Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation Through ATSC 3.0

CourtFederal Communications Commission
Citation85 FR 43195
Published date16 July 2020
Record Number2020-13203
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 43195-43203]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2020-13203]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                47 CFR Part 73
                [MB Docket Nos. 20-145; FCC 20-73; FRS 16851]
                Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation Through ATSC 3.0
                AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
                ACTION: Proposed rule.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the extent
                to which we should clarify or modify our existing rules in order to
                further promote the deployment by television broadcasters of new,
                innovative ancillary and supplementary services, which we refer to as
                ``Broadcast Internet,'' as part of the transition to ATSC 3.0. We first
                seek comment generally on potential uses of the new technological
                capability from ATSC 3.0 and any existing regulatory barriers to
                deployment. We then consider specifically whether any changes or
                clarifications are needed to the ancillary and supplementary service
                fee rules and the rules defining derogation of service and analogous
                services. A Declaratory Ruling relating to the broadcast ancillary and
                supplementary service rules is published elsewhere in this issue of the
                Federal Register.
                DATES: Comments due on or before August 17, 2020; reply comments due on
                or before August 31, 2020.
                ADDRESSES: You may send comments, by any of the following methods:
                 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
                using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
                 Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
                file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
                or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
                must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
                rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier,
                or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
                must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
                Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail
                (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
                sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.U.S. Postal
                Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to
                445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. Effective March 19, 2020, and
                until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or
                messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help
                protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the
                transmission of COVID-19.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
                proceeding, contact John Cobb, [email protected] of the Policy
                Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
                of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), MB Docket Nos. 20-145; FCC 20-73,
                adopted and released on June 9, 2020. A summary of the Declaratory
                Ruling adopted concurrently relating to the broadcast ancillary and
                supplementary service rules is published elsewhere in this issue of the
                Federal Register. The full text of this document is available for
                public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
                Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
                SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The full text of this document will
                also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents
                will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
                The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy
                contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To
                request these documents in accessible formats (computer diskettes,
                large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to
                [email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
                Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
                Synopsis
                 The United States is transitioning to a new era of connectivity.
                From innovative 5G offerings to high-capacity fixed services and an
                entirely new generation of low-earth orbit satellites, providers from
                previously distinct sectors are competing like never before to offer
                high-speed internet services through a mix of different technologies.
                The Commission has been executing on a plan to identify and remove the
                overhang of unnecessary government regulations that might otherwise
                hold back the introduction and growth of new competitive offerings. We
                want the marketplace--not outdated rules--to determine whether new
                services and technologies will succeed. Broadcasters, as well as a
                range of other entities, now have the potential to use broadcast
                spectrum to enter the converged market for connectivity in ways not
                possible only a few short years ago.
                 With this item, we take important steps to further unlock the
                potential of broadcast spectrum, empower innovation, and create
                significant value for broadcasters and the American public alike by
                removing the uncertainty cast by legacy regulations. More than twenty
                years ago, during the transition from analog to digital broadcast
                television, the Commission adopted rules allowing digital television
                (DTV) licensees to provide ancillary or supplementary services on their
                excess spectrum capacity and authorized licensees to enter into leases
                with other entities that would provide such services. Flash forward to
                today, and the conversion of digital television from the first-
                generation technologies associated with the ATSC 1.0 standard to the
                next-generation of ancillary services that will be enabled by ATSC 3.0
                is now underway. This new technology promises to expand the universe of
                potential uses of broadcast spectrum capacity for new and innovative
                services beyond traditional over-the-air video in ways that will
                complement the nation's burgeoning 5G network and usher in a new wave
                of innovation and opportunity. These new offerings over broadcast
                spectrum can be referred to collectively as ``Broadcast Internet''
                services to distinguish them from traditional over-the-air video
                services. Broadcasters will not only be able to better serve the
                information and entertainment needs of their communities, but they will
                have the
                [[Page 43196]]
                opportunity to play a part in addressing the digital divide and
                supporting the proliferation of new, IP-based consumer applications or
                voluntarily entering into arrangements to allow others to invest in
                achieving those goals. We undertake this proceeding to ensure that our
                rules help to foster the introduction of new services and the efficient
                use of spectrum.
                 In the NPRM, we seek comment on the extent to which we should
                clarify or modify our existing rules in order to further promote the
                deployment of Broadcast Internet services as part of the transition to
                ATSC 3.0. As when the ancillary services rules were first adopted, the
                Commission seeks to promote and preserve free, universally available,
                local broadcast television by providing a clear regulatory landscape
                that permits licensees the flexibility to succeed in a competitive
                market and incentivizes the most efficient use of prime spectrum. And
                given that the existing rules were adopted over twenty years ago, we
                believe it is appropriate at this time to reassess them in the context
                of the newest advanced broadcast television technology. To that end, in
                the NPRM we first seek comment generally on potential uses of the new
                technological capability from ATSC 3.0 and any existing regulatory
                barriers to deployment. We then consider specifically whether any
                changes or clarifications are needed to the ancillary and supplementary
                service fee rules and the rules defining derogation of service and
                analogous services. In so doing, we seek to encourage the robust usage
                of broadcast television spectrum capacity for the provision of
                Broadcast Internet services consistent with statutory directives.
