[Senate Hearing 106-1120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1120
S. 2454, WIRELESS HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS FOR RURAL AREAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
82-281 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
SLADE GORTON, Washington DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan Virginia
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RON WYDEN, Oregon
MAX CLELAND, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 14, 2000.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 17
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 2
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 3
Witnesses
Mosely, Dean M., President and CEO, AccelerNet................... 20
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 22
Morton, Larry, Director, Community Broadcasters Association...... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Popham, James J., Vice President/General Counsel, Association of
Local Television Stations, Inc. (ALTV)......................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Stewart, Roy, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, accompanied by Dale N. Hatfield, Chief, Office of
Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission.. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
O'Connell, Maureen, Fox Broadcasting Company, letter with
attachments dated June 28, 2000, to Hon. Conrad Burns.......... 49
S. 2454, WIRELESS HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS FOR RURAL AREAS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: Lauren Belvin,
Republican Senior Counsel; Maureen McLaughlin, Republican
Counsel; Paula Ford, Democratic Senior Counsel; and Alfred
Mottur, Democratic Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will come to order.
The topic today is wireless high speed Internet access for
rural America. Today's hearing will focus specifically on S.
2454, the Low Power Television Internet Act, which I introduced
with Senator Breaux. The Burns-Breaux bill would allow lower
power television stations the flexibility to use their spectrum
for wireless two-way high speed Internet service.
The pace of broadband deployment in rural America must be
accelerated for the electronic commerce to meet its full
potential. I am aware of the recent discussion regarding the
digital divide, and I am very concerned that the pace of
broadband deployment is greater in urban areas than in rural
areas. The Internet has transformed the way we live, we work,
we conduct our commerce and educate our children. It is without
a doubt the engine that is driving the new economy. It has been
the single greatest contributor to the extension of this
economic cycle that we have ever known.
One look at the stock market clearly indicates that the new
economy is fueling much of the current economic expansion, even
though we have been through rough times here of late. I firmly
believe the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996 also has
helped foster that kind of growth and innovation that we are
witnessing in the communications industry today.
It was once said that every child in America would have to
learn how to read, write, and do 'rithmetic to stand a chance
to succeed. Now we have to add surf the net to that list.
Unfortunately, millions of Americans, many in my home State of
Montana, are being left behind because they live too far from
the urban centers to get wired. As I have often said, there is
a lot of dirt between light bulbs in my State of Montana.
Wiring these folks is an expensive proposition whether it is
DSL technology or cable modem access to the Internet. This
leaves large areas in my State of Montana left behind.
This legislation will bridge that digital divide by
utilizing the spectrum of low power television stations to
provide two-way wireless Internet service. We can bring low
cost high speed Internet access to many rural areas, who are
anxiously awaiting high speed service for their homes and, of
course, their businesses.
The recent history of telecommunications aptly illustrates
that demand and usefulness of wireless access. Wireless
telecommunication has been an enormous benefit to the American
economy. Wireless Internet access will be even more beneficial
as the useful components of two wired services. The use of low-
powered television station spectrum to provide low cost high
speed Internet access will facilitate the best use of their
facilities, provide a market acceptance to the stations' need.
The FCC is required to ensure that this service will not in any
way interfere with other users of the spectrum.
The legislation will allow these stations to provide two-
way wireless digital service to areas that may not otherwise be
served. It will provide another option to rural schools,
libraries, and hospitals trying to provide the best service for
their rural constituents.
The technology is here today to bring Americans fully into
the digital era. I look forward, working with my colleagues, to
move this bill out of committee and into final passage, and I
have always said from the word go that I never thought years
ago that there would be competition for rural telephones, the
cooperatives and the independents, the small independents, but
now I have changed my tune on that. I think wireless is going
to be a competitor of those companies in rural areas, and I
would also suggest that the only way that we can speed access
to high speed Internet is wireless in rural areas, that they
never will be wired really for the next generation.
So with that, I have my good friend here from Alaska who
represents a frontier State, not just rural. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to
meet Mr. Mosely with you when we were in Montana recently and,
as you say, this system might work in Alaska.
I am concerned about the statements I have heard from the
National Association of Broadcasters and the public television
stations that they fear that this extension of rights to the
low power television stations could interfere with their
existing service or when they make the modifications that are
required to go into the new mode of service.
I do hope that we can work that out and make certain that
we work it out in this legislation and not leave it to
interpretation of the FCC or the courts as we move forward. But
I am pleased to be with you and to tell you that I do think
that this service could improve the lives of many people in
very remote parts of our State. The distances in Alaska that
people here do not even comprehend, could be addressed by this
technology and so I look forward to working with you on the
bill.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator, and the concerns you
raise are also concerns of our own, and that is the reason we
have two of the probably most capable people that have devoted
their lives to the Federal Communications Commission and
probably are more knowledgeable on this than anybody else here
today to speak with us.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
you, Mr. Chairman, because once again you are initiating an
extremely important effort. In this case, you are opening the
door to what looks to be a very promising new technology,
access to high speed data services, particularly Internet
access is, of course, extraordinarily important in today's
information economy.
Both you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Stevens have noted not
just today but on many other occasions that rural communities
are frequently left stranded on the wrong side of the digital
divide. It is very important that we look at every possibility
for delivering high speed data services to rural communities at
affordable prices.
At the same time, I think we do need to examine the issue
of broadcast spectrum. Because it is limited we need to examine
carefully the potential effects on this bill on the other
services that use the spectrum, and so I look forward to
examining the impact this bill would have on providers or
consumers of free over-the-air broadcast services, including
broadcasters who provide local programming or bring television
signals to rural areas that otherwise may get no reception.
So this is an important hearing and, as always, an issue
like this involves potential benefits and trade-offs, and so
often we have been able to come up with solutions with respect
to these issues that are bipartisan and balance the competing
interests and work for our communities. I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman and, of course, Chairman Stevens
on this issue that is so important to rural areas.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. We have
with us this morning Mr. Roy Stewart, who is the bureau chief
of the Mass Media Bureau at the Federal Communications
Commission, and we look forward to hearing your testimony this
morning, Mr. Stewart. We know that some areas have to be
massaged and language has to be massaged in this thing and we
are certainly looking forward to your views on that. Thank you
for coming down this morning.
STATEMENT OF ROY STEWART, CHIEF, MASS MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY DALE N. HATFIELD,
CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
summarize my testimony and then place the joint statement of
Mr. Hatfield and myself in the record.
I am Roy Stewart, Chief of the Mass Media Bureau at the
Federal Communications Commission. Accompanying me today is
Dale Hatfield, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
Technology. I welcome this opportunity to discuss low power
television and legislation S. 2454, intended to authorize low
power television stations to provide digital data services.
S. 2454 presents both intriguing possibilities and some
significant concerns. It would authorize low power television
stations to provide an unlimited subscription-based data
service on their broadcast television channel without regard to
the broadcast nature of their authorization.
It would also preclude the commission from authorizing any
new service, television broadcast station, or modification of
any existing authority that would result in the displacement of
or predicted interference with a low power television station
providing such services. This innovative approach would permit
low power television stations to provide broadband services,
including one-way and two-way high speed Internet access that
could be of particular value where such access is otherwise
unavailable or severely limited in such very rural areas.
As a general matter, of course, providing broadband access
to as many people as possible on reasonable terms is a goal the
commission has made one of its higher priorities. Indeed, the
commission has numerous initiatives underway intended to
address this issue. Dale Hatfield is directly involved in many
of these efforts and can address any questions you may have in
this area. The use of LPTV stations as a means of achieving
this objective, however, at least as it is now described in S.
2454, does raise issues that require careful consideration.
Let me just briefly describe the low power television
service, and then turn to the specific concerns that we have
identified in the proposed legislation.
As Chief of the Mass Media Bureau, and in my former
position as Chief of the Video Services Division, I have been
involved with low power television since its inception. It has
always offered great possibilities for additional service to
the public, and has often provided innovative highly local
programming not easily provided by full service broadcasters.
It has also been a service that was subject to displacement by
others because of its secondary status.
There are currently 2,100 licensed low power TV stations.
These operate in 1,000 communities of all sizes, and in all 50
States. They are operated by such diverse entities as schools,
churches, community groups, and a variety of small businesses.
Many low power television stations serve as a community's only
local TV station and provide coverage of local news, weather,
community affairs, and local elections. The low power
television service also includes more than 4,500 television
translator stations, the majority of which operate in the
western mountainous States.
Many rural communities in these areas depend upon
translators as the only means of obtaining free television
programming. Both the commission and the Congress have
recognized that there is insufficient spectrum to guarantee the
operation of all low power TV and translator stations during
the transition to the new digital television service, which
involves the temporary awarding of a second TV channel to more
than 1,600 broadcast stations.
The FCC has changed its rules where it can to reduce the
impact of the digital transition on the low power TV service,
including permitting stations displaced by interference
conflicts to seek replacement channels on a noncompetitive
basis.
In the Community Broadcast Protection Act of 1999, the
Congress also acted to preserve the services of low power TV
stations that have provided locally produced programming in
their communities. This statute provided for the creation of a
Class A low power TV service affording qualifying low power TV
stations with a measure of primary status, that is, some of the
protections afforded full service stations.
The bureau has recently released a public notice granting
to some 900 low power TV licensees eligibility to file Class A
licenses, and we are now receiving those applications.
Against this backdrop, let me now turn to a brief
description of some of the significant concerns that I believe
are raised by S. 2454 as introduced. First, the bill would
apparently permit a low power TV station to totally eliminate
its broadcast service and convert to an all-data format. In
some cases this could result in the withdrawal of broadcast
service in areas with access to very few such services.
It could also have a serious impact on the availability of
channels for translator-based broadcast services because
existing translators would convert to nonbroadcast data mode,
and applications for new translators would lose in any
licensing contest with datacasting low power stations because
the translators would be viewed as secondary facilities.
Translators will continue to be needed to bring digital
television to rural areas during the DTV transition.
Affording low power TV stations primary status based on a
conversion to data delivery also seems at odds with the
determination made by Congress in the Community Broadcast
Protection Act that the uniquely valuable broadcast service of
low power TV stations was a fundamental reason for providing
these stations with Class A protection status.
Finally, this approach seems hard to reconcile with the
provisions of section 336 of the Communications Act. That
section provides in part that full service broadcast stations
must limit their ancillary services, such as datacasting, so as
to avoid derogation of their broadcast signal. The Commission
has implemented this section by requiring full service
broadcast television stations to provide at least one full
channel of broadcast service before they can offer ancillary
services such as datacasting on their digital stations.
Second, the bill as drafted has serious implications for
and may undermine the transition to digital television service.
For example, it does not specifically provide protection to the
table of allotments of full service DTV stations which was
adopted by the commission to permit existing analog stations to
operate digitally while continuing to broadcast on their analog
channel.
Nor would the bill permit necessary adjustments by the
commission to that table, as the transition to digital service
proceeds. Thus, a datacasting LPTV station could preclude a
change in the digital channel assignment of an analog
broadcaster that might be necessary to permit the analog
station to provide digital service.
Some of these issues we have raised may be addressed but
not fully resolved by an approach that was taken in the
Community Broadcasters Protection Act. That statute provided
for protection of the digital television table of allotments
which allowed the commission to continue the reclamation of
spectrum for new broadband services. That approach expressly
afforded the commission the flexibility necessary to adjust the
table as needed during the digital transition.
Third, because S. 2454 would afford datacasting LPTV
stations with primary spectrum rights, these stations would
have a significant preclusive effect on future full service
digital television stations. A similar preclusive effect was
permitted under the Class A legislation, but in that case,
unlike here, the LPTV station being protected was providing
broadcast service.
There are various additional issues that the bill presents
as well. For example, there is no commission application and
approval process, and no mechanism for objecting parties,
including individuals and local communities, to raise concerns.
Moreover, the enumeration of the interference rights and
obligations of datacasting LPTV stations is incomplete. It is
not clear, for instance, whether a datacasting LPTV station is
required to protect future Class A low power TV stations or
existing non-Class A low power TV stations, translators, and
mobile radio stations operating on television channels 14 to
20.
Finally, as introduced, S. 2454 does not limit datacast
operations to the core television channels of 2 to 51.
In conclusion, we agree with the objective to facilitate
broadband deployment in rural America. However, the approach
taken in S. 2454 as introduced could undermine the digital
transition, eliminate spectrum for new broadband services, and
potentially decrease the availability of free over-the-air
television in rural America.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to
address the critical issues of broadband deployment in rural
America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here
today. This concludes my testimony, and Mr. Hatfield and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hatfield
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission and Dale N. Hatfield, Chief, Office of
Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Roy Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). I am accompanied by Dale Hatfield, Chief of the FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology. We welcome this opportunity to
discuss the importance of broadband deployment in rural areas. There is
no question that this in an important issue that needs to be addressed.
At the Commission, we have made it a top priority.
The Internet and the capability to transmit large quantities of
data at very high speeds are transforming the telecommunications
industry, and providing tremendous benefits to citizens around the
world. We must make sure that the benefits of the communications
revolution are experienced by all Americans. Those communities without
access to broadband will be placed at enormous risk in the next
century.
Directly or indirectly, through our information and
telecommunications sectors, the Internet is linked to one-third of our
country's real economic growth. But for the Internet economy to develop
to its full potential in our country, there must be an available,
affordable broadband telecommunications infrastructure throughout the
country. To bring everyone into the Information Age, we must make sure
that rural America reaps the benefits of broadband. As Chairman Burns
knows from his participation in our rural field hearings, the
Commission has been actively working with consumers, industry, the
states and other parts of the federal government to ensure and
facilitate broadband deployment to every community. We have embarked
upon a series of outreach hearings so that consumers and small
businesses can tell us in their own words about the broadband
challenge. The Commission adopted an order that is already providing us
firm data on the status of infrastructure deployment, so we do not have
to rely on anecdotal or incomplete information when examining the
issue. The Commission has asked a Federal-State Joint Board to review
services supported by universal service, and to help the FCC keep up
with the changes in telecommunications. The FCC and state regulators
are also creating a national database to store, monitor, and
disseminate information on broadband deployment. This database will be
available on the Internet and is intended to be a clearinghouse for
local communities to share information about their broadband deployment
projects. An interactive survey will allow local governments, private
industry and schools to provide broadband information. The survey will
be accessible at www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/broadbandsurvey.php. The
database will be available at www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/
broadbandquery.php. Finally, the Commission is making spectrum
available for wireless broadband and carving out a deregulatory zone
for companies that want to deploy broadband in under-served markets.
While we commend Chairman Burns for attempting to address the issue
of broadband deployment in rural America, we have serious concerns
about the provisions in S. 2454 which would require the FCC to protect
from interference low-power television broadcasting stations providing
digital data services. Specifically, we are concerned that, as
introduced, the bill does not adequately protect the rollout of digital
television service (DTV). In addition, the legislation as introduced
would permit primary low-power television services to operate on
spectrum that has been reclaimed and reallocated for new services,
including public safety and commercial wireless broadband. This could
adversely impact the ability of the Commission to auction this spectrum
as mandated by the Congress and thus have an equally adverse budgetary
impact. The legislation could also hinder the expansion of DTV services
provided by TV translators to rural areas, particularly in the western
mountainous states.
Spectrum Management
Spectrum is a valuable and finite public resource that must be
allocated and assigned in a manner that will provide the greatest
possible benefit to the American public. The FCC's Office of
Engineering and Technology is responsible for advising the Commission
in carrying out its responsibilities for allocating the spectrum in the
public interest. In order to do this, we must help to define policies
that maximize the efficient use of the spectrum and promote the
introduction of new services and technologies.
Over time, technological advances, growth in user demand, and the
finite nature of spectrum have made our spectrum management
responsibilities increasingly complex. To address the continuing growth
of demand for radio services, we have focused our approach to spectrum
management on allowing spectrum markets to make more efficient use of
frequency bands through new technologies and on increasing the amount
of spectrum available for use. In addition, we have sought to encourage
the development and deployment of new, more spectrum-efficient
technologies that will increase the amount of information that can be
transmitted in a given amount of bandwidth and allow greater use of the
spectrum occupied by existing services wherever possible.
Digital Television Transition
The efficiency of the digital television transmission standard has
made it possible to reduce the amount of spectrum for television
broadcasting while at the same time improving the quality of the
service. The Commission provided a second channel for each existing
full-service station to use for DTV service in making the transition
from the existing analog, National Television System Committee (NTSC)
TV technology to the new DTV technology. These second channels were
provided to broadcasters on a temporary basis until the end of the DTV
transition, which is currently scheduled for December 31, 2006. In
developing the DTV channels, the Commission maintained the secondary
status of TV translators and LPTV stations. The Commission also
provided for recovery of a portion of the existing TV spectrum so that
it can be reallocated to new uses. Specifically, the Commission
provided for immediate recovery of channels 60-69 stations and for
recovery of channels 52-59 at the end of the DTV transition.
The Low-Power Television Service
Low-power television (LPTV) stations are broadcast stations that
operate on the standard VHF and UHF television channels, but at much
lower power levels than conventional TV stations. LPTV stations may
retransmit programming received from other sources or originate their
own television programming. LPTV stations may also transmit
subscription television broadcast programs intended to be received by
the public for a fee. LPTV stations are secondary to full-power TV
stations, which means that they may not interfere with, and must accept
interference from, conventional ``primary'' TV stations.
The FCC created the LPTV Service in 1982 as a secondary service.
The FCC believed that LPTV stations could increase television
programming diversity in both urban and rural areas and that these
stations would be particularly well suited to provide local
programming.
The LPTV Service also includes television translator stations.
There are more than 4,500 licensed television translator stations, the
majority of which operate in the western mountainous states. Many rural
communities in these areas depend on translators as the only means of
obtaining free television programming.
Television translators rebroadcast the programs of full-service TV
stations to geographic areas where full-service stations cannot be
directly received. A translator generally receives the signal of a
television station on one channel, amplifies it, and retransmits the
signal on another channel. Translator stations may be converted to LPTV
status at any time upon notification to the Commission.
The LPTV Service Today
There are currently more than 2,100 licensed LPTV stations. These
stations operate in more than 1,000 communities of all sizes and in all
50 states. Station operators include such diverse entities as schools,
colleges, churches, local governments, community groups and radio and
TV broadcasters. The service has also provided first-time ownership
opportunities to minority groups, women and a variety of small
businesses. LPTV stations can be operated in a wide variety of ways.
FCC rules do not require minimum hours of station operation or minimum
amounts of locally produced programming. Some stations primarily
retransmit programming imported from full-service television stations,
satellites or other sources. Many others transmit locally oriented
programming, including ``niche'' programming tailored to audiences with
specific interests, as well as local news, weather, community affairs,
local elections and events such as high school football games.
