV
channels 38-51); for purposes of this Notice, we will refer to this spectrum as the "U/V Bands."2 This
Notice proposes three actions that will establish the underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless
broadband uses of the U/V Bands, while maintaining current license assignments in the band. First, we


1 See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
(March 2010); available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. The Plan was developed by the Commission pursuant
to the direction of Congress in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), see American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
2 The band 608-614 MHz, i.e., TV channel 37, is used for radio astronomy and is not part of the spectrum being
considered for reallocation. See 47 C.F.R. 2.106., US 74 and US 246.

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

are proposing to add new allocations for fixed and mobile services in the U/V Bands to be co-primary
with the existing broadcasting allocation in those bands. The additional allocations would provide the
maximum flexibility for planning efforts to increase spectrum available for flexible use, including the
possibility of assigning portions of the U/V Bands for new mobile broadband services in the future.
Second, we are proposing to establish a framework that, for the first time, permits two or more television
stations to share a single six-megahertz channel, thereby fostering efficient use of the U/V Bands. Third,
we intend to consider approaches to improve service for television viewers and create additional value for
broadcasters by increasing the utility of the VHF bands for the operation of television services.
3. By taking these important steps to facilitate wireless broadband uses in the U/V Bands, this
Notice is the first in a series of actions that will allow us to make progress toward our goal of improving
efficient use of the bands and enable ongoing innovation and investment through flexible use. We intend
to propose further actions consistent with other of the Plan's recommendations for the U/V Bands,
including, but not limited to, the process of voluntarily returning broadcast licenses to the Commission
and the licensing process and service rules for new fixed and mobile wireless communications services.
As part of that process, the Commission will address the Plan's proposal for channel re-packing, the band
plan for recovered spectrum and other related issues and will provide full opportunity for public comment
on those issues at that time.

II.

BACKGROUND

4. The National Broadband Plan. The Plan was issued on March 17, 2010. As required under
the Recovery Act, the Plan seeks to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability and
establishes clear benchmarks for meeting that goal.3 The Plan recommends making 500 megahertz of
spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz newly available to meet the needs of mobile, fixed and
unlicensed wireless broadband in the next 10 years and for providing 300 megahertz of that amount for
mobile flexible uses within 5 years,4 of which up to 120 megahertz would come from the broadcast
television bands.5
5. Current Uses of the U/V Bands Spectrum. The U/V Bands occupy 294 megahertz of
spectrum in five frequency bands and are all currently allocated for use by broadcasting services.6 In
addition, the 470-512 MHz band segment is allocated for fixed and land mobile services on a co-primary
basis with broadcasting.7 However, use of the fixed and land mobile services in this band is limited to the
geographic areas and purposes stated in footnote NG66 to the Table of Allocations. All five bands
currently are allocated principally to broadcast television under Part 73 of the rules.8 Full power
television stations have recently completed a statutorily mandated conversion from analog to digital
transmissions. As part of that transition, 108 megahertz of UHF spectrum at 698-806 MHz was recovered
for new uses,9 including fixed, mobile, and broadcasting; a portion of that spectrum has been set aside for


3 Recovery Act, 6001(k).
4 Id. at 84. The frequency range between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz is generally to be considered the most suitable
spectrum for mobile communications.
5 Id. at 88.
6 See 47 C.F.R. 2.106 (Table of Frequency Allocations); see also 47 C.F.R. 73.603. The overall VHF and UHF
regions occupy the spectrum in the frequency ranges 30 MHz to 300 MHz and 300 MHz to 3000 MHz, respectively.
7 See 47 C.F.R. 2.106, footnote NG66.
8 47 C.F.R. Part 73. In addition, low power television stations (TV translators and low power TV stations) operate
under regulations set forth in Part 74 of the Commission's rules.
9 See Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005 ("DTV Act"), which is Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA") (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14) and 337(e)); see also
DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. No. 111-4, 123 Stat. 112 (2009).
2

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

public safety uses.10 Television stations now operate on six-megahertz channels designated 2 to 51 in the
five U/V Bands.
6. In addition to full power TV stations, certain other licensed services are permitted to operate
in the U/V Bands' TV channels. Class A television stations operate under Subpart J of Part 73 of the
rules.11 Low power TV and TV translator stations are permitted to operate under Subpart G of Part 74 of
the rules on a "must protect" basis to full power TV stations and on an equal basis with Class A TV
stations, provided they meet technical rules to prevent interference to reception of such stations.12 Part 74
also allows certain broadcast auxiliary operations on TV channels 14-69 on a secondary basis.13 In
addition, the Part 74 and Part 15 rules permit certain entities to operate wireless microphones and other
low power auxiliary transmitters on vacant TV channels on a non-interference basis.14
7. Pursuant to the fixed and land mobile allocations in the 470-512 MHz band segment
(channels 14-20), licensees in the Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) under Part 90 of the rules
and in the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) under Part 20 of the rules operate in 13
metropolitan areas on one to three six-megahertz channels.15 These operations are for public safety and
related land mobile communications and for CMRS backhaul operations. In addition, under Part 15 of
the rules medical telemetry equipment is permitted to operate on an unlicensed basis on any vacant TV
channels in the range of channels 7-46, and unlicensed remote control devices are allowed to operate on
any TV channels above 70 MHz (i.e., above channel 4), except for channel 37.16
The Offshore
Radiotelephone Service uses channels 15-17 in certain regions along the Gulf of Mexico.17 In Hawaii,
channel 17 is reserved for inter-island communications.18 However, no active licensees currently use this
channel in Hawaii. Finally, the Commission has allowed low power unlicensed devices to operate on


10 See Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87-268, supra; see also, First Report and Order in WT Docket No.
99-168, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000), Report and Order in ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) and
Report and Order in GN Docket No. 01-74, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002).
11 See 47 C.F.R. Part 73 Subpart J. Class A TV stations operate at the power levels permitted for low power
television stations under Part 74 of the rules, but have certain protection rights with respect to full service analog and
digital TV stations that are not available to TV translator and low power stations.
12 See 47 C.F.R. Part 74 Subpart G. Collectively, Class A, low power TV and TV translator stations are commonly
known as "LPTV stations."
13 See 47 C.F.R. 74.602(h). This rule section permits TV studio-transmitter links, TV relay stations, and TV
translator relay stations to be authorized to operate fixed point-to-point service on UHF TV channels 14-69 on a
secondary basis, subject to the provisions in Part 74, subpart G.
14 See 47 C.F.R. Part 74 Subpart H and Part 15, Subpart C.
15 See 47 C.F.R. Part 90 Subpart L and 47 C.F.R. Part 22 Subpart E.
16 See 47 C.F.R. 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242. Effective October 16, 2002, the Commission ceased granting
certifications for new medical telemetry equipment that operates on TV channels, but there is no cutoff on the sale
or use of equipment that was certified before that date, see 47 C.F.R. 15.37(i). To provide spectrum for wireless
medical telemetry equipment, the Commission established the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service to operate on a
primary basis in 13.5 megahertz of spectrum in three spectrum blocks at 608-614 MHz (TV channel 37, which the
WMTS now shares with radio astronomy), 1395-1400 MHz, and 1427-1429.5 MHz. See Amendment of Parts 2 and
95 of the Commission's Rules to Create A Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Report and Order, ET Docket No.
99-255, 15 FCC Rcd 11206 (2000). See also, Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27, and 90 of the Commission's Rules to
License Services in the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-
1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, WT Docket No. 02-8, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16920 (2003).
17 See 47 C.F.R. 2.106 NG66(b) and 47 C.F.R. 22.1007.
18 See 47 C.F.R. 22.591.
3

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

unused channels (white space) in the U/V Bands.19 The Commission has recently finalized rules for these
"TV white space" devices and manufacturers can now begin to market products for this category of
devices.20 The figure below provides a graphical depiction of the current allocations in the U/V Bands.
Arrows indicate where services are currently allowed, not where they are deployed

Lower VHF

Upper VHF

UHF

RA

TV ch
TV ch 14-20
5-6
TV ch 7-13
TV ch 21-36
TV ch 38-51
2-4

Public Safety

37
54
72
76
88
174
216
470
512
608
614
698
Wireless Mics
BAS/CARS/LPTV
Fixed TVWS Devices
Portable/Personal
TVWS Devices
8. Broadcast Spectrum Analysis White Paper. In June, 2010, the third Omnibus Broadband
Initiative technical paper was released, entitled, "Spectrum Analysis: Options for Broadcast Spectrum"
(the "Technical Paper").21 This paper describes the opportunity to create value in the U/V Bands by
leveraging their favorable technical characteristics for broadband while maintaining the public benefits of
over-the-air television. Specifically, the Technical Paper describes a voluntary, market-based process for
repurposing a portion of the U/V Bands by enabling individual stations to participate in an incentive
auction, including the ability to set minimum prices on the return of broadcast licenses as a means of
providing financial certainty. Stations could choose not to participate, or to participate and maintain a
primary stream by sharing a channel; and the Commission would administer the process in a manner that
recognizes the public interest benefits of free over-the-air television broadcasts. The Technical Paper
observes that over-the-air television continues to serve important functions in our society, and
recommends an approach that emphasizes that the voluntary, market-based reallocation be implemented
in a way to provide additional options for broadcast licensees to serve their communities. In this regard, it
suggests that in providing a potential means of one-time financing and the option to reduce operating
expenses, longstanding policy goals for broadcast television will be served, such as localism, viewpoint
diversity, and competition.22
9. Broadcast Engineering Forum. On June 25, 2010, the Commission's Office of Engineering
and Technology held a Broadcast Engineering Forum (the "Forum") of industry technical experts to
discuss several issues pertaining to topics raised in the Technical Paper.23 The issues discussed at the
Forum included: 1) improving efficiency in broadcasting through use of distributed transmission systems
(DTS) and cellularized architecture, 2) methodologies for repacking the channels used by stations to
increase the efficiency of spectrum use, including possibilities for recovery of channels nationwide, 3)


19 See Second Report And Order And Memorandum Opinion And Order in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380, 23
FCC Rcd 16807 (2008).
20 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380, adopted and released September
23, 2010, FCC 10-174.
21 See http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-(obi)-technical-paper-spectrum-
analysis-options-for-broadband-spectrum.pdf.
22 Technical Paper at 30.
23 Information regarding the Broadcast Engineering Forum, including video of its closing session, is available on
the Commission's website at http://reboot.fcc.gov/workshops/broadcast-engineering-forum.
4

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

improvements in transmission and reception of television signals on VHF channels, and 4) advancements
in video compression technology, including use of video compression for stations sharing channels.
Separate panels were convened on each of these issues to solicit technical information and input. The
reports of each of the four panels, lists of the panel members and other information are available on the
Commission's website.24 This information was used in developing the proposals in this Notice regarding
channel sharing by broadcast television licensees and will be used also in preparing future proposals in
this proceeding.
10. Allotment Optimization Model. As part of its effort to improve the efficiency of U/V Band
spectrum use, the Commission has undertaken the development of a model for optimizing the assignment
of channels to television stations nationwide. This model, the Allotment Optimization Model (the
"AOM" or the "Model"), allows the user to optimize broadcast channel assignments when clearing
spectrum for new uses, subject to technical and other constraints. An initial version of this model was
used by the staff in developing the spectrum analyses underlying the recommendations for recovery of
U/V Bands spectrum set forth in the Plan and the Technical Paper. We anticipate that the fully developed
model will be completed and validated in the near future for use in subsequent stages of this process to
increase the efficient use of the U/V Bands and facilitate ongoing wireless innovation.

III.