                 Background. Commission Regulations Applicable to Ancillary and
                Supplementary Services. Pursuant to section 336 of the
                Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress established the
                framework for licensing DTV spectrum to television broadcasters and
                permitted them to offer ancillary and supplementary services consistent
                with the public interest. Congress recognized that the transition from
                analog to digital broadcast technology would enable DTV licensees to
                provide new and innovative services, including various forms of data
                services, over their additional spectrum capacity and wanted to provide
                licensees with the flexibility necessary to utilize fully that new
                potential. Accordingly, section 336 directed the Commission to adopt
                regulations that would allow DTV licensees to make use of excess
                spectrum capacity, so long as the ancillary or supplementary services
                carried on DTV capacity do not derogate any advanced television
                services (i.e., free over-the-air broadcast service) that the
                Commission may require. Such ancillary or supplemental services are
                also subject to any Commission regulations that are applicable to
                analogous services. The statute also directed the Commission to impose
                a fee on ancillary or supplementary services for which the DTV licensee
                charges a subscription fee or receives compensation from a third party
                other than commercial advertisements used to support non-subscription
                broadcasting.
                 The Commission adopted the initial rules governing the provision of
                ancillary or supplementary broadcast services in 1997 as part of the
                DTV Fifth Report and Order. Consistent with the Act, the rules obligate
                DTV licensees to ``transmit at least one over-the-air video program
                signal at no direct charge to viewers on the DTV channel.'' This means
                that regardless of whatever other services a broadcaster may provide
                over its spectrum, it must continue to provide one free stream of
                programming to viewers. As long as DTV licensees satisfy that
                obligation, the rules permit them to ``offer services of any nature,
                consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, on an
                ancillary or supplementary basis'' provided the services do not
                derogate the licensee's obligation to provide one free stream of
                programming to viewers and are subject to any regulations on services
                analogous to the ancillary or supplementary service. These rules
                reflect the Commission's intent to promote the public interest by
                maximizing ``broadcasters' flexibility to provide a digital service to
                meet the audience's needs and desires.''
                 The Commission initiated a separate proceeding to determine how
                best to assess and collect the statutorily required fee for ancillary
                or supplementary services. The statute directed the Commission to adopt
                a fee structure that would ``recover for the public a portion of the
                value of the public spectrum resource made available for such
                commercial use, and . . . avoid unjust enrichment through the method
                employed to permit such uses of that resources.'' It also specifically
                instructed the Commission to set the fee at a value that, ``to the
                extent feasible, equals but does not exceed (over the term of the
                license) the amount that would have been recovered had such services
                been licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 309(j) of [the Act]
                and the Commission's regulations thereunder.'' Ultimately, the
                Commission determined that a fee based on a percentage of the gross
                revenues generated by feeable ancillary or supplementary services was
                the best option to satisfy the statutory directive and achieve the goal
                of incentivizing innovation to maximize spectrum efficiency. The
                Commission set the fee at five percent of gross revenues received from
                any feeable ancillary or supplementary services.
                 Subsequently, the Commission clarified the ancillary or
                supplementary service rules as applied to noncommercial educational
                (NCE) television licensees. The Commission concluded that Sec. 73.621
                of the rules, which requires public NCE stations to provide a nonprofit
                and noncommercial broadcast service, would apply to the provision of
                ancillary or supplementary services by NCE licensees. However, the
                Commission also decided to allow NCE licensees to offer subscription
                services on their excess capacity and to advertise on ancillary or
                supplementary services that do not constitute broadcasting. Finally,
                the Commission concluded that section 336(e) of the Act does not exempt
                NCE licensees ``from the requirement to pay fees on revenues generated
                by the remunerative use of their excess digital capacity, even when
                those revenues are used to support their mission-related activities.''
                 Pursuant to section 336(e)(4) of the Act, the Commission originally
                adopted rules requiring all DTV licensees and permittees annually to
                file a form (currently Form 2100, Schedule G), reporting information
                about their use of the DTV bitstream to provide feeable ancillary and
                supplementary services. In 2017, as a part of the Modernization of
                Media Regulation Initiative, the Commission revised these filing
                requirements. The Commission concluded that requiring every DTV
                licensee to file the form was an unnecessary regulatory burden, as very
                few licensees offered any feeable service, and instead changed the
                rules to require only those licensees who had provided feeable
                ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable reporting
                period to file the form. As the Commission observed, at that time only
                a fraction of all television broadcast stations provided feeable
                ancillary or supplementary services despite expectations in the wake of
                the digital transition.
                 Next Generation Broadcast Standard (ATSC 3.0). ATSC 3.0 is the
                ``Next Generation'' broadcast television (Next Gen TV) transmission
                standard developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee as the
                world's first IP-based broadcast transmission platform, which ``merges
                the capabilities of over-the-air broadcasting
                [[Page 43197]]
                with the broadband viewing and information delivery methods of the
                internet, using the same 6 MHz channels presently allocated for DTV
                service.'' As stated in the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the ATSC 3.0
                standard will allow broadcasters to ``offer exciting and innovative
                services,'' including superior reception, mobile viewing capabilities,
                enhanced public safety capabilities (such as advanced emergency
                alerting capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of
                imminent emergencies), enhanced accessibility features, localized and/
                or personalized content, interactive educational children's content,
                and other enhanced features. In 2017, the Commission authorized
                broadcasters to begin the transition to ATSC 3.0 voluntarily and
                established standards to minimize the impact on, and costs to,
                consumers and other industry stakeholders. The Media Bureau began
                accepting applications for Next Gen TV licenses on May 28, 2019.