Digital Television Impact on LPTV
Despite their secondary status, until the arrival of the digital
television era, primary television stations had displaced few stations
in the LPTV service. Where interference from LPTV to full power
stations occurred, the LPTV affected stations were usually able to find
a suitable replacement channel on which to operate using an FCC
``displacement relief'' provision. That provision permits stations with
an interference conflict to seek replacement channels at any time on a
noncompetitive, ``first-come'' basis.
The prospects for LPTV service disruption are increased by the
emergence of DTV service. The FCC concluded in its DTV proceeding that
there was insufficient spectrum to protect the existing services of
secondary LPTV and translator stations and to provide a second channel
for DTV service to more than 1,600 full-service stations during the
transition to DTV. It also concluded that LPTV and translator stations
would remain secondary, and therefore, must not interfere with DTV
service. The Commission, however, provided several measures designed to
mitigate the impact of the DTV transition on the LPTV service. The
channel displacement relief provisions were extended to stations
potentially affected by DTV and operating on channels 52-69.
Applications for replacement channels were accorded the highest
priority among applications in the LPTV service.
In addition, several of the interference protection provisions have
been eliminated or relaxed. LPTV and translator stations were afforded
additional operating flexibility and permitted to negotiate
interference agreements with other stations in the LPTV service and the
Commission also expanded its policy of granting waivers of the
interference rules based on consideration of terrain shielding.
Further, the Commission has increased LPTV maximum power limits
primarily to enable LPTV and translator stations to operate on channels
adjacent to those of full power stations operating at the same
location. Finally, the Commission modified more than 60 DTV allotments
to eliminate conflicts with one or more LPTV stations.
S. 2454
S. 2454, as introduced, seeks to create opportunities for LPTV
stations to provide a variety of digital data services to subscribers,
including one-way and two-way high speed Internet access, as well as to
change the secondary status of those stations. As noted in our
introduction, facilitating access to broadband technology is an
important goal of Chairman Kennard and his fellow Commissioners, and
the Commission has made substantial efforts in this regard. For
instance, the Mass Media Bureau recently completed a comprehensive
proceeding to enable two-way cellularized video and data communications
in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Fixed Television
Services. Our DTV rules also provide for the provision of data services
on a supplementary or ancillary basis. Full-service television stations
must provide a free video broadcast service of comparable quality to
today's analog television, but may use their excess channel capacity
for a variety of data services. The Commission has also created the
Local Multipoint Distribution Service as another means of gaining
access to broadband technology and has auctioned spectrum for such uses
in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz frequency bands. Perhaps of greatest
significance, the Congressional provisions for the reallocation and
auction of approximately 20 percent of the television broadcast
spectrum should create very substantial opportunities for new broadband
services throughout the country.
We are greatly concerned about the implications of S. 2454, as
introduced, particularly its potential to hinder or even cripple the
roll out of DTV service, eliminate spectrum for new broadband services,
and potentially decrease the availability of free, over-the-air
television in rural America.
As introduced, S. 2454 provides that all LPTV stations may use
their authorized broadcast channels to deliver data services to the
public. The bill does not specify the amount of such service, nor does
it appear to require LPTV stations to provide any free broadcast
service. Presumably, all LPTV stations could provide Internet access
either on a full-time basis, or to a very minimal extent. The
Commission could not authorize new or modified broadcast facilities
predicted to interfere with such LPTV stations. More than 2,100 LPTV
stations are licensed to operate throughout the United States.
Additionally, there are more than 4,500 licensed television translator
stations that may convert their stations to LPTV status by a simple
notification to the Commission. Thus, it is possible that thousands of
stations could seek to qualify under the interference protections
afforded by S. 2454. Significantly, the bill does not limit such
protection to existing LPTV stations. The Mass Media Bureau recently
announced an LPTV application filing window that will open later this
summer. The window will geographically restrict where new LPTV and TV
translator stations can be located. Its primary intent is to provide
opportunities for translators to deliver additional TV programming
services to rural communities, such as the new broadcast networks and
the Fox network in some communities. This window could significantly
increase the number of LPTV and potential LPTV stations in rural areas
that could qualify for full interference protection under the LPTV
datacasting provisions of S. 2454.
The FCC concluded in its DTV proceeding that there was insufficient
spectrum to protect the existing services of all secondary LPTV and
translator stations and to provide a second channel for DTV service to
more than 1,600 full-service stations. It also concluded that LPTV and
translator stations must not interfere with DTV service and must accept
interference from existing and future DTV stations. We believe it is
well established that there is insufficient broadcast spectrum to
accommodate thousands of LPTV stations with full interference
protection without substantially impacting the transition to digital
television, particularly in the rural areas. This is evidenced by the
more than 1,800 channel displacement applications we have received from
LPTV and translator licensees who believe they cannot continue to
operate on their authorized channels, mainly due to conflicts with DTV
service or channel allotments.
The Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999
Congress recognized the spectrum impact and the paramount
importance of protecting the digital transition when it enacted
legislation to create the Class A LPTV service. On November 29, 1999,
the President signed into law the ``Community Broadcasters Protection
Act of 1999'' (CBPA). This new law created a Class A TV service which
provides certain interference protections, but not full protection, for
those LPTV stations that qualify by airing locally-produced programming
in their communities and that will operate in the manner of full-
service television stations. Noting that not all LPTV stations could be
guaranteed a certain future, the CBPA limited eligibility for Class A
status to a very specific group of LPTV stations: those that were
broadcasting television programming produced in their communities. The
Mass Media Bureau recently issued a public notice granting Class A
eligibility to more than 900 LPTV stations that certified compliance
with the qualification thresholds of the CBPA. The Mass Media Bureau is
also now accepting applications for these new Class A LPTV licenses. It
is yet unclear, however, how many of these stations can meet the
interference protection requirements of the CBPA to obtain Class A
licenses. Further, the proposed legislation could permit stations that
received their Class A status because of their commitment to local
television programming to abandon that programming.
In view of the complexities of the DTV rollout, Congress also found
it necessary to limit the interference protections afforded to Class A
stations by DTV stations. For instance, Congress stipulated a higher
priority for certain application proposals to maximize (or enlarge) the
service areas of DTV stations and provided DTV broadcasters the
flexibility to make necessary adjustments to their facilities,
including channel changes, without regard to protection of Class A LPTV
stations. The Commission Report and Order implementing the CBPA further
provided that Class A stations must protect and would not be protected
from DTV operations on a broadcaster's assigned, in-core channel at the
end of the transition period.
S. 2454, as introduced, provides none of these necessary
safeguards, nor is it even clear that the Commission could authorize a
station on a broadcaster's allotted DTV channel under this bill if the
proposed facilities would be predicted to interfere with a protected
LPTV station. Nor does the bill clearly define the requirements of LPTV
stations to protect full-service television stations and station
proposals, for example, DTV allotments, authorized service, and pending
requests for DTV channel changes.
Even with the inclusion of the safeguards that were included in the
Class A legislation, we believe that because of the much larger number
of LPTV stations that would be protected, the current bill could affect
the provision of television service, both analog and digital, in rural
areas. If broadcasters convert their translators to LPTV service and
then opt for protection under this legislation, many rural communities
will lose free, over-the-air television services. Likewise, it is
expected that DTV service will be delivered to many communities by
television translator stations. Translator licensees will need
additional channels for this purpose. We are concerned that entities
seeking to provide LPTV data service will file applications in the
forthcoming filing window and operate new LPTV stations that could
preclude translator operators from obtaining channels for the
rebroadcast of DTV stations.
The Commission is committed to ensuring that spectrum use is
flexible and put to the maximum possible use. Accordingly, when the
public interest demonstrates that testing new technology and sharing
arrangements are warranted, the Commission will seek to accommodate
such situations. We have granted experimental licenses to stations
interested in providing data services on a secondary basis. For
example, in Houston, Texas, the Commission authorized as an experiment
the testing of a digitally based interactive broadcast service using
low-power television. Following a year and one-half period during which
no interference to other broadcast services was encountered, we
authorized the station to provide a one-way Internet service to limited
subscribers on a secondary basis. In Alaska, we similarly authorized on
a secondary basis the provision of Internet service to secondary
schools. These types of requests must be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.
Having to provide primary, interference-protected status to
thousands of existing and potential LPTV stations would not be possible
under the current proposed spectrum allocation for digital television.
There simply is not enough room. The Commission would be forced to
reduce the amount of spectrum being reclaimed for new services. This
spectrum, the first segment of which is scheduled for auction in
September of this year, has been allocated for advanced wireless
services. FCC Chairman Kennard has repeatedly noted that this spectrum
offers the potential for the third residential, two-way broadband pipe,
a wireless pipe that will enable affordable broadband access, including
to rural areas.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we agree with the Committee's objective to
facilitate broadband deployment in rural America. However, the approach
taken in S. 2454, as introduced, could undermine the digital
transition, eliminate spectrum for new broadband services, and
potentially decrease the availability of free, over-the-air television
in rural America. Nonetheless, we look forward to working with Chairman
Burns, his staff and the Congress to address the critical issue of
broadband deployment in rural areas. This concludes our testimony and
we would be pleased now to answer your questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I appreciate your
statement today, and I want to start off in the area which you
have great concerns, and we do, too, to be right honest with
you--is the technology there for separation, and then what we
can get done.
Your rules give broad authority to DTV stations to provide
data services. In fact, your rules authorize DTV, digital
television stations to provide any services other than video
services. Your rules do not specify how the DTV stations may
provide such services. You make no distinction between one-way
wireless and two-way wireless. Is it true under this rule DTV
stations can do exactly what LPTV stations can do under S. 2454
as long as the DTV stations maintain its video service?
Mr. Stewart. I would think that is a concern that we have,
and it would appear to be so. Dale, do you agree?
Mr. Hatfield. I want to make sure that I understand your
question. What we are saying is that full power station would
broadcast an NTSC-quality service and then could use the
balance of the capacity for the data services. It was not clear
in the bill whether the station, the low power station, that
datacasting would have to also maintain the broadcast signal at
the same time.
Mr. Stewart. That is the difference we saw between the two,
that it looks like the low power TV datacasting station could
just do that, primarily, or all the time, whereas we have said
that the digital TV station must maintain that one channel of
free over-the-air broadcast service and use the extra spectrum
that is available for ancillary and supplementing purposes, so
there is that difference, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. OK, and I think we can work that out. Also,
tell me, Mr. Hatfield, in the separation of the using of
spectrum interference is still a concern of mine and also of
yours. Could you just give me your idea on the problems we face
there technologically?
Mr. Hatfield. There is a couple, and for example, the
traditional broadcast service is a one-way service, so as soon
as you say, we are going to introduce the possibility of two-
way, where consumers would actually be then transmitting back
to the broadcast station, if you will, that is, as we say, a
different architecture. In that case we would have to develop
rules to make sure that, in transmitting back to the broadcast
station, the viewer does not cause interference to other
services, or to other people nearby trying to watch the
station.
There are various ways--I mean, I do not want to
overemphasize this, but there are various ways of accomplishing
that, and we would need to think about rules that would
implement the law. That is the primary thing.
There is also, for example, the experimental licensee that
has been using a different type of modulation than people are
contemplating in terms of full digital television. There are
some issues that us engineers have to worry about because of
those differences, and so we would need to take them into
account in the interference analysis.
Senator Burns. But your main concern is in the area of the
return signal?
Mr. Hatfield. I do not want to overemphasize that, because
some architectures would use spectrum in other bands for that
return channel, and of course there the interference might be
less, or conceivably could be more, but you would have to look
at the architecture, how people intend to do it.
Senator Burns. In terms of the digital television roll-out
the Community Broadcasters Protection Act provided the FCC
authority to displace a Class A LPTV station if necessary to
implement digital television service. If we gave you a similar
provision with respect to LPTV stations providing data
services, would that not give you sufficient authority to
ensure that DTV roll-out is not frustrated?
Mr. Stewart. I think it is hard to make up all the
possibilities that may arise, but I remember when I testified
in the House about the establishment of a Class A service I
suggested that we have some kind of safety net that the
commission have to be able to adjust problems that arise, so I
think that would be helpful.
But I think one of the things, Mr. Chairman, that concerns
me, there are 4,500 translators in the country. There is
nothing to stop them tomorrow, if this statute gets adopted, to
switch to low power television. They can just tell us they are
now a low power television station. Rather than rebroadcasting
the signal of a full service station, I elect to operate as a
low power TV station, which then makes me qualified for the
datacasting.
The effect may be draconian in that those translators
basically provide off-air broadcast services to the more remote
areas of our country, and if they switched to datacasting--now,
one could argue, let the public make that determination as to
whether they want datacasting access or want the full over-the-
air broadcast services that each of the channels can give them
on a translator.
But one of the concerns that I have is that that may take
place, and unless we put something in there, it is not just
rural areas, but it is in any part of the country, where there
are 4,500 translators.
Or for that matter the low power stations that we have now,
they could switch also, and instead of getting only local
community broadcast service, or localism, or the status that we
gave them--when I say we, the Congress and the commission--and
created this Class A service because of the unique local
programming that we did not want to see get knocked off the
air, they could turn around and start datacasting, and we lose
the benefits of the Class A status, and I do not know how you
stop that.
A safety net might help some aspects of the interference to
the transition to digital television, but there is that
fundamental concern that exists about losing the translators,
the only way, unless you are going to have satellite delivered
in some areas, to provide programming right now to a great
number of the rural areas in our country, and I am sure you are
aware of that.
Senator Burns. Well, we are aware of it, and just like I
say, we want to work with you in providing that language, and
technically if we can do it, that is the next thing, without
interfering.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I regret that I have to leave very soon
because of a markup in another committee, but the conflict on
this bill is going to be more acute in my State than any place
else. You said there were 2,100 of these low power stations
now, right?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Stevens. What is the cost to startup one of those?
Do you have any idea?
Mr. Stewart. I do not know. Keith, do you know what the
cost is? Keith Larson is the senior engineer in the bureau. He
is the Associate Bureau Chief for Engineering, and he says,
what, about $100,000?
Mr. Larson. $50,000 to $100,000.
Senator Stevens. And there are churches and nonprofit
groups, and then there are some that are local for-profit
groups, but they are very local, right?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Stevens. And this new concept now, this new DTV, if
they apply to these low powered stations, would permit them to
do both digital and their local broadcast service at the same
time?
Mr. Stewart. Well, not as we think is proposed in the bill
right now. It is not clear that they still have to maintain
some aspect of broadcast service.
Senator Stevens. I am not asking whether they have to do
it. I am asking could they do it.
Mr. Stewart. I would expect so.
Senator Stevens. What kind of investment does that take?
Mr. Hatfield. I think it would be still roughly the same
order of magnitude here, because the television signal then
would just occupy part of this digital bit stream. If you think
of the transmitter as a big pipeline with lots of bits, what it
would mean was, some of those bits would be allocated to
maintain a television-like service, or television service, and
the balance of those bits then could be feeding to a personal
computer, for example.
Senator Stevens. And the service area would be roughly the
same?
Mr. Hatfield. Yes.
Senator Stevens. As I understand what you said, Mr.
Stewart, they could avoid interference with their own operation
by just putting in a second band and taking the return signal
into a different system.
Mr. Hatfield. I am in a little bit of a quandary here. It
is not clear to me exactly how different people might architect
it, but one of the ways is just to use your telephone line for
return, and then the outbound for the broadband services.
Another is to use a different band like IVDS, which is another
band we have set aside for the signal that goes up from the
subscriber. Trying to actually accommodate two-way services
within the broadcast band itself is probably the most difficult
to configure, and that is what we would need to consider in our
rules.
Senator Stevens. Is there a theoretical yardstick for the
area currently served by low power stations? How far out do
they go from their station?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I think it depends on the terrain. It
could be 5, 10, 15 miles.
Mr. Larson. 12 to 15 miles.
Senator Stevens. So if I am in Fairbanks and I have an
over-the-air station, a television station, public or private,
and someone is out at the North Pole, roughly 12 miles away,
they put up a low power station, there is a potential for
interference, right?
Mr. Stewart. Assuming--well, I think we would not authorize
it if we knew there was going to be any interference.
Senator Stevens. But you have already authorized a low
power station out there. Now, if they convert, is there a
different kind of interference?
Mr. Stewart. The interference would not be to that full
service station, I do not think, but the question would be,
what would be the preclusionary effect on any digital channel
we may have set aside for that full service station in terms of
that channel?
You see, what we do now, Senator, as you know, is low power
TV stations and translator stations under the commission's
rules are secondary services. If they cause any interference
they have to either find a new channel, or they go off the air.
It may be that that low power station, since it is operating
now, is not causing any interference to the full service
station, but it may be that there is a channel in the digital
table that that television station is going to match up to for
the transition, and there may be some interference problems
with that channel. It is not on the air yet.
Senator Stevens. But do we need some demonstration areas to
determine that? I think low power stations fill a void, and it
appears to me that they were started for a particular purpose,
and now this would give them a chance to go into an entirely
different course of business. I do not know, have we had any
demonstrations of these yet?
Mr. Hatfield. There is two issues there. I do not think
that--I think we understand the basic propagation mechanisms
and so forth. I do not think we need tests.
Senator Stevens. I mean in the conversion area. Have you
had any low power stations operating in an area where the
existing over-the-air station is converting as they are
authorized to do at this time?
Mr. Stewart. And which resulted in interference? I am not
aware of any. Those are in the major markets, the top 30
markets.
Senator Stevens. By definition, Mr. Stewart, Alaska is not
in the top 30 markets. We are about 450, I think.
Mr. Stewart. But our experience has only been in the top 30
markets with generally operating DTV stations. I am sorry, the
top 30, outside the top 30 stations have more time to get on
the air, so our experience has not been in the areas you are
talking about.
Senator Stevens. Well, I do not have much time, but I am
worried about an outfit that gets together $100,000 that is
going to provide low power service, television service in an
area that needs it for local information, local control, and
suddenly it gets the right to convert and become a digital
server for the Internet. What kind of capability do they need
for that that they would not need to run that low power TV
station?
Mr. Hatfield. Basically the tower and the RF equipment. It
does not care whether that digital bit stream is a television
digital stream or data. Parts of it would, if it is analog
today, have to be changed to handle the digital bit stream.
Thus while there are some changes, the nice thing about the
digital world is, bits are bits.
Senator Stevens. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am very interested
in this, because you know, those areas served by low power
stations are the ones that are totally left out of the digital
world right now, but I am not sure this is the means to make
the conversion. I really wonder about putting that service in
the hands of people who entered this whole enterprise to
provide fairly routine and I think low level expertise required
to handle low powered television station as compared to that
that is going to be required to be a server for the Internet.