DISCUSSION

11. Wireless broadband services are in high demand by the public and that demand is expected to
grow significantly in the coming years. As discussed in the Plan, we are concerned that the growth of
wireless broadband services will be constrained if sufficient spectrum is not made available to enable
mobile network expansion and technology upgrades.25 Without additional spectrum, users of mobile
services will be faced with congestion and degraded service, or much higher prices, or both. Specifically,
lack of sufficient spectrum will lead to more blocked and/or dropped calls/connections, slower connection
rates and significantly higher prices for desirable applications and services. It is essential to our nation's
economic future that the demand for a robust mobile broadband infrastructure is met. Given its
desirability for use by mobile wireless systems, the UHF spectrum currently occupied by broadcast
television, in particular, is one of a number of areas the Commission is looking at to ensure that our
spectrum policies address the need for additional spectrum for mobile broadband. For example, we have
recently taken actions to make additional spectrum available for mobile broadband services in
frequencies currently used by mobile satellite operations and the Wireless Communications Service.26
We are also working with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to identify
additional spectrum that may be made available for flexible commercial use, including wireless
broadband services.27
12. We are faced with an important opportunity to provide more flexibility and greater efficiency
in use of the U/V bands spectrum. While the ATSC digital television standard used for television


24 Id.
25 See Plan at 77.
26 See Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz,
1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, ET Docket No. 10-142, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 9481 (2010); see also Amendment of Part 27 of the
Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, ET Docket
No. 07-293, 25 FCC Rcd 11710 (2010).
27 See Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 Megahertz of Spectrum for Wireless Broadband, U.S. Department
of Commerce, October 2010 and An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband
Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400 MHz Bands,
U.S. Department of Commerce, October 2010.
5

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

broadcasting in this country provides for a data rate of 19.4 mbps,28 that data rate is fixed irrespective of
whether it is actually being used for transmission of television programming or other services such that at
times a TV channel is essentially idle. For example, if a TV station transmits an HD program that uses an
average of 10 mbps and one additional 2.5 mbps video program, approximately 7 mbps of the stations
available capacity/bandwidth would be unused. Any applications that use a portion of the capacity of a
television signal are constrained to the ATSC transmission system and do not have the option of a
radiofrequency return path in the same spectrum. In keeping with our intention to ensure that the
spectrum is used as efficiently and effectively as possible, whether in terms of bandwidth or data capacity,
we offer the proposals below.
13. This Notice takes the first step towards achieving these important objectives by proposing
additional frequency allocations, a framework that will permit two or more television stations to share a
single six-megahertz channel, and changes to rules for use of the VHF band to improve its utility for
television service. We recognize that broadcast television provides an important service to the public, and
our actions in this proceeding will take full account of the vital role played by over-the-air television
while increasing the flexible use of spectrum in a manner that meets consumer and business needs. We
remain committed to preserving the free, over-the-air broadcast television service and maintaining the
diversity of local voices and important informational and entertainment benefits it provides the American
public.
14. It is our strong intention to provide for an orderly transition of a portion of the U/V Bands to
flexible use, in a manner that will minimize any impact on over-the-air television broadcasting and the
consumers it serves, both off-the-air and through multichannel video program distributors. In this regard,
broadcast television stations and other primary services operating on the spectrum to be recovered will be
co-primary with and be protected from interference from new broadband services for as long as they
remain on channels in that spectrum.
15. To facilitate the recovery of underutilized television channels while continuing to maintain
existing broadcast television services, we are also proposing in this Notice new rules that would allow a
television service licensee to voluntarily reduce its occupation of spectrum by offering to operate on a
shared six megahertz channel. Under this provision, all of the stations sharing channels would broadcast
their services through the same ATSC digital television signal using that signal's multicasting
capabilities. Each licensee would have the same rights and service obligations as a licensee operating
from a full channel today, including the right to carriage by cable and satellite providers pursuant to the
rules for mandatory carriage or retransmission consent.29 We believe that channel sharing could be
beneficial to certain licensees, particularly those that wish to save on their operating costs or minimize the
amount of their investment in spectrum or transmission facilities. In addition, channel sharing could
provide an incentive for broadcasters to relinquish spectrum for a portion of the proceeds of the revenues
of a U/V Band spectrum auction, subject to Congress providing the Commission the authority to conduct
an incentive auction. Further, channel sharing could offer opportunities for broadcasters serving minority,
foreign language and niche interests that might have smaller audiences and lower income to operate at
reduced cost and thereby improve their viability. In allowing stations to share channels, we note that in
some instances changes in the operation of television stations could raise the possibility of interference to
radioastronomy operations on channel 37 or to services operating on frequencies immediately above
channel 51. It is our intent that any channel or other facilities changes that might be requested as part of
sharing agreements not result in increased interference to radioastronomy operations on channel 37 or to
operations of other services above channel 51. We request comments on specific steps that could be


28 Terrestrial digital television broadcasting in the U.S. is transmitted using the Advanced Television Systems
Committee's (ATSC) A/53 (video), A/52 (audio) and A/65 (program and system information protocol) standards.
See 47 C.F.R. 73.682(d)
29 47 C.F.R. 76.51-.70.
6

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

taken as part of the implementation of our sharing rules to mitigate the potential for such interference.
We describe our initial proposed rules for channel sharing by television licensees in this Notice. We also
are aware that broadcasters have encountered technical issues in using VHF channels to provide
satisfactory service to viewers. We intend to consider rule changes and other alternatives for making the
VHF channels more desirable for DTV operation. Our proposals for adding new allocations to the U/V
bands, channel sharing by television stations and improving television service from VHF channels are
discussed below.30

A.

Spectrum Allocations

16. New Spectrum Allocations. We are proposing changes to the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations in Section 2.106 of the rules that would allow us to make a significant portion of the spectrum
currently used for broadcast television available for flexible use, including fixed and mobile wireless
broadband services.31 To facilitate repurposing of a portion of the U/V Bands in a later action, we are
proposing in this Notice to add allocations for fixed and mobile services in the U/V Bands (excluding
channel 37) for non-Federal use, to be co-primary with that for broadcast services.32 This proposal would
also expand the existing land mobile allocation in the areas where PLMRS and CMRS systems operate on
specified frequencies in the 470-512 MHz band to be the same more generalized and flexible mobile
allocation that would be specified for other frequencies in the U/V Bands.
17. These new allotments would allow us to consider the entire range of the U/V Bands in
selecting the specific frequencies to be designated for new licensed and/or unlicensed uses. This
approach will provide maximum flexibility in planning for the future assignment of a portion of the U/V
Bands for flexible use, including new broadband services. Our goal is to adopt a band plan that will
provide for flexible use while continuing to support the needs of the television service. We are not
proposing to change or add to the existing allocations for land mobile (medical telemetry and medical
telecommand) and radioastronomy that are at 608-614 MHz (at channel 37).33 We request comment on
this proposed plan for adding new allocations to the U/V Bands and invite suggestions for alternative
approaches.


30 It is important to note the potential effect the proposals outlined in this Notice may have on technical coordination
with Canada and Mexico. The current international agreements with Canada and Mexico identify specific technical
criteria and specific stations, with acceptable parameters, in a plan of U.S. and foreign assignments that was
negotiated with each country. To the extent, future Commission action causes any broadcast station in the border
regions to alter its existing station structure, the Commission will need to coordinate these changes with Canada and
Mexico. In addition, the current agreements in place only offer protection for the existing primary services in the
U/V bands. The Commission would need to reach new coordination agreements with Canada and Mexico to cover
implementation of new wireless broadband services in these frequency bands in the border areas.
31 47 C.F.R. 2.106.
32 The land mobile service is a mobile service between base stations and land mobile stations, or between land
mobile stations. A base station is a land station in the land mobile service. A land mobile station is a mobile station
in the land mobile service capable of surface movement within the geographical limits of a country or continent.
The fixed service is a radiocommunication service between specified fixed points. 47 C.F.R. 2.1(c).
33 The operations of land mobile services on channels 14-20 and the Offshore Radiotelephone Service on channels
15-17 in regions along the Gulf of Mexico and the reservation of channel 17 for inter-island communications in
Hawaii could be affected by our proposal to recover U/V Bands spectrum if the bands to be recovered encompassed
all or portions of channels 14-20. We would address appropriate changes for the Private Land Mobile Service and
the Offshore Radiotelephone Service in the event that we were to decide to recover spectrum now used by those
services.
7

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

B.

Broadcast Television Channel Sharing

18. The Plan recommends that, to facilitate the recovery of spectrum, the Commission initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to "establish a licensing framework to permit two or more stations to share a six-
megahertz channel."34 We believe that the option of channel sharing, in addition to aiding in the
broadband goals of the Plan, could also be beneficial to the television industry and to viewers. Television
stations operating on shared channels could use the cost savings and additional income from such
arrangements to strengthen their financial condition and to develop new and enhanced programming.
Channel sharing could also provide existing small- and minority-owned stations an opportunity to
enhance or preserve their local program offerings. We anticipate providing broadcast stations an
opportunity to voluntarily elect to share a channel. We therefore seek comment in this proceeding on the
development of an appropriate regulatory structure for voluntary television channel sharing that will
preserve over-the-air television as a healthy, viable medium going forward, in a way that would benefit
consumers overall, while establishing mechanisms to make available additional spectrum for flexible
broadband uses.
19. We envision, consistent with the Plan, that two stations could generally broadcast one
primary HD video stream each over a shared six-megahertz channel or more than two stations
broadcasting in SD (not HD) could share a six-megahertz channel.35 As noted in the Plan, "numerous
permutations are possible, including dynamic arrangements whereby broadcasters sharing a channel reach
agreements to exchange capacity to enable higher or lower transmission bit rates depending on market-
driven choices."36
In this regard, we observe that at the Broadcast Engineering Forum participants
expressed concerns that sharing a single channel would not be practical because it would not provide
sufficient transmission capacity for two or more stations to offer the highest quality HD programming
simultaneously. Stations were also concerned that channel sharing could impact or eliminate current and
future DTV services, such as expansion of high-definition programming and deployment of mobile
television service. We intend to consider these issues in this proceeding and welcome comments on these
concerns.
20. Other approaches to channel sharing that involve sub-channel services such as mobile
broadcast may also be possible. We seek comment on those approaches. The only requirement would be
that all stations utilizing a shared channel be required to retain at least enough spectrum to operate one SD
channel.37 We seek comment on this approach and whether stations sharing a single channel will be able
to continue to comply with the requirement to operate at least one SD channel.
21. In designing a channel sharing plan that will result in the more efficient use of television
spectrum and free channels for flexible use, our goal will be to retain as much of our existing policy
framework for allocating, licensing, and operating television stations as possible. Despite sharing a single
channel and transmission facility, each station will continue to be licensed and operated separately, have
its own call sign and be separately subject to all of the Commission's obligations, rules, and policies.
Each station's programming obligations will remain the same (e.g., children's programming, political
broadcasting, EAS, indecency), and a station will not be responsible for the programming or violations of
any other station sharing its channel. In addition, stations sharing a channel will retain their rights to


34 Plan at 88.
35 Id.
36 Id. 90. These arrangements could further mitigate any risk to HD signal quality resulting from reduced bandwidth
capacity per station." Id. at note 99.
37 Television stations are required to "transmit at least one over-the-air video broadcast signal provided at no direct
charge to viewers." See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast
Service, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12859 (1997); 47 C.F.R. 73.624(b) & (c).
8

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

mandatory carriage. While the licensees sharing a given channel and facility will independently maintain
their own rights and obligations under their respective licenses, we do not envision that channel sharing,
from a technological perspective would entail a fixed split of the six-megahertz channel into two three-
megahertz blocks. Rather, the capacity of the six-megahertz would be shared and we would leave it up to
the licensees to determine the precise manner in which that capacity would be shared. Moreover, we
observe that the Commission has licensed spectrum on a shared use basis with each licensee remaining
responsible for its own obligations and holding its own licensed rights for a variety of services and
under a number of different frameworks. For example, during the course of charting out an MSS
licensing regime for Big LEO systems, the Commission adopted a plan in which four CDMA systems
would each be authorized to operate over 11.35 megahertz of bandwidth in the same 1.6 GHz band,
leaving the inter-system coordination to the satellite licensees themselves. Other examples of shared use
include certain Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services (where the large number of shared users are
coordinated through a system of frequency coordinators), many Part 95 Personal Radio Services (such as
the General Mobile Radio Service, where licensees share the same channels through an informal system
of cooperation), and the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service (where all frequencies are shared and coordinated
by adherence to rules of operation set forth in Part 97). We seek comment on how television broadcast
stations can most effectively coordinate their individual rights and responsibilities while operating under
the type of sharing arrangement proposed here. Finally, we point out that only where necessary to
implement a shared channel licensing scheme will we seek to change our existing policies and rules.
22. We also propose to limit channel sharing to television stations with existing applications,
construction permits or licenses as of the date of adoption of this Notice. Our dual intentions in proposing
this channel option are to provide 1) a means for stations that may need to be more economically efficient
in their operations to share transmission resources and 2) a path for stations to make their spectrum
available for new broadband services and continue to operate a broadcast television service. We request
comment on this proposal.
1.