                Earlier this year, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
                Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed changes to the rules governing
                the use of distributed transmission systems (DTS) by broadcast
                television stations. Proponents of the changes assert that they will
                facilitate the use of new and innovative technologies that will improve
                traditional broadcast service and mobile reception of broadcast
                signals, as well as allow the more efficient use of broadcast spectrum,
                which they claim would enable broadcasters to exploit more fully the
                new capabilities resulting from ATSC 3.0.
                 ATSC 3.0 provides greater spectral capacity than the current
                digital broadcast television standard, allowing broadcasters to
                innovate, improve service, and use their spectrum more efficiently.
                Although today many broadcasters are focused solely on deploying
                traditional broadcast television services using the ATSC 3.0 standard,
                some broadcasters and third-party groups are looking to the future and
                examining ways broadcasters can become part of the 5G ecosystem and
                provide myriad other services using the enhanced capabilities of ATSC
                3.0 technologies. Specifically, these groups hope to utilize television
                spectrum to provide non-traditional broadcast video services such as
                video-on-demand or subscription video services and new, innovative non-
                broadcast services in such areas as the automotive industry,
                agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public safety, utility
                automation, and the ``Internet of Things'' (IoT). Providing a
                regulatory environment to enable a thriving secondary market is key to
                unlocking the potential for such Broadcast Internet services via ATSC
                3.0.
                 Discussion. With this NPRM, we seek comment on any rule changes
                that would create even more certainty and promote greater investment in
                innovative Broadcast Internet services. We therefore seek comment on
                three topics related to the provision of ancillary or supplementary
                services by broadcast television licensees, either on their own or in
                conjunction with a third party, to aid the Commission in determining
                whether and how to modify or clarify its rules to promote the
                deployment of Broadcast Internet services that can complement the 5G
                network as a part of the transition to ATSC 3.0. First, we seek comment
                on a number of general matters concerning the potential uses and
                applications of excess broadcast spectrum capacity resulting from the
                transition to ATSC 3.0. Second, we seek comment on whether the amount
                and method of calculating the ancillary services fee should be
                reconsidered given the new potential uses of excess spectrum capacity.
                Finally, we ask whether the Commission should clarify the rules
                prohibiting derogation of broadcast service and defining an analogous
                service.
                 General Matters. As an initial matter, we invite comment on the
                types of Broadcast Internet services that are likely to be provided in
                the future using the ATSC 3.0 standard. Recently, television
                broadcasters have indicated that they will use their spectrum to
                provide innovative services in such areas as automotive transportation,
                agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public safety, utility
                automation, and IoT devices. Given the wide and likely expanding range
                of services that could rely on Broadcast Internet spectrum, are there
                rule changes we should consider to help promote such services? In
                addition, we invite comment on when television broadcasters anticipate
                such services might be introduced into the marketplace. Further, to
                what extent will Broadcast Internet services be utilized as a
                complement to our nation's 5G network? Are Broadcast Internet services
                likely to be offered in urban areas of the country as well as in rural
                and underserved areas?
                 We seek comment generally on the steps the Commission should take
                to promote innovation, experimentation, and greater use of broadcast
                television spectrum to provide ancillary and supplementary services. In
                addition to today's declaratory ruling, are there additional steps we
                should take, in light of changes to the marketplace, that could
                encourage or facilitate the ability of broadcast licensees to enter
                into partnerships or leasing arrangements for the provision of
                ancillary and supplementary services that would allow them or others to
                utilize broadcast spectrum more efficiently and to its fullest extent?
                For example, are there steps the Commission could take to help
                facilitate dynamic spectrum management agreements or to provide
                regulatory certainty for prospective lessees, specifically? Should we
                consider revisions to our broadcast licensing rules to allow for
                partnerships or leasing arrangements beyond those that are the subject
                of clarification in today's declaratory ruling (e.g., leases more
                closely resembling those used by wireless licensees)? To this end, are
                there any rules applicable to mobile or fixed wireless services that
                could be considered useful models for the purposes of encouraging
                Broadcast Internet services? In addition, what regulatory, technical,
                or other barriers exist that might impede the introduction of Broadcast
                Internet services? For example, do the existing technical rules
                regarding ancillary and supplemental services restrict the types of
                services that could be offered, either by a station directly or in
                partnership with a third party? To the extent such barriers exist, what
                steps, if any, should the Commission take to eliminate them?
                 We seek comment more specifically on whether there are any
                potential regulatory limitations on the ability of public television
                stations to provide Broadcast Internet services. For example, section
                399B of the Communications Act permits public stations to provide
                facilities and services in exchange for remuneration provided those
                uses do not interfere with the stations' provision of public
                telecommunications services. Section 399B, however, does not permit
                public broadcast stations to make their facilities ``available to any
                person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.'' In 2001, however,
                the Commission concluded that the section 399B ban on advertising
                applies to all broadcast programming streams provided by NCE licensees
                but does not apply to ancillary or supplementary services on their DTV
                channels, such as subscription services or data transmission services,
                to the extent that such services do not constitute ``broadcasting.'' We
                tentatively conclude that the Commission's 2001 determination regarding
                section 399B permits NCE
                [[Page 43198]]
                broadcasters to offer Broadcast Internet services. We seek comment on
                the kinds of Broadcast Internet services NCE licensees are likely to
                provide. How are these stations planning to take advantage of the
                opportunities afforded by the transition from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0? Are
                there any regulatory or other impediments to the provision of ancillary
                and supplementary services by NCE stations?
