WPCr 2 BP Courier 10cpi3|wle)CG Times Bold (Scalable)XP3|wle)OM 244HPLASII0.PRSx  @HgYX@2<<L Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicHP LaserJet IIISi ROOM 244HPLASII0.PRSXj\  P6G;HgYXP X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;cP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#2pvp*kka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vGt1a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2   G  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2    a 1 a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2<< Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2 LGa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2~;3Gza7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:i<?^>@Oe?itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#2JGA @BAHBKDCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)x/c81,cc P7P7zC;,Xz_ p^7XV"G($,ThG P7hPd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82pb@gk"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d2>pu2z\~"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ88wC;,ZXw P7XPx/c81,cc P7P7zC;,Xz_ p^7XV"G($,ThG P7hPH<!, y,< P7,P&z-b81,-9b&_ x$&7X&6uC;,-.Xu&_ x$&7XXy.f81,|f_ p^7<;#FxX  g9CXP#2=~ ; 2p Y- X   : Y-  Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 96304 ă  yxdddy (J Before the  Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă #Xj\  P6G;ZXP#  Y-In the Matter of hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  Yw-Request For Declaratory Ruling on the Use)ppDA 951854  Y`-of Digital Modulation by MultipointV)  YI-Distribution Service and InstructionalV)  Y2-Television Fixed Service Stationshh,V)pp  Y -  DECLARATORY RULING AND ORDER ă l#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#у   Y -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Moreover, the Petitioners requesting this ruling are comprised of MDS and ITFS licensees,   /wireless cable operators, equipment manufacturers, industry engineers, the Wireless Cable   Association International, Inc. and other industry groups, representing a strong and rare   consensus amongst significant industry participants, who often have divergent interests. Accordingly, we "H0*%%[["Ԍ   believe that a declaratory ruling on an interim approach to the employment of digital technology  Y-in the MDS and ITFS services is the appropriate measure at this juncture.6 U zP4-  ԍxCf. Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the  xFrequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service, Multipoint  xhDistribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed Service, and Cable  zP- xTelevision Relay Service, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6410 (1990) (hereinafter Wireless Cable Order). In the  zPX- x=Wireless Cable Order, the Commission encouraged MDS and ITFS licensees to apply for authorization to use  xComband analog compression technology, which would expand wireless cable channel capacity. The Commission,  xhowever, declined to conduct a rulemaking proceeding: "Because Comband and other such technologies are still in  zP - xdevelopment, we will not make specific rule modifications at this time." Id.  at 6417. Similarly, Petitioners liken  xtheir request to the initial requests to use digital modulation in the DBS service, where the Mass Media Bureau also  xkavoided a lengthy rulemaking proceeding and authorized digital transmission on the basis of minor license  zP - xmodification applications. See United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 7247, 7249 (Vid.  zP - x-Serv. Div. 1992) (hereinafter USSB); Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 8116, 8117 (Vid. Serv.  zP-Div. 1993) (hereinafter Hughes).  7. The following eight parties filed timely comments on this request for declaratory  Yv-  \ruling:a\v U zP-  ԍxSee Public Notice, Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Request for Declaratory Ruling on the Use  zP- xof Digital Modulation by Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Stations, 10 FCC Rcd 10915 (Mass Media Bur. 1995).a Bell Atlantic; vU xP-  ԍxThe Bell Atlantic telephone companies are Bell AtlanticDelaware, Inc., Bell AtlanticMaryland, Inc., Bell  xAtlanticNew Jersey, Inc., Bell AtlanticPennsylvania, Inc., Bell AtlanticVirginia, Inc., Bell AtlanticWashington,  xD.C., Inc. and Bell AtlanticWest Virginia, Inc. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX Corporation recently made a substantial investment in CAI Wireless Systems, Inc., an existing wireless cable operator. NYNEX Corporation (NYNEX); Hammett & Edison, Inc. (Hammett),   consulting engineers; ITS Corporation (ITS), an equipment manufacturer and cosignor of the  YH-  jPetition; Kraskin & Lessee, on behalf of several independent telephone companies; HU xP-  ԍxAlenco Communications, Inc., Brazoria Telephone Company, Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc.,  xYCoastal Utilities, Inc., Coleman County Broadcasting, Inc., Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Horry Telephone  xCooperative, Inc., Reserve Telephone Company, Inc., Tohono O'odham Utility Authority and XIT Telecommunication and Technology, Inc. the Rural  Y1-  Wireless Cable Coalition (Rural Coalition);1U xP -  ԍxThe members of the Rural Coalition, Central Texas Wireless