[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24606-24609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11284]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR PART 73
[MM Docket No. 95-42, FCC 95-155]
TV Broadcast Service, Ancillary Communications Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this proceeding, comment is sought on what procedural and
substantive rules, if any, should be established regarding the
transmission of ancillary digital data within the active video portion
of broadcast television NTSC signals. This action is needed to
determine how best to permit certain digital technologies to be
integrated with the current television broadcast service (NTSC).
DATES: Comments must be submitted by June 23, 1995. Reply comments must
be submitted July 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Gordon at (202) 776-1653 or James E. McNally, Jr. at (202) 418-
2190.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 95-42, adopted April
10, 1995, and released May 2, 1995. The complete text of this Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),
1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC and also may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, at
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. The Commission initiates this proceeding to determine how best
to permit certain digital technologies to be integrated with the
current television broadcast service (NTSC). Specifically, it seeks
comment on what procedural and substantive rules, if any, should be
established regarding the transmission of ancillary digital data within
the active video portion of broadcast television NTSC signals.
2. Section 73.646 of the Commission's Rules allows the
transmission, with prior Commission consent, of ancillary
telecommunications services within the Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI)
of television broadcast signals. No picture information is transmitted
during the VBI. In order to ensure the public's ability to receive
over-the-air video broadcast transmissions of the highest quality made
possible by the current television standard, the Commission has
generally not allowed the transmission of ancillary telecommunications
services within the active video portion of broadcast television
signals without specific approval.
3. Recently, two general approaches have been proposed to the
Commission for the transmission of digital data. The first replaces the
transmitted video signal with digitally encoded information in a part
of the picture not normally seen by viewers because all TV sets to some
extent ``overscan'' the picture to ensure that the portion of the
picture tube that is visible is completely filled with the picture. To
date, the Commission has authorized only the top line of the video
picture (line 22) for such activity, although in theory, digital
signals also could be concealed in the left or right edges of the
picture, or at the bottom. The second method of concealing digital
signals distributes them throughout the visible picture The amplitudes
of such signals are kept sufficiently low (or they are confined to such
a limited part of the normally emitted video spectrum bandwidth) that
they are invisible to the viewer. Tests of such systems indicate that,
with a proper selection of system parameters, no degradation to picture
brightness, contrast, color or focus is perceptible to the viewer.
4. On December 9, 1993, WavePhore, Inc. (WavePhore) requested a
declaratory ruling that television broadcast licensees may, without
prior Commission authorization, use WavePhore's ``TVT1'' system to
transmit digital data signals. This system transmits digital data on a
subcarrier within the standard 6.0 MHz NTSC television signal, between
3.9 HNz and 4.2 MHz above the visual carrier frequency, at an amplitude
close to the video noise floor.
5. On November 22, 1989, the staff granted A. C. Nielsen Company
(``Nielsen'') temporary, conditional authority to use line 22 of the
active portion of the television video signal to transmit the Nielsen
Automated Measurement of Lineup (``AMOL'') system signal identification
codes. By a subsequent letter dated May 1, 1990, the temporary
authority as extended until the Commission acts on the request for
permanent authority, or until the temporary authority is expressly
withdrawn.
6. As a result of the difficulties encountered in obtaining
assurance that its system for identifying commercials would not be
overwritten (and thus be rendered useless) by Nielsen's AMOL system,
Airtrax filed a petition for rule making (RM-7567), which requested the
Commission to set standard for ``special signal'' use of line 22. As
justification for the rule making, Airtrax noted what even with the
limited number of special signals currently authorized, disputes had
arisen as to how to ensure [[Page 24607]] compatibility of existing
systems and to ensure that one entity's system would not preclude other
users from access to line 22 at individual TV broadcast stations.
Airtrax argued that the Commission had a statutory duty to promote the
provision of new technologies and service to the public and that it
should establish the ground rules by which competition may take place.
7. By letter of November 8, 1993 Yes! Entertainment Corporation
(``Yes!'') requested the Commission to permit television broadcasters
to transmit a pulsed amplitude (7.5 to 100 IRE) signal at the beginning
of each line of active video, yielding a data rate of 14,160 pulses per
second, which could be coded to carry audio information. By means of
equipment at a viewer's television receiver, this signal would be
detected, processed and retransmitted from a set-top box to an external
``TV Teddy'' toy bear (a stuffed animal with a built-in receiver and
speaker) for the purpose of making it ``talk.'' Yes! indicates that
there would be no visible degradation of received video because the
affected portion of each scanning line is in an ``overscanned'' area.
8. On January 19, 1995, the Commission authorized Station WWOR-TV
in Secaucus, New Jersey, to conduct tests of a data transmission
technology developed by Digideck, Inc. (Digideck called) ``D-Channel.''