                 We also seek comment on the provision of Broadcast Internet
                services by low power (LPTV) television stations. Are LPTV broadcasters
                likely to offer Broadcast Internet services? If so, what kinds of
                services are these broadcasters likely to provide? Do LPTV stations
                face unique challenges in the provision of Broadcast Internet services
                and, if so, what are they? If such challenges exist, what steps, if
                any, should the Commission take to facilitate the provision of such
                services by LPTV stations?
                 Ancillary and Supplementary Service Fee. As noted above, the 1996
                Act requires broadcasters to pay a fee to the U.S. Treasury to the
                extent they use their DTV spectrum to provide ancillary or
                supplementary services ``(A) for which the payment of a subscription
                fee is required in order to receive such services, or (B) for which the
                licensee directly or indirectly receives compensation from a third
                party in return from transmitting material furnished by such a third
                party (other than commercial advertisements used to support
                broadcasting for which a subscription fee is not required).'' Below we
                seek comment on whether we should clarify or modify the rules
                applicable to the provision of feeable ancillary and supplementary
                services, such as the amount and method of calculating the fee or the
                reporting requirements, given the new potential uses of spectrum
                capacity to provide ancillary and supplementary offerings through ATSC
                3.0 technologies, including innovative services that were not
                contemplated when the Commission first implemented the rules over two
                decades ago.
                 At the outset, we note that, as discussed above, the Commission is
                subject to certain statutory mandates for determining the fee for
                ancillary and supplementary services carried on the public spectrum.
                Specifically, the ancillary and supplementary services fee must be
                designed to: (1) Recover for the public a portion of the value of the
                public spectrum resource made available for ancillary or supplemental
                use by broadcasters; (2) avoid unjust enrichment of broadcasters
                through the method used to permit digital use of the spectrum; and (3)
                recover for the public an amount that, to the extent feasible, equals
                but does not exceed (over the term of the license) the amount that
                would have been recovered had such services been licensed at auction.
                Also, the Commission is required by statute to adjust the ancillary and
                supplementary services fee ``from time to time'' in order to ensure
                that these requirements continue to be met.
                 When the Commission last undertook an assessment of ancillary and
                supplementary service fees in 1998, it determined that it would assess
                fees on all revenue--both subscription and advertising revenue--from
                all ancillary and supplementary services for which viewers must pay
                subscription fees. In addition, as required by the 1996 Act, the
                Commission determined that fees must be assessed on ancillary and
                supplementary services for which the licensee directly or indirectly
                receives compensation from a third party in exchange for the
                transmission of material provided by the third party (other than for
                commercial advertisements used to support broadcasting for which a
                subscription fee is not required). The Commission noted that, pursuant
                to our rules, over-the-air video programming provided at no charge to
                viewers is not an ancillary or supplementary service. It reasoned,
                therefore, that this provision ``applies to ancillary or supplementary
                services, consisting of material that does not originate with the
                licensee and that the viewer can receive without payment of a fee.''
                These services may include data, audio, ``or any other ancillary or
                supplementary services that may be established in the future.'' The
                Commission noted that it received very little comment on the types of
                non-subscription ancillary or supplementary services parties
                contemplated providing. Accordingly, it concluded that, in determining
                whether a non-subscription ancillary or supplementary service is
                feeable, ``until we gain more experience, we will simply be guided by
                the statutory criteria as questions arise.''
                 Given the passage of time since the implementation of the ancillary
                and supplementary fee program over two decades ago and the
                technological developments since then that will enable the provision of
                new and innovative ancillary or supplementary services on the public
                spectrum, we seek comment on whether we should clarify or modify our
                rules for assessing fees on such services. In the ATSC 3.0 proceeding,
                some commenters suggested that a higher fee might be warranted to
                ensure compliance with the statutory directives in section 336(e)(2)(A)
                through (B), while others asserted that the fee should be reduced to
                ensure that it does not impede innovation by Next Gen TV broadcasters.
                In the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission concluded that it
                would be premature to adjust the fee associated with ancillary services
                in part because it was not clear from the record in that proceeding
                which ATSC 3.0-based services and features would be ``ancillary
                services'' or which such services will be feeable.
                 With the possibility of providing new, innovative ancillary and
                supplementary services that were not necessarily envisioned at the time
                the fee rules were established, is it appropriate at this time to
                adjust the fee associated with ancillary and supplementary services?
                Should we consider adjustments to either the basis of the fee or the
                percentage of the fee? Are there any circumstances under which it would
                be appropriate to set the fee at zero? What changes, if any, would
                ensure that the fee promotes the provision of innovative ancillary and
                supplementary services offered by ATSC 3.0 transmission while complying
                with statutory requirements (e.g., recovering some portion of the value
                of the spectrum for the public, preventing unjust enrichment,
                recovering for the public an amount that equals the amount that would
                have been recovered at auction)? And how, if at all, should we account
                for changes in the communications and media landscape? What would be
                the costs and benefits of adjusting the ancillary services fee?