TV, Inc., Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Adams Telecom, Inc., provide wireless cable service in Texas, New Mexico and Illinois. SR Telecom Inc. (SR Telecom), an equipment   =manufacturer; and Tarrant County Junior College District, Education Service Center Region 10   and Richardson Independent School District (Tarrant County), ITFS licensees in the DallasFort Worth area. Petitioners filed a timely reply. " 0*%%[[ "Ԍ   }8. The commenters generally support the Petition and the Commission's efforts to  Y-  facilitate the transition of wireless cable to digital technology.U xP4-  ԍxPetitioners emphasize that not one commenting party has opposed a grant of the requested ruling. Reply at 2. Most of the commenters believe   that the transitional approach outlined in the requested ruling will increase the competitive   viability of wireless cable in the MVPD marketplace by allowing operators to offer a competitive   number of channels, without causing harmful interference to existing analog systems, and  Y_-without the unnecessary regulatory delay of a rulemaking proceeding.zZ_ U zP0 -  ԍxSee, e.g., Comments of Bell Atlantic at 24 (For comparative purposes, Bell Atlantic states that a competing  x.MVPD system, DIRECTV, Inc., offers approximately 175 channels on a digital basis through DBS service.); NYNEX at 36; Hammett at 12; Kraskin & Lessee at 12; Rural Coalition at 12.z  Y1-1 III. DISCUSSION ă  X - A. Commission Rules and Cases in Support of Authorization of Digital Modulation  9. Petitioners recognize that the MDS and ITFS rules contained in Parts 21 and 74 are   oriented toward transmission of NTSC analog video programming signals, but they nonetheless   jmaintain that the rules allow for a variety of modulation schemes, and that the Commission has   ?interpreted the rules to promote such flexibility where no cochannel or adjacent channel  Yz-  ^interference will result. Petition at 34. See, e.g., General Electric Co., 60 RR 2d 1665  Ye-  /(Comm. Car. Bur. 1986) (hereinafter Comband I); General Electric Co., 61 RR 2d 143 (Mass  YP-  Media Bur. 1986) (hereinafter Comband II). In particular, Petitioners refer to the similar   =language describing emissions in Sections 21.905 and 74.936 of the Commission's Rules. Both   jof these rules provide that MDS or ITFS stations will "normally" employ amplitude modulation   for the transmission of the visual signal and frequency modulation for the aural signal. 47   \C.F.R.  21.905(a) and 74.936(a). Petitioners suggest that the use of the term "normally" in   yboth rules reflects a recognition by the Commission that modulation schemes other than NTSC   may be appropriate for MDS and ITFS. Petition at 1213 n.23. Petitioners further point out   {that Section 21.905(b) specifically contemplates that "[f]or purposes other than standard  Y-  television transmission, different types of emissions may be authorized . . . ." See Petition at  Y-  .3 n.4. In promulgating the initial rules governing the MDS service, including Section 21.905,BU xPx!-ԍxSection 21.905(a) and (b) has remained essentially unchanged since its inception.   {the Commission expressed confidence that MDS licensees "will imaginatively exploit the  YW-  technical possibilities of MDS." Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 43 of the Commission's   Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio"B0*%%[["  Y-  Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 619 (1974) (hereinafter MDS  Y-  Allocation Order). Moreover, nothing in the original implementation of Section 74.936+&U zPd-  >ԍxSee Amendment of Parts 2 and 4 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Establish a New Class of  xZEducational Television Service for the Transmission of Instructional and Cultural Material to Multiple Receiving  zP- xLocations on Channels in the 19902110 Mc/s or 25002690 Mc/s Frequency Band, 39 FCC 846 (1963) (hereinafter  zP-ITFS Allocation Order). Section 74.936 was originally codified as Section 4.936.+  Y-  controverts Petitioners' interpretation of that rule.U xP=-  ԍxThe Mass Media Bureau has held that while Section 74.936, among other rules dealing with ITFS technical  xstandards, is predicated on the assumption that NTSC transmission will be utilized, other transmission formats may  xbe considered where, as here, actual experimental test results are submitted for evaluation to insure that acceptable  zP - xxperformance standards are achieved. See Comband II, 61 RR 2d at 14546, where the Bureau concluded that the  xxuse of Comband analog compression technology is consistent with the ITFS technical standards in Part 74 of the Commission's Rules. Thus, we agree with Petitioners' reading   of Sections 21.905 and 74.936 as allowing sufficient latitude for authorization of digital transmissions over MDS and ITFS stations.  0 10. Other rules applicable to MDS and ITFS in Parts 21 and 74 also permit authorization   kof the use of digital technology. Section 21.907(c) provides in part that "[i]n addition to the   standard television transmission service . . . the licensee may offer a television service not   >meeting such standards if the tariff or contract clearly describes the type and quality of the   service and distinguishes it from the standard service . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  21.907(c). As was   explained nearly 10 years ago in a declaratory ruling authorizing the use of Comband analog   Lcompression technology for MDS transmissions, "Section (c) of 21.907 was specifically added   jto enable MDS carriers to use nonstandard transmitters and to encourage developments such  Y -  Mas Comband." Comband I, 60 RR 2d at 1669; see also MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at  Y -  \62324.dZ 0 U xP-  ԍxWhile Section 21.907 was revised in 1987 in the context of a rulemaking permitting MDS licensees to  xprovide service on a noncommon carrier basis, the rule was not changed substantively with respect to the provisions  zP-discussed supra and infra.d Furthermore, in amending Section 74.938, the Commission elaborated that "we are   persuaded that ITFS operators should not be restricted to NTSC format . . . when other video   standards may be better suited to their needs. . . . For these reasons, we are amending our rules  Yh-  to relax the technical standards for ITFS transmissions." Amendment of Part 74 of the  YS-  <Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, 98  Y>-FCC 2d 925, 928 (1984) (hereinafter ITFS Technical Order).  | 11. Petitioners also cite several cases to support authorization of digital transmission"R 0*%%[["  Y-  under the current rules. In Comband I and Comband II, the Common Carrier Bureau$U xPy- kԍUntil June, 1994, when we centralized the processing and regulatory jurisdiction over wireless cable in the  zPA-  Mass Media Bureau, the Common Carrier Bureau had responsibility for MDS. See Amendment of Parts 0 and 1   of the Commission's Rules to Reflect a Reorganization of Multipoint and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service  zP-Regulation, 9 FCC Rcd 3661 (1994). and Mass   Media Bureau, respectively, authorized for MDS and ITFS licensees use of Comband analog   compression technology, which allows for transmission of two analog video signals on a single   6 MHz channel. The Bureaus concluded that the Comband system is consistent with Parts 21   Land 74 of the Commission's Rules and approved the use of Comband, subject to application to   the Commission in individual cases, where the applicant could demonstrate noninterference and   where the applicant specified a type accepted Comband transmitter. The Commission later   confirmed that "[t]here is nothing in our current rules to restrict use of Comband transmission   by MDS or ITFS licensees, and we do intend, when possible, to accommodate the widest   possible voluntary usage of this or any other technology that can achieve spectrum efficiencies  Y -  of this nature." Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6417.F U zP- ԍSimilarly, in USSB, Hughes' DBS application to employ digital modulation was granted on the condition   that the use of digital modulation would require no more interference protection than the system used for planning   ;purposes in applicable international agreements. 7 FCC Rcd at 7249. The Video Services Division later determined   that the use of digital transmission as proposed by Hughes would not cause greater interference than that caused by  zP-  ,the system used for planning purposes, and the condition was removed from the authorization. Hughes, 8 FCC Rcd  zPm-  kat 8117. While DBS is not governed by Parts 21 or 74 of the Commission's Rules, USSB and Hughes are   illustrative of other instances where digital video transmission authority has been granted on the condition of meeting existing interference criteria. These cases further confirm our   finding that the regulatory framework in Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules governing  Y -  MDS and ITFST U zPc-ԍSee paras. 910, supra.T can accommodate the use of transmission formats other than NTSC analog, including the use of digital modulation techniques.  Y - n 12. SR Telecom supports the Petition provided that any subsequent rule changes   facilitate, rather than impede, the provision over the MDS spectrum of digital wireless loop  Y}-  service, a twoway communications service. SR Telecom Comments at 45. In response to SR   Telecom's comments, Petitioners explain that the testing underlying the Petition did not evaluate   any twoway transmissions, and involved the use of modulation methods that differ significantly   from the method proposed by SR Telecom. "Thus, the record is inadequate to permit a reasoned   discussion of the merits of SR's wireless local loop system." Reply at 2 n.2. Petitioners suggest   =that the Commission invite SR Telecom to submit a detailed petition which should include test  Y-  data and proposed interference standards. Id. The Commission recently reiterated that "[w]e   will allow alternative uses other than wireless cable video transmission if the applicant can  Y-  satisfy MDS technical rules or adequately support waivers of those rules." MDS Auction" T 0*%%[[S"  Y-  Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 13825. However, as Petitioners indicate, no data was   zsubmitted here for consideration of the merits of SR Telecom's proposal. Therefore, we find   Kclarification of the use of digital wireless loop technology on MDS frequencies beyond the scope  Y-of this ruling.xU xP6-ԍOur action is without prejudice to any subsequent filing by SR Telecom.x  Y- B. Modulation Methods  Yb-  13. Petitioners request interim authorization of two types of digital modulation:   Quadrature Amplitude Modulation ("QAM") and Vestigial Sideband ("VSB"). While the test   data submitted in support of the Petition focuses on the specific densities of 64QAM and 8  VSB, Petitioners also seek Commission authorization for the use of both higher and lower   modulation densities of QAM and VSB, to gain experience with "a wider array of . . .  