This system, like that of WavePhore, operates in the active video part
of the TV spectrum and is represented as being imperceptible to
viewers.
9. The commission believes that it does not yet have sufficient
information upon which to act on the requests from Yes! and WavePhore
and therefore initiates this proceeding to address them as well as the
Airtrax petition. Both requests raise significant questions pertaining
to potential use for other purposes and technical compatibility. The
Commission solicits additional information in order to ascertain the
long-term impact the authorization of these or other potential systems
may have on broadcasters, the data transmitting industry, consumers,
and others.
10. Generally, the Commission proposes that licensees be allowed to
transmit acceptable data signals without prior Commission authority or
notification but not be allowed to relinquish to the data or program
supplier the right to delete the data. A licensee should be notified of
any upstream data insertion in programming supplied to it unless the
presence of the data is readily detectable. The Commission further
proposes that a licensee be required to maintain a copy at the station
of any contract regarding ancillary data transmissions within the
video, as is currently required for data transmissions in the VBI.
11. With the possibility that other manufacturers will want to
employ different schemes for their own products or services, a
substantial demand for such ``hidden video spectrum'' could develop,
potentially posing difficult system compatibility problems. Maintaining
the licensee's ultimate responsibility gives the broadcaster
flexibility to choose among clearly mutually-exclusive uses. However,
the Commission is concerned that newly-developed systems might be
incompatible with systems already in use without that fact being
obvious to the broadcaster. It is also possible that while a single
system's digital data insertions on a particular video signal would
cause no discernible degradation to reception of the TV signal by
itself, a combination of transmissions could have destructive
cumulative effects. Comment is sought on how to be certain that
broadcasters and users are aware of such cumulative effects and also on
how, if at all, such incompatibilities could harm consumers,
broadcasters, or the data delivery industry. Comment is also sought on
whether the resolution of questions concerning system compatibility and
the impact of cumulative effects on the video signal should be left to
presumably informed broadcasters or whether compatibility standards and
insertion limits should be prescribed by regulation.
12. There are two fundamentally different methods employed to
prevent the inserted data from being discernable to viewers. In this
proceeding, the Commission will refer to them as ``overscan''
technology, where data is inserted at the top, bottom, right or left
edge of the picture and ``sub-video'' technology, where data is
inserted in a manner that could affect regularly viewable portions of
the TV picture but would still not be detectable by the ordinary
viewer. Line-22 uses and the Yes! proposal are examples of the
``overscan'' approach. WavePhore's and Digideck's proposals use the
``sub-video'' approach. Comments are sought to explore two aspects of
these different approaches: discernable degradation and broadcasters'
ability to delete the data.
13. Current policy generally does not allow any use of the video
portion of the TV signal for ancillary purposes if the picture or sound
would be adversely affected in a manner that is discernable by viewers.
The Commission proposes to continue to require that broadcasters not be
allowed to use any digital data transmission system (or combination of
such systems) that would perceptibly degrade the video signal. Comment
is also sought on whether further reductions in overscan might result
in signals in ``overscan'' areas becoming discernible to viewers in the
future and on whether ``overscan'' technologies are visible on standard
TVs and VCR recordings when ``picture-in-picture'' modes of viewing are
invoked or will be more visible in the future when a TV signal is
displayed as a ``window'' on a computer terminal graphics display. If
development of these methods of television video display suggests that
continuing use of ``overscan'' data transmission technology could
create problems as the previously hidden information becomes visible on
the screen, comment is sought on whether ``overscan'' technologies
should be phased out in favor of more subtle, less intrusive methods of
data transmission, and if so, on a timetable for such a phase out.
14. Comment is sought on whether there is some method by which
picture degradation or ``distortion'' due to sub-video methods of data
transmission can be objectively measured and on whether there is some
limit which should not be exceeded. Comment also is invited on the
extent if at all, the Commission should permit alteration of the video
signal or the video bandpass characteristics to permit the insertion of
data. Any further information on the potential for Digideck's D-Channel
system to cause adjacent channel interference also is requested.
Finally, the Commission asks whether some types of receivers might be
more prone to showing degradation caused by any method of sub-video
data transmission.
15. Licensees must maintain control over all aspects of their
signal, including data transmissions within the video and must thus
retain the right to reject any material they deem unsuitable. Comment
is sought on whether an ability to reject the entire program should be
considered to satisfy this obligation or if any acceptable data
insertion method must allow the broadcaster the option of stripping out
the data.
16. ``Overscan'' data signals are limited to specific places in the
picture and are easily deleted by the licensee. Comment is sought on
what would happen to the picture if the licensee deletes sub-video
data, if the licensee replaces sub-video data, and if multiple
occurrences of such deletions or replacements take place. The
Commission is concerned that individually insignificant degradations
[[Page 24608]] to the picture could become cumulative, noticeable, and
objectionable.