                Commenters advocating in favor of modifying the fee should describe
                with specificity the kinds of ancillary services broadcasters are
                likely to offer in ATSC 3.0 and the benefits that would accrue from any
                proposed change in fee structure. Alternatively, is it still premature
                to change the fee rules now? Should we allow the ATSC 3.0 marketplace
                to develop further before considering changes?
                 Are there any other issues we should consider with respect to the
                application of fees to the provision of ancillary or supplementary
                services during the transition to ATSC 3.0? For example, in order to
                promote the provision of new services, should we apply the fee only to
                gross revenues above a certain threshold? If so, should such a
                threshold apply only to certain classes of stations, such as NCE
                stations? Similarly, should the fees be capped during license term and,
                if so, at what level? Should we revisit the Commission's prior decision
                to adopt a fixed percentage rate as opposed to a variable percentage
                rate based upon the type of service provided? Should we consider
                granting exemptions for certain classes of service
                [[Page 43199]]
                from fees, such as telehealth, distance learning, public safety, or
                homeland security-related services, or services that promote access in
                rural areas? Would it be consistent with the statute to do so? Would
                such rule changes or exemptions be consistent with the Commission's
                statutory obligation to assess a fee that will recover some portion of
                the value of the spectrum for the public, prevent unjust enrichment,
                and approximate the revenue that would have been received through
                auction? We note that when the Commission initially implemented the
                program for assessing ancillary and supplementary fees, it observed
                that ``[a]n overly complex fee program could be difficult for licensees
                to calculate and for the Commission to enforce and could create
                uncertainty that might undermine a DTV licensee's efficient planning of
                what services it will provide.'' Does this concern regarding complexity
                weigh against any changes to the ancillary and supplementary fee that
                differentiate among types of services? We invite comment generally on
                these issues.
                 We invite comment on how the ancillary and supplementary services
                fee should be calculated in instances where a broadcaster receives
                compensation from an unaffiliated third party, such as a spectrum
                lessee, in return for the airing of material provided by the third
                party. For example, the broadcaster could lease spectrum to a third
                party for a set fee or could agree to share in the proceeds generated
                by the service offered by the third party. We tentatively conclude
                that, in each instance, the fees should be calculated based on the
                gross revenue received by the broadcaster, without regard to the gross
                revenue of the spectrum lessee. Indeed, to hold otherwise could subject
                the broadcaster to a fee payment in excess of the actual gross revenue
                it received. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. To the
                extent the licensee and the lessee are affiliated (e.g., commonly owned
                or controlled), we believe that the gross revenues of the lessee should
                be attributed to the licensee for purposes of calculating the ancillary
                and supplementary services fee. Otherwise, the licensee (or its parent
                company) could create a subsidiary for the sole purpose of evading the
                fee while retaining all of the financial benefit of the arrangement. We
                seek comment on these issues. We also invite comment on whether the
                calculation of fees should include the value of any ``in-kind''
                improvements made by an unaffiliated spectrum lessee to the licensee's
                facilities to facilitate the provision of services. While such facility
                improvements could reasonably be considered a form of indirect
                compensation that may otherwise be subject to the ancillary and
                supplementary services fee, we tentatively conclude that the value of
                such improvements should be excluded from the gross revenue
                calculation. The transition to ATSC 3.0 is voluntary and many stations
                may lack the funds and/or expertise to upgrade their transmission
                facilities. Excluding the value of in-kind improvements from the fee
                calculation may help promote faster adoption of ATSC 3.0 and greater
                use of spectrum for Broadcast Internet applications. Over time, this
                could result in greater fee collection as broadcasters derive greater
                gross revenues as a result of the facilities upgrade. We invite comment
                on these issues.
                 Finally, we seek comment on whether we should consider any changes
                to the annual reporting requirement applicable to the provision of
                feeable ancillary or supplementary services. Currently, the
                Commission's rules require all commercial and noncommercial DTV
                licensees and permittees that provided feeable ancillary or
                supplementary services during the applicable 12-month period to report
                each December 1: (1) A brief description of the feeable ancillary or
                supplementary services provided; (2) gross revenues received from all
                feeable ancillary and supplementary services provided during the
                applicable period; and (3) the amount of bitstream used to provide
                feeable ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable
                period. Should the Commission make any changes to the information
                collected on the form or any other information collections related to
                the provision of ancillary and supplemental services?
                 Derogation of Service and Analogous Services. The 1996 Act and
                specifically section 336 thereof allow broadcasters flexibility to
                provide ancillary and supplementary services. But in authorizing
                broadcast television stations to provide ancillary or supplementary
                services on their DTV channels, Congress required that the provision of
                such services: (1) Must avoid derogating any advanced television
                services that the Commission may require; and (2) must be subject to
                Commission regulations applicable to analogous services. In furtherance
                of this statutory requirement, the Commission adopted Sec. 73.624(c)
                of the rules, which permits broadcasters to offer ancillary and
                supplementary services so long as they ``do not derogate the DTV
                broadcast stations' obligations under paragraph (b) of this section.''