Y -  lmodulation densities . . . before permanent rules can be adopted." Petition at 9 .|Z XU xP- .ԍPetitioners also report that other test results for 32QAM modulation, obtained at the Advanced Television   Testing Center in connection with our Digital Television proceeding, "are very consistent with" the test results  zP-produced in support of the Petition. Id. at 24 n.39.| While   supporting the Petition, NYNEX questions Petitioners' commitment to "conform . . . operation   to whatever permanent rules the Commission may adopt in the future to govern digital  Y -  modulation . . . ." Petition at 12; see NYNEX Comments at 78. NYNEX argues that   <licensees should avoid interference with other licensees as may be required by current and future   rules, but should not be required to commit to a subsequent changeout in the digital technology   deployed merely because the Commission adopts a different "standard" modulation technology.   NYNEX explains that "[t]here are currently two competing methods of digital modulation (QAM   and VSB), with perhaps others in development, which should be authorized by the Commission.   !Thereafter, each provider will make an election of technology by market. . . . There is no   Nreason for the Commission to chose [sic] among competing technologies or to specify a   \standard' technology." NYNEX Comments at 8 (footnote omitted). NYNEX observes that   ]while a licensee is likely to use a single technology for each market, which would make a   Zsubsequent changeout in technology particularly costly and challenging, the Commission should   allow different digital modulation technologies to be deployed by different licensees in the same  Y-  market, or by the same licensee in different markets. Id. at 89. Petitioners did not reply to these comments.  YU-  14. Though Petitioners request authorization of the use of QAM and VSB modulation,   they do not ask for adoption of a "standard" technology or the exclusion of other modulation   .methods. In fact, Petitioners specify that they do not "mean to suggest that other modulation   0methods . . . cannot be employed under appropriate circumstances." Petition at 15 n.27.   Petitioners add that if the proponent of another digital modulation method can demonstrate that" z0*%%[["   its proposal will not cause harmful interference, there is no reason not to issue a declaratory  Y-  ruling similar to that requested by Petitioners. Id.U xPb- lԍWe will consider future requests for declaratory ruling where the requesters can demonstrate that their   proposals satisfy MDS and ITFS technical rules or adequately support waivers of those rules. In particular,   requesters would need to show that other modulation techniques could be used in a manner that would not interfere  zP-  <with MDS and ITFS analog and digital operations. See Comband II, 61 RR 2d at 14546 ("When other formats   . . . are considered . . . we believe that it is appropriate to rely upon actual experimental test results to insure that acceptable performance standards are achieved."). We are not now proposing to adopt one   Lor more "standard" digital technologies. This ruling is limited to QAM and VSB. We interpret   Sections 21.905, 21.907(c), 74.936, and 74.938 of the Commission's Rules as enabling us to   authorize use of these digital modulation formats over MDS and ITFS stations, provided that  Y-  >such use will not result in harmful interference. See paras. 910, supra and para. 52, infra. BU zP -ԍSee also Comband I, 60 RR 2d at 1670; Comband II, 61 RR 2d at 146.  Yz-  As set forth below, based on the test results submitted by Petitioners, we agree with Petitioners   that use of the VSB and QAM modulation formats up to the densities of 8VSB and 64QAM,  YL-  together with the current MDS and ITFS interference protection criteria,Q!LU zP-ԍSee para. 22, infra.Q would not be likely to cause harmful interference to MDS and ITFS service.  Y - 15. Petitioners also argue that using QAM and VSB "will ensure excellent interference   protection no matter what densities of VSB or QAM are employed for the digital signals."  Y -  kPetition at 2425; see para. 20, infra. We are persuaded that the wireless cable industry also   should have an opportunity to gain practical experience with higher modulation densities, those   up to 16VSB and 256QAM. This is consistent with our interpretation of the rules for emission   types, as discussed above. However, we wish to ensure that use of higher densities will not   ?present an increased likelihood of causing harmful interference to MDS or ITFS service.   Therefore, MDS and ITFS licensees may utilize such densities provided, in their applications,   jthey submit supplemental measurement data