17. The Commission wishes to encourage the use of television
signals for ancillary data transmission and to permit new technological
developments. Comment is sought on whether special rules should be
applied to digital data transmissions that are directed to the general
public.
18. While the Commission seeks comments now to expedite resolution
of this proceeding and to gain information that can assist any interim
decisions it may make, it intends also to consider the work of the
National Data Broadcasting Committee as requested by several commenters
in this proceeding.
19. The Commission next seeks comments on whether there are
limitations that should be imposed on a technical standard developed by
industry. The Commission asks whether any system that may be
recommended as a standard must be ``partitioned by use'' at the time of
its possible adoption or whether its design permits its adaptation to
potential future uses on a flexible or dynamic basis. This question
should also be considered in relation to digital signal decoders that
might be used by the general public, either as an optional accessory
provided on certain models of televisions or as some kind of external
converter.
20. Comment is sought on how the rules should reflect the industry
standards. The options range from continuing to authorize such
transmissions on an ad hoc basis to adopting a comprehensive set of
rules defining and regulating permissible transmissions. Comment is
requested on adopting rules analogous to those that govern multichannel
television sound, where an industry committee evaluated the technology
and recommended a standard. The Commission's Rules refer to the
standard, which is also published in a Bulletin issued by the
Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, but are only
designed to protect receivers designed to the standard from signals to
which they would respond incorrectly.
21. Pending the Committee's completion of its work, comment is
invited on whether the Commission should consider the near-term
authorization of individual methods of such transmission on an ad hoc
basis. The Commission expects technical conflicts between users to be
resolved by the individual licensees, but requests comments on whether
Commission involvement or guidance is necessary to focus licensee
decisions on the public interest. Commenters are invited to address how
questions of picture or sound degradation can be resolved.
22. The Commission proposes that the policies currently contained
in Sections 73.646 (which sets forth the rules currently applicable to
non-broadcast services provided in the VBI) and 73.667 (TV subsidiary
communications services) be extended to include non-broadcast use of
overscan and sub-video data transmission technologies.
23. Lines in the VBI are also used for broadcast and broadcast-
related services. The Commission proposes to permit both broadcast and
broadcast-related use of sub-video data transmission technology and
asks for comment on this proposal.
24. As a final matter, given the pendency of the advanced
television proceeding, MM Docket No. 87-268, which proposes to replace
the current NTSC transmission standard, the Commission seeks comment on
whether by further enhancing NTSC television in the manner described
herein the Commission would provide a disincentive for the public to
readily accept and upgrade to the digital service that the Commission
expects will be introduced in the near future. Similarly, the
Commission requests comment on the extent to which enhancing NTSC
service in the manner described herein could slow or create a
distincentive to the recovery of the spectrum currently used by NTSC
stations, as discussed in the advanced television proceeding.
Procedural Matters
25. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before June 12, 1995, and reply
comments on or before June 27, 1995. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center,
room 239, at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
26. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
I. Reason for Action
In recent years, a number of requests have been submitted to the
Commission concerning systems of embedding digital data within
television video signals. These proposals raise important questions
about how embedded data systems could be accommodated, concerns over
the extent to which broadcasters' control over their signals may be
impaired or lost, and to what degree embedding multiple digital signals
in the television picture may result in discernable picture
degradation.
II. Objectives of the Action
The purpose of this proceeding is to develop policies and rules
defining the respective rights and responsibilities of broadcast
licensees and persons wishing to provide different types of digital
information service, to explore the potential uses of such digital
technology, to determine to what extent different systems may be
compatible, to determine whether a national technical standard is
necessary for the provision of such service, and to determine the
probable impact of such service on the quality of primary television
service.
III. Legal Basis
Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in
Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154 and 303.
IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
Policies adopted in this proceeding could lead to increased record-
keeping requirements being imposed on broadcast licensees and/or
providers of digital information service. If such requirements are
imposed, they would probably take the form of such entities being
required to maintain copies of contracts relating to the provision of
such service and making them available to the Commission upon request.
V. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules
None.
VI. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved
Approximately 10,000 licensees of television broadcast facilities
of all types (Commercial and educational VHF and UHF stations,
translators, boosters and Low Power TV stations) could be
[[Page 24609]] affected. The number of digital service providers
affected would probably be much less.
VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities Consistent With Stated Objectives
A decision to implement a national standard applicable to all
digital information to be contained within the television picture, in
conjunction with a decision as to the general types of information that
could be provided, could greatly reduce or eliminate the compatibility
problems related to the provision of digital data services and decrease
the need for additional record-keeping requirements.
27. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth above. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of
the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981).
28. Authority for the proposed amendments is contained in Section
4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11284 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M