Basic Qualifications for Channel Sharing

23. Voluntary operation of broadcast stations on shared channels will help to increase the
efficient use of the U/V Bands while ensuring that local public interest and service requirements continue
to be fulfilled. Since we ultimately seek an appropriate, market-based balance with flexible use in the
U/V Bands, we expect that the extent of channel sharing will vary between markets.
a.

Commercial and Noncommercial Educational Stations

24. We seek comment on whether commercial and noncommercial educational (NCE) stations
should be permitted to share a single television channel. NCE television stations operate on special
reserved channels and are prohibited from airing commercial material.38 We contemplate that stations
that share a channel will continue to be licensed and operated separately, although they will be sharing a
single transmitting facility. Therefore, there would be no overlap of programming between a commercial
and NCE station. However, we seek comment on whether a commercial station should be permitted to
operate on a shared channel reserved for NCE use. We seek to determine how the new "shared" channel
might be partitioned or designated to preserve the NCE status while allowing the channel to be shared by
a non-NCE entity.



38 See 47 U.S.C. 399B; Revised Program Policies and Reporting Requirements Related to Public TV and Radio
Programming, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 87 FCC 2d 716, 730 (1981) and Reexamination of Comparative
Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 21167,
n.2 (1998).
9

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

b.

Consideration of Service Losses

25. We seek comment on whether to require that a certain level of television service be preserved
in the shared channel environment. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission should
consider any prospective loss of television service when determining whether to permit stations to make
the modifications to their transmission facilities necessary to achieve channel sharing. Since stations
sharing a single television channel must operate from a single transmission facility, changes to one or
more of the stations' existing facilities will be necessary for sharing to occur. Such changes could result
in a loss of television service to some persons presently able to receive over-the-air signal from one or
more of the stations, and could also result in gains to television service.
26. We note that our current policy is to consider losses of service on a case-by-case basis, and
we seek comment on continuing that policy in the context of channel sharing arrangements. Although the
Commission historically has viewed any loss of service as prima facie inconsistent with the public
interest, it has been our policy to consider and evaluate any counterbalancing factors an applicant may
present to justify service losses.39 This balancing process, to determine whether the projected loss of
service will be outweighed by other factors, involves more than a mere comparison of numbers.40 The
Commission examines the extent of the loss, and whether any "white" or "gray" loss areas will be
created.41 The Commission defines "white area" as an area where the population does not receive any
over-the-air television service and "gray area" as one where the population receives only one over-the-air
television service.42 The Commission may also examine whether the loss area is "underserved," i.e.,
where the population receives less than five other existing services.43 The Commission may also examine
whether the loss involves specialized programming such as that from a network.
27. In terms of counterbalancing factors, the Commission has examined whether gain areas will
be created including establishment of first television service, second television service, first network
service, etc.44 However, the mere fact that total gains exceed losses does not, standing alone, constitute
an affirmative factor offsetting those losses.45 The Commission may also consider the availability of
other television services in the loss area46 as well as whether the population which would lose service is
outside the station's DMA and is predicted to receive the same network programming from a station in
their home DMA. We seek comment on whether to consider these factors in a similar fashion when
evaluating losses that result from facility modifications and relocations related to channel sharing.
28. In weighing the public interest benefits that will result from channel sharing, should we
consider mitigating circumstances such as the percentage of local cable penetration or satellite use in the
loss area? Should sharing stations be allowed to offset otherwise disqualifying service losses by offering
to deploy on-channel Digital Transmission Systems (DTS) or other technical measures to restore service


39 See Hall v. FCC, 237 F.2d 567, 572 (D.C.Cir.1956).
40 See West Michigan Telecasters, Inc., 22 F.C.C.2d 943, recon. denied, 26 F.C.C.2d 668 (1970), aff'd, 460 F.2d 883
(D.C.Cir.1972).
41 See John McCutcheon d/b/a Communications, 4 FCC Rcd 2079, 2083 n. 3 (1989).
42 See Apogee, Inc., 99 FCC 2d 979, 7 (1985).
43 See Cambridge and St. Michaels, Maryland, 19 FCC Rcd 2592 (AD 2004).
44 See John McCutcheon d/b/a MCC Communications, 4 FCC Rcd 2079 (1989) (permitting modification that
resulted in first network service to 30,000 persons).
45 See Central Coast Television, 14 FCC 2d 985, 1001 (Rev. Bd. 1968).
46 See, e.g., Eagle 22, Ltd., 7 FCC Rcd 5295 (1992) (permitting a modification where at least 60 percent of the
population in the loss area was within the Grade B contours of between five and 17 full-service stations).
10

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

to the loss area? 47
c.

Other Issues

29. In addition to the specific areas set forth above, we seek comment on other areas of interest
with respect to channel sharing in conjunction with the recommendations of the Plan. For instance, what
is the impact of channel sharing on the media ownership rules? We contemplate that stations that share
a channel will continue to be licensed and operated separately, although they will be sharing a single
transmitting facility. What are the implications of channel sharing for the local TV ownership rule, the
radio/TV cross-ownership rule and the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule?
2.

Preservation of Must Carry Rights

30. Full power television broadcast stations, and certain qualified low-power television broadcast
stations, have a right to carriage on cable systems that the Supreme Court has recognized as essential to
preserving "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources."48
Full power broadcasters have similar rights to mandatory carriage on satellite (DBS) systems.49 The rules
proposed in this proceeding are designed to ensure that stations voluntarily electing to share a channel
retain their existing rights to mandatory carriage, and we seek comment on such rules.
31. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the mandatory carriage, by cable
operators and satellite providers, of certain local broadcast signals. 50 The Act and our implementing rules51
establish slightly different thresholds for carriage, depending on whether the station is full power or low-
power, or commercial or noncommercial, and also depending on whether carriage is sought on a cable or
DBS system. Stations meeting these thresholds are guaranteed carriage of only a single "primary" stream of
programming, and carriage for any additional streams must always be negotiated.52 It is our intent to adopt a
channel sharing framework that will neither increase nor decrease the carriage rights of any broadcaster on
any type of system. We anticipate, therefore, that regardless of the number of licensed stations sharing a six-
megahertz channel, each would continue to have at least one, but only one, "primary" stream of
programming. We seek comment on the specific proposals below and in general on the rules necessary to
achieve this result.
32. Cable Carriage. A full power commercial station is entitled to carriage on a cable system
when it is "licensed and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the Commission,"
and that community is within the same DMA as the cable system.53
A qualified noncommercial
educational station ("NCE"), on the other hand, can be considered "local," and eligible for mandatory


47 See Digital Television Distributed Transmission System Technologies, Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16731
(2008).
48 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 192-193 (1997) (internal citations and quotations
omitted); see also 47 U.S.C. 534 and 535.
49 47 U.S.C. 338.
50 See 47 U.S.C. 338, 534, 535.
51 Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2965 (1993); see also, Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 9 FCC
Rcd 6723 (1994) and Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, Report and Order, 16
FCC Rcd 1918 (2000).
52 See, Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules, CS
Docket No. 98-120, Second Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4516 (2005)
(reiterating the Commission's rejection of mandatory multicast carriage).
53 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(A).
11

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

carriage on a cable system, in one of two ways. It may either be licensed to a principal community within
50 miles of the system's headend, or place a "Grade B" signal54 over the headend.55 Under very narrow
circumstances, certain low-power broadcasters can also become "qualified" and eligible for must carry.56
Among the several requirements for reaching "qualified" status with respect to a particular cable operator,
the low-power station must be "located no more than 35 miles from the cable system's headend." 57
33. DBS Carriage. A full power station is entitled to request carriage by a DBS provider any
time that provider relies on the statutory copyright license58 to retransmit the signal of any other "local"
full power station59 (i.e., one located in the same DMA60). The standards are the same for both
commercial and noncommercial broadcasters, and low-power broadcasters do not have DBS carriage
rights.61
34. Carriage of Shared Signals. We seek comment on whether the procedures we propose herein
would ensure that a television station operating on a shared channel would continue to be:


54 In the digital broadcasting context, the Commission uses the digital noise limited service contour ("NLSC"), set
forth in 47 C.F.R. 73.622(e), in place of the analog Grade B contour, set forth in 47 C.F.R. 73.683(a). See In the
Matter of 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules Adopted
Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 6086, 6117 n. 148
(2010) (stating that the Commission developed the digital NLSC to approximate the same probability of service as
the Grade B contour and has stated that the two are roughly equivalent). This has been true in both cable
proceedings and in other settings (satellite proceedings, ownership proceedings, etc.). See, e.g., Tennessee
Broadcasting Partners, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd. 4857, 4859 at 6, footnote 14 (2010)
(stating that the Commission has treated a digital station's noise-limited service contour as the functional equivalent
of an analog station's Grade B contour). Congress has also acted on the presumption that the two standards are
roughly equivalent, in the recently adopted STELA legislation, by adopting parallel definitions for households that
are "unserved" by analog (measured by Grade B) or digital (measured by NLSC) broadcasters. 17 U.S.C.
119(d)(10)(A)(i). The two standards define the noise-limited service contours for the respective analog and digital
television transmission systems.
55 47 U.S.C. 535(l)(2).
56 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(2). The Commission's rules implementing this section state that a low-power station becomes
qualified for mandatory carriage if the station conforms to the Commission's LPTV rules, broadcasts for at least the
minimum number of hours required of commercial broadcast stations by the Commission, and adheres to certain
Commission requirements regarding non-entertainment programming and equal employment opportunity. 47 C.F.R.
76.55(d)(1), (2). However, an LPTV station will not be qualified unless the Commission determines that the
provision of programming by such station would address local news and informational needs not being adequately
served by full service television stations, because such full service stations are distant from the LPTV station's
community of license. 47 C.F.R. 76.55(d)(2). In addition, the LPTV station must comply with the Commission's
interference regulations for LPTV stations; it must be within 35 miles of the cable system's principal headend and
deliver to the headend a good quality over-the-air signal; its community of license and the franchise area of the cable
system must both have been located outside of the largest 160 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) on June 30,
1990, and the population of the LPTV station's community of license on that date must not have exceeded 35,000;
and there cannot be any full service television station licensed to any community within the county or other political
subdivision (of a State) served by the cable system. 47 CFR 76.55(d)(3)-(6).
57 47 C.F.R. 76.55(d)(4).
58 17 U.S.C. 122.
59 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1) (stating that satellite carriers must carry "upon request the signals of all television broadcast
stations located within that local market").
60 17 U.S.C. 122(j)(2).
61 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1) and (3).
12

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

"licensed and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the Commission (for
purposes of cable carriage of a commercial station)";62

licensed to a specific "principal community" or configured with technical facilities that have an
NLSC that encompasses the cable system's principal headend (for purposes of cable carriage of a
non-commercial station);63 and

"located within" a designated market area (for purposes of DBS carriage of commercial and
noncommercial stations).64
35. NCE Issues. We seek comment on whether an NCE television station sharing a channel with
a commercial television station could affect the NCE station's continued eligibility for carriage.65 This is
particularly relevant in the cable context, because, as discussed above, commercial stations and NCEs
must meet different criteria in order to be eligible for mandatory carriage. Because we anticipate that
sharing stations would continue to be licensed and operated separately, we do not anticipate that an NCE
television station would lose its NCE status or eligibility by sharing a channel with a commercial station.
We seek comment on this issue.
36. Technical Issues. We also seek comment on whether a station sharing a channel with one or
more other stations, or the redesignation of a given 6 MHz channel as a "shared" channel, would affect
the stations' ability to request local carriage on cable and DBS systems serving subscribers within the
stations' market. Are there any unique aspects of channel sharing that could prevent a broadcaster, of any
type, from achieving the necessary thresholds for mandatory carriage on any cable or DBS system on
which it is currently carried? Cable and DBS systems are currently receiving the full 6 MHz signal from
broadcasters but only carrying certain streams; would there be any technical differences, from the
carrier's perspective, if two or more of these streams on a shared channel were the "primary" streams of
different, individually licensed stations? Are there other technical issues that would be unique to a
sharing scenario?
37. Differing Elections. Even if a commercial station meets the threshold for carriage, it may
elect to pursue retransmission consent agreements with one or more MVPDs.66 When a station has made
such an election, it may not be carried by the MVPD without its consent. We seek comment on how
stations' carriage rights would be affected if one sharing station elects retransmission consent and the
other elects must carry. As noted above, we anticipate that each station operating on a shared channel
will be licensed and operated as a totally distinct entity with its own "primary" stream of programming,
and that the sharing of a channel would not affect a sharing station's carriage election options or rights.
We seek comment on this issue, particularly any technical implications for carrying one stream of a
broadcast channel while not carrying another.
38. Shared signal issues. There are certain essential issues inherent to sharing a channel that we
expect will be resolved by stations sharing a channel. For example, in addition to the threshold
requirements discussed above, local stations are only eligible for mandatory carriage if they provide a
"good quality signal" of at least -61 dBm to the cable or satellite provider.67 Failure to provide this signal


62 47 U.S.C. 534(h).
63 47 U.S.C. 535(l)(2); see also, supra note [X] (discussing the use of the NLSC in place of Grade B).
64 47 U.S.C. 338(a)(1).
65 See supra 24, 32.
66 47 U.S.C. 325(b); see also (b)(2)(A) (noncommercial stations may not elect retransmission consent).
67 47 U.S.C. 338(b), 534(h)(1)(B)(iii). See also Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals, First Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 2598 (2001) (establishing the service level for
cable) and Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal Carriage
Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues, Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Second
(continued....)
13

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

level would therefore affect the carriage rights of all stations using the same channel. We anticipate that
stations will make any necessary changes to their proposed shared transmission facility to ensure
continued carriage for sharing stations. We seek comment on what those changes might be, and, in
general, what matters must be resolved by the stations themselves to ensure the success of channel
sharing.
39. New Stations. Currently, licensees of newly operating stations that are otherwise qualified
local stations may seek mandatory carriage of such stations, even outside of the standard election cycle.68
If we permit new stations, or permittees with unbuilt stations, to operate on shared channels, will we need
any revisions to our rules in order to ensure that they are eligible to seek mandatory carriage as new
stations after they commence broadcasting? We seek comment on this issue.
40. Low-power Stations. We are considering allowing LPTV, Class A, and translator stations to
operate on shared channels, both among themselves and with full power stations.69 If we do permit low-
power stations to operate on shared channels, we are also proposing to provide that currently qualified
low-power stations retain their eligibility for must carry rights, but to create no new rights. We seek
comment on these proposals. Are there other issues we should consider with regard to allowing low
power stations to channel share?
41. Other Carriage Issues. There are a number of other issues that may be relevant to the
mandatory carriage of shared signals. For instance, if, as we propose, one stream of each individually
licensed station on a single 6 MHz channel will be "primary" for purposes of must carry rights, should
sharing broadcasters have any special obligation to identify the "primary" signals at the time they elect
carriage?70 Given the variety of questions that may have some bearing on the development of these rules,
we seek comment on any issues pertaining to the mandatory carriage of shared broadcast signals,
including those not specifically raised in this Notice.

C.

Improving Reception of VHF TV Service

42. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is highly desirable for flexible use, we are interested in
exploring the steps needed to increase the utility of VHF spectrum for television broadcasts. VHF
channels have certain characteristics that have posed challenges for their use in providing digital
television service. In particular, the propagation characteristics of these channels allow undesired signals
and noise to be receivable at relatively farther distances, nearby electrical devices tends to emit noise in
this band that can cause interference, and reception of VHF signals requires physically larger antennas
that are generally not well suited to the mobile applications expected under flexible use, relative to UHF
channels. We recognize that television broadcasters have had some difficulty in ensuring consistent
reception of VHF signals, and we seek comment through this Notice on technical changes to Commission
rules, broadcast transmission equipment, or television receiver technology, that would improve VHF for
television broadcasts, including the costs and benefits associated with such changes. Our intent is to treat
stakeholders in a fair and equitable manner through procedures established in later action.


(...continued from previous page)
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 5351 (2008) (adopting identical requirements in the satellite
context).
68 47 C.F.R. 76.64(f)(5) and 76.66(d)(3); see supra [7] for a more general discussion of permitting sharing for
new stations.
69 See discussion supra 22 for a more general discussion of permitting sharing for low-power stations.
70 See supra 31. Currently, although each broadcaster has only a single "primary" stream of programming that is
potentially eligible for mandatory carriage, we do not regulate the manner in which that stream is identified by the
broadcaster.
14

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

43. Background. The VHF TV reception difficulties appear to be most common among
consumers who use indoor antennas. Complaints from individuals typically have indicated that a
consumer who was previously able to receive a station's analog VHF signal was not able to receive that
station's digital VHF signal. Most of these reports involved situations where the consumer was using an
indoor antenna. In addition, earlier in the transition process it was recognized that use of the low-VHF
channels 2-6 for digital service could be particularly difficult because of the generally higher levels of
background noise on those channels.71
44. Independent investigations of currently marketed indoor antennas by the consulting
engineering firm of Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace (MSW) and our Laboratory staff showed large
variability in the performance (especially intrinsic gain) of indoor antennas available to consumers, with
most antennas receiving fairly well at UHF and the substantial majority not so well to very poor at high-
VHF. The MSW study reported net gain in receiving UHF signals that ranged from +21.0 to -6.2 dB
relative to a -wave dipole antenna, with the great majority above 6 dBd (negative gain indicates that the
tested antenna showed performed worse than the reference half-wave dipole). However, the net gain in
receiving high VHF signals was generally much lower, with the substantial majority having negative gain
ranging down as low as -25.0 dBd; only three of the 10 tested antennas showed positive gain at high-
VHF.72 The study by the FCC Laboratory staff similarly showed reception capabilities at high-VHF
channels that were lower than a reference biconical antenna.73 We note that neither of these studies
examined antenna performance in receiving low-VHF signals. Nonetheless, we would expect that
because of the need for longer elements to receive longer wavelength low-VHF signals, it is likely that the
reception capabilities of an indoor antenna at low-VHF will generally to be less than at high-VHF. We
note that many indoor antennas are not marketed for reception of low-VHF channels.
45. As indicated above, the engineers participating in our Broadcast Engineering Forum indicated
the view that the options for improving TV service on the VHF channels, especially those in the low-VHF
band, are limited. They indicated that while practical power increases could marginally improve
reception there are physical and practical limitations to achieving any significant reception
improvement.74 Their general opinion was that the effect of a power increase would not be sufficient to
compensate for reception problems caused by the increased RF noise level in the band and physical
limitations on the size and efficiency of the transmit and receive antennas.75 They submitted that VHF
power improvement of as much 10 dB would be possible, but difficult, and higher than that would be


71 To assist consumers in resolving these and other DTV reception problems, the Commission has prepared and
made available several Fact Sheets and Consumer Advisories. See for example "Antennas and Digital Television"
and "Troubleshooting Guide for Digital-to-Analog Converter Boxes and Digital Televisions, which are available at
http://www.dtv.gov/publications.html. In addition, the Association for Maximum Service Television and the
Commission have jointly published a tip sheet "Consumer Tips for DTV Reception Problems on VHF TV Channels
2-13" and an advisory "Consumer Advisory: Proper Use of Indoor Antennas for Over-the-Air Television
Reception"; these are available at www.dtv.gov and http://www.mstv.org/docs.
72 See A Report on Television Indoor Antenna Performance Attributes, Gary Sgrignoli and Dennis Wallace, Meintel,
Sgrignoli and Wallace, LLC, Waldorf, MD, May 8, 2007. The MSW study examined 10 indoor antennas (5 passive
and 5 active, i.e., with a pre-amplifier). Three of these antennas performed relatively well in both the high-VHF and
UHF bands. Those three antennas provided gain at VHF ranging from +7.2 to +24.3 dB.
73 See Investigation of High VHF Band DTV Reception, Report: TR 09-1004, Thomas W. Philips, Laboratory
Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, August 12, 2009 (revised
September 15, 2009). The FCC Laboratory study examined indoor antenna performance and interference from
localized noise sources and; it examined the ability of 12 models of indoor antennas to receive local high-VHF
signals off-the-air but did not measure their gain.
74 See VHF Report at Slide 21.
75 Id. at Slide 27.
15

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

impractical.76 The broadcast engineering panel also indicated reducing the spurious and out-of-band
emissions from consumers devices might help.
46. Solutions for VHF Reception Challenges. It is plain from the channel choices being made by
broadcasters that reception problems are posing problems for use of the VHF channels. We are therefore
seeking solutions to the VHF digital TV reception difficulties. In this regard, we are considering changes
to our DTV operating rules to mitigate or overcome these challenges. We also intend to consider other
solutions, including the possibility of indoor antenna performances standards, to make the VHF channels
more useful to broadcasters. We also note that we have seen no indications that there are issues with the
performance of television receivers, either traditional models with display screens or stand-alone set-top
tuners, in receiving VHF channels.
47. VHF Band Noise/Power Increases. One of the problems with indoor VHF reception is noise
from nearby (typically in the same room) consumer electronics equipment. While it would be desirable to
reduce that noise, the rules limiting spurious emissions from unintentional radiators have been crafted to
provide protection of licensed services while allowing production of economically viable devices.
Further, any more stringent limits we might impose would not reduce emissions from existing products,
nor would such limits reduce noise from incidental emitters (electric motors, switches, etc.), atmospheric
disturbances and long range propagation effects that occur in the VHF bands (the latter especially at the
low-VHF channels).77 Thus, at least at this time, we do not believe it would be fruitful to attempt to
reduce the permitted level of noise in the VHF bands. We request comment on whether there are actions
we might take to reduce noise levels in the VHF bands used by the television service.
48. The other approach to overcoming noise is to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ratio) by
raising the transmitted power, i.e., effective radiated power (ERP). A number of stations operating on
high-VHF channels have already improved their service by increasing their transmitted power.78 Those
stations received special temporary authorizations from the Commission for power increases that exceed
the existing maximum power limits.79 In each of these cases, either the power increase does not cause
increased interference to other stations or the station licensee has negotiated with another station to accept
some minimum level of new interference. While we are cognizant of the views regarding the limited
expectations from power increases expressed at the Broadcast Engineers' Forum, we nonetheless believe
that, as demonstrated by the stations that have already increased their transmitted power, such increases
can provide some level of improvement in reception of VHF television service. We therefore believe it
may be desirable to amend our rules to increase the maximum allowed ERP for VHF stations at least in
Zone I, where the current maximum power levels are relatively low. We are specifically proposing to
raise the nominal maximum allowed ERP for low-VHF stations in Zones I to 40 kW and for high-VHF
stations in Zone I to 120 kW if the station's antenna height above average terrain is 305 meters or less. At
antenna heights above 305 meters, the maximum power for both low-VHF and high-VHF stations would
be lower in accordance with the table in the proposed rules in Appendix A. This proposal would
effectively increase the maximum power for low-VHF and high-VHF stations in Zone I by 6 dB, a level


76 Id. at Slide 14.
77 See First Report and Order in GEN Docket No. 87-389, 4 FCC Rcd 3493 (1989) at 75.
78 See for example, WHAS-TV, Louisville, KY, Ch. 11, BDSTA-20091014AAM; WABC-TV, New York, NY,
Ch. 7, BDSTA-20100108ACK; WUSA, Washington, DC, Ch. 9, BDSTA-20091218ACS; WPVI, Philadelphia, PA,
Ch. 6, BLDSTA-20090619ABQ; KRCR-TV, Redding, CA, Ch. 7, BDSTA-20090717ABBADD. These stations
were previously operating at power levels below the maximum allowed levels.
79 The maximum transmitted power limits for low-VHF and high-VHF stations are set forth in Sections 73.622(f)(6)
and .622(f)(7), respectively, 47 C.F.R. 73.622(f)(6) and (f)(7). Those limits are nominally: 10 kW (Zone I) and
45 kW (Zones II and III) ERP for low-VHF stations and 30 kW (Zone I) and 160 kW (Zones II and III) ERP for
highVHF stations.
16