                Section 73.624(b) of the rules, in turn, requires that each DTV
                broadcast licensee transmit at least one standard definition (SD) over-
                the-air video program signal on its digital channel at no charge to
                viewers that is at least comparable in resolution to analog television
                programming. Accordingly, a station's service is not derogated so long
                as it continues to offer at least one free over-the-air SD video
                programming stream at least comparable in resolution to analog
                television programming pursuant to Sec. 73.624(b). Furthermore,
                broadcasters are permitted to provide ancillary or supplementary
                services on their broadcast spectrum that are analogous to other
                regulated services, but should they choose to do so, they are required
                to adhere to any rules specific to such type of service.
                 While the Commission adopted broad rules in furtherance of these
                statutory requirements in 1997, it has not revisited these rules since
                affirming them on reconsideration in 1998. In particular, the
                Commission has not conducted a recent examination of how these
                restrictions should be applied in the context of changes in the media
                and communications landscape, or in light of the capabilities offered
                by the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard as compared to the ATSC 1.0
                standard. Accordingly, we seek comment below on whether the existing
                interpretation of what constitutes a derogation of service remains
                valid or whether any changes are warranted. Further, we seek comment on
                whether and, if so, how the Commission should provide greater clarity
                to broadcasters to determine when an offered service is ``analogous''
                to a regulated service and thus would require compliance with parts of
                the Act and Commission rules beyond those governing broadcast services.
                 Derogation of Service. As discussed above, section 336(b) of the
                Act requires that the Commission ``limit the broadcasting of ancillary
                or supplementary services . . . so as to avoid derogation of any
                advanced television services.'' We tentatively conclude that the
                determination of whether a broadcast station's signal has been
                derogated should continue to be evaluated by whether it provides at
                least one standard definition over-the-air video program signal at no
                direct charge to viewers that is at least comparable in resolution to
                analog television programming, as required by Sec. 73.624(b). We seek
                comment on this tentative conclusion. We also tentatively conclude that
                we should amend the wording of Sec. 73.624(b) to specifically define
                the precise resolution that is considered to be ``at least comparable
                in
                [[Page 43200]]
                resolution to analog television programming'' as 480i. We seek comment
                on this proposal. What resolution does the broadcast industry currently
                use for purposes of compliance with the Commission's existing ``at
                least comparable in resolution to analog television programming''
                standard? We recognize that since adoption of these rules, broadcasters
                have begun providing a myriad of broadcast television programming
                offerings both in high definition (HD) and SD, often offering multiple
                streams (i.e., subchannels) of free, over-the-air, video programming.
                We seek comment on whether a broadcaster's replacement of an HD
                offering with an SD offering in order to deploy ancillary and
                supplementary services should be deemed a derogation of advanced
                television services under our rules. Are there any other modifications
                of the Commission's current derogation of service rule that we should
                consider in order to ensure that, as mandated by section 336 of the
                Act, broadcasters' ancillary and supplementary offerings are not being
                provided to the derogation of ``advanced television services'' (i.e.,
                free over-the-air broadcast service)? How might any proposed rule
                modification, on balance, affect broadcasters' ability to deploy
                ancillary and supplementary services?
                 Standard for Evaluating Analogous Services. As stated above,
                section 336(b) of the Act outlines the Commission's authority to permit
                the provision of ancillary or supplementary services by DTV licensees
                in order to ensure parity among regulated entities and prevent unjust
                enrichment. While the Commission's rules provide examples of the types
                of services that might be offered, there is no specific guidance on how
                licensees or the Commission should determine whether a non-broadcast
                service being offered by a DTV licensee is ``analogous'' to another
                regulated service and therefore subject to regulation under those
                rules. To date, the Commission has provided little guidance beyond that
                offered in the rule when it was initially adopted. At that time, the
                Commission referenced, and largely just extended, the prior approach
                applicable to the provision of ancillary and supplementary services by
                television station licensees broadcasting in analog.
                 We seek comment on whether the Commission should provide additional
                guidance regarding the factors or other approaches it will use to
                determine whether an ancillary or supplementary service is sufficiently
                ``analogous'' to another service. What are some examples of services
                that broadcasters may be looking to offer to consumers that could be
                deemed ``analogous'' to services currently regulated by the Commission?
                As a general matter, what information should the Commission consider
                when determining whether an ancillary or supplementary service being
                offered is analogous to another regulated service? Should we adopt a
                presumptive standard by which any service that has certain specific
                characteristics is deemed to be analogous to another Commission
                service? What characteristics would be indicative of a service that
                should be considered to meet such a presumptive standard?
                Alternatively, are there certain circumstances in which a broadcaster
                should be presumptively deemed not to be offering an analogous service?
                For example, what if the broadcaster or a third-party spectrum lessee
                is not offering the entire, end-to-end, service to the consumer or
                customer? What if the broadcast spectrum is only being used for
                wireless off-load for existing broadband providers (e.g., airing large
                bit-rate video programming), one-way data distribution services (e.g.,
                consumer device software updates), or as part of spectrum that must be
                aggregated across more than one broadcaster in order to provide a
                viable service? Can an input to another service be regulated as an
                ``analogous service''? Should any affirmative finding by the Commission
                be required? If so, what should be the process for obtaining such
                approval and what information should be provided by broadcasters to
                demonstrate that the presumptive standard has been met?