Maybe I am not seeing something here, but I do think we
need a lot more information before we get involved in this. I
am with you, but I do not want to give up what I have got in
order to hope that the reflection of the bone in the water is
bigger than the one I have got, and that is the way I look at
this right now.
Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Do you want to restate? That is easy for you
to say.
Senator Stevens. Maybe I need to get you the book on fables
so you'll remember the dog walked over the bridge with a bone
in his mouth, looked down into the reflection and saw a bigger
bone, let go of the little one, and he lost them both, right?
Senator Burns. Well, we have got to visit with that dog.
Senator you raise the same concerns we have raised in this
legislation. The only thing we had to do, we had to fashion
something. Now we get to move it along, and the dialog and the
language will probably find the answer both in the technical
world and in this, but I also want to recognize Senator Wyden.
I am going to have to give some more thought to this next
question. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, is the spectrum congestion problem less in rural
areas than in urban areas?
Mr. Stewart. I am not an engineer. Let me give you my
sense, and then I will defer to Mr. Hatfield, who is the senior
engineer in the agency, that there is certainly more spectrum
available in the rural areas. There may be as much or more
demand, though, because they do not have the full service
broadcast stations that can provide service to a wider area.
When you get into the more remote areas you need translators
and secondary type services, and those take up channel
capacity.
Dale.
Mr. Hatfield. I agree.
Senator Wyden. I think one of the issues that we are
undoubtedly going to examine is whether this bill ought to be
limited to rural areas. There is not a rural service
requirement. Obviously, you could hear from the questions asked
by Chairman Burns and by Chairman Stevens that there are
questions with respect to squeezing out broadcast services, and
there is going to be a question about whether there is
sufficient spectrum to satisfy all desired uses.
I mean, supposing there were to be a procedural change
requiring that licensees apply to the FCC and make the required
showing that there is spectrum rather than just notification.
Is that another step toward balancing the competing interest in
your mind?
Mr. Stewart. As I understand, what you are saying, Senator,
is that instead of my telling the commission I want to convert
my low power to a data delivery service, make me be required to
show you that there is in addition X number of channels
available to backfill what I am moving away from, particularly
if you do not require me to have some minimum amount of
broadcast service.
Senator Wyden. Moving beyond the notice requirement, what
do you think of that?
Mr. Stewart. It is an interesting idea. I do not know what
the impact would be in terms of the real world as to how much
spectrum might be available.
Senator Wyden. In the real world, somebody has got to have
a showing. You have got to come in with a showing that you are
not producing interference.
Mr. Stewart. Part of the problem I think, and I would defer
to Dale, is that we are going to have more digital TV stations
hopefully in the rural areas, and they might want translators
to bring their signals into those areas, and I do not know how
many they are going to need in order to be able to make certain
that digital television service gets into those rural areas,
and so you may say to me today there is enough channels, and I
may say to you, yeah, but 2 years from now, or when those
stations go on the air, will there be enough channels if we let
you use them now for data.
Mr. Hatfield. You picked up there, at the end, the point
that I was going to make. And that is it is sometimes hard to
foresee at the time the applicant is coming in what the other
translator stations in the market will need in terms of digital
facilities to enable them to make the transition. We also may
need to make adjustments to fit in people later on. Here again,
it would tie our hands if there are too many of these stations
that are already locked in with what amounts to primary status.
Senator Wyden. If this bill was not enacted, would there be
any way for AccelerNet to get channels in the broadcast
spectrum? Are there any existing policies, for example, that
are going to make broadcast channels available to high speed
data providers?
Mr. Hatfield. I think I understand your question, but we
have underway today a clearing of the spectrum 60 to 69 to
allow that spectrum to be used for data services. In fact, we
have already scheduled auctions for that to occur, and then
later on there is additional spectrum, the channel 52 to 59
spectrum, which will eventually be made available for those
types of data services as well.
Senator Wyden. The answer to my question is yes.
Mr. Hatfield. That is already underway. The question is,
though, is whether doing some of these things might preclude us
from doing that clearing. In other words, we have to clear that
spectrum to enable the new services, the new data services. The
question is, would the stations, if they go in would they make
it more difficult for us to do that clearing?
Mr. Stewart. If they had a primary status, could we remove
them from that spectrum?
Senator Wyden. I think you are making an argument, though,
that this bill may make work that is ongoing at the commission
more difficult. At least, that is the argument you just gave
me. I asked specifically, are there existing policies that you
could use to move forward now if this bill was not enacted? The
answer was yes, and it seems to me you are saying that perhaps
this bill as currently written would make that work more
difficult. Is that right?
Mr. Stewart. I think that is fair. Obviously, you could
have a place where you are going to allow these low-powered
stations to convert, and maybe you will not let them convert if
they are on the 60 to 69 channels, or the 52 to 59 channels, so
that the auctions can take place and they can go to the highest
valued use, and that we do not have to protect these kinds of
services, so there are some adjustments, Senator, that could be
made.
Senator Wyden. The point we are touching on here is
absolutely key. I think there has been some confusion about
whether or not these changes that would accommodate AccelerNet
and others could be made without the Burns/Breaux bill, and a
lot of us were under the impression that AccelerNet and others
could not go forward without this legislation.
Now I think you are saying that not only can a lot of this
work get done, but that this bill might cause additional
problems.
Mr. Hatfield. Let me make it clear, of course, in the
cleared spectrum they would have to then go to auction to be
able to get access to the spectrum to be able to do that. As
Roy said in his testimony and his conclusion, the bill as
introduced could undermine the digital transition and eliminate
spectrum for new broadband services. What we were just saying
reflects the concern that he stated in his oral statement.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I think what
you and Senator Breaux want to do is definitely important. We
have just got to get through the nuts and bolts to figure out
how to do it, and there are a variety of issues that need to be
examined. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Burns. Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
members. I apologize for being late. We had the Senate Finance
Committee marking up a bill at the same time, and it is
difficult to be in two places at once. Thank you very much.
Obviously, as an author of the bill, I am a supporter of
the legislation, but it is very important to have the FCC's
views and recommendations. I was particularly interested in the
line of questions from Senator Wyden with regard to whether the
bill is necessary or not, and I guess the answer that you have
said is that you grant low power stations authority to provide
broadband Internet services, without this legislation. Is that
correct?
Mr. Stewart. We have done it on an experimental basis, as I
think you are aware, Senator, in Houston, Texas.
Senator Breaux. With AccelerNet, did you not?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, but I am not sure that there was not some
indication in that application when it was submitted that there
would be some over-the-air broadcasts continued, but we have
had some experiments to find out whether there was interference
problems.
Senator Breaux. Would you look at the application
differently if it is one that would retain some free over-the-
air services along with broadband services, as opposed to an
applicant that would have just broadband Internet services on
their low power station?
Mr. Stewart. I have to give you my personal view, and I am
not here really representing the commission, and there has been
no commission action in this area. My feeling is it would make
it more acceptable, if this is broadcast spectrum, if, in fact,
there was a continued broadcast service. If you were sitting in
the community and that was the only local TV station, or low
power television station, or if it was a translator bringing
in, you know, Monday Night Football, or call it what you would
want, and you suddenly did not get it, you might want to trade
the data, but your next-door neighbor might not want to trade
that for data.
So it seems to me without trying to piece together a piece
of legislation right now, because I am not sure I have the
ability to do that on behalf of the commission right now, but
it seems to me that it would be more tenable to require that
there continue to be some aspect of broadcast service provided
by that facility, whether it is a translator that is converted
to low power, or a low power station itself.
Senator Breaux. But full power broadcasters can provide
this data service on an ancillary basis. What do they have to
do when they decide to use their full power station to provide
the broadband services?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I am not sure there is anybody that is
really doing it yet. We went through a proceeding because
Congress had required us to assess a fee for the use of that
excess digital capability, and I am not sure that anybody is
actually doing it now, but they would just broadcast, whatever
the mechanism is, and Dale could probably speak to that, as
long as they maintain the one channel, Senator, of over-the-air
broadcast service in a digital mode.
Senator Breaux. You said Congress required a fee.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Breaux. Does that requirement of Congress not apply
to low power stations if they decide to convert to a broadband
Internet provider?
Mr. Stewart. I do not know. That is a good question. That
is the next hearing, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stewart. The Congress did not even tell us what the
amount was. We did a proceeding and determined that 5 percent,
I think, of the gross revenues was the appropriate amount for
full service television licensees, commercial television
licensees.
Mr. Hatfield. If I could just add one thing, there are a
number of broadcasters who have digital stations, DTV stations
on the air now that are also sending data along with the
digital television broadcast itself. For example, the company
called I-Blast, that is currently doing that.
Senator Breaux. Do they pay a fee for the right to do that
or not?
Mr. Stewart. I would assume they would have to on a yearly
basis give us information as to what the gross revenue was. I
do not think we have made an exception based on that. I have
not seen any report come in annually. The first one that came
in I do not think had anybody on it.
Senator Breaux. You do not know whether they are required
to pay a fee?
Mr. Stewart. I would assume if they are operating a
television station and they are using the excess capacity for
ancillary and supplementary services, I know of no exemptions
that we have given to that 5-percent fee for commercial
television licensees, so I would assume at the end I think
there is a period, maybe September or October of every year,
where there is a form that they have to report to us
information about that.
Senator Breaux. A final point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. You
point out in your testimony the bill does not add or really
protect the roll-out of the digital television services, DTV.
Can the legislation be modified to ensure that interference
problems are corrected in some form or fashion? How would we
modify the legislation if we wanted to protect the roll-out of
digital television from full power stations?
Mr. Stewart. Well, I think again it is hard to put all the
kinds of examples that may arise, but we could use, perhaps, as
a backdrop the Community Broadcaster Act, where we created
these Class A low power television stations and put in language
to protect the digital roll-out in terms of future digital
television stations and present digital television stations,
and that would be a place where we could start.
And I think that is what we are going to focus on if we
look at that, but obviously I do not have to tell you, Senator,
that digital transition is something we promised the American
public. We gave them a second channel, and we have to be
careful we do not do anything to disrupt that.
I think the Community Broadcasters Act, we put in, or
Congress put in a safety net provision that said the commission
has the authority, irrespective of Class A status, to do what
is necessary to protect that digital roll-out as it affected a
particular station.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Well, let us take that one step further,
Senator Breaux, and Mr. Stewart. 2454 provides that the FCC
shall prevent interference from LPTV stations providing data
services. That is not adequate.
Mr. Stewart. Is that to the full service broadcast
stations? Is that to other low power TV stations? Is that to
the Class A stations? It is the specificity I think I was
concerned about, Senator. That is a phrase. What comes under
that phrase?
Senator Burns. Well, that is right. I take from this, and
your testimony, and the answers to the questions this morning,
that we are going to have to spend some more time on
definitions and be more specific in our areas, and I have no
problem with that.
We can get that dialog going and take care of that, because
I do not think it is the wish of the low power people--they do
not want to interfere with anybody else, either, and basically
we are just fulfilling the FCC is fulfilling their primary
responsibility, and that is to make sure that everybody stays
in their lane that uses the spectrum and the airwaves, so I
think we can massage that language, and we will work with you
and want to work with you very closely before we ever clear
this thing out of committee.
I would like to see it move, and I also see, now, your full
power stations, they are going to offer datacasting?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Burns. And we do not want to interfere with what
they want to do, either, but we would sure like to see robust
competition out there in this area as far as the customers are
concerned.
Mr. Stewart. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to make certain
we do not deprive citizens who now get over-the-air broadcast
service via translators or local LPTV stations of their only
broadcast service, and how we shape what the future is in this
area.
Senator Burns. I am very supportive also of my public radio
station out there, and public radio in our State. We also have
a problem with low power FM that we have to work out, and we
will get that done, too.
That is all the questions I have for this panel. We thank
you for coming down this morning, and look forward to working
with you as this legislation moves along. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. We have now a panel, Larry Morton, director,
Community Broadcasters Association from Little Rock, Arkansas,
Mr. James Popham, vice president/general counsel, Association
of Local Television Stations, Inc., here in town, and Dean
Mosely, who is president and CEO of AccelerNet, from Houston,
Texas.
We welcome these gentlemen this morning and look forward to
their testimony, and Mr. Mosely, we will start with you once
you get settled in.
STATEMENT OF DEAN M. MOSELY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ACCELERNET
Mr. Mosely. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Breaux.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dean M. Mosely. I am president and CEO
of U.S. Interactor, which is doing business as AccelerNet. I
thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify in support
of Senate bill 2454. Senate bill 2454 will facilitate the
deployment of high speed, cost-effective Internet access
throughout the United States, including rural America.
S. 2454 will further the congressional commitment embodied
in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to
encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
to all Americans so that rural Americans can receive the same
quality services as are available in urban areas and at a fair
price, and Mr. Chairman, S. 2454 will do so without the need
for any Federal subsidies.
In short, S. 2454 is a technological no-subsidy, free
market solution to the digital divide. AccelerNet is a licensee
of LPTV Station KHLM-LP, Channel 43, in Houston, Texas.
AccelerNet is in the business of providing high speed Internet
access. We do so from our Houston LPTV station in a one-way
mode, using a wire line uplink pursuant to FCC digital
authority. We offer downlink or downstream wireless burst
speeds in excess of 4 megabits per second.
In part as a result of the cost savings our service offers
over wired Internet service, Internet service provider access
rates for T-1 speeds have come down appreciably in Houston,
Texas. Exciting new technology is available to overcome the
inherent limitations of our wireless one-way service. Two-way
wireless service using timed division duplexing, also known as
TDD, over a single 6 megahertz channel will enable the use of a
richer content available on the Internet today, including
streaming media and interactive services such as
videoconferencing, telemedicine, and distance learning.
It will also enable portable access to the Internet.
Today's business customer cannot be tied down to a wire for
Internet service any more than he or she can be tied down to a
wire for telephone service. As we speak, the majority of our
country does not even have wire line access to high speed
Internet service. For this majority of Americans in at least
the near or medium-term future, wireless may offer their only
access to the communications capability the rest of us take for
granted.
The LPTV service was created to make use of television
broadcast spectrum otherwise unusable, or full service
television, due to the separation distances required between
full service television stations. S. 2454 would allow this
prime spectrum to be put to use to conquer the digital divide
among Internet users in the United States.
Imagine what we could do if we could provide T-1 speed
Internet service to every classroom in Montana or South
Carolina without having to perform disruptive construction to
run one wire through ceilings and walls. Imagine the ability to
bring telemedicine to every Native American reservation.
Imagine the ability to make available to an isolated
village in Alaska a complete K through 12 curriculum, with
lectures, exercises, study guides, and tests prepared by the
very best educators in America.
Wireless Internet can do this cost-effectively. Wireless
Internet can do this with technology that exists today.
Wireless Internet can do this using LPTV stations.
Section 336 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended,
and FCC Rule section 73.624(c) implementing that provision,
granted full service television stations broad authority to
provide digital data services. DTV stations are permitted under
this rule to offer, quote, services of any nature, close quote,
including data and interactive transmissions on a supplementary
or ancillary basis.
The rule sets forth no limitation in the nature of one-way
or two-way service, nor does it set forth how such service may
be provided. That is left to the DTV stations, subject to not
derogating DTV service. S. 2454 would allow similar flexibility
for LPTV stations.
This Committee should be concerned to ensure that over-the-
air television reception will not be subject to interference as
a result of S. 2454. As the chairman said, everybody needs to
stay in their own lane.
As drafted, S. 2454 provides the FCC full authority to
protect television reception. In Houston, we have never had a
complaint of interference from our one-way high speed Internet
access service ever. Moreover, I have appended to my testimony
the analysis of Dr. Daniel L. Sharre, chief technical officer
of Adaptive Broadband, which demonstrates that interference to
television reception will not occur.
To attract capital to roll-out service across the Nation,
we and other providers who may decide to provide a similar
service need to be assured that we will not arbitrarily be
displaced from our spectrum. We have attracted the interest of
rural telephone companies, electric cooperative associations,
and other organizations, who see the service we intend to offer
as a means of providing rural America with the high speed
Internet access which it is currently denied.
Absent a clear congressional policy declaration in favor of
rapid deployment of innovative high speed wireless services,
low power television licensees face years of regulatory
uncertainty and delay in making these services available to
average Americans.
The adoption of S. 2454 will allow AccelerNet and other
service providers to bridge the digital divide in rural America
and in other areas currently lacking high speed Internet
access. I urge you to support passage of this legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosely follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dean M. Mosely, President and CEO, AccelerNet
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dean M. Mosely. I am President and CEO of
U.S. Interactive, L.L.C. d/b/a AccelerNet. I thank the Committee for
the opportunity to testify in support of S. 2454.
AccelerNet is the licensee of LPTV station KHLM-LP (Channel 43) in
Houston, Texas. AccelerNet is in the business of providing high-speed
Internet access. We do so from our Houston LPTV station in a one-way
mode, using a wireline uplink pursuant to FCC digital authority. We
offer downlink or downstream wireless burst speeds in excess of 4 mbps.
In part as a result of the cost savings our service offers over wired
Internet service, Internet service provider access rates for T-1 speeds
have come down substantially in Houston, Texas.
There are inherent limitations, however, with our wireless one-way
service. The principal limitation is that our service is asymmetrical
in speed, with tremendous wireless downstream speed but relatively slow
wired upstream speed. Our customers have told us repeatedly that they
need higher upstream access speeds which a two-way wireless service
would facilitate, and countless potential customers have told our sales
staff that they would subscribe to our service as soon as AccelerNet
offered two-way wireless service.
Two-way wireless service will enable the use of the richer content
available on the Internet today, including streaming media and
interactive services such as video conferencing, telemedicine, and
distance learning. It will also enable portable access to the Internet,
a service that our customers are demanding. Today's business customer
cannot be tied down to a wire for Internet service any more than he or
she can be tied down to a wire for telephone service. Whether it is the
real estate agent who needs to check the latest listings for her
clients who desire to see just one more prospective home, the architect
who wishes to check a design during a lull in his vacation, or the
Senator needing to check his email while back home to give a speech,
more and more of us would not think of traveling without our laptops.
Moreover, as Mr. Morton will explain in his testimony, as we speak,
the majority of our country does not even have wireline access to high
speed Internet service. For this majority of Americans in at least the
near or medium term future, wireless may offer their only access to the
communications capability the rest of us take for granted.
The LPTV service was created to make use of television broadcast
spectrum otherwise unusable for full service television due to the
separation distances required between full service television stations.