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

consistent with that indicated as achievable by the VHF Reception Panel. We are not proposing to raise
the maximum power limits for VHF stations in Zones II and III, as the existing limits still afford those
stations the ability to provide stronger signals indoors to consumers who view their signals at locations
close to their transmitters. The proposed new maximum power limits for VHF stations would allow such
stations to provide signal strengths to areas close to their transmitters, i.e., generally their principle
community areas, that are higher by an amount that would help to compensate for some of the higher
noise levels that tend to be present where consumers use indoor antennas.
49. Stations requesting power increases under the proposed new limits would be subject to
affording protection to other full power television stations from new interference under the existing
regime of desired-to-undesired (D/U) signals limits.80 We believe such an increase would nonetheless
allow many VHF stations experiencing difficulties in reaching viewers indoors to raise their signal levels
by a reasonable level to overcome localized noise indoors, consistent with maintaining the approximate
range of service provided by the existing maximum power limits. We do, however, recognize that higher
power operation would increase the service range of VHF stations by as much at 14 km (9 miles). It is
not generally our intention to extend the service range of these stations, as such expansions can to some
degree limit the potential for introduction of new stations and changes by other co-channel and first-
adjacent channel stations by enlarging the service area that must be protected. Nonetheless, we believe
the interests of making the VHF channels more useful to stations and consumers outweigh these concerns
about limiting opportunities of other stations. We request comment on this proposal and suggestions for
alternative approaches, including both power limits and protection of service. In this regard, any
increases in VHF power under this proposal by existing stations and new stations that are located within
300 kilometers (183 miles) of our border with Canada or within 400 kilometers (248.5 miles) of our
border with Mexico will need to be coordinated with the appropriate foreign administration.
50. We also observe that the provisions governing transmission of television signals in Sections
73.682(a)(14) and 73.625(c) of the rules specify that it shall be standard to employ horizontal
polarization. The ERP of a television station is therefore considered to be that of its horizontally
polarized component. However, Section 73.682(a)(14) also provides that circular or elliptical
polarization may be employed and that, in such cases, transmission of the horizontal and vertical
components in time and space quadrature shall be used. Where such polarizations are used, the ERP of
the vertically polarized component may not exceed the ERP of the horizontally polarized component.
Stations therefore could achieve an increase in signal levels at indoor locations of perhaps 3 dB by using
circular polarization. This step could also be combined with an increase in ERP (horizontal ERP) under
the proposal to allow higher VHF maximum power levels. We encourage stations to make use of the
option to use increased power under the vertical polarization provisions as a means to improve reception
of their signals by indoor viewers.
51. A collateral issue that arises in the context of our consideration of increases in the power
limits for digital television stations on VHF channels is whether we should also increase the minimum
distance requirements for new, post-transition channel allotments with regard to other stations or channel
allotments on the same and first-adjacent channels, as specified in Sections 73.616 and 73.623(d) of the
rules.81 Stations on new allotments that operate at the proposed new power limits and are at or close to


80 The D/U limits for protection of television service are set forth in Section 73.623(c), 47 C.F.R. 73.623(c).
81 Section 73.616 sets forth requirements for protection of existing services from interference resulting from digital
television stations operating on new channels added to the post-transition DTV Table of Allotments; these
provisions invoke the geographic spacing requirements (distance standards) in Section 73.623(d), see 47 C.F.R.
73.616(b) and 73.623(d). Specifically, Section 73.616(b) provides, inter alia, that "[a] petition to add a new channel
to the post-transition DTV Table of Allotments contained in section 73.622(i) of this subpart will not be accepted
unless it meets: the DTV-to-DTV geographic spacing requirements in 73.623(d) with respect to all existing DTV
allotments in the post-transition DTV Table ..."
17

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

the current minimum distances with regard to other stations could cause more interference to such stations
(and vice versa) than would occur under the current power limits. Increasing those distances would
resolve the interference concerns but would also tend to limit opportunities or new stations or for stations
desiring to change channels (which necessitates modifying the allotment on which they operate). We
generally believe it would be desirable to maintain the current distance standards for new and changed
allotments in order to avoid further limiting opportunities for new allotments. We therefore are not
proposing to change the minimum distance requirements for new and modified allotments.
52. In taking this approach, we observe that the rules require a station that operates on a new
allotment that meets the distance standards to protect other co-channel and adjacent channel stations from
new interference in accordance with the desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratio interference protection criteria
in Section 73.616(e).82 In describing the services to be protected, this paragraph provides that "[f]or this
purpose, the population served by the station receiving additional interference does not include portions
of the population within the noise-limited service contour of that station that are predicted to receive
interference from the post-transition DTV allotment facilities of the applicant ..." The rules are not
specific, however, as to the post-transition DTV allotment facilities of the applicant, that is, the facilities
that a station would be allowed under the allotment without concern for new interference. We propose to
amend Section 73.616(e) to clarify that the post-transition DTV allotment facilities are the maximum
facilities allowed currently under Section 73.622(f). Thus, an applicant for a new station would be
allowed to operate up to the current maximum facilities of ERP and antenna height on a new allotment
that meets the distance requirements.
53. A station on a new allotment could also operate with facilities that exceed the post-transition
allotment facilities if such operation would not cause new interference to other stations as defined under
Section 73.616(e). In addition, a licensee could apply to operate a station on a new allotment at facilities
that exceed the post-transition allotment facilities (up to the proposed new limits) and could possibly
cause new interference to another station by taking steps to avoid such interference. Such steps could
include use of a directional antenna and/or location if the station's transmitter at a site that is different
from the site of the allotment (such sites are generally farther from any stations that would otherwise
receive interference). We request comment on our plan to maintain the existing distance requirements as
we increase the maximum allowed power for digital TV stations on VHF channels and on whether we
should alternatively increase the minimum distance requirements to match the changes in the power
limits. We also ask parties that advocate that we increase the minimum distance requirements to submit
suggestions for new minimum distance standards.83
54. Indoor Antennas. The antenna used to receive signals is a critical element in the television
service path. The antenna component of a TV receive system (which consists of an antenna, connecting
cable and receiver) should be able to pick up as much of the available signal energy as possible. If an
antenna has a very low ability to receive signals or if the level of the desired signal is low, reception may
not be possible.84 In view of the observed poor high-VHF reception capabilities of the majority of the
indoor antennas examined in the two studies mentioned above and the likelihood that the low-VHF
performance of those antennas is even poorer, we intend to consider establishing standards to ensure that
indoor antennas are effective for low-VHF channel reception. While we have not regulated these


82 See 47 C.F.R. 73.616(e).
83
We note that the existing minimum distance standards do not provide interference protection that meets the
desired-to-undesired signal ratios in Section 73.623(c) and licensees are required to demonstrate that their station
will not cause interference in the application process.
84 We point out that the presence of spurious noise generally does not exacerbate reception difficulties in cases
where the antenna used has low gain. In such instances, a low gain antenna will receive less of the energy of both
the noise and desired signal.
18

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

products previously, we believe that we have authority to set standards to ensure that the performance of
indoor antennas is adequate to allow reception of low-VHF channels by TV receive systems under the All
Channel Receiver Act, which is codified in Section 303(s) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.85 In this regard, Section 303(s) specifically provides that the Commission shall "[h]ave
authority to require that apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast simultaneously with
sound be capable of adequately receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to television
broadcasting..."86 Because an antenna capable of adequately picking up low-VHF channels is necessary
to allow all-channel reception of over-the-air broadcast signals, we believe that the standards proposed
below would further our Section 303(s) mandate. We request comment on our authority to establish
standards for the ability of indoor antennas to receive all of the channels allocated for television service.87
55. We request comment, information and suggestions regarding the need for, and desirability of,
standards for indoor antennas. We are specifically proposing to require that indoor antennas, comply with
the industry set standards in ANSI/CEA-2032-A, "Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard,"
February 2009.88
The ANSI/CEA-2032-A standard defines test and measurement procedures for
determining the performance of indoor TV receiving antennas. Section 3.2.2 of this standard provides
that to meet the standard, an antenna must have measured gain that exceeds:

-12 dBd on all CEA test channels 2, 4, and 6 in the VHF low band

-8 dBd on all CEA test channels 7, 9, 11 and 13 in the VHF high band and

-8 dBd on all CEA test channels contained in the UHF band (channels 14-[51])
ANSI/CEA-2032-A further specifies that the test procedures in CEA-744-B are to be employed to
measure the antenna performance.89 It also provides standards for active (amplified) antennas, including
gain, intermodulation and spurious emission. Further, it provides for labeling antenna packaging and
antennas to indicate the channels or bands of channels for which the antenna meets the specified technical
requirements. We observe that the high-VHF and UHF performance levels under this industry-developed
standard are well within the capabilities of the antennas tested in the MSW and FCC Laboratory studies
of indoor antennas. Under this proposal, all indoor television antennas would be required to meet the
ANSI/CEA-2032-A standards for reception of low-VHF, high-VHF and UHF signals. In addition, to
ensure compliance with these standards indoor antennas would be subject to the Commission's
"verification" equipment procedure in Part 2 of the rules.90 This would promote our objective of
improving indoor reception in the VHF bands and well as ensure that indoor antennas are able to
adequately receive UHF signals. Antennas that are built-in to, or designed for use with, specific devices
such as portable television receivers, dongles, laptop computers, and similar TV reception equipment
would not be subject to this requirement. Given the findings of the antenna studies by MSW and our
Laboratory staff discussed above, we believe that the performance levels set forth in ANSI/CEA-2032-A


85 47 U.S.C. 303(s).
86 All Channel Receiver Act, Pub.L. No. 87-529, 76 Stat. 150, codified at 47 U.S.C. 303(s) (emphasis added). See
Elec. Indus. Assoc. Consumer Elec. Group v. FCC, 636 F.2d 689, 694-96 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (discussing Act and its
legislative history).
87 We have seen no indications that there are VHF/UHF performance issues with outdoor antennas that result in
consumers not able to receive either VHF or UHF signals. While many outdoor antennas currently on the market
are designed for only VHF or only UHF reception, consumers do not seem to have difficulties in identifying and
obtaining the outdoor antenna(s) they need to receive the television signals available in their area.
88 ANSI/CEA-2032-A is available from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood,
Colorado 80112-5704, http://global.ihs.com or e-mail global@ihs.com.
89 See CEA-744-B, Febriary 2009. This standard is also available from Global Engineering Documents, 15
Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112-5704, http://global.ihs.com or e-mail global@ihs.com..
90 The verification procedure is set forth in Sections 2.951-2.956 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. 2.951-2.956.
19

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

are well within the capabilities of currently available consumer grade television receive antennas.
56. We request comment on whether the ANSI/CEA-2032-A performance standards are
sufficient to ensure adequate reception of digital television signals at most indoor locations and whether
the CEA-744-B measurement procedures are appropriate for determining compliance. We also ask
whether there might be other standards or measurement methods that might be more appropriate. Our
intent is to ensure that consumers are able to achieve indoor reception of digital television signals, and
especially of VHF signals, that is comparable to indoor reception of the signals of the former analog
television system. We also ask for comment an alternative approach under which we would require only
that manufacturers measure indoor antennas using the CEA-744-B test procedure and comply with the
labeling requirements of ANSI/CEA-2032-A. Under this approach, antennas would also be subject to our
verification equipment authorization procedure. We invite interested parties to submit comment,
information and suggestions for alternative standards regarding all aspects of the indoor antenna issue.
57. Other Approaches/Solutions for Improving Reception of VHF TV Services. In addition to
power increases for VHF band stations and standards for indoor antennas, we also intend to consider
additional options for improving television service in the VHF bands. Interested parties are invited to
submit ideas and suggestions for additional measures we could take to improve reception of television
signals on VHF channels. We request that parties submit materials information and analyses describing
conditions and phenomenon that contribute to VHF reception difficulties and ideas for overcoming or
mitigating them.

IV.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

58. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. As required
by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
59. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains
proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are
due [X] days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,91 we seek specific comment on
how we might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees."
60. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collections requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at (202) 395-5167.
61. Ex Parte Rules Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and
comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine
Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally


91 Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c) (4).
20

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

47 C.F.R. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
62. Comments. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated
on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each
filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
63. Further Information. For further information, contact, Alan Stillwell of the Office of
Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-2470, or via the Internet at alan.stillwell@fcc.gov or Hugh
Van Tuyl Office of the Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-2472, or via the Internet at
hugh.vantuyl@fcc.gov.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

64. IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r),
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.
21

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
22

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED RULES

Parts 2, 15, and 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 2 FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:
a. Pages 19, 20, 24, and 28 are revised.
b. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnotes NG66 and NG149 are removed.
2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions read as follows:
23

---

Table of Frequency Allocations 47-137 MHz (VHF)
Page 19
International Table
United States Table
FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table
Region 2 Table
Region 3 Table
Federal Table
Non-Federal Table
47-68
47-50
47-50
47-49.6
47-49.6
BROADCASTING
FIXED
FIXED
LAND MOBILE
Private Land Mobile (90)
MOBILE
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
NG124
49.6-50
49.6-50
FIXED
5.162A
MOBILE
50-54
50-73
50-54
AMATEUR
AMATEUR
Amateur Radio (97)
5.162A 5.166 5.167 5.167A 5.168 5.170
54-68
54-68
54-72
BROADCASTING
FIXED
FIXED
Broadcast Radio (TV)(73)
Fixed
MOBILE
MOBILE
LPTV, TV Translator/
Mobile
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING
Booster (74G)
5.162A 5.163 5.164 5.165
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
5.169 5.171
5.172
5.162A
68-74.8
68-72
68-74.8
FIXED
BROADCASTING
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical
Fixed
MOBILE
Mobile
Mobile
5.173
NG5 NG14 NG115
72-73
72-73
FIXED
FIXED
Public Mobile (22)
MOBILE
MOBILE
Aviation (87)
Private Land Mobile (90)
NG3 NG49 NG56
Personal Radio (95)
73-74.6
73-74.6
RADIO ASTRONOMY
RADIO ASTRONOMY US74
5.178
US246
74.6-74.8
74.6-74.8
FIXED
FIXED
Private Land Mobile (90)
MOBILE
MOBILE
5.149 5.175 5.177 5.179
5.149 5.176 5.179
US273
74.8-75.2
74.8-75.2
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
Aviation (87)
5.180 5.181
5.180
75.2-87.5
75.2-75.4
75.2-75.4
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
Private Land Mobile (90)
MOBILE except aeronautical
MOBILE
MOBILE
mobile
5.179
US273
24

---

75.4-76
75.4-87
75.4-88
75.4-76
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
Public Mobile (22)
MOBILE
MOBILE
MOBILE
Aviation (87)
Private Land Mobile (90)
NG3 NG49 NG56
Personal Radio (95)
76-88
5.182 5.183 5.188
76-88
BROADCASTING
87-100
FIXED
Broadcast Radio (TV)(73)
Fixed
FIXED
MOBILE
LPTV, TV Translator/
Mobile
MOBILE
BROADCASTING
Booster (74G)
5.175 5.179 5.187
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
BROADCASTING
87.5-100
5.185
NG5 NG14 NG115
BROADCASTING
88-100
88-108
88-108
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING NG2
Broadcast Radio (FM)(73)
5.190
FM Translator/Booster (74L)
100-108
BROADCASTING
5.192 5.194
US93
US93 NG5
108-117.975
108-117.975
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
Aviation (87)
5.197 5.197A
US93 US343
117.975-137
117.975-121.9375
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
5.111 5.200 US26 US28 US403
121.9375-123.0875
121.9375-123.0875
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE
US30 US31 US33 US80 US102
US30 US31 US33 US80 US102
US213
US213
123.0875-123.5875
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE
5.200 US32 US33 US112
123.5875-128.8125
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
US26 US403
128.8125-132.0125
128.8125-132.0125
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
132.0125-136
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
US26
136-137
136-137
AERONAUTICAL MOBILE (R)
5.111 5.200 5.201 5.202
US244
US244
Page 20
25

---

174-223
174-216
174-223
174-216
174-216
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING
FIXED
FIXED
Broadcast Radio (TV)(73)
Fixed
MOBILE
MOBILE
LPTV, TV Translator/Booster
Mobile
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING
(74G)
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
5.234
NG5 NG14 NG115
216-220
216-217
216-219
FIXED
Fixed
FIXED
Maritime (80)
MARITIME MOBILE
Land mobile
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Private Land Mobile (90)
Radiolocation 5.241
Personal Radio (95)
US210 US241 G2
217-220
US210 US241 NG173
Fixed
219-220
Mobile
FIXED
Maritime (80)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Private Land Mobile (90)
Amateur NG152
Amateur Radio (97)
5.242
US210 US241
US210 US241 NG173
220-225
220-222
AMATEUR
FIXED
Private Land Mobile (90)
FIXED
LAND MOBILE
MOBILE
US241 US242
Radiolocation 5.241
5.235 5.237 5.243
5.233 5.238 5.240 5.245
222-225
222-225
223-230
223-230
AMATEUR
Amateur Radio (97)
BROADCASTING
FIXED
Fixed
MOBILE
Mobile
BROADCASTING
225-235
AERONAUTICAL
225-235
225-235
RADIONAVIGATION
FIXED
FIXED
Radiolocation
MOBILE
MOBILE
5.243 5.246 5.247
5.250
230-235
230-235
FIXED
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE
AERONAUTICAL
RADIONAVIGATION
5.247 5.251 5.252
5.250
G27
235-267
235-267
235-267
FIXED
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE
5.111 5.252 5.254 5.256 5.256A
5.111 5.256 G27 G100
5.111 5.256
Page 24
26

---

456-459
456-459
456-460
FIXED
FIXED
Public Mobile (22)
MOBILE 5.286AA
LAND MOBILE
Maritime (80)
5.271 5.287 5.288
5.287 5.288
Private Land Mobile (90)
459-460
459-460
459-460
459-460
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
MOBILE 5.286AA
MOBILE 5.286AA
MOBILE 5.286AA
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-
space) 5.286A 5.286B 5.286C
5.209 5.271 5.286A 5.286B
5.209 5.271 5.286A 5.286B
5.287 5.288 NG12 NG112 NG124
5.286C 5.286E
5.209
5.286C 5.286E
NG148
460-470
460-470
460-462.5375
FIXED
Meteorological-satellite
FIXED
Private Land Mobile (90)
MOBILE 5.286AA
(space-to-Earth)
LAND MOBILE
Meteorological-satellite (space-to-Earth)
5.289 US201 US209 NG124
462.5375-462.7375
LAND MOBILE
Personal Radio (95)
5.289 US201
462.7375-467.5375
FIXED
Private Land Mobile (90)
LAND MOBILE
5.287 5.289 US73 US201 US209
NG124
467.5375-467.7375
LAND MOBILE
Personal Radio (95)
5.287 5.289 US201
467.7375-470
FIXED
Maritime (80)
5.287 5.288 5.289 US73
LAND MOBILE
Private Land Mobile (90)
5.287 5.288 5.289 5.290
US201 US209
5.288 5.289 US73 US201 NG124
470-790
470-512
470-585
470-608
470-608
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING
FIXED
FIXED
Public Mobile (22)
Fixed
MOBILE
MOBILE
Broadcast Radio (TV)(73)
Mobile
BROADCASTING
BROADCASTING
LPTV, TV Translator/Booster (74G)
5.292 5.293
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
512-608
5.291 5.298
Private Land Mobile (90)
BROADCASTING
585-610
5.297
FIXED
NG5 NG14 NG115
MOBILE
608-614
608-614
BROADCASTING
RADIO ASTRONOMY
LAND MOBILE (medical telemetry and medical telecommand)
Personal Radio (95)
RADIONAVIGATION
Mobile-satellite except aeronautical
RADIO ASTRONOMY US74
mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.149 5.305 5.306 5.307
610-890
US246
614-698
FIXED
614-698
614-698
BROADCASTING
MOBILE 5.313A 5.317A
FIXED
Broadcast Radio (TV)(73)
Fixed
BROADCASTING
MOBILE
LPTV, TV Translator/Booster (74G)
Mobile
BROADCASTING
Low Power Auxiliary (74H)
5.149 5.291A 5.294 5.296
5.293 5.309 5.311A
NG5 NG14 NG115
5.300 5.302 5.304 5.306
5.311A 5.312
5.149 5.305 5.306 5.307
5.311A 5.320
Page 28
27

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

PART 15 RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

3. The authority for Part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
4. Section 15.38 is amended by adding new paragraphs (b)(14) and (b)(15) to read as follows:
15.38 Incorporation by Reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(14) ANSI/CEA-2032-A: "Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard," May 2005, IBR
approved for 15.117(l).
(15) ANSI/CEA-744-B: "TV Receiving antenna Performance Presentation and Measurement," February
2009, IBR approved for 15.117(l).
5. Section 15.117 is amended by adding new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
15.117 TV Broadcast Receivers.
* * * * *
(l) Indoor Antennas. Effective [12 MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS
PROCEEDING], antennas intended for indoor reception of television broadcast service shall comply with
the standards set forth in ANSI/CEA-2032-A: "Indoor TV Receiving Antenna Performance Standard,"
May 2005, (incorporated by reference, see 15.38(c)), including the requirement for measurements in
accordance with the procedures set forth in ANSI/CEA-744-B: "TV Receiving antenna Performance
Presentation and Measurement," February 2009, (incorporated by reference, see 15.38(c). Antennas
that are built-in to, or designed for use with specific devices, such as portable television receivers,
dongles, laptop computers, and similar TV reception equipment are not be subject to this requirement.

PART 73 RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

6. The authority for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336
7. Section 73.616 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
73.616 Post-transition DTV station interference protection.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) The facilities of a post-transition DTV allotment are as follows:
(i) For a station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment, the allotment ERP is 40 kW if its antenna
HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone I or 45 kW if its HAAT is at or below
305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III. For a station located in Zone I that operates
on channels 2-6 with HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP, expressed in decibels above 1
kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
28

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

ERP = 92.57 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT that
exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP level is determined from the following table (the allotment ERP
for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based on the units employed in
the table):
Allotment ERP and Antenna
Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III
On Channels 2-6
Antenna HAAT (meters)
ERP (kW)
610 ..........................................................................................
10
580 ..........................................................................................
11
550 ..........................................................................................
12
520 ..........................................................................................
14
490 ..........................................................................................
16
460 ..........................................................................................
19
425 ..........................................................................................
22
395 ..........................................................................................
26
365 ..........................................................................................
31
335 ..........................................................................................
37
305 ..........................................................................................
45
For a DTV station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT
that exceeds 610 meters, the allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using
the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 57.57 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
(ii) For a station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment, the allotment ERP is 120 kW if its antenna
HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone I or 160 kW if its HAAT is at or below
305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III. For a station located in Zone I that operates
on channels 7-13 with HAAT that exceeds 305 meters, the allotment ERP, expressed in decibels above 1
kW (dBk) is determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 97.35 - 33.24*log10(HAAT)
For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT above
305 meters, the allotment ERP level is determined from the following table (the allotment ERP for
intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based on the units employed in the
table):
29

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

Allotment ERP and Antenna
Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III
On Channels 7-13
Antenna HAAT (meters)
ERP (KW)
610 ..........................................................................................
30
580 ..........................................................................................
34
550 ..........................................................................................
40
520 ..........................................................................................
47
490 ..........................................................................................
54
460 ..........................................................................................
64
425 ..........................................................................................
76
395 ..........................................................................................
92
365 ..........................................................................................
110
335 ..........................................................................................
132
305 ..........................................................................................
160
For a station located in Zone II or Zone III that operates on channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT that
exceeds 610 meters, the allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the
following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 62.34 - 17.08*log10(HAAT)
(iii) For a station that operates on a channel 14-51 allotment, the allotment ERP is 1000 kW if its antenna
HAAT is at or below 365 meters. At higher antenna HAAT levels, the allotment ERP level for such a
station is determined from the following table (the allotment ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is
determined using linear interpolation based on the units employed in the table):
Allotment ERP and Antenna
Height for DTV Stations
On Channels 14-51, All Zones
Antenna HAAT (meters)
ERP (kW)
610 ..........................................................................................
10
580 ..........................................................................................
11
550 ..........................................................................................
12
520 ..........................................................................................
14
490 ..........................................................................................
16
460 ..........................................................................................
19
425 ..........................................................................................
22
395 ..........................................................................................
26
365 ..........................................................................................
31
For a station located in Zone I, II or III that operates on channels 14-51 with an antenna HAAT that
exceeds 610 meters, the allotment ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined using the
following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERP = 72.57 17.08*log10(HAAT)
30

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

8. Section 73.622 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) to read as follows:
73.622 Digital television table of allotments.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) A DTV station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment will be allowed a maximum ERP of 40 kW
if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone I or a maximum ERP of
45 kW if its HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III. An existing
DTV station that operates on a channel 2-6 allotment may request an increase in power and/or HAAT up
to these power levels, provided that the increase also complies with the provisions of paragraph (f)(5) of
this section.(i) For DTV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT
that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP, expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is
determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 98.57-33.24*log10(HAAT)
(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate on channels 2-6 with an antenna HAAT
that exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP level is determined from the following table (the
allowable maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based
on the units employed in the table):
Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna
Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III
On Channels 2-6
Antenna HAAT (meters)
ERP (KW)
610 ..........................................................................................
10
580 ..........................................................................................
11
550 ..........................................................................................
12
520 ..........................................................................................
14
490 ..........................................................................................
16
460 ..........................................................................................
19
425 ..........................................................................................
22
395 ..........................................................................................
26
365 ..........................................................................................
31
335 ..........................................................................................
37
305 ..........................................................................................
45
(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate on channels 2-6 with an antenna
HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is
determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 57.57-17.08*log10(HAAT)
(7) A DTV station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment will be allowed a maximum ERP of
120 kW if its antenna HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone I or a maximum
ERP of 160 kW if its HAAT is at or below 305 meters and the station is located in Zone II or Zone III.
An existing DTV station that operates on a channel 7-13 allotment may request an increase in power
and/or HAAT up to these power levels, provided that the increase also complies with the provisions of
paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
31

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

(i) For DTV stations located in Zone I that operate on channels 7-13 with an antenna HAAT that
exceeds 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP, expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is determined
using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 103.35-33.24*log10(HAAT)
(ii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate on channels 7-13 with an antenna
HAAT above 305 meters, the allowable maximum ERP level is determined from the following table (the
allowable maximum ERP for intermediate values of HAAT is determined using linear interpolation based
on the units employed in the table):
Maximum Allowable ERP and Antenna
Height for DTV Stations in Zones II or III
On Channels 7-13
Antenna HAAT (meters)
ERP (KW)
610 ..........................................................................................
30
580 ..........................................................................................
34
550 ..........................................................................................
40
520 ..........................................................................................
47
490 ..........................................................................................
54
460 ..........................................................................................
64
425 ..........................................................................................
76
395 ..........................................................................................
92
365 ..........................................................................................
110
335 ..........................................................................................
132
305 ..........................................................................................
160
(iii) For DTV stations located in Zone II or Zone III that operate on channels 7-13 with an antenna
HAAT that exceeds 610 meters, the allowable maximum ERP expressed in decibels above 1 kW (dBk) is
determined using the following formula, with HAAT expressed in meters:
ERPmax = 62.34-17.08*log10(HAAT)

* * * *
32

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

APPENDIX B

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this
present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for specified on the first page of this NPRM. The Commission
will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.3

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission is initiating a process to address
America's growing demand for wireless broadband services, spur ongoing innovation and investment in
mobile and ensure that America keeps pace with the global wireless revolution, by making a significant
amount of new spectrum available for broadband. Through this Notice, we take preliminary steps to
repurpose a portion of the UHF and VHF frequency bands that are currently used by the broadcast
television service, which in later actions we expect to make available for flexible use by fixed and mobile
wireless communications services, including mobile broadband. This approach is consistent with the
National Broadband Plan (the "Plan")4 recommendation to repurpose 120 megahertz from the broadcast
television bands for new wireless broadband uses through revising (repacking) the channel assignments of
TV stations and voluntary contributions of spectrum to an incentive auction. Reallocation of this
spectrum as proposed will provide the Commission flexibility in providing additional spectrum resources
for meeting the needs of these new applications. At the same time, we recognize that over-the-air TV
serves important public interests, and our approach will help preserve this service as a healthy, viable
medium. We remain mindful of the informational and entertainment benefits broadcast television
provides the public, and our goal is to provide additional options for broadcast licensees.

B. Legal Basis

3. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and
303(r) .

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will
Apply

4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the


1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
3 Id.
4 See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
(March 2010); available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. The Plan was developed by the Commission pursuant
to the direction of Congress in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), see American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
33

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.5 The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."6 In addition, the term "small business" has the
same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.7 A small business
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.8
5.

Television Broadcasting

. This Economic Census category "comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public."9
The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those
having $14 million or less in annual receipts.10 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed
commercial television stations to be 1,395.11 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the
BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database (BIA) on March 30, 2007, about
986 of an estimated 1,395 commercial television stations (or approximately 72 percent) had revenues of
$13 million or less.12 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are
small entities.
6. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the
above definition, business (control) affiliations13 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an
element of the definition of "small business" is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation.
We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on
this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
7. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) television stations to be 390.14 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered


5 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
6 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
7 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant
to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
8 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996).
9 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "515120 Television Broadcasting" (partial definition);
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
10 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 2008).
11 See FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2009," dated September 4, 2009;
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
12 We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra.
13 "[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both." 13 C.F.R. 21.103(a)(1).
14 See FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2009," dated September 4, 2009;
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
34

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

to be small entities.15
8. In addition, there are also 2,386 low power television stations (LPTV).16 Given the nature of
this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small
business size standard.
9.

Cable Television Distribution Services

.
Since 2007, these services have been defined
within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is
defined as follows: "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies."17 The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500
or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use
current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and
its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual
receipts.18 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire year.19 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million.20 Thus, the majority
of these firms can be considered small.
10.

Cable Companies and Systems

.
The Commission has also developed its own small
business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small
cable company" is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.21 Industry data indicate that, of
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard.22 In addition, under
the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.23
Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers,
and an additional 302 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.24 Thus, under this second size standard,
most cable systems are small.


15 See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).
16 See FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2009," dated September 4, 2009;
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db0318/DOC-280836A1.pdf.
17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers" (partial
definition); http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
18 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the
United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).
20 Id. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more.
21 47 C.F.R. 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size
standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues. Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable Act: Rate
Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).
22 These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite
Operators," pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television &
Cable Factbook 2006, "Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.
23 47 C.F.R. 76.901(c).
24 Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2008, "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size,"
page F-2 (data current as of Oct. 2007). The data do not include 851 systems for which classifying data were not
available.
35

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

11.

Cable System Operators

. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a
size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000."25
The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.26 Industry data indicate that, of
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.27 We note that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,28 and therefore we are unable to estimate
more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size
standard.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance Requirements for Small
Entities

12. The specific bands under consideration are the low VHF spectrum at 54-72 MHz (TV
channels 2-4) and 76-88 MHz (TV channels 5 and 6), the high VHF spectrum at 174-216 MHz (TV
channels 7-13), and the UHF bands at 470-608 MHz (TV channels 14-36) and 614-698 MHz (TV
channels 38-51); for purposes of this Notice, we will refer to this spectrum as the "U/V Bands."29 This
Notice proposes three actions that will establish the underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless
broadband uses of the U/V Bands, without affecting current license assignments in the band. First, we are
proposing to add new allocations for fixed and mobile services in the U/V Bands to be co-primary with
the existing broadcasting allocation in those bands. The additional allocations would provide the
maximum flexibility for planning efforts to increase spectrum available for flexible use, including the
possibility of assigning portions of the U/V Bands for new mobile broadband services in the future.
Second, we are proposing to establish a framework that permits two or more television stations to share a
single six-megahertz channel, thereby enhancing efficient use of the U/V Bands. Third, we intend to
consider approaches to create value for television viewers and broadcasters by increasing the utility of the
VHF bands for the operation of television services.
13. By establishing the underlying regulatory framework to facilitate wireless broadband uses in
the U/V Bands, this Notice is the first in a series of actions that will allow us to make progress toward our
goal of improving efficient use of the bands and enable ongoing innovation and investment through
flexible use. We will propose further actions consistent with other of the Plan's recommendations for the
U/V Bands, including, but not limited to, the process of voluntarily returning broadcast licenses to the
Commission and the licensing process and service rules for new fixed and mobile wireless
communications services.


25 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R. 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.
26 47 C.F.R. 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small
Cable Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).
27 These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite
Operators," pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television &
Cable Factbook 2006, "Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.
28
The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to 76.901(f) of
the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. 76.909(b).
29 The band 608-614 MHz, i.e., TV channel 37, is used for radio astronomy and is not part of the spectrum being
considered for reallocation. See 47 C.F.R. 2.106., US 74 and US 246.
36

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
Alternatives Considered

14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.30
15. We do not propose in this Notice to specify a band plan for the spectrum to be recovered, we
do, however, request comment on how we should re-configure the current U/V Bands to ensure that the
services involved, i.e., broadcast television as well as new fixed and mobile services, can best be
supported. Recognizing that UHF spectrum is useful for mobile services, one approach would be to select
the spectrum to be recovered from the upper portion of the UHF band and designate it for use by the
wireless communications service (WCS). This would effectively extend the current allocation plan and
WCS spectrum in the adjacent WCS bands at 700 MHz (WCS 700 MHz bands) to include new lower
adjacent frequencies. Alternatively, it might be technically desirable to configure the bands to provide
paired spectrum in separate bands for broadband applications, or to designate a portion of the spectrum
for unpaired uses or different wireless services. For example, current rules in the U/V Band allow for
unlicensed use of unassigned channels ("white spaces"), and the Plan recommended the creation of a
nationwide contiguous band for unlicensed use. We also request comment on whether a new U/V Band
plan should incorporate an unlicensed block of spectrum, or if other bands would be better suited to this
purpose.
16. We seek comment on other areas of interest with respect to channel sharing in conjunction
with the recommendations of the National Plan. We welcome comments from stations that anticipate that
they may participate in channel sharing as well as from other interested parties.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

17. None.


30 See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
37

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

STATEMENT OF

CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI

Re:

Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and
Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

This item is the first of three the Commission is considering today that will help meet our nation's
need for cutting-edge wireless services and technologies for the 21st Century helping spur our economy
and create jobs. One way to think of spectrum is as "invisible infrastructure." Though you can't see it,
spectrum is the backbone of our mobile communications infrastructure and so is essential to one of the
most robust and promising sectors of our economy.
We are at an inflection point with our invisible infrastructure. The explosive growth in mobile
communications threatens to outpace the infrastructure on which it relies. I've said this before, but it
bears repeating and emphasis: If we don't act to update our spectrum policies for the 21st century, we're
going to run into a wall a spectrum crunch that will stifle American innovation and economic growth
and cost us the opportunity to lead the world in mobile communications.
The spectrum crunch threatens to create millions of dissatisfied consumers, who if we don't
tackle this challenge will be forced to choose between poor service and higher prices.
As we outlined in the National Broadband Plan and more recently at the FCC's Spectrum
Summit, we have a two-pronged plan for bridging the gap between spectrum supply and demand. First,
we'll pursue policies to drive the most efficient and flexible use of spectrum. Second, we'll seek to bring
market forces to bands of spectrum where markets currently aren't given the opportunity to work.
This item advances both goals. It starts what I hope will become a landmark rulemaking to bring
efficiency to the use of our TV broadcast spectrum, and lays essential groundwork for market-based
policies in the form of voluntary incentive auctions, which I strongly hope Congress authorizes in the near
future.
The roughly 300 MHz of spectrum in the TV bands is among the most robust available.
Beachfront property. The transition to digital made it possible to transmit over-the-air broadcast
programming using less spectrum than before. While some stations are seizing the opportunity to offer
multicast streams or mobile TV that serve the public interest, others are not.
We might think of the steady stream of broadcast DTV transmissions as trains with a fixed
number of boxcars delivering digital content but many of the boxcars are empty. This spectrum is too
valuable and our spectrum needs too great for it to be used inefficiently. Especially given that less
than 10% of Americans receive broadcast television only through over-the-air spectrum signals.

Yet our rules currently don't permit certain types of efficient use, such as channel sharing. To
stick with the metaphor, channel sharing would allow two or more TV stations to fill the boxcars on a
train of spectrum. Today's rulemaking proposes rules for voluntary channel sharing, increased flexibility
of allocations, and seeks comment on improving VHF reception. In so doing we lay important
groundwork for incentive auctions in the broadcast TV band. Our goal is to be ready to move quickly in
the event that Congress authorizes incentive auctions.
I believe that moving forward with incentive auctions is vital to our economy and to American
consumers. By bringing market forces to broadcast spectrum, it would free up airwaves for mobile
broadband, drive private investment, enhance our global competitiveness, and lead to improved service to
consumers. It would also yield significant revenue for the Treasury.
38

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

It is fair to broadcasters, providing additional optionality, while recognizing broadcasters'
important ongoing obligation to serve the public interest and the needs of viewers who continue to rely
only on over-the-air broadcasting.
The action we take today is our first formal step to set the stage for incentive auctions. It's
perhaps reminiscent of an action taken more than 20 years ago at the Commission, when the FCC started
a process to provide for digital television. While it wasn't headline news at the time, it ultimately led to
the emergence of a new generation of TV technology and freed more than 100 megahertz of spectrum that
is about to usher in Fourth Generation or 4G wireless services and technologies and new broadband
services for public safety.
We know it will not be easy to free up spectrum for mobile broadband from the existing
broadcast TV band. Neither was the process that led to the DTV transition and the resulting freeing of
spectrum. Yet it is at least as necessary as the process that began more than 20 years ago. And, because
of how fast our global competitors are moving, it's essential that we move rapidly. We don't have
anywhere close to 20 years.
We can't afford to fall behind, and that is why today, we take this important step to begin the
process of freeing up a significant amount of broadcast TV spectrum for mobile broadband.
I thank the staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Wireless Bureau, and the
Media Bureau, and the Office of the General Counsel for their hard work on this item. This item is a
great example of how we can achieve a great product through close collaboration among Bureaus and
Offices.
39

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

Re:

Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands; Allocations, Channel Sharing and
Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

I approach today's Notice with cautious optimism as we begin to contemplate spectrum
innovation and how to make the best use of the spectrum we have. I agree that we need to act in a
forward-looking manner to realize the tremendous promise of wireless broadband. There are a number of
ways to help accomplish this, but we are going to be called upon to think really creatively--and outside
the proverbial box--in order to make it a success. I think of this item as contingency planning for the
better allocation of spectrum, and that applies to the concept of channel sharing. We don't yet know
whether legislative action or economic conditions will allow for implementation of the full range of
spectrum recommendations put forth in the National Broadband Plan, but we do know that we need to be
smarter about spectrum utilization and that we need to maximize spectrum performance so that it may
better serve the many communications needs of the American people.
I am, of course, mightily interested in the future of broadcasting. At the outset, I commend the
Notice's recognition of the public value that free-to-all, over-the-air television can bring to American
citizens. Many broadcasters have worked hard to turn this value into reality. I believe in the power of
broadcasting and the potential for broadcasters to not only survive, but to thrive, if they will but recognize
their strengths and the advantages that localism and the public-spirited administration of the airwaves
bring to them. It's an advantage that not all--in fact, not nearly enough--broadcasters have pursued. It
is no secret that I have been disappointed that so much of the spectrum dividend that accrued to
broadcasters as a result of the DTV transition goes dramatically under-utilized. I am not interested in
pushing broadcasters somewhere else or in discouraging their enhanced public interest stewardship of the
airwaves. But public interest multi-casting remains, all too often, a concept--not a reality. I speak only
for myself in saying that had this spectrum been put to such positive use, I would have little interest in
contemplating other uses of it. But here we are, trying to divine how scarce and sometimes under-utilized
spectrum can best serve consumers and citizens. Between now and such time as channel sharing and
incentive auctions and all the rest come our way, maybe more broadcasters will come to see the wisdom
of harvesting greater public benefits from the spectrum they are licensed to use.
One of the greatest challenges facing us, as we work to identify spectrum for wireless broadband
and other uses, is to make sure that we have a comprehensive understanding of the current spectrum
landscape. Surely our future success will depend not only on an understanding of our current spectrum
allocations and assignments, but also on its actual use. That's why I am so glad that we continue to make
progress on our Spectrum Dashboard--which will require ongoing commitment and resources to achieve
its full potential. I know from my experience during the Digital TV transition that major changes in
spectrum use can raise many issues, some unforeseen, and require concerted outreach to, and work with,
consumers and industry. Consumers generally don't concern themselves much about the arcane details of
spectrum allocation, nor should they have to, but they do rightly care that when they turn on a TV or
make a call on a smart-phone, it works. And so we must begin a balancing act, weighing the needs and
requirements of today and tomorrow.
I am pleased that we ask some difficult questions in this Notice. We need to understand the
regulatory framework under which channel sharing would be allowed, the technical implications for
broadcasters and viewers, and how any changes would affect over-the-air broadcasting. We also examine
ways to improve TV reception in the VHF spectrum. This latter won't be easy, believe me--we
looked everywhere we could during the DTV transition, and real remedies were few and far between.
Let's hope the months ahead lead us to some genuine innovation.
40

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

We do seem to have a consensus that some considerable new amount of spectrum will be required
in the wireless world. Without additional spectrum, wireless consumers could face degraded service
and/or higher prices. This concerns me. But it also concerns me that--without other safeguards--
auctioning off massive amounts of spectrum to incumbent wireless providers may not necessarily result in
more consumer-friendly pricing and service. Additional spectrum is, to be sure, an important part of the
wireless solution. The whole solution it isn't. I suppose that's the difference between physical spectrum
and spectrum policy.
So, this is a good and necessary item. We are teeing up questions that need to be answered, and if
there are questions we don't ask, I hope commenters will answer them anyhow. We'll all pay attention!
Thank you to Julie Knapp and the team at the Office of Engineering and Technology for the thorough job
they did on a very complicated item. Their work continues to amaze me.
41

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

Re:

Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and
Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

With this Notice, we launch one key initiative in the Commission's larger, ongoing quest to make
the most productive use of our nation's spectrum resources. The issue of future uses within the television
broadcast band is only part of our overall policy focus on spectrum issues, but it may be the most
prominent one. As we go forward in this proceeding, I will remain mindful of the significant public
interest benefits that broadcasters deliver. I also understand the need to ensure that any new rules
allowing for more flexible uses within the TV band must leave incumbent broadcast licensees with viable
opportunities to experiment with their own mix of wireless services, including but not limited to
traditional broadcasting.
At the same time, I am excited about the prospects of exploring options for wireless broadband
services within the frequencies currently devoted to over-the-air television. Although the Notice directs
much of its attention to the concept of voluntary "channel sharing" among broadcasters, I have not
reached any conclusion as to whether that approach is the best possible option for getting the most out of
the TV band. I would like commenters to tell us more about the feasibility of alternatives that may be
used in lieu of, or in conjunction with, channel sharing.
For example, broadcasters already are empowered under Section 336 of the Communications Act
to offer a flexible range of "ancillary or supplemental" wireless services in addition to their "primary"
broadcast program stream. I've been a longtime proponent of encouraging broadcasters to lease some of
their spectrum for wireless broadband purposes, and now is the time to dig into this concept seriously.
How would this approach work in the context of increasing the availability of wireless broadband? What
are the technical issues, as well as the business feasibility issues? Would this approach be a faster means
of getting more spectrum for broadband into the marketplace than the channel-sharing concept? What are
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plan for channel sharing, eventual spectrum-clearing and
repacking versus the concept of allowing broadcasting and broadband uses to be interwoven throughout
the existing TV band?
I also will review with great interest the submissions we receive on the topic of potential technical
improvements for digital broadcasting on VHF channels. As one of the two remaining veteran
commissioners of the digital television transition, I have not forgotten the difficult and unanticipated
challenges that we and broadcasters on those channels faced at the time of the analog shut-off. Both
industry and FCC engineers scrambled throughout the spring and summer of 2009 to try to overcome
interference and other reception problems associated with VHF channels. What had been prime real
estate in the days of analog broadcasting sometimes became a rough neighborhood in the new digital era.
Before the Commission takes action that might lead to more broadcasters
42

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

moving back into those channels, I will want to fully understand the ramifications of such a decision.
I thank the staff members in the Office of Engineering and Technology and the Media Bureau for
their work on this Notice.
43

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN

Re:

Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing and

Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I strongly support efforts to encourage more efficient use of all spectrum including broadcast
spectrum. So if certain broadcasters are under-utilizing the spectrum we have licensed to them, and for
those who are willing to do so on a voluntary basis, I am supportive of any recovery mechanism that would
best benefit the public interest. Additionally, I endorse actions that give all of our licensees more flexibility,
which will allow for more innovation and competition that will ultimately benefit consumers.
We also have, however, a significant obligation to protect the important public benefits that over-
the-air broadcast TV provides for our Nation. As we progress through this, and other proceedings related to
the National Broadband Plan's recommendation for reallocating 120 MHz of broadcast spectrum for
broadband services, we should carefully study the possible impact that removing broadcast spectrum could
have on all consumers in local communities.
But I cannot stress enough that we must pay careful attention to those who are most vulnerable to
the loss of broadcast television. We learned during the DTV transition that a large number of Americans,
such as seniors and the very poor continue to rely on broadcast TV to stay informed. Those communities
that heavily depend on broadcast programming should not have to sacrifice those benefits in order for our
Nation to attain wireless broadband services. I encourage our staff to work closely with broadcasters and
consumer advocates, so that we arrive at a long-term solution that properly balances both of these important
interests.
44

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MEREDITH ATTWELL BAKER

Re:

In the Matter of Innovation in the Broadcast Television Bands: Allocations, Channel

Sharing and Improvements to VHF, ET Docket No. 10-235 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This proceeding is the beginning of a process to evaluate the best means to modernize our
spectrum rules for the TV bands. This should be a collaborative process, and we should not begin with
preconceived end states or assumptions about particular future uses. Over-the-air broadcasters, mobile
broadband providers, and other innovators need the opportunity to help craft rules that will serve the
public interest and provide for a robust future for broadcasting and broadband. I believe strongly that we
cannot lock in today's technology or business plan for any spectrum user whether it be broadcast or
broadband. Central to that principle, we should always aim to provide a future path for innovation and
investment, and I am hopeful we can achieve that proper balance in this proceeding. A path focused on
future opportunity necessarily requires all stakeholders to demonstrate a willingness to question the status
quo and work cooperatively.
We should start every discussion of the TV bands with the recognition that it has only been a year
and five months since the full power broadcasters completed their transition to digital. Any successful
transition of an additional portion of the TV bands to mobile broadband use should be a consensus-driven
process. To facilitate it, we should encourage new technology and innovation in--and more broadly new
thinking about--how broadcasters and broadband providers can co-exist.
This Notice takes a number of steps to optimize spectrum usage in the TV bands and provide
broadcasters with greater flexibility in how spectrum is used, a hallmark of our modern spectrum policy
across bands. To that end, I support the Commission's efforts to add allocations for fixed and mobile
services in the UHF and VHF bands. Our overall flexible approach is also evident in the fact that the item
does not specify a future band plan for recovered spectrum. I also support proposals to improve operating
conditions in the VHF band. As we all know, there were real consequences for reception of VHF signals
as a result of the DTV transition.
I accept that this item represents an initial step in updating our TV band rules. Significant and
fundamental issues are deferred. In the future, there needs to be a fulsome discussion on additional
innovative proposals to address sharing of broadband and broadcast in the TV bands, including the
possibility of a broadcast transition from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, the adoption of a more cellularized
broadcast system, or a transition from ATSC to OFDM technologies. These are by no means the only
potential approaches and may have their own weaknesses and strengths. And in all fairness, we also
should ask additional questions about the future applicability of public interest obligations on broadcast
licensees. If the TV bands are to shift towards a more flexible spectrum model, it is only right to ask
whether those use restrictions should also be revisited.
We should also acknowledge we need to partner with--and have a good working relationship
with--Congress to give us the tools potentially necessary to effectuate our policy decisions. In particular,
I am hopeful Congress will soon provide the Commission with authority to conduct incentive auctions as
well as other tools to manage spectrum more effectively. These tools can help the Commission offer win-
win situations to incumbent and new users of spectrum. Importantly, these are not tools--nor an
approach--that should be limited to the TV bands. Indeed, it is critical that we stress that this proceeding
is part of a much broader overarching cross-government spectrum reform effort to ensure our nation's
long-term competitiveness and a bright future for spectrum-hungry mobile broadband services.
As we fully consider the future of the TV bands, we should also work to avoid the mistakes of the
past where the practical impact of allocations in one band had a ripple effect across other users or
45

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 10-196

inhibited future efforts. In the TV bands, the challenges caused by wireless microphones are the most
widely discussed, but the issues surrounding TV channel 51 warrant greater focus. Channel 51 is adjacent
to the lower A block in 700 MHz. The presence of high-power broadcast operations in many
communities may foreclose the opportunity to build out a broadband offering in 700 MHz. I appreciate
that we seek comment on how best to avoid such situations, particularly as it relates to channel 37 and the
uppermost channel dedicated to over-the-air broadcasting. If we view the TV bands and our spectrum
policy more comprehensively, we can avoid some of these pitfalls going forward. We also cannot ignore
the unintended consequences of our prior actions; we need to address existing impediments to investment
like the channel 51 issue in an equitable and expedited manner.
I look forward to addressing all of these challenges with my fellow Commissioners. Many thanks
to all the Staff who worked on this item.
46

---