                 Further, in the event that an ancillary or supplementary service is
                analogous to a service permitted elsewhere in the Commission's rules,
                but is only provided by a third party lessee or the television station
                for a very short period of time--on a discrete basis (e.g., only an
                hour per day) and/or on an aggregated basis (e.g., no more than 48
                hours collectively in a month or a year)--should the Commission's
                analogous services rule apply nonetheless? Stated differently, should
                an analogous service always be subject to the applicable analogous
                service's rules regardless of the circumstances, or should the
                Commission permit some flexibility or ``de minimis'' operation if the
                broadcaster or its third-party spectrum lessee only offers the service
                on a discrete or aggregated basis? Should we adopt a ``de minimis''
                service threshold that exempts DTV licensees that provide analogous
                services from needing to apply for a license or authorization that may
                otherwise be required under the analogous services rules? Would this be
                consistent with the statute that seeks to ensure parity among service
                providers? If so, what would an appropriate ``de minimis'' service
                threshold be for such an exemption? Specifically, what would be the
                appropriate discrete and/or aggerated time limits? Would such
                flexibility benefit and promote broadcasters' efforts to offer
                Broadcast Internet services, and, if so, how? In order to promote the
                offering of ancillary and supplementary services, should the Commission
                consider waiving, on a case-by-case or other basis, certain regulations
                that would apply to analogous services? Are there certain rules that
                are applicable to other regulated service providers that may not be
                feasible for broadcasters to comply with?
                 Are there other actions the Commission can take to provide
                broadcasters with greater guidance and clarity as to whether a service
                they are seeking to offer would be deemed an analogous service? Are
                there any other issues we should consider with regard to the analogous
                services provision in light of advancements in broadcasting and the
                capabilities of the ATSC 3.0 standard?
                 Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may result in new or revised
                information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
                Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). If the
                Commission adopts any new or revised information collection
                requirement, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal
                Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required
                by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.
                3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
                Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the
                Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the
                information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
                than 25 employees.''
                 Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
                treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
                Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if
                disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the
                Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are
                generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a
                copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
                presentation within two business days
                [[Page 43201]]
                after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
                Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
                are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
                all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
                which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
                presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must
                contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not
                merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two
                sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally
                required. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
                presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
                written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
                presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
                prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
                page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
                found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
                or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
                written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
                section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section
                1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a
                method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
                memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
                thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
                available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
                (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
                proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
                rules.
                 Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.
                1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
                interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before
                the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be
                filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
                See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR
                24121 (1998).
                 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
                internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
                 Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
                original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial
                overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
                mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
                Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial
                overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
                Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction,
                MD 20701.U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
                must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
                Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no
                longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a
                temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of
                individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
                Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
                Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. During the time the Commission's building is
                closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one
                docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding,
                paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional
                docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
                 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
                Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission
                has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small
                entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed
                Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
                Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
                by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM.
                The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
                the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
                (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
                published in the Federal Register.
                 Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. With this item, we
                take important steps to help further unlock the potential of broadcast
                spectrum, empower innovation, and create significant value for
                broadcasters and the American public alike by removing the uncertainty
                cast by legacy regulations. More than twenty years ago, during the
                transition from analog to digital broadcast television, the Commission
                adopted rules allowing digital television (DTV) licensees to provide
                ancillary or supplementary services on their excess spectrum capacity
                and authorized licensees to enter into leases with other entities that
                would provide such services. Flash forward to today, and the conversion
                of digital television from the first-generation technologies associated
                with the ATSC 1.0 standard to the next-generation of ancillary services
                that will be enabled by ATSC 3.0 is now underway. This new technology
                promises to expand the universe of potential uses of broadcast spectrum
                capacity for new and innovative services beyond traditional over-the-
                air video in ways that will complement the nation's burgeoning 5G
                network and usher in a new wave of innovation and opportunity. These
                new offerings over broadcast spectrum can be referred to collectively
                as ``Broadcast Internet'' services to distinguish them from traditional
                over-the-air video services. Broadcasters will not only be able to
                better serve the information and entertainment needs of their
                communities, but they will have the opportunity to play a part in
                addressing the digital divide and supporting the proliferation of new,
                IP-based consumer applications or voluntarily entering into
                arrangements to allow others to invest in achieving those goals. We
                undertake this proceeding to ensure that our rules help to foster the
                introduction of new services and the efficient use of spectrum.
                 By this NPRM, we seek comment on the extent to which we should
                clarify or modify our existing rules in order to further promote the
                deployment of Broadcast Internet services as part of the transition to
                ATSC 3.0. As when the ancillary services rules were first adopted, the
                Commission seeks to promote and preserve free, universally available,
                local broadcast television by providing a clear regulatory landscape
                that permits licensees the flexibility to succeed in a competitive
                market and incentivizes the most efficient use of prime spectrum. And
                given that the existing rules were adopted over twenty years ago, we
                believe it is appropriate at this time to reassess them in the context
                of the newest advanced broadcast television technology.