S. 2454 would allow this prime spectrum to be put to use to conquer
this digital divide among Internet users in the U.S. Imagine what we
could do if we could provide T-1 speed Internet service to every
classroom in Montana or South Carolina without having to perform
disruptive construction to run one wire through ceilings and walls.
Imagine the ability to bring telemedicine to every native American
reservation. Imagine the ability to make available to an isolated
village in Alaska a complete K-12 curriculum, with lectures, exercises,
study guides and tests prepared by the very best educators in America.
Wireless Internet can do this cost effectively. Wireless Internet can
do this with technology that exists today. Wireless Internet can do
this using LPTV stations.
The technology necessary to bring high-speed wireless Internet
service to the public exists today and is in use in the United States,
in Japan and in Europe. It can operate over a single television channel
without causing interference to television reception. It is called Time
Division Duplexing (``TDD''). TDD allows both the uplink and downlink
of a wireless signal to be transmitted over the same spectrum without
interfering with itself. TDD can achieve spectral efficiencies of
between four to 20 times that achieved with more traditional FDD
(frequency division duplexing), which requires separate transmit and
receive frequencies. TDD systems have been developed and deployed by
TRW and Adaptive Broadband, formerly California Microwave. Several
other companies are in various stages of development of TDD systems.
I have appended to my testimony a statement prepared by Mr. Alfred
Boschulte, former President of NYNEX Mobile Communications, explaining
in more detail, the capabilities of TDD technology. In addition, I have
appended the cover story from the April 2000 edition of RF Design, by
Dr. Adel Ghanem, which discusses the difficulties of providing fixed
wireless services using microwave frequencies and which delineates the
numerous advantages of transmission in the lower frequency bands,
including eliminating in most instances the requisite of a
professionally installed subscriber terminal. What Dr. Ghanem is
describing is what we at AccelerNet have been advocating for some time:
a ``plug and play'' high speed, cost effective wireless Internet
delivery system. Upon passage of S. 2454, this system can be
implemented in the very near future.
Section 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC
Rule Section 73.624(c), implementing that provision, granted full
service television stations broad authority to provide digital data
services. DTV stations are permitted under this rule to offer
``services of any nature,'' including data and interactive
transmissions, on a supplementary or ancillary basis. The rule sets
forth no limitation in the nature of one-way or two-way service, nor
does it set forth how such service may be provided. That is left to the
DTV station, subject to not derogating DTV service. S. 2454 would allow
similar flexibility to LPTV stations.
The Committee should be concerned to ensure that over the air
television reception will not be subject to interference as a result of
S. 2454. As drafted, S. 2454 provides the FCC full authority to protect
television reception. We have never had a complaint of interference
from our one-way high speed Internet access service in Houston.
Moreover, I have appended to my testimony the analysis of Dr. Daniel L.
Sharre, Chief Technical Officer of Adaptive Broadband, which
demonstrates that interference to television reception will not occur.
AccelerNet currently holds or has the right to acquire LPTV
stations in various cities in the states of Arkansas, Arizona, Florida,
Idaho, Montana, New York, Tennessee, Texas and Hawaii. We are currently
in negotiations to acquire stations in Kansas, Virginia, Michigan and
elsewhere throughout the U.S. Ultimately, it is our goal to be a part
of providing every community in the nation with high-speed wireless
Internet access. To attract sufficient capital to roll out service
across the nation, we and other providers who may decide to provide a
similar service need to be assured that we will not arbitrarily be
displaced from our spectrum. We have attracted the interest of rural
telephone companies, electric co-operative associations and other
organizations who see the service we intend to offer as a means of
providing rural America with the high-speed Internet access which it is
currently denied.
The adoption of S. 2454 will allow AccelerNet and other service
providers to bridge the digital divide in rural America and in other
areas currently lacking high-speed Internet access. I urge you to
support passage of this legislation.
Attachment 1
DETECON, Inc.,
Reston, VA, June 12, 2000.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns,
I am the President of DETECON Incorporated, part of the DETECON
Worldwide Telecommunications Consulting Organization. We specialize in
Telecommunications Engineering, Technical Consultation and Management
Services and are members of International Worldwide Standards
Organizations, and have been particularly engaged in the United States
in current and future generations wireless communications. AccelerNet,
Inc. is one of our clients and we have been working with the AccelerNet
team in developing the UHF low power television broadcast spectrum
opportunity for 2 way high speed internet communications. I want to
offer our insight as to the appropriateness of utilizing this spectrum
and the assurance that can be given as to inference concerns and the
feasibility of this approach.
Wireless Data is expected to undergo an explosive growth over the
next several years and Internet access is an integral part of that
market. data needs of the emerging The people of the United States use
the Internet. Consumers and businesses use this important vehicle to
communicate with families, friends and colleagues; to perform research
and to purchase and sell goods. They are able to send and receive short
messages and transmit large data files. However, there is a growing
need for the ability to effectively transmit and receive larger files
incorporating video and graphic applications. As a result, there is an
ever-growing demand for high-speed access to meet the emerging data
needs in the United States. One readily adaptable and cost effective
alternative to the traditional landline network is to provide high-
speed Internet access and services via wireless technology. As the
industry struggles with an ever-expanding search for better use of the
radio spectrum, providing high-speed Internet access from the UHF
spectrum is a reasonable avenue to pursue.
Television channels in the Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) range are of
interest to private industry because many are either available or are
becoming available in major metropolitan markets across the USA. There
is a great demand for spectrum in the United States as private industry
attempts to meet the consumer demand for wireless services offering
newer and better features. An UHF TV channel offers a desirable amount
of spectrum in a frequency range that exhibits desirable propagation
characteristics, in comparison to frequencies which other technologies
are forced to amount of spectrum in a frequency range that exhibits
desirable propagation characteristics, in comparison to frequencies
which other technologies are forced to operate at. The UHF TV channels
not already in use for NTSC (analog) UHF TV stations or for ATSC
(digital) UHF DTV stations are currently under evaluation by a number
of private companies for uses other than those originally intended;
that is, for services other than television transmission.
AccelerNet would like to purchase UHF television channels, as
allotted by the FCC,\1\ for the purpose of delivering two-way high-
speed Internet services. AccelerNet wishes to use one 6 MHz UHF TV
channel in a given market to compete with the incumbents already
offering these services, e.g. the local telephone company, independent
Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (LMDS), etc. AccelerNet would like to be able to offer their
customers these fixed two-way high-speed data services in a totally
wireless manner in the near future while assuring the FCC that no
interference will be caused by the utilization of these UHF TV
frequencies to existing or future UHF TV channels, e.g. existing
National Television System Committee (NTSC) UHF TV channels, existing
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) UHF DTV channels, and
planned ATSC UHF HDTV channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.fcc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operating frequency range of this equipment will be, using one
6 MHz UHF TV channel, from 470 MHz to 698 MHz (channels 14-51), as
specified for the geographical area for which it is allocated
(typically a metropolitan area). AccelerNet will utilize existing
technology in order to provide their service. There is a precedent for
using the types of modulation and data transmittal that AccelerNet is
currently evaluating for offering their service; LMDS, Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), and Personal Communication
Services (PCS) systems utilize the modulation and transmittal types
that AccelerNet is considering. However, the frequencies that LMDS,
MMDS, and PCS operate at have different propagation characteristics
from those in the UHF range. LMDS operates in several bands in the 28-
31 GHz range, the A band with 1.15 GHz of spectrum and the B band with
150 MHz of spectrum, this is a great deal of spectrum when compared to
the 6 MHz of one UHF TV channel. However, the frequency range in which
LMDS operates is strictly Line-Of-Sight (LOS), as everything in the
environment severely attenuates the signal including inclement weather;
these disadvantages severely limit the range of LMDS to a maximum of 15
km., although operational use can typically be around 2-8 km. MMDS
operates in the 2.1-2.7 GHz range, utilizing multiple 6 MHz channels.
PCS operates in the 1.9 GHz range, operating in several bands utilizing
blocks of spectrum of either 10 MHz or 30 MHz. Both MMDS and PCS suffer
from similar limitations due to their operating frequencies, they are
essentially LOS but offer much greater ranges than LMDS. A UHF TV
channel, while limited in the amount of spectrum, 6 MHz, has very
desirable propagation characteristics, much greater than those of LMDS,
MMDS, or PCS, and so, a fewer number of antenna sites is required to
cover a given geographical area than with the other technologies.
The methods of modulation and data transmittal in LMDS, MMDS, PCS,
and other wireless methods are: Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD),
Time Division Duplexing (TDD), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA),
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), and Phase Shift Keying (PSK).
FDD is a less spectrally efficient method than TDD but is ideal for
voice traffic when available bandwidth is not a concern. TDD is very
good at utilizing existing spectrum in an efficient manner and is very
well suited for Internet-type data traffic. CDMA is spectrally
efficient, and well suited to either voice or data traffic, CDMA also
utilizes its own methods of modulating data. TDD and FDD must utilize
modulation methods such as QAM and PSK to transmit data; there are
different types of QAM and PSK that they can utilize, for data 16-QAM,
64-QAM, an even 256-QAM have been utilized, as well as 8-PSK, the
modulation method chosen depends on the available spectrum and the
desired speed of the connection. These are accepted and proven methods
of communicating both voice and data and have been utilized
commercially at different frequencies and bandwidth allocations than
the one for which AccelerNet plans to operate. In particular, systems
utilizing TDD and CDMA are currently in use within spectrum-limited
situations, where adjacent channel interference is a major concern (as
it is with UHF TV), and these methods have performed very well in
reducing interference and allowing the spectrum to be fully utilized.
DETECON, Inc. feels strongly that some or all of these technologies can
be adapted for the use of AccelerNet on a 6 MHz UHF TV channel. In
particular, AccelerNet plans to utilize TDD for service introduction.
In DETECON's opinion there is no impeding technological issue to
applying currently used modulation approaches to the two-way high speed
Internet application in a 6 MHz UHF low power television spectrum.
We would like to assure the FCC that no undue interference to any
other radio-frequency (RF) services will be caused by the utilization
of an UHF TV channel for the service that AccelerNet proposes. We
propose to adhere to the specifications proposed by the ATSC,\2\ the
organization that formalized the HDTV standard for the United States of
America. ATSC document A/64, Transmission Measurement and Compliance
for Digital Television, Section 4.1.1,\3\ specifies the guidelines
which must be met in order to avoid interference with existing NTSC TV
channels, AccelerNet will comply with these guidelines in order to
avoid Interfering with other carriers utilizing TV channels and other
radio frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.alsc.org.
\3\ http://www.alsc.org/standards/A64/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, in DETECON'S opinion, we feel very strongly that
AccelerNet can take commercial advantage of an UHF TV channel and
effectively compete with other technologies to offer two-way high-speed
data services in a given market.
DETECON, Inc. also believes that AccelerNet can comply with any and all
guidelines with regards to interference and spurious emissions so that
the proposed modulation techniques AccelerNet uses will not interfere
with operators in other parts of the radio spectrum.
Sincerely,
Alfred F. Boschulte,
President & CEO.
Attachment 2
Fixed wireless communications for the mass market
RF design, April 2000
By Adel Ghanem, Ph.D.
With an open market for many communications services, the current
challenge is to offer a cost-effective package of services to both
consumers and small businesses.
Fixed wireless could provide the best opportunity for a competitive
alternative to wireline communications services but so far has had a
minimal impact. The obvious competitive ``no-brainer'' has become an
implementation and success story ``no-gainer.''
A closer look at the reasons why suggests the opportunity has not
passed us by. We've merely been focusing attentions on selling
solutions destined for mediocre success--and/or failure--from the
start.
It's time to take advantage of the lessons learned from past
successes and failures. By concentrating efforts on sound RF
principles, innovative technology, efficient design and pro-competitive
public policy and regulations, we can provide fixed wireless solutions
that offer an economic and competitive alternative to everything the
wireline public network has to offer--voice, data, even video
What's needed
First and foremost, a competitive fixed wireless offering needs to
be focused on the mass market as opposed to the current focus on the
high-end, large business users. A solution that isn't designed with the
residential and small office home office (SOHO) market in mind at the
outset is less likely to be an economic alternative in hindsight.
There is no lack of telecommunications alternatives for high-end
business customers. And as these solutions--wireline and wireless--
become more and more competitive, they could become economic options
for medium-size businesses. But they will likely never become an
economic alternative for the residential and SOHO markets. From the
capacity, functionality, and ease of installation points of view, they
weren't designed with those customers in mind--a major distinction.
The economics of the mass market are all about cost and price. This
isn't a new or major revelation. Cellular and personal communications
system (PCS) carriers have proven that we sell a lot more wireless
service with free or $49 phones than with $249 or $1,499 phones.
But it's a well known fact that cellular networks and service
weren't, initially, designed for the mass market. Actually, cellular
was once viewed as having very limited market potential. It is a good
example of a technology application which found/developed a sizeable
market and continues to reinvent itself to become more acceptable and
affordable to a wider audience.
Fixed wireless solutions, designed for the mass market, need
special attention paid to technologies and specifications that allow
cost effective networks to be built. PCS carriers helped drive efforts
to incorporate cost-saving technologies into their networks because
without a lower operating cost--and corresponding lower overall service
costs--there was little hope of attracting customers away from
cellular.
Fixed wireless networks present similar challenges and bigger
opportunities. By definition, fixed wireless requires the installation
of a ``fixed'' subscriber terminal--a costly consideration if installed
by a qualified technician. But if the subscriber terminal could be
self-installed, the service economics would change considerably.
Subscriber-installed terminals could have the same impact on fixed
wireless as they had on the direct broadcast satellite (DBS) market,
where a similar problem existed. Initially, special technicians were
required for all satellite installations, which delayed the overall
service penetration. The solution to this dilemma was a self-
installation kit and a bit of innovative technology.
Today, the self-directing installation kit guides the subscriber
through the process. A signal at the set-top receiver tells them when
the satellite dish is positioned properly for the strongest signal
strength. By removing a major implementation cost and hurdle, the
service is applicable and appealing to a wider audience, while
improving the overall economics of the business plan
All of the above-described factors play a role today in fixed
wireless implementations. And they further suggest what else needs to
change. Meeting these conditions for economic, competitive, self-
installed fixed wireless equipment and services suggests efforts should
be concentrated on finding solutions that operate in lower, rather than
higher, frequency bands--counter to all existing efforts to date.
Wireless systems operating in lower frequency bands reduce the
point-to-point or line-of-sight requirements, making self-installation
possible and eliminating a major cost and implementation hurdle. And
that factor alone will have a major impact on the economics of fixed
wireless infrastructure and implementations.
Furthermore, the availability of spectrum in the lower or sub-2.5
GHz frequency bands suggests other RF technologies, such as time-
division duplexing (TDD), must be considered for fixed wireless
applications. Lower frequencies allow for a less complex RF solution
and TDD implementations worldwide have proven efficient, cost-effective
and viable for mass-market applications.
Fixed wireless systems based on TDD technology and operating in
sub-2.5 GHz offer the best opportunity for a cost-effective,
competitive alternative to wireline telecommunications services. And
competitive service providers--wireless or wireline--should concentrate
efforts on seeing these solutions are given a fair opportunity to be
brought to market.
The search for higher ground: an historical perspective
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there wasn't much
emphasis on mass-market competitive local exchange services. And given
the state-of-the-art in wireless technology, lower frequencies weren't
a fixed wireless service option. It is difficult to say--from a
chicken-and-egg perspective--which came first or mattered most, but
both prevented serious consideration and development of cost-effective
fixed wireless solutions.
The lack of competitive incentive prior to 1996 is perhaps easiest
to explain. Although fixed wireless offers no-brainer status as a
competitive local exchange alternative, there wasn't a carrier group
particularly interested in pursuing the residential opportunity--
wireless or wireline.
From 1992 on, most of the wireless attention was centered on PCS
spectrum auctions and bringing competitive alternatives to the
``cellular'' duopoly. Mobility was key in every wireless business plan
and although fixed wireless was not prohibited in any way, it did not
reflect the interests of auction participants or the best perceived
market opportunity for the available spectrum.
Likewise, in the same time frame on the wireline side, competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs) were still known as competitive access
providers (CAPs). All their efforts were concentrated on constructing
fiber optic rings and providing lower cost and reliable wireline
telecommunications service alternatives for lucrative business
customers. Residential and SOHO subscribers were not on the radar
screen.
Cable TV companies expressed interest and ``dabbled'' in
telecommunications trials but the complexities of providing high-
reliability telephone services ran counter to their existing
operations. So despite their interest in expanding the service
offerings to their residential customer base, their existing cable
plant prevented execution of the strategy.
With the only available lower frequency spectrum being ``reserved''
for mobility applications and a general lack of interest in competitive
residential local exchange services, fixed wireless applications
garnered very little service interest.
The impact of available wireless technologies factored into the
fixed wireless development equation as well. At the time, most wireless
equipment manufacturers developed solutions based on state-of-the-art
frequency division duplexing (FDD) access schemes to support the needed
high-speed mobility.
In contrast to TDD, FDD divides its transmission into transmit
(upband) and receive (downband) frequencies separated by a guard band
of a specific size. The use of FDD for wireless applications was widely
accepted and in many respects the defacto standard. In fact, the PCS
spectrum allocations were established with FDD duplexing in mind.
The selection of FDD by equipment manufacturers for mobility
applications led to the same choice for fixed wireless. Despite the
lack of interest within the U.S., fixed wireless became a preferred
solution for basic telecommunications in many competitive offerings
worldwide, especially in underdeveloped regions. To compete for these
worldwide contracts, vendors needed to include fixed wireless systems
in their product line. For obvious reasons of convenience and economies
of scale, equipment manufacturers developed fixed wireless solutions,
from their stable of available mobility solutions, that were already
based on FDD technology.
In turn, the use of FDD in product offerings pushed fixed wireless
applications into higher and higher frequency bands where paired-bands
can still be allocated. The lack of large blocks of spectrum--required
for FDD--in the U.S. and most of the world prevented consideration of
lower frequency applications.
This fluke of logic, convenience and/or progression of events, is
why fixed wireless solutions have encountered only mediocre success
from the start. Fixed wireless developed into a higher frequency
wireless mobility ``adaptation'' instead of a lower frequency
``designed for the masses'' efficient, economic alternative to
wireline's hold on residential access.
Low frequency advantages
It's not that it isn't possible to construct an efficient, cost-
effective fixed wireless system at higher frequencies. But given the
alternative of lower versus higher frequency solutions who wouldn't
choose sub-2.5 GHz?
Wireless technology gets better and more stable every day but some
basic facts and laws of physics will never change. A rainstorm still
wipes out wireless transmission at 24 GHz and even a simple rainy day
can block signals at 3 GHz.
Even foliage and building obstructions have a greater impact at
higher frequencies. For example, a 3.6 GHz fixed wireless installation
in Poland worked perfectly following its fall installation but ground
to a halt in spring. The strange phenomenon design engineers failed to
account for was the annual reappearance of tree leaves.
At lower frequencies, Mother Nature would not have had an impact.
And while design options include raising antennas to ``see'' over the
trees, trees will continue to grow and the problem will likely reoccur.
Urban fixed wireless deployments can be even more disconcerting.
Building heights and other obstructions force the use of sophisticated
modeling tools and experienced technicians for mapping and installation
on a sight-by-sight basis. Certainly not an economic, low-cost
alternative.
In-building penetration could also benefit from lower frequency
transmission and impact fixed wireless applications. Who hasn't noticed
the difference between in-building penetration of cellular and PCS
frequencies in the U.S.? Because of its sub 1.0 GHz frequency, cellular
exhibits greater in-building penetration when compared to PCS at 1.9
GHz. Even in the middle of a building you will likely receive a
cellular call, whereas PCS transmission in the lobby of many high-rise
buildings gets dicey. Now consider the implications of these same
frequencies on fixed wireless where you don't have the option of
``walking'' the antenna for better reception.
In fact, all wireless applications at high frequencies require
line-of-sight transmission for optimal performance. This restriction
alone can kill the economics of an urban or even suburban fixed
wireless application.
In contrast, lower frequencies don't require line-of-sight, nor is
it necessary to pinpoint antennas with laser-beam precision. Signals
are more tolerant and can bend around and penetrate a wider range of
structures. And imagine the impact on a fixed wireless business case if
the subscriber terminal could be self-installed or placed within the
home or business.
The business case drives all wireless ventures and the ``numbers''
have to work. Low frequency fixed wireless has a business case
advantage in the overall cost of system equipment. For the same output
power, the cell size is larger at lower frequencies, requiring fewer
base stations and reducing infrastructure costs.
For example, a fixed wireless application in a sub-2.5 GHz
frequency provides a cell size range of 15-25 km. With that coverage,
many urban and suburban applications could be handled with a single
cell and base station.
In contrast, at higher frequencies the laws of physics shrink the
cell radius and coverage for the same system output power. It forces
operating in a micro rather than macro cellular environment with
corresponding effects on design, equipment costs and ease of
installation. Not to mention that high-frequency transceivers are just
more complex and require greater attention to detail.
In totality, the combination of all these factors suggest lower
frequencies are the economic choice for fixed wireless applications if
providers are serious about providing a ``competitive'' alternative to
wireline.
Enter TDD
Yet, that assertion contains a Catch-22 of sorts. With the last
sub-2.5 GHz spectrum going to PCS mobility applications there hasn't
been sufficient lower frequency spectrum available.
Taken at face value, the assertion is true. There isn't sufficient
lower frequency spectrum to accommodate fixed wireless or even other
mobility applications--if FDD is the duplexing assumption.
That frequency quandary forced manufacturers, carriers, governments
and regulators worldwide to search, select and set-aside spectrum
blocks at higher frequencies for fixed wireless applications. But the
logic behind the search for a frequency ``home'' that meets the needs
and requirements of a particular wireless ``technology'' is
counterintuitive. FDD isn't required or necessary for many fixed
wireless applications.
Selecting wireless technologies and frequencies that maximize the
economics and business case of a mass-market application should have
been the thrust. And under those assumptions, time division duplexing
in sub-2.5 GHz frequency bands is the logical choice.
For starters, TDD spectrum could be squeezed into any available
contiguous spectrum. Because the transmission is time-slot, rather than
frequency-based, it requires a single contiguous chunk of spectrum for
transmitting and receiving. Its ``Ping-Pong'' transmission approach is
very effective for fixed applications and slow-speed mobility.
TDD transceivers are also significantly less complex and more cost
effective than FDD transceivers on both the subscriber and base station
side. For the base station, TDD eliminates the need for expensive
duplexers. With subscriber equipment, the transceiver is much simpler
and more cost effective to implement.
One reason is TDD's channel reciprocity. Because it uses the same
channel for transmitting and receiving, channel characteristics seen at
the base station could be considered as identical to those of the
subscriber unit. This channel reciprocity simplifies the TDD equipment
design considerably.
There have been past concerns about TDD and its susceptibility to
echo and difficulty with synchronization. But the industry and
technology has evolved to ensure these concerns are no longer valid.
Proper system design and technology innovations have significantly
reduced the potential of echo in even the longest TDD links. Further,
with global positioning satellite (GPS) technology, all cells can be
synchronized to the same clock, guaranteeing the synchronization
between the transmit and receive time slots in all adjacent cells,
thereby eliminating possible inter-cell interference.
The only remaining concern surrounding TDD technology is that it
hasn't received sufficient market attention as a competitive fixed
wireless alternative. It's not that there aren't successful TDD
implementations worldwide. In fact, TDD success stories include
wireless PBX technologies (like personal handiphone systems (PHS) in
Japan, digital European cordless telephone (DECT) in Europe) and a
number of fixed wireless advanced code-division multiple access (ACDMA)
implementations around the world. By design, PHS and DECT take a micro-
cellular approach while ACDMA offers the wide-area and high capacity
coverage of a macro-cellular design.
The encouraging fact is that TDD can offer an efficient, cost-
effective infrastructure alternative for competitive fixed wireless
applications targeted at a mass market--if lower frequencies can be
made available.
What needs to happen
The challenge of finding lower-frequency available spectrum isn't
as large an ``if'' as it might first appear. But there are a number of
factors needing sufficient attention to bring lower frequency fixed
wireless TDD applications to market.
First and foremost we need to generate more serious attention to
providing a competitive alternative to incumbent local exchange carrier
(ILEC) telecommunications services. And that attention should be
concentrated on encouraging fixed wireless applications.
Regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) are slowly being allowed
into the long distance market because local exchange competition
``exists.'' But that competition is hardly ubiquitous and there are
really no serious alternatives available for the mass-market
residential customer aside from using the RBOCs own outside plant
facilities.
AT&T has switched local exchange access strategies a number of
times from the wireless ``Project Angel'' to a $100 billion gamble on
cable TV infrastructure. Apparently it is ``serious'' about local
exchange alternatives, but hasn't yet hit on a killer, cost-effective
strategy (perhaps we should take another look at recently announced
fixed wireless products using newly developed CDMA/TDD technologies).
Making lower frequency fixed wireless TDD applications a
possibility requires cooperation from the FCC and other regulatory
bodies to ensure rules and regulations support rather than hinder the
opportunity for a mass-market success story. That could include
removing requirements that suggest, dictate or favor specific
technologies, such as FDD. Taking a bold step and encouraging or
specifying the use of TDD for specific spectrum allocations is another
option.
Existing unintentional restrictions include mobile antenna output
power requirements. Because mobile applications use omnidirectional
antennas, output power is restricted to reduce radiation patterns and
possible interference among the mobile units. But the same requirements
aren't necessary for fixed wireless applications.
With fixed wireless using directional antennas, transmit power can
remain high without creating the same interference problems. The
results are increased link budgets, resulting in wider and better
coverage for the same or reduced cost--a plus for cost-effective, mass-
market implementations.
Eliminating the restriction could open up D, E and F allocations in
the PCS bands for fixed wireless consideration. Many of these PCS
auction winners have yet to deploy because the spectrum allocations are
limited in size to support high capacity mobile networks. Rather than
sit on valuable spectrum or introduce yet another risky mobile
application, perhaps TDD-based fixed wireless deserves a second look.
Additional lower frequency spectrum is now available with more to
come in the future. Examples include the upcoming 700 MHz auction of
vacated television channel frequencies and spectrum in the 400 MHz
range now used by analog services being phased out.
Recent moves by the FCC regarding the 700 MHz frequencies suggest
more of an FDD slant. But while it is possible to construct a paired
band out of the available 30 MHz to allow for FDD applications, using
the band for TDD implementations eliminates the need for significant
guard bands and hence increases the available spectrum for wireless
communications services.
Lastly, a concerted effort by equipment manufacturers to explore
and expand TDD options is warranted. Carriers have been ``pushed'' into
higher frequency applications because FDD solutions are what wireless
equipment manufacturers have had to offer.
The future
Wireless equipment vendors need to focus energies on turning out
TDD applications that ensure the competitive success of a mass-market
fixed wireless alternative to wireline. That translates to modular
equipment configurations that offer a ``pay as you grow'' philosophy
for prospective carriers without the deep pockets of an AT&T or MCI
WorldComm.
Carriers can not depend on a ``build it and they will come''
wireless equipment mentality. As sure a bet as alternative residential
and SOHO local exchange service may appear--considering the unmet
demand for inexpensive, high-bandwidth Internet connections--carriers
still need scalable solutions, providing cost-effective implementations
and realistic returns for 100 or 100,000 subscribers.
These equipment, regulatory and competitive environment goals are
attainable and the alternative of TDD-based fixed wireless access
solutions is realistic. But the cycle of technology dictating wireless
solutions needs to end.
Communications services for the mass-market require solutions
designed to incorporate every frequency, wireless technology and
implementation advantage possible. Lower frequency TDD fixed wireless
applications are the real competitive opportunity. Adapting what's
convenient and available should not be an option.
Attachment 3
Adaptive Broadband Corporation,
Sunnyvale, CA, June 12, 2000.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
Washington, DC.
Re: AccelerNet
Dear Senator Burns:
I have been asked to explain why the two-way wireless Internet
access service using low-power television stations proposed by U.S.
Interactive, LLC d/b/a AccelerNet is not a risk for causing
interference to other television licenses in the UHF band. This letter
will address that subject, as well as present to you information
demonstrating that the technology we would supply AccelerNet is proven
and workable.
By way of background, I am Executive Vice President and Chief
Technical Officer of Adaptive Broadband Corporation, and have served as
such since September of 1997. I hold a Ph.D. in physics from the
University of California, Berkeley, an MBA from Santa Clara University,
and a BA from the California Institute of Technology. Prior to
September 1997, I was Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of
ComStream Inc. Prior to that position, I held various executive and
management positions at Ilex Systems; Loral Western Development Labs,
and Space Applications Corporation. In 1985 I founded Theta Corporation
and served as its President and Chief Executive Officer. From 1977 to
1982 I was an assistant professor of high energy particle physics at
Stanford University.
Adaptive Broadband is a pioneer in the wireless broadband access
market. Founded in 1968, as California Microwave, we are a leading
supplier of terrestrial wireless systems that support ultra high-speed
Internet access. In 1998, we acquired Adaptive Broadband Limited of
Cambridge, U.K. The new AB-Access system developed from that
acquisition offers a solution that provides wireless broadband access
delivering up to 25 Mbps to each user based upon demand, which is 400
times faster than conventional modem networks. This product is made
possible by a patent-pending packet algorithm that adjusts efficiently
to the ebb and flow of asymmetric Internet data traffic and supports
the widest range of available spectrum.
AccelerNet's plan for delivering two-way wireless high-speed
Internet access using low-power television stations is an innovative
and very workable concept that we are very excited to assist. The
likelihood that operation wou1d cause interference to existing
television or other users of the UHF band is extremely remote for a
number of reasons.
As I understand the plan, AccelerNet would utilize existing low
power television stations and certain newly licensed additional
stations as base stations only where they fit under the FCC's current
rules. Thus, these base stations would comply with current FCC
interference protection requirements with respect to full power, other
low power television stations, and any other authorized users in the
UHF band. Thus, there is no question of interference from the base
station transmissions themselves. Hence, the only real question is one
of whether the subscriber units, consisting of wireless modems which
would talk back to the low-power stations with specific requests for
Internet data, could cause interference. This is also not a meaningful
possibility.
Interference might only occur in the circumstance where a
television receiver is: (1) near the edge of the service contour of a
broadcast station operating adjacent to the system's transmitting
channel, and (2) in proximity to an operating subscriber unit. This in
itself, is highly improbable. Moreover, several circumstances combine
to render interference even in this scenario, extremely remote:
First, AccelerNet has indicated that the subscriber units will
operate with low power, in the neighborhood of one watt or less. This
plainly limits the potential for interference from these units.
Second, system design will provide that the subscriber unit will
operate with the minimum power necessary to carry on communication,
similar to how the cellular and PCS services operate. Thus, actual
operating power of subscriber units will almost always be well below
the peak power of the unit.
Third, if I understand the AccelerNet service model, the wireless
access is such that more than 99 percent of transmission time for the
system will be in the downlink mode from the base station to the
thousands of subscriber units located in the system's service area. The
individual subscriber unit's operating time (uplink mode) will be
greatly limited, consisting of sporadic transmissions of a length of a
few microseconds each, which will be insufficient to have any
substantial affect upon even extremely proximate television reception.
Fourth, prevention of interference in this case is primarily a
function of the emission mask applicable to signal transmissions, The
emission mask which will be employed for the subscriber units for
AccelerNet will result in lower absolute power emission levels than
that specified for full service DIV operation by the FCC in FCC Rule
Section 73.622(h). This is a stringent emission limitation. The tighter
the emission limitation, the less likely the potential of interference
to adjacent channel television reception.
Fifth, in the extremely unlikely situation where an interference
problem actually occurs, it would be handled as it currently is
handled--for example, when high power television stations interfere
with TV reception in the areas immediately around their transmitters--
with the installation of an inexpensive filter.
In light of the circumstances set forth above, I am confident that
AccelerNet's operation will not result in interference to other
authorized licensees in the UHF band. In this connection, one
additional observation is appropriate. The FCC has authorized in its
rules full power digital television stations (DTV) to provide digital
data services, including Internet access, on an ancillary or
supplementary basis. FCC Rule Section 73.624(c) states that
provided that DTV stations comply with paragraph (b) of this
section [which is not relevant to this discussion], DTV
broadcast stations are permitted to offer services of any
nature, consistent with the public interest convenience, and
necessity, on an ancillary or supplementary basis. The kinds of
services that may be provided include, but are not limited to,
computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext,
interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio
signals, subscription video, and any other services that do not
derogate DTV broadcast stations' obligations under paragraph
(b) of this section. Such services may be provided on a
broadcast, point-to-point or point-to-multipoint basis,
provided, however, that any video broadcast signal provided at
no direct charge to viewers shall not be considered ancillary
or supplementary.
The FCC's rules thus appear to give broad authority to DTV stations to
offer data services of their choice, and leave technical design for
these digital data services to their discretion, subject to compliance
with the emission mask set by the DTV rules in order to prevent
interference, in line with the approach required of full power DTV
stations, AccelerNet would comply with the DTV emission mask and take
such other action as necessary to ensure it will not cause
interference. Moreover, the FCC will have full authority to require
remediation in the unlikely event interference may occur, just as with
full service DTV operation.
You have also raised a question concerning whether the service
AccelerNet will provide will actually work.
I can assure you that the TDD technology Adaptive Broadband would
provide AccelerNet will work. Adaptive Broadband is currently producing
TDD equipment operating in the 2.5 to 2.686 GHz MMDS band, and in the
5.25 to 5.825 GHz U-NII (unlicensed) band. This equipment provides a
two-way wireless Internet I access service very similar to what
AccelerNet would be implementing. Modifying this equipment for UHF
operation will be straightforward. It will essentially require
rechanneling the radio to the UHF band and fashioning an integral
antenna for the subscriber unit. Those are relatively simple
engineering tasks.
In fact, Adaptive Broadband will have TDD product available for use
by high bidders in the FCC's upcoming 700 MHz band auction, should such
licensees desire to provide digital data services and should these
licenses contract with Adaptive Broadband for development and
manufacture of such product. There are no material differences in radio
system design and implementation in that 700 MHz band, compared with
operation in the lower portions of the UHF band used by low-power TV
stations. Thus, there is no question but that this technology will work
on low-power TV spectrum.
Specifically, the TDD technology AccelerNet would employ from
Adaptive Broadband is particularly suited to Internet access
applications compared to conventional wireless technology. Current
wireless technology, such as that used by cellular, PCS and other
systems such as Nextel's employs Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD).
FDD systems require separate dedicated transmit and receive spectrum.
They are thus comparably inefficient because at least one-half of the
spectrum must be silent while the other half of the spectrum is used
for transmission. With Internet access, and other digital data
services, the inefficiency of FDD technology is even more pronounced.
This is because--unlike voice--data transmissions are highly
asynchronous. Thus, although a 58 Kbps plain old telephone (POTS) line
can, in many instances, adequately handle the uplink for Internet
access, today's marketplace frequently requires the downlink side to
provide data rates of more than 1 Mbps. Hence, an FDD system becomes
even more inefficient when employed for delivery of data.
TDD systems solve this problem of spectral inefficiency by
employing the same spectrum to transmit both the downlink and uplink
segments of a two-way transmission. With TDD, no aspect of bandwidth is
committed, allowing dynamic allocation of spectral resources to serve
users with data to transmit and dynamically altering direction
according to traffic load. This greatly increases the efficiency of
spectrum use, with spectrum use dynamically altering from upstream to
downstream in less than a millisecond, as compared to traditional FDD
systems, which allocate fixed partitions of spectrum to upstream and
downstream traffic thereby resulting in unused spectrum. TDD,
therefore, results in an improvement in efficiency by a factor of two
to eight times. It is, therefore, estimated that just one site of a TDD
system can adequately serve some 12,000 users. By contrast, cellular
systems have a much smaller capacity per cell. TDD systems are thus
more cost effective than FDD systems for data transmission, to the
benefit of both the service provider and the consuming public.
Moreover, UHF offers certain advantages compared to MMDS and U-NII
bands in terms of propagation and building penetration. Thus, it is
expected that subscriber units will be able to operate effectively
without the need for outdoor antennas. Currently MIMDS and U-NII
subscriber equipment generally require outdoor antennas. UHF operation
thus has considerable benefit to the public in terms of increased
utility and reliability compared to existing applications.
We are aware that other TDD equipment suppliers, such as TRW and
Arraycomm, Inc. have publicly announced plans to offer UHF equipment
for TDD operation. Thus, this is not an issue where there should be any
substantial question in the industry but that the technology works.
Copies of materials you may find of interest relating to the points
covered in this letter are enclosed for your information.
I would be pleased to discuss this matter directly with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
Daniel L. Scharre,
Executive Vice President.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Morton, director of Community Broadcasters Association.
STATEMENT OF LARRY MORTON, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Morton. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
My name is Larry Morton. I am a member of the board of
directors of the Community Broadcasters Association, and
president of Equity Broadcasting Corporation. I appreciate the
opportunity the Committee has given me today to come here and
testify in support of passage of S. 2454. The CBA is the
principal trade association of low power television
broadcasters.
We supported and appreciated the efforts of the Members of
Congress who enacted the Community Broadcasters Protection Act
into law last year. As a result of that act, community
broadcasters with a record of substantial public service now
have been given some measure of certainty that the investment
they make to provide service to their local communities will
not be subject to loss at the whim of the FCC.
Previously, the FCC could, or had the ability to authorize
Class A legislation. Frankly, I believe it is questionable this
would have happened today had it not been for the legislative
action the Congress did to support this. We really thank you
for your consideration and support in this effort.
S. 2454 would expand the class of LPTV stations entitled to
protection to include those LPTV stations which provide the
public digital data services, including wireless Internet. The
CBA enthusiastically supports this legislation. However, we do
believe there are two issues that need to be clarified.
The first of these issues is to create a public service
guideline for future Class A stations to avoid owners leaving
the broadcast spectrum solely for digital transmission as a
safe harbor to protect their license, and second to limit the
initial transition to digital data services to existing
licensees and permittees to avoid mass speculation in the
pending filing window.
These issues are discussed in detail in my written
testimony.
Now, briefly, I would like to put on my other hat as the
president of Equity Broadcasting Corporation. Equity
Broadcasting Corporation owns and operates two full power
television stations, has two more under construction, and has
an additional full power station under contract.
In addition to that, we have an interest in more than 20
full power television station construction permits and
applications. We also own and operate 12 radio stations, and
have 35 low power television stations.
To some degree I have a foot in each one of these arenas,
and so I think I am in a unique situation to look at this
objectively. From this position, I firmly believe that low
power television is a very unique situation, and is very vital
to our country. Low power television is probably the most
effective use of the broadcast spectrum there is.
Something I often do in talking about this, I use an
analogy, and I am sorry Senator Stevens is not here for this.
He has better ones than I do. But it is like a bucketful of
rocks. That bucket seems to be full. It weighs a lot. But if
you look at it, you see all these gaps in between where the
rocks fit together, and if you want to pour some sand in there,
you can actually probably put another half a bucket of sand in
between those gaps.
And that is what low power television has done and
community broadcasters have done. They have taken the gaps that
were initially in the spectrum, gaps that other people
overlooked and thought to be not worth much, or even worthless,
and brought vital services to the community. The usage of this
spectrum for wireless digital data services is another way to
maximize this usage for the good of the public.
Obviously, the importance of Internet access is obvious to
even the most casual observer. In its short existence, the
Internet has grown to become an important medium for the
conduct of commerce, the education of our children, and the
maintenance of the informed and enlightened electorate
necessary for our free society.
As Alan Greenspan pointed out this week, the Internet is
one of the engines which is driving the United States economy
to record levels of productivity and employment. Recent
estimates are that e-commerce will total some $300 billion by
2002. Enactment of 2454 will help facilitate full public access
to the Internet, which in turn will promote the continued
expansion of our economy.
As Congress, the administration, and the FCC have all
recognized, not every American enjoys the benefits of the
Internet, especially high speed Internet service. As Chairman
Kennard said last week in a speech in Atlanta, the Internet can
either be the great equalizer, or just another missed
opportunity. Access. Access makes the difference. Access to
high speed Internet services is severely restricted in this
Nation. Indeed, it has been suggested that we confront a
digital divide.
In its recent report on advanced telecommunications in
rural America, NTIA found that rural areas are currently
lagging far behind urban areas in access to high speed
Internet. The economics of wireless operation in rural areas
are much more favorable than wired operations.
There is obviously a major problem in achieving the
potential for wireless high speed Internet access which this
Committee may help resolve by favorable action on S. 2454. That
problem is the lack of sufficient and adequate spectrum.
Currently, spectrum available for two-way wireless high
speed data services is restricted to LMDS, MMDS, and unlicensed
PCS spectrum. Other wireless spectrum suffers from technical or
practical problems, including the high demand for mobile voice
service and narrow band configuration. The currently available
bands, however, are in the microwave area of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Microwave spectrum is particularly unsuited for this type
of service. It suffers signal degradation from rain. It is
impeded by trees and foliage, and it cannot easily penetrate
building structures. LPTV stations operating in the UHF band,
however, can deliver high speed wireless Internet access to
homes, offices, and classrooms without facing these problems,
and in most cases without the need for exterior antenna.
The need to provide high speed DSL quality Internet
services to areas not currently served at a cost-effective
price is a key public interest concern. As the FCC has
repeatedly recognized, as Chairman Kennard said, our challenge
is not just to build the Internet that goes faster, but that
goes farther, that reaches all Americans.
We need to make sure that the opportunities that the
Internet and communications technologies provided are available
to all Americans. This high priority initiative is fully
consistent with Congress' direction to the FCC in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote the goal of
widespread deployment of advanced services. This proposed
legislation is directly responsive to this goal, and will
facilitate its achievement.
As I previously stated, Community Broadcasters' board of
directors has unanimously supported this legislation, and as
president of Equity Broadcasting Company, a company that has a
uniquely unbiased view of this industry, we all support the
legislation, the passage of this legislation and hope you will
expedite its process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Morton, Director,
Community Broadcasters Association
Mr. Chairman, my name is Larry Morton. I am a member of the board
of directors of the Community Broadcasters Association (``CBA'') and
President of Equity Broadcasting Corporation. I appreciate the
opportunity the Committee has given me today to come here and support
the passage of S. 2454.
The CBA is the principal trade association of Low Power Television
broadcasters. We supported and we appreciated the efforts of members of
Congress who enacted the Community Broadcasters Protection Act into law
last year. As a result of that Act, LPTV broadcasters with a record of
substantial public service now have been given some measure of
certainty that the investments they make to provide service to their
local communities will not be subject to loss at the whim of the FCC.
We thank you for that consideration.
S. 2454 would expand the class of LPTV stations entitled to Class A
protection to include those LPTV stations which provide the public
digital data services, including wireless Internet access. The CBA
enthusiastically supports this legislation; however we believe there
are two issues that need to be clarified.
First, on May 1, 2000, the Commission announced an auction filing
window for new LPTV and translator station applications. The filing
period is July 30-August 4 of this year. Although this filing
opportunity was intended principally to allow for new applications in
rural areas that have limited television service, this legislation
could change the dynamics of this filing period. The result could be
the filing of speculative applications which would ultimately compete
and conflict with those who are trying to provide a few more basic
channels of broadcast television in highly rural areas.
There is a solution to this problem. CBA proposes a modification to
Sec. (h)(1) of this legislation to limit eligibility under this Act to
existing licensees and holders of construction permits. We suggest a
cutoff date of June 30, 2000. This would effectively eliminate
speculators from the upcoming filing window.
Secondly, CBA is also concerned that this legislation could provide
incentives to non-Class A LPTV broadcast stations to become data
service providers because this legislation would provide them the only
pathway to protect their license. That clearly isn't the purpose of
this legislation and CBA wants to be certain that this is not an
unintended result.
Mr. Chairman, in S. 1547, the Community Broadcasters Protection Act
of 1999 which you authored last year and which became law on November
29, 1999, you provided LPTV licensees two opportunities to qualify for
a permanent, Class A license. First, a station was eligible if for 90
days before enactment it was on the air 18 hours per day and averaged
no fewer than 3-hours of locally originated programming on a weekly
basis. Second, a station could become eligible if the Commission
determined it was in the public interest.
I believe you understood and we shared that view, that the
Commission would develop, through its regulatory process, a public
interest test so that stations that did not initially qualify, would
have a future opportunity to file a petition with the Commission and
become a Class A station.
In its March 28, 2000, Class A Report and Order, the Commission
determined mistakenly that the purpose of the legislation was to
provide a single window of opportunity to existing LPTV stations. On
that basis the Commission decided not to grant additional Class A
licenses beyond those who qualified during the 90 days prior to
enactment of the CBPA.
CBA believes that decision was wrong. With this misinterpretation
of S.1547, this legislation now creates the circumstances where a LPTV
licensee can gain Class A status if it is engaged in digital data
services but cannot gain Class A status as a television broadcast
station. To correct this problem, CBA recommends the Committee simply
include in this legislation clarifying language on the purpose of Sec.
(f)(2)(c) of the CBPA and direct the Commission to implement public
interest standards and appropriate regulations within a reasonable
period not to exceed 12 months. The CBA board strongly recommends
expedited approval of this legislation.
To understand the value of data services and the importance of this
legislation to underserved areas, you only need to look at the impact
of the Internet on society. In its short period of existence, the
Internet has grown to become an important medium for the conduct of
commerce, the education of our children, and the maintenance of the
informed and enlightened electorate necessary to our free society.
Given its status in the United States as a substantial educational,
promotional, sales and distribution channel, the Internet is one of the
engines which is driving the United States economy to record levels of
productivity and employment. Recent estimates are that e-commence will
total some $300 billion by 2002. Enactment of S. 2454 will serve to
facilitate full public access to the Internet which will, in turn,
inure to the continued expansion of the economy.
As Congress, the administration, and the FCC have all recognized,
not every American has been able to enjoy fully the benefits of the
Internet, especially high-speed Internet service. As FCC Chairman
Kennard said just last week in a speech in Atlanta, ``The Internet can
either be the great equalizer, or just another missed opportunity.
Access . . . access makes the difference.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Remark of William E. Kennard at The Supercomm 2000
International Dinner, Atlanta, GA (June 5, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to high speed Internet service is severely restricted in
this nation. Indeed, it has been suggested that we confront a ``digital
divide.'' In its recent report on Advanced Telecommunications in Rural
America, NTIA found that rural areas are currently lagging far behind
urban areas in access to high-speed Internet service. The report found
that broadband services were essentially limited to two technologies:
cable modem and digital subscriber line (``DSL''). The report also
pointed out that these technologies were primarily available only in
urban areas. The report found that less than five percent of towns of
10,000 or fewer have cable modem service, while 65 percent of cities of
250,000 or more had such service. Both of those figures I submit are
plainly inadequate.
DSL service was likewise found chiefly limited to urban areas. Of
cities of more than 100,000, only 56 percent had DSL service. However,
fewer than five percent of cities of 10,000 or less had such service.
And deployment of either cable modem or DSL service in rural areas was
found to be even lower. The reason for these abysmally low rates of
service in the rural areas was found to be economic. According to the
Report, ``For wireline construction, the cost to serve a customer
increases the greater the distance among customers.''
The economics of wireless operations in rural areas, however, are
much more favorable. However, there is a major problem in achieving the
potential for wireless high-speed Internet access, which this Committee
may help resolve by favorable action on S. 2454: the lack of sufficient
and adequate spectrum. Currently, spectrum available for two-way
wireless highspeed data services is restricted to LMDS/MMDS and
unlicensed PCS spectrum. Other wireless spectrum suffers from technical
or practical problems, including the high demand for mobile voice
service. These currently available bands, however, are in the microwave
area of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwave spectrum is
particularly unsuited to this type of service. It suffers signal
degradation from rain; it is impeded by trees and foliage; and it
cannot easily penetrate into building structures. Thus, existing
wireless data applications require a relatively expensive outdoor
antenna to bring signals into the home, the office or the classroom.
And even then, there are distance limitations due to the lower
propagation characteristics of the signal at those frequencies. LPTV
stations operating in the UHF band, however, can deliver high-speed
wireless Internet access to homes, offices and classrooms in most cases
without the need for exterior antennae.
The recent history of the telecommunications industry aptly
illustrates the demand and utility of unwired access to digital
services. Wireless telecommunications has been a substantial
enhancement to the United States economy. Wireless Internet access
promises similar economic benefits. The use of low-power television
stations to provide high-speed digital Internet access is particularly
appropriate given that such stations have struggled for market
acceptance. Allowing their facilities to be used for wireless Internet
access would facilitate the highest and best use of their facilities.
Moreover, use of low-power television stations for wireless Internet
access would facilitate the national priority of the provision of
Internet access to schools and public libraries across the nation
without the necessity for expensive and disruptive rewiring of those
facilities. Rewiring the existing base of schools and public libraries
runs the further substantial risk of adverse environmental consequences
stemming from, among other things, asbestos release. Moreover, among
the other uses for this novel service is to make available telemedicine
of digital television quality. Telemedicine will enhance the ability of
physicians and emergency room personnel to treat injured or ill
patients from rural and remote areas.
Allowing LPTV stations to provide digital data services--while it
is certainly innovative--is fully in keeping with the policy goals the
FCC has announced. In a July 20, 1999, speech, FCC Chairman Kennard
described the Commission's program for flexible use of wireless
spectrum as an effort aimed at promoting competition. Specifically, he
stated, ``Since the early 1990s, the FCC has given holders of wireless
licenses flexibility in their use. This opened the door for wireless
Internet access, which is now available in dedicated modems or even in
wireless phones themselves. We've continued to promote competition by
making more spectrum available and doing so without restrictions as to
[its] use.'' S. 2454 would provide that flexibility to LPTV operators
as well.
Furthermore, in a report to Congress, the FCC stated, ``It has
become clear that wireless licensees providing fixed wireless services
have the potential to create facilities-based competition beyond the
traditional mobile markets.'' \2\ One example the Commission gave of
entities promoting competition in this way were low-power TV licensees
providing Internet access. According to the Commission, ``In addition
to the traditional wireless cable operators, there are several wireless
cable licensees who were not previously video programming distributors,
but which instead provide Internet access. These entities tend to be
start-up companies using MMDS or low-power television licenses.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budged
Reconciliation Act of 1993, 14 FCC Rcd 10145, Appendix F at 10255 (
June 24, 1999).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need to provide high speed DSL quality Internet service to
areas not currently served at a cost effective price is a key public
interest concern as the FCC has repeatedly recognized. In a July 20,
1999 speech, Chairman Kennard said, ``Our challenge is not just to
build an Internet that goes faster, but that goes farther--that reaches
all Americans. . . . We need to make sure that the opportunities that
the Internet and new communications technologies provide are available
to all Americans.'' \4\ This high priority initiative is also fully
consistent with Congress's direction to the FCC in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote the goal of widespread
deployment of ``advanced services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Remarks by FCC Chairman William E. Kennard Before the Federal
Communications Bar, Northern California Chapter, San Francisco (July
20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Advanced Services'' have been defined ``without regard to any
transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband
telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and
receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications using any technology.'' \5\ The FCC states it is
``committed to carrying out Congress's directive to ensure that
advanced telecommunications capability is deployed in a reasonable and
timely manner to all Americans.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-104, Title VII,
Sec. 706(c)(1), February 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the
notes under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 157.
\6\ Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and
Timely Fashion, 14 FCC Rcd 2398 at 2402, (Feb. 2, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed legislation is directly responsive to this goal and
will facilitate its achievement. The CBA urges its passage forthwith.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Mr. Popham.
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. POPHAM, VICE PRESIDENT/
GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.
(ALTV)
Mr. Popham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here today, and we appreciate the opportunity to express the
views of local television stations on this legislation. ALTV,
as you well know, represents the interests of stations not
affiliated with ABC, CBS, and NBC, but I dare say virtually
every television station shares the concerns we will express
today.
Let me start out by emphasizing that we are not here
necessarily to rain on anyone's parade. We may want to rain
down a few lightning bolts here and there. We may want to show
you where the dark clouds on the horizon are, but our hope
would be ultimately, I believe, to get that parade to the same
point everyone wants it to get, but by a route that will not
trample on our interests.
Let me try to clarify the issue just a little bit.
Certainly we do have a concern about interference. Certainly we
want to be sure that everyone stays in their own lane.
Everybody that is using spectrum in any way has that interest,
and we share that.
But the real issue, the more significant issue for us in
this bill is not staying in the lane, but who gets the lane
when two people want to use the same lane, and what this
legislation in its present form would do would give first claim
to that lane to an LPTV station providing digital data service,
and that would have a preclusive effect on the use of that
lane, or that channel, by any local television station in
implementing the digital television convergence and transition.
Let me set that a little bit in context and add a little
detail to it. I think Roy Stewart from the commission also
spoke very well on this issue. We are in some rough air now on
the digital transition, and that maybe is not really a
surprise, because we had many of the same problems when we
converted from black and white to color television. We all
remember green faces and brown sky and purple grass, but we
have gotten beyond all of that, and we are facing some similar
problems now in the DTV transition.
We are not sure--there are many questions about over-the-
air transmission with the current modulation scheme. There is
virtually no cable carriage of any of the 134 digital channels
which are now operating. The FCC has at best dragged its feet
on adopting must-carry rules to require carriage of local
stations' digital signals.
Continuing controversy continues to erupt over cable
compatibility standards and labeling of sets, over copy
protection, and all the related issues that go to being sure
that the signal is processed in a way that stations can
actually be seen by viewers in their receivers and that the
receivers will actually connect to the set-top boxes, and to
the systems, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
All these issues remain pending, and are creating a great
deal of uncertainty and risk for local stations in the digital
transition. I have characterized it I think as something like
an airplane in a critical stage of take-off. We are kind of
just off the ground, but there are only so many obstacles that
we can deal with, only so many problems we can have before we
start wondering about whether we are really going to be able to
fly or not.
Unfortunately, as now written, this legislation would just
create another problem. In particular what it would do, as I
think Mr. Stewart said, it is going to prevent our stations, if
need be, from using channels which might otherwise be available
to maximize their service. This is a critical issue in
particular to our member stations. Because many of our stations
are UHF stations, we pushed very hard for the concept of
maximization, and it is very critical for us to be able to
provide service to the widest area possible.
Many stations will also need to modify their facilities to
accommodate interference concerns, to accommodate local zoning
concerns, and for a number of other reasons.
All stations are going to have to elect a channel as
between their analog and their digital channel for their final
operation at the end of the transition. There are a number of
stations, 17 we believe, which have at this point channels that
are in--or, rather, outside the core of channels that will be
used for DTV, so neither of their channels will be available to
them at the end of the transition.
They are going to have to find a channel within the core
channels and, to the extent there are low power services which
have primary rights on those channels, it is going to limit
their options considerably. They also foreclose options of
other stations which are going to have to pick between their
two core channels for their final digital channel.
This is another bump in the road which frankly we do not
need, in what has become the very difficult digital conversion.
As Roy Stewart also recognized, what we are looking at here
is a very dramatic change in the nature of low power
television. We are moving it from a free television service to
a subscription data service. It is a very different animal from
what low power has always claimed itself to be, and has
promoted itself as being, and that sort of thing I think takes
a very hard look, because it is a very fundamental reallocation
of broadcast spectrum.
I would also point out that it is very possible and,
indeed, is already being provided, to provide broadband
services via satellite to rural and nonrural areas. Indeed,
there are services, including DirecTV, EchoStar, Pegasus,
Gilatt Satellite Systems, I-Skynet, EMS Technologies and
others, which are now developing systems to provide satellite-
delivered broadband Internet access and, in fact, two of those
services, DirecPC and Skyblaster, are available using KU band
satellites. With the future development of spot beam KA band
satellite that service will only grow and expand.
So again, we urge you to take a hard look at the
reallocation issue. We ask you to take a very hard look at our
concerns about who gets precedence in the various lanes. We are
anxious that you not invoke the law of unintended consequences
here, and perhaps in the words of the song that came to mind,
give us land, lots of land with starry skies above, but don't
fence us in. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Popham follows:]
Prepared Statement of James J. Popham, Vice President/General Counsel,
Association of Local Television Stations, Inc. (ALTV)
Introduction
We greatly appreciate this opportunity to make our views known to
the Subcommittee. The Association of Local Television Stations, Inc.
(``ALTV'') represents the interests of full service local broadcast
television stations not affiliated with ABC, CBS, or NBC. Most of our
member stations are affiliates of either the Fox, UPN, WB, or PaxTV
networks. Some remain traditional ``independent'' stations, which
continue to offer innovative programming to their communities. \1\
ALTV's membership includes stations from every region of the country.
Their ownership spans the continuum from local single station owners to
large media conglomerates. Their interests range from those of
nationally distributed ``superstations'' to those of small home
shopping and ``infomercial'' stations. All of our member stations are
now involved heavily in the transition to digital television. As of
today, 134 Of the nation's local television stations already have begun
broadcasting from their new multimillion dollar digital broadcast
facilities. The rest will be commencing operation in digital
broadcasting between now and the FCC-imposed deadline of May 1, 2002.
We would note at the outset that full power local digital television
stations will enjoy the ability to provide digital data services, as
well as free broadcast television service. Thus, the perspective of our
membership is multi-faceted and wide-ranging, and we respectfully
submit that consideration of their concerns will add materially to the
debate on S. 2454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indeed, ALTV previously was ``INTV,'' the Association of
Independent Television Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTV considers the basic goal of S. 2454 laudable. Provision of
digital data services via wireless transmissions offers the opportunity
for more widespread availability of new avenues of data and information
transmission to American consumers. Moreover, the inherent efficiency
of point-to-multipoint wireless transmission--whether provided by
satellite, MMDS, full power television, or low power television
(``LPTV'')--might be exploited most readily to provide such services in
rural and other low-population density areas. Indeed, all things' being
equal, the wide open door to provision of digital data services via
LPTV facilities offered by S. 2454 would draw only praise and support.
However, all things are not equal. Therefore, ALTV must express its
serious reservations about this legislation in its Present form.
ALTV respectfully submits that S. 2454 in its original form would
invoke the ``law of unintended consequences.'' Placed in the current'
context of the ongoing transition to digital broadcasting, it would
achieve, perhaps, short-run progress in expanding the availability of
digital data services, but at the ultimate expense of attenuating the
ability of many full power local broadcast television stations to
provide truly full digital service to their communities.
The troublesome provision of S. 2454 in ALTV's view is new
paragraph 336(h)(3), embodied in section (2) of the bill. It directs
the Federal Communications Commission to refuse to authorize ``any new
service, television broadcast station, or modification of any existing
authority that would result in the displacement of, or predicted
interference with, a low power television station providing (digital
data services).'' That provision essentially would protect any LPTV
station offering digital data services from interference from or
displacement by a new, full power television station, the modified
facilities of an existing full power television station, or even any
new, now unknown service. In simplest terms, such an LPTV station,
operating on a particular channel, could preclude any use of that
channel (or an adjacent channel) that would displace the LPTV station
or interfere with the LPTV station's signal.
This preclusive effect stands to be compounded by the use of
``multiple transmitters at multiple locations'' as contemplated by new
paragraph 336(h)(5) in section (2) of S. 2454. Thus, for example, such
an LPTV station, using multiple transmitters on six different channels
in a particular geographic area would preclude use of those six
channels for full power service in that area. The preclusive effect of
using these six channels for an LPTV-based service, however, does not
stop there. Their use for full power television in surrounding areas
also will be limited because use of the channels for full power service
still would interfere with six LPTV channels in use nearby (and not so
nearby) areas. This interference is a product of the simple fact that a
television signal too weak to provide a viewable signal still will
cause interference to signals on the same or adjacent channels.\2\ This
problem is exacerbated by the fact that the LPTV station will be
operating at a relatively low power level. Because the potential for
interference is measured by the relative strength of the LPTV signal
versus the potentially interfering signal from the full power station,
a very weak full power signal would cause interference to an LPTV
signal. In sum, the use of a channel by an LPTV station has widespread
preclusive effect on the use of that channel and adjacent channels in
the same and contiguous areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Thus, under FCC rules, a television signal on channel 11, which
provides coverage in an approximately 83 mile radius, may not be used
by another station within 152 miles. 47 CFR Section 73.623(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTV's inability to support S. 2454 is rooted in the impact of
these preclusive effects on the digital broadcast conversion. To avoid
an abrupt changeover from analog to digital broadcasting, the FCC has
implemented a transition scheme. During the transition, scheduled to
end in 2006, local television stations were granted authority to
operate on an additional channel. Thus, during the transition, they
will continue to provide analog service on their existing channels and
initiate digital broadcasting on the second channel. Providing every
local television station with two channels, of course, presented an
enormous challenge. In congested areas like the Northeast, for example,
finding a second channel for every station represented a near miracle.
Even so, the FCC succeeded in providing most local television stations
with a digital television channel that would enable them to replicate
their current analog coverage areas. \3\ In the case of many existing
UHF stations, however, replication alone still left them with
materially smaller DTV coverage areas than those of the VHF television
stations in their markets. To address this competitive disparity, the
FCC, at ALTV's urging, adopted procedures whereby UHF stations could
apply to the FCC for authority to ``maximize'' their DTV facilities,
thereby expanding their coverage areas. Such authorizations were
subject to stringent limitations on interference which might be caused
to existing analog stations and new DTV facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Coverage area is important to consumers because the larger a
station's coverage area, the more consumers have access to its signal
and programming. From the station's perspective, the larger its
coverage area, the larger, its potential audience. Because audience and
revenue are virtually in direct proportion for local television
stations, a station's ability to operate profitably and provide an
attractive and responsive program service to its community is directly
affected by the size of its coverage area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the close of the transition, all local television stations must
return one of their channels and continue digital broadcasting only on
the remaining channel. Recognizing that this would create a number of
vacant channels at the close of the transition, the FCC determined to
reduce the amount of spectrum allotted to broadcasting. Consequently,
at the close of the transition, part of the spectrum now allotted to
broadcasting no longer will be available. Specifically, channels 52-69
will be lopped off the broadcast spectrum. Whereas all stations' DTV
facilities can be accommodated in channels 2-51 after the transition,
the need to provide all stations a second channel during the transition
has necessitated using channels 52-69 to provide some stations with a
DTV ``loaner'' channel. Additionally, some stations already had been
authorized to use channels between 52 and 69 for their analog service.
None of these analog or DTV facilities will be able to remain on
channels 52-69 after the transition.
The ability of local television stations to select the optimum
channel for their DTV facilities post-transition and/or to maximize or
optimize their DTV facilities during and after the transition is
critical to many local television stations. As noted above, coverage
equals audience equals revenue equals viability and profitability
equals service to the public. The locus of ALTV's concern with S. 2454
is the potential for widespread preclusive use of channels by digital
data LPTV facilities. Such preemptive use of television channels would
place the following constraints on the development and expansion of
full service DTV stations:
The number of local television stations able to maximize or
otherwise modify their DTV facilities would be reduced. No
improvement in their DTV facilities would be permitted if it
interfered with an LPTV station providing digital data service.
This problem would be particularly acute for Stations with DTV
facilities forced to migrate from out-of-core channels (52-69)
to core channels at the conclusion of the transition. These
stations have no core DTV channel assigned to them today. Until
such time as stations are required to elect either their
current analog or DTV channels for permanent DTV operation, no
permanent channel can be assigned these stations. Therefore, no
means currently exists for them to apply for an authorization
to maximize their facilities. Their ability to maximize, thus,
will be constrained, if not eliminated, by the preclusive
effect of construction of digital data LPTV stations in the
interim. Some stations also may need to modify their DTV
facilities to address such problems as local zoning
restrictions. Their ability to do so also could be imperiled by
he preclusive effect of construction of digital data LPTV
stations.
The channels available for the DTV facilities of stations
currently assigned out-of-core analog and DTV channels would be
diminished.\4\ Just finding them any channel might become
problematic, much less a channel suited to their circumstances.
For example, a station might be assigned a channel which would
permit the station to continue to use its existing DTV
transmitter, antenna, and tower site, although on a different
channel. On the other hand, the preclusive effect of LPTV
digital data deployment might force it to use a channel
requiring a new transmitter, antenna, or tower site, or resort
to a more expensive and technically complex directional
antenna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Seventeen local television stations currently suffer dual out-
of-core channel assignments.
DTV channel selection options could be negated by preclusive
use of channels for LPTV digital data services. The many local
television stations with analog and DTV channel assignments in
the core (channels 2-51) are permitted to elect one or the
other of their channels for permanent DTV operation. This
election could be negated if, for example, preclusive LPTV
facilities hem in one of the channels and prevent maximization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or any improvement in facilities on that channel.
The number of potential new post-transition DTV stations
could be reduced, perhaps, significantly. The preclusive use of
television channels by digital data LPTVs also could and,
likely, would, reduce the number of channels available for new
full service DTV stations. These channels, made available by
the return of numerous core channels at the conclusion of the
transition, offer the prospect for additional full service
broadcast DTV stations. New stations offer many potential
benefits, including more consumer choice and more
entrepreneurial opportunities, just to name a few.
Therefore, ALTV sees the potential for widespread preclusive effects on
local television stations' DTV channel selection and facilities
upgrades as the ``tragic flaw'' in S. 2454.
In a similar vein, ALTV also is concerned about the difficulties of
enforcing the ``no interference'' prescription in new section
336(h)(4). It is one thing to forbid interference. It is quite another
to police it. How many viewers will just watch another channel rather
than complain to a station that its signal suddenly is not providing
the same quality picture they have become accustomed to? Once
interference is reported, isolating it and identifying its source is no
slam dunk. If the interference then can be traced back to an LPTV
station, then the full service station can expect a raft of denials,
even if its calls are returned. If controversy remains and the FCC
enters the fracas, then more testing, denials, and contretemps are
likely to ensue before a remedy can be effectuated. Such disputes are a
headache to the full service station, the LPTV station, and the FCC.
Moreover, they represent dashed consumer expectations about the
reliable availability of good quality reception of its local stations.
ALTV also emphasizes that this hardly is the time to burden local
television stations' digital conversion efforts with more uncertainty
and limitations. Digital broadcasting has just left the ground after an
extended, sometimes tortuous take-off roll. Now it begins its ascent
toward a dark and roiling horizon. The path to success is obstructed by
uncertainty on many fronts. Nonetheless, local television stations are
confident of the ultimate appeal of new digital broadcasting services.
At the same time, they also remain painfully aware that, as in the case
of a plane only hundreds of feet off the ground, only so many things
can go wrong before continued progress in flight is placed in jeopardy.
As the FCC recognized when it launched an aggressive transition
schedule, ``while the opportunities afforded by digital technology are
great, so are the risks.'' \5\ Local television stations already are
coping with considerable risks, many of which were anticipated, some of
which were not. The transition to digital broadcasting remains plagued
and delayed by uncertainty:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12811 (1997).
Demonstrable off-air reception problems are under
investigation. The Commission itself recently sought comment on
this critical issue. More recently, the Advanced Television
Standards Committee (``ATSC''), which developed the current
8VSB transmission standard, initiated its own investigation and
analysis of reception problems.\6\ ATSC Chairman Robert Graves
reportedly stated, ``We know this debate is going on and
there's going to be a lot more debate and a lot more study. The
reliable reception issue has not gone away.'' \7\ Meanwhile,
one major set maker has halted new DTV receiver production in
light of this and other uncertainties (see below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``ATSC Forms Task Force to Study RF System Performance,''
Communications Daily (March 22, 2000) at 1-2.
\7\ Id. at 2.
Cable carriage of local television stations' digital signals
is all but nonexistent. The Commission is into the second year
of its proceeding looking towards implementation of the digital
must carry requirement with resolution of the matter as elusive
as ever. In short, the ability of consumers to receive digital
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
broadcast signals today is in no way assured.
Even if a reliable signal could be assured either off-air or
via cable, consumers still face uncertainty with respect to the
roll out of digital receivers. Delays in standard setting have
arrested receiver manufacture and sales. Negotiations over such
critical matters as standards and labels for cable-ready sets
have plodded to partial success, but only after the Commission
finally prodded the parties with threatened, then real
proceedings. As a result, cable-ready digital receivers likely
will be available for major retail sale campaigns no sooner
than the pre-Christmas sales period in 2001 or, perhaps, the
following year. In short, no link in the distribution chain--
from program acquisition by local television stations to the
availability of a picture to view--is secure at this point.
Many local television stations already have been forced to
apply for maximized facilities just to assure that their
upgrades would not be precluded by authorization of the new
Class A LPTV facilities. Notably, the dimension of the threat
of potential preclusion was limited in the case of Class A LPTV
stations. Only a finite number of existing LPTV stations were
eligible. Therefore, assessing the need to file a maximization
application was more manageable. In the case of new digital
data LPTV stations, the effect would be more widespread and
less predictable. Any number of existing or future LPTV
stations could elect to provide digital data services and
thereby have a preclusive effect on a station's need to modify
its facilities.
The appearance of such unanticipated bumps in the road hardly is a
surprise. Anyone who remembers purple hair on green faces (in a pre-
Simpsons era) during the early years of color television could attest
to the inevitability of debugging and improving the system.
Nonetheless, now simply is not the time to complicate the DTV
transition and curtail full power television stations' flexibility to
secure authorizations for facilities enabling them to provide the best
possible service to the public. Local television stations are facing
enough problems in effectuating the transition to a fully digital local
broadcast television service. S. 2454 in its present form would just
add to the list.
Finally, ALTV wishes to raise a matter of deep concern, although
less of immediate practical consequence. S. 2454 essentially changes
the nature of low power television. What is now a free broadcast
service could evolve rapidly into a subscription digital service. In a
digital environment distinctions between data and video disappear. Both
are bitstreams. Few doubt that Streaming video someday (even someday
soon) will provide the same quality full motion video picture as
broadcast television. S. 2454, therefore, could open a door to
widespread use of LPTV to provide subscription video services. Unlike
full power DTV stations, such LPTV stations would have no concomitant
obligation to provide even one channel free broadcast service. Congress
has every right to direct the FCC to reallocate spectrum. However, such
matters are weighty and deserve careful study. Again, ALTV urges a
harder look at S. 2454 and its implications and consequences for free
broadcast television service.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A matter of peripheral concern in this regard is the disparity
between LPTV stations which offer digital data services and full
service stations which offer such services. Full power stations must
pay a five per cent gross revenue fee if they offer subscription
services on their DTV channel during the transition. LPTV stations
offering such services not only would have no obligation to provide
free service; they also might have no obligation to pay the five per
cent fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The concerns ALTV has expressed counsel a harder look at S. 2454.
In particular, new sections 336(h)(3) and (h)(5) require substantial
revision to assure that full power broadcast DTV service is not
inadvertently undermined by preemptive and preclusive deployment of
LPTV digital data services. As beneficial as such services may be, they
should not be implemented in such way as to place yet another stumbling
block in the path of the broadcast digital transition.
Therefore, ALTV very much looks forward to working with the
Subcommittee on this legislation. If the Subcommittee is in need of any
particular information which might be at our disposal, we would be
happy to compile and provide it to you. Again, we greatly appreciate
this opportunity to make our views known to you and the Subcommittee.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Popham.
Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel.
Mr. Popham, let me perhaps start with you, since you just
concluded. I know that you start off in your summary saying the
bill is laudable, but then you spend the rest of your time
telling us why it is not so laudable.
I take it that the principal concern, at least it seems to
me, is this question of interference or displacement of the new
full power stations that may be modified in the digital
broadcast by what you call, I guess, the exclusive nature of
what the low power stations would be granted by this
legislation.
Is there any way to protect, on the interference question,
that the bill could address that perhaps does not address now?
I mean, Mr. Mosely said he has been operating in Houston and
has not had a single complaint about interference, and you have
a number of major high power broadcast channels in the Houston
area, and with all the millions of people, not to have any
interference complaints seems fairly significant that it is not
a problem.
But is there anything in the legislation that could be
included that would give you some relief about that concern
that you have expressed on interference?
Mr. Popham. Well, I do not want to denigrate the
interference issue as a nonissue, because we do have concerns
about it. I think as Mr. Hatfield testified it is a little more
complicated issue than it is with just today's analog
broadcast-to-broadcast, because we are dealing with one versus
two channels, perhaps. We are dealing with digital versus
analog. We are dealing with various sorts of modulation
schemes, 8VSB, COFDM, QPSK, QAM, and now TDD, and all of these
affect propagation, and they affect how interference might
occur.
So it is a more complicated process, and we would want to
be sure that the legislation does give the commission complete
authority to prevent interference, but I would point out the
practical side of interference problems.
When they do occur, it really creates a headache for the
FCC, for the station involved, and for the station against whom
a complaint might be lodged, and you end up going and almost
looking at subscribers, or viewers' television sets, trying to
figure out where is the source of interference, what kind of
interference is it, how are we really going to fix this, and
you almost end up with a food fight at the FCC every time this
occurs. Certainly in one situation it has not happened yet, but
that is not to say it cannot happen.
But I really want to draw the emphasis back to the problem
of not staying in the lane, but who gets the lane, and the
difficulty again that we have is the preclusive effect of
prohibiting the FCC from authorizing the new digital broadcast
station, or modification, or maximization of one of those
stations when it would cause interference to a data
broadcasting LPTV station.
The Community Broadcasters Act did include provisions which
provided some protection, fairly substantial protection against
incursions of DTV into our flexibility in the DTV environment.
Protections along those lines, perhaps a little broader,
because we are in a little different situation, but that is
where we would look for some changes in the legislation.
Senator Breaux. Mr. Mosely, what about that suggestion? Do
you think anything like that is feasible to include in the
legislation, or do you feel that it is really not necessary?
Mr. Mosely. We have no problem with that sort of
modification. It is our intention to protect existing
television reception. We intend to. We will.
Attached to my testimony are several letters from noted
technologists that state that there will be no interference. We
have no problem in additional language, if such is warranted,
to protect existing and planned DTV roll-out.
For example, when we acquire a station we make sure it fits
within the table, the DTV channel table of allotments. We make
sure that we are not going to interfere with either existing
NTSC reception, nor will we be in conflict with the DTV-
allocated station, so we have no problem, if it is deemed
necessary by the Committee and by Congress, to beef up the
language. We would not have a problem with that.
Senator Burns. Maybe if we just added the language out of
the Community Television Protection Act, just add that
language.
Mr. Mosely. We have no problem with that, Senator.
Senator Breaux. What everybody is trying to do is to ensure
that you can go forward with this type of new utilization of
the spectrum and yet make sure you do not interfere with
anybody else who has their spectrum allocated, much of it
through auction.
Mr. Popham, I am just curious, why haven't any other
stations that you represent used their spectrum for this type
of digital broadband services?
Mr. Popham. At this point, again, we are very early in the
transition. We just have a few stations on the air. There are a
relative handful of receivers at this point, and I think the
plans that most broadcast entities have to provide data
services are just now coming off the drawing board and getting
into what I would call the entrepreneurial phase, where they
are really putting them together, so I think we will see that
develop very rapidly over the next several years.
Senator Breaux. Mr. Morton, you talked about the public
interest test, or public interest standard. What are you
talking about when you are suggesting that?
Mr. Morton. The Community Broadcaster Protection Act, there
was a provision in Congress, two ways that a station could
achieve a Class A license, and the commission in implementing
this eliminated the second test of the public service, and just
established a certain number of Class A stations, and kind of
closed the door.
The public service test needs to be brought in to allow
future broadcasters who either were not on the air at the time
or were not set up to broadcast the 18 hours a week, 3 hours of
local programming, to give them a chance to fulfill the public
service needs and become a Class A station and protect their
spectrum.
This is necessary, we feel, because under this bill if that
does not happen they will quit broadcasting, because they can
obtain permanent status by being a wireless Internet provider
as opposed to a broadcaster, and that is not the intent of the
bill, and we do not believe it was Congress' intent to ignore
the public interest guidelines down the road and establish
this, but the FCC has today done that. We would just like to
see that mandated to establish that so the broadcaster will
continue to be able to broadcast.
Senator Breaux. Mr. Mosely, do you have any problems with
that?
Mr. Mosely. I do not believe so.
Senator Breaux. Thank you.
Senator Burns. I guess I have one question for Mr. Mosely.
You are operating in Houston. Can you just give us an overview
of any regulatory problems you have experienced in developing
that service down there? Give us some challenges that you had
that were of particular interest.
Mr. Mosely. Well, the time delay, not so much with respect
to our Houston operations, but with respect to rolling out
future expansion cities is a concern, Mr. Chairman.
We got our permanent license in May 1999 for Houston, and
we filed for a similar authorization with the commission with
respect to our Tampa operations, I think it was March 16 of
1999. Well, it took 14 months to get that authorization from
the FCC with respect to Tampa. It is that sort of regulatory
delay that I think would be a severe impediment to our
expansion.
As you well know, wireless services are being rolled out
across the country, and the pace of development is very rapid.
For our company to have to file with the commission a request
for expansion on a case-by-case basis would virtually render
our expansion plans inoperable.
Senator Burns. In your written testimony you mentioned the
interest in rural telephone companies and electric cooperatives
and associations in providing service. What involvement have
these organizations had to date in terms of developing the type
of service you would like to provide?
Mr. Mosely. Well, we happen to have some rural telephone
companies in New England that are investors in our company.
They believe that what we want to do is an outstanding use of
the spectrum and is an ideal way to deploy high speed wireless
Internet access, especially in rural areas.
Most of these telephone companies come from very small
areas. I mean, very small population base areas of the country,
and these are also sophisticated investors that have DSL
operations, and yet notwithstanding that fact, they still feel
that what we are doing is a superior method of delivering
access.
Senator Burns. Are there sufficient numbers of low power
stations in rural areas to allow you to actually serve a
significant number of people to make it profitable?
Mr. Mosely. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. There is?
Mr. Mosely. Yes, sir, there are. There definitely are.
Senator Burns. Well, that is all the questions I have.
Yes, go ahead, Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. We are talking about the rural areas, and
yet your first operation is in Houston, Texas. I was wondering,
who are you serving in that area that would not have access to
broadband over a wire service by one of the broadband carriers
in the Houston area? I mean, you are talking about bringing
services to rural areas, and yet you first started in the city
of Houston.
Mr. Mosely. Well, we are providing service in many areas
that primarily are not even accessed by DSL, because they find
that our service is superior with respect to the download
speeds that we facilitate, but we had to start somewhere, and
we wanted to start in a big city and establish the fact that
our product would sell.
Senator Breaux. I take it your customers in the Houston
area would also have access to some other type of broadband
Internet services over a wire carrier, perhaps.
Mr. Mosely. Yes, sir.
Senator Breaux. You are competing against them?
Mr. Mosely. Yes, we are, and as we have primarily business
customers, almost exclusively business customers in Houston,
but upon passage of S. 2454 the bandwidth that would be
available would facilitate our serving homeowners as well and,
I might add, at a tremendous price reduction.
We, for example, offer an information rate of T-1 download
speed burstable to 4 megabits in Houston for $4.99 a month, and
that is inclusive of all Internet access provider charges. Our
plan is, assuming passage of S. 2454, is to slash our prices
upon implementation of the two-way system to $199 a month for
businesses, and $59 a month for homeowners, and that down the
road in 5 years we are projecting that we would slash prices to
$79 for businesses or thereabouts, and then down below $20 for
consumers, and this is affording consumers tremendous bandwidth
and burstable speeds up to 5 megabits a second.
So Senator, we did start in Houston, but very frankly, the
real power of what we have to offer is really evidenced in the
rural areas, because those are areas that will likely not get
wired service for many years.
Senator Breaux. While you are providing Internet services
over the air through wireless transmission, the consumer, I
take it, is responding back through a wire line?
Mr. Mosely. Yes, sir. Under the present configuration, the
one-way configuration, yes. Upon passage of the legislation we
would be able to have a high-speed symmetrical two-way
communication within a single 6 megahertz channel. We would not
get out of the lane, as the chairman has stated.
This is done through what is called time division
duplexing, and the bandwidth is allocated as the load is
presented, so whoever needs the bandwidth gets it, and it is
very efficient. It is a brilliant technology that gives, it is
about 4 to 20 times the efficiency, or efficacy of frequency
division duplexing, so the good thing about it is that we only
have to acquire a single channel.
Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hatfield were alluding to the fact that
you may need a separate channel. The fact is that I think that
is not going to be necessary. I know it will not be necessary
with time division duplexing technology.
Senator Burns. Have you visited with them on that? Have you
and Mr. Hatfield had a private conversation to be sure that is
possible, the technology that you are talking about, two-way
within your same lane, without establishing another one for the
return?
Mr. Mosely. Mr. Chairman, are you inquiring whether we have
talked with them?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Mr. Mosely. No, we have not. I would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with them and even bring in the
technologist that adapted broadband to visit with them about
that.
Let me say that the technology is available at higher
frequencies by adaptive broadband in Japan and Europe, and
really in other areas throughout the world, and so this is not
a technology that is speculative. It is merely a case of
adapting the technology to a lower frequency, which we have
been assured is an absolute no-brainer, and that there is no
technological risk in making the technology available in the
UHF spectrum, and Dr. Sharre points that out in his letter,
which is attached to my statement.
Senator Burns. Mr. Popham, do you agree with that?
Mr. Popham. I believe--I do not think we can say for
certain that interference would not be a problem. I think the
technology would work, and I risk saying more as a lawyer and
not an engineer at this point, and sometimes discretion is the
better part of valor.
Senator Burns. Well, that is all the questions I have, and
I know there will be other Senators on this Committee that will
have other questions, and we will leave the record open for 2
weeks, and if other testimony is submitted, why, you will also
be updated on that.
Thank you for coming today, and I appreciate your coming.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Fox Broadcasting Company,
June 28, 2000.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 2454
Dear Senator Burns:
Fox Broadcasting Company, together with other television
broadcasters, continues to have serious concerns over the draft
legislation (S. 2454) that would permit low power television (LPTV)
stations to provide ``digital data services'' without regard to the
technology or modulation employed in delivering such service. While
representatives of Fox and other broadcasters have had several cordial
meetings with the representatives of AccelerNet to discuss
broadcasters' concerns with S. 2454, we have not yet reached agreement
on any of the major issues. Moreover, we remain troubled by the fact
that our engineers have not yet been afforded an opportunity to discuss
certain technical issues with AccelerNet's engineering representatives.
A summary of Fox's chief concerns with S. 2454 is attached.
As you are aware, Congress and the FCC have placed the highest
priority on completing the transition from analog to digital television
(DTV) in a timely manner. Although we support your goal to bridge the
digital divide in rural areas, spectrum management and conversion to
DTV is already an extremely complex task. Broadcasters are intensely
concerned that permitting LPTVs to provide digital data-casting
services on a two-way basis using any technology or modulation
technique whatsoever could lead to interference that would cripple the
DTV conversion.
We look forward to continue working with you on S. 2454.
Very truly yours,
Maureen O'Connell
Attachments
Fox Broadcasting Company's Concerns on
S. 2454 Low Power TV Digital Data Services Bill
The goal of S. 2454, to bring broadband Internet services to
rural areas, is a laudable goal. Broadband Internet, however, can
be provided by a variety of technological means, including wired
(telephone or cable) and wireless technologies (satellite or non-
satellite). Wireless technologies--satellite and non-satellite--
provide the most promising means of serving less populated rural
areas. In fact, such service is already available NATIONWIDE to
rural and urban subscribers alike, by DirecTV, through its DirecPC
service (see www.direcpc.com). A second service offering 2-way
broadband Internet access will be available nationwide from Gilat
through a partnership with Echostar and Microsoft beginning in the
fall of 2000 (see www.gilat2home.com).
Attached is a sample list of companies that are already
bridging the digital divide and providing terrestrial wireless
Internet access to rural areas in Montana.
In addition, 13 certified eligible Class A stations in
Montana could provide digital data services (see attached).
LPTV stations often provide vital broadcast service to rural
areas. It would be most unfortunate if rural television viewers
were deprived of free over-the-air television in the pursuit of
expanded Internet access. Indeed, in authorizing full-power
television stations to provide data services, the FCC mandated that
such data services not interfere with the provision of at least one
free over-the-air broadcast channel. Use of LPTV spectrum to
provide broadband Internet and other digital services therefore
should be allowed only if it does not affect the primary broadcast
purpose of the LPTV service, or negatively impact the integrity of
other broadcast services.
As drafted, S. 2454 would not require LPTV stations to
provide ANY video programming to local viewers.
Congress and the FCC have placed the highest priority on
completing the conversion to DTV. LPTVs providing digital data
services should not be protected from interference or displacement
from applicants seeking to facilitate and complete their conversion
to DTV. Flexibility is required if DTV conversion is to become
reality. For example, 17 full-service television stations have been
allotted both analog and DTV channels that lie outside the core DTV
spectrum; these licensees must be assigned new channels within the
core from spectrum recovered after the DTV transition.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These 17 stations are located in the following cities:
Riverside, CA; San Mateo, CA; Stockton, CA; Aurora, IL; Joliet, IL;
Springfield, MA; Newark, NJ; Vineland, NJ; Riverhead, NY; Bethlehem,
PA; two stations in Arecibo, PR; Caguas, PR; Naranjito, PR; Providence,
RI; Lake Dallas, TX; and Fairfax, VA.
As drafted, S. 2454 does not even require LPTVs that
provide digital data-casting services to protect the DTV Table
of Allotments--much less maximization and other modification
applications filed pursuant to existing FCC rules or those 17
full-service television licensees who have yet to receive a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
channel allotment within the DTV core spectrum.
The spectrum allocated to broadcast services is already
extremely congested. And DTV conversion has only compounded the
complexities of spectrum management. Yet S. 2454 would permit the
use of this broadcast spectrum to provide two-way digital data
services without regard to the technology or modulation employed.
Because LPTV provision of digital data services on a two-way basis
has not even been tested in the U.S., further study and analysis is
required to determine whether operation of digital data-casting
services on a two-way basis would cause objectionable interference
to full-power television stations or otherwise hinder the
conversion to DTV.
As drafted, S. 2454 would permit LPTVs without any prior
approval of the FCC to provide immediately digital data
services using two-way technology that has NEVER been tested in
the U.S. broadcast environment.
As drafted. S. 2454 would permit LPTVs to use multiple
transmitters at multiple locations. This reference would
authorize the provision of cellular service on LPTV spectrum.
Cellular service or any other service employing multiple
transmitters at multiple locations would cause chaos in the
broadcast service, which was specifically designed and
constructed for service by a single transmitter at a single
location.
As drafted, S. 2454 would permit LPTVs to use any
modulation technique in their provision of digital data
services--8VSB, COFDM, QAM, or any other modulation.
Television broadcasters that use their digital channels to
provide digital data services to subscribers for a fee must pay 5%
of gross revenues from such services to the federal Treasury.
Fairness requires that LPTVs engaging in digital data services
should incur the same fee. S. 2454 should be modified to require
that Class A stations providing digital data services be subject to
the fees imposed by the FCC pursuant to section 336(e) of the
Communications Act.
Companies Providing Wireless Internet Service in Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
monthly
Provider Location Phone Domain Maine Backbone Bandwidth Ports T1 ISDN Wireless xDSL Cable 56kbps rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Montana/Ronan Ronan, MT 406-676-277 ronan.net Sprint IP 1.544 -- -- -- -- -- -- $15.95
Telephone Company 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avicom Inc Bozeman, MT 406-587-617 AVICOM.NET Cable & Wi 1.544 -- Yes -- -- -- -- $20.00
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSS Internet Group 509-547-889 CBVCP.COM MCI Worldc $19.95
6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSS Internet Group/ 509-664-900 TELEVAR.COM MCI Worldc 45 $19.95
Televar 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIG SKY INTERNET MISSOULA, 406-543-854 B-S-I.NET UUNET 13.088 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MT 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sky Net Missoula, 406-728-373 BIGSKY.NET Cable & Wi 0.000 -- Yes Yes -- -- -- --
MT 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bozeman Daily Chronicle Bozeman, MT 406-582-265 GOMONTANA.COM Cable & Wi 1.544 -- Yes -- -- -- -- $24.95
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate SystemHouse Great 406-268-000 systemhouse.net -- -- -- Yes Yes -- -- -- --
Internet Falls, MT 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-Systems Inc. 208-769-700 C-SYSTEMS.NET AT/CW/FG/GT/ 45 $21.95
3 MW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cteck Internet Services 402-470-398 nebraskaweb PS 45
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CyberHighway Internet 208-323-921 CYBERHIGHWAY.NET EL/GS 45 $19.95
Services 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CyberPort Montana LLC Whitefish, 406-863-322 CYBERPORT.NET MCI-Worldc 6.144 -- Yes -- -- -- -- $17.76
MT 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CyberWorld Internet Laurel, MT 406-628-233 CW2.COM Sprint 0.256 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Services 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Internet Access, 701-774-342 DIA.NET 1.544 $19.95
Inc. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DigiSys Inc Kalispell, 406-257-463 DIGISYS.NET Cable & Wi 6.144 -- Yes -- -- Yes -- $19.95
MT 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.V. Net Helena, MT 406-443-805 GOMER.NET MCI 1.672 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Net l.l.c. Bozeman, MT 406-587-509 THEGLOBAL.NET AT&T 3.088 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Falls Internet Great 406-727-545 gf-inter.net Sprint lP 10.000 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
Falls, MT 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Tech Inc. Lewistown, 406-538-789 Lewistown On Line AT&T 128 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MT 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterTech USA Missoula, 406-549-899 IT-USA.COM Cable & Wi 128 -- Yes Yes -- -- -- --
MT 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermountain Internet Helena, MT 406-449-393 INITCO.NET Sprint IP 1.544 -- Yes Yes -- -- -- --
Corp 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internections Inc Helena, MT 406-443-784 IXI.NET Verio 1.544 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Connect Missoula, 406-541-495 MONTANA.COM AT&T 6.144 -- Yes Yes -- Yes -- --
Services MT 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Montana Billings, 406-255-969 IMT.NET -- 6.144 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
MT 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KooteNet Libby, MT 406-293-353 LIBBY.ORG Cable & Wi 1.544 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARSweb Internet Missoula, 406-721-627 MARSWEB.COM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Services Montana MT 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana Communications Billings, 406-254-941 MCN.NET MCI/UUNET 8.448 -- -- Yes -- Yes -- --
Network MT 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOCC, Inc. Great 406-453-662 mocc.net Cable & Wi 6.144 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
Falls, MT 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana Internet Helena, MT 406-443-334 MT.NET Cable & Wi 3.088 -- Yes Yes Yes Yes -- --
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Band Bozeman, MT 406-587-535 www.rockymountain MCI/UUNET 0.000 -- Yes -- -- Yes -- --
Communications, Inc 3 dsl
.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nemont Communications, Glasgow, MT 406-228-986 nemontel.net MCI Worldc 3.088 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inc. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Tech Lewistown, 406-538-616 TEIN.NET MW 1.544 -- Yes -- Yes -- -- --
MT 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Digital Hamilton, 406-363-005 www.rmdbs.net AT&T 45 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Bitterroot Service MT 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scoblaco 253-838-828 MACPLUS.COM 3.088
1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sofast Internet Services Great 406-268-000 sofast.net Frontier G 0.000 -- Yes -- Yes -- -- --
Falls, MT 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellar Computer Havre. MT 406-265-633 hi-line.net -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
Consulting Co. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMComputers Helena, MT 406-449-270 TMCOM.COM MCI Worldc 2.048 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Billings Gazette Billings, 406-657-135 billingsgazette.c -- 10.0 -- Yes -- -- -- -- $15.00
MT 4 om
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet Store Missoula, 406-721-336 CENTRIC.NET Sprint IP 0.000 -- Yes -- Yes -- -- --
MT 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Yellowstone Web West 406-646-700 WYELLOWSTONE.COM -- 45 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Works Yellowston 6
e, MT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Technology Billings, 406-256-957 WTP.NET Cable & Wi 3.088 -- Yes Yes -- -- -- --
Partners MT 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-State ISPs With
Service in Area Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Moon Technologies, Dillon, MT 406-683-981 bmt.net -- -- -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
Inc 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internections Helena, MT 866-663-937 ixi.net Verio 0.000 -- Yes -- -- -- -- --
8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SoFast Internet Services Great 406-268-000 sofast.net Frontier G 0.000 -- -- -- Yes -- -- --
Falls, MT 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------