                 To that end, in this NPRM we first seek comment on potential uses
                of the new technological capability from ATSC 3.0 in such areas as the
                automotive industry, agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public
                safety, utility automation, and the ``Internet of Things'' (IoT). We
                intend to identify and minimize any existing regulatory, technical, or
                other barriers that might
                [[Page 43202]]
                impede the introduction of these Broadcast Internet services. We then
                consider whether any changes or clarifications are needed to the
                ancillary and supplementary service fee rules and the rules defining
                derogation of service and analogous services. Specifically, we ask
                whether we should clarify or modify the rules applicable to the
                provision of feeable ancillary and supplementary services, such as the
                amount and method of calculating the fee or the reporting requirements,
                given the new potential uses of spectrum capacity to provide ancillary
                and supplementary offerings through ATSC 3.0 technologies, including
                innovative services that were not contemplated when the Commission
                first implemented the rules over two decades ago. With regard to the
                rules defining derogation of service we tentatively conclude that the
                determination of whether a broadcast station's signal has been
                derogated should continue to be evaluated by whether it provides at
                least one standard definition over-the-air video program signal at no
                direct charge to viewers, as required by the rules. Further, with
                regard to the rules defining analogous services, we seek comment on
                whether the Commission should provide additional guidance regarding the
                factors or other approaches it will use to determine whether an
                ancillary or supplementary service is sufficiently ``analogous to
                another service.'' We seek comment on any other rule changes we should
                consider to provide greater regulatory clarity to television
                broadcasters. In so doing, we seek to encourage the robust usage of
                broadcast television spectrum capacity for the provision of Broadcast
                Internet services consistent with statutory directives.
                 Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections
                1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
                amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 336.
                 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
                the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a
                description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
                entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The
                RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
                meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
                ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
                business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
                under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
                (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
                field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
                established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small
                entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities,
                where feasible.
                 Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category ``comprises
                establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
                sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast studios and
                facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
                public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual
                programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn
                broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.
                Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated
                network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following
                small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $41.5
                million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports
                that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of this number,
                656 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 25 had annual
                receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 70 had annual
                receipts of $50 million or more. Based on this data we therefore
                estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are
                small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.
                 Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed
                commercial television stations to be 1,374. Of this total, 1,282
                stations (or 94.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2018,
                according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media
                Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 15, 2019, and therefore
                these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In
                addition, the Commission estimates the number of licensed noncommercial
                educational (NCE) television stations to be 388. The Commission does
                not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of
                NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations
                would qualify as small entities.
                 We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
                qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control)
                affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
                overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
                action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
                include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
                another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that
                an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
                this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish
                whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its
                field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
                which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the
                definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly
                over-inclusive.
                 There are also 387 Class A stations. Given the nature of these
                services, the Commission presumes that all of these stations qualify as
                small entities under the applicable SBA size standard. In addition,
                there are 1,892 LPTV stations and 3,621 TV translator stations. Given
                the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a
                ``fill-in'' service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify
                as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
                 Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
                Compliance Requirements. It is our intent to promote and preserve free,
                universally available, local broadcast television by permitting
                licensees the freedom to succeed in a competitive market, as well as to
                incentivize the most efficient use of prime spectrum. We do not
                anticipate this NPRM leading to any new reporting, recordkeeping, or
                other compliance requirements. Rather, it should decrease already
                existing regulatory burdens on broadcast television licensees as the
                goal of this proceeding is to reduce regulatory uncertainty and
                eliminate outdated rules that could hinder the development of the new,
                innovative uses of broadcast spectrum that the ATSC 3.0 standard
                enables.
                 However, we do seek comment on whether we should consider any
                changes to the annual reporting requirement applicable to the provision
                of feeable ancillary or supplementary services. Currently, the
                Commission's rules require all commercial and noncommercial DTV
                licensees and permittees that provided feeable ancillary or
                supplementary services during the applicable 12-month period to report
                each December 1: (1) A brief description of the feeable ancillary or
                supplementary services provided; (2) gross revenues received from all
                feeable ancillary and supplementary services provided during the
                applicable period; and (3) the amount of bitstream used to provide
                feeable ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable
                period. If after the record develops we determine that there is a need
                for any additional reporting requirements associated with the
                [[Page 43203]]
                provision of feeable ancillary or supplementary services, we will take
                all appropriate steps to minimize the burden on broadcast licensees.
                 Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
                Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an
                agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
                in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
                alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
                compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
                account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
                clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
                reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
                of performance, rather than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from
                coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
                 Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks to minimize the regulatory
                burden associated with the provision of ancillary or supplementary
                services by broadcast television licensees, the majority of which are
                classified as small entities. The existing rules governing the
                provision of ancillary or supplementary broadcast services, found in
                Sec. 73.624, apply consistently to all broadcast licensees to ensure
                that the provision of new and innovative services does not result in a
                derogation of the free, universally available, local broadcast
                television service for which the license is granted. These minimum
                service standards must apply to all licensees, including small
                entities. The Declaratory Ruling we issue today removes regulatory
                uncertainty that could hinder the development of the new, innovative
                uses of broadcast spectrum that the ATSC 3.0 standard enables.
                Consistent with this action, any final rule the Commission adopts in
                response to this NPRM will reduce regulatory barriers in our existing
                regulations restricting broadcasters from using the full potential of
                ATSC 3.0 technologies and therefore should not result in any increased
                regulatory burden or negative economic impact for any broadcast
                licensees.
                 Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the
                Proposed Rule. None.
                 It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1,
                4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
                amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 336, this Notice of
                Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 20-145 is adopted. It is further
                ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
                Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of
                Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 20-145, including the Initial
                Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
                the Small Business Administration.
                Federal Communications Commission.
                Cecilia Sigmund,
                Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
                [FR Doc. 2020-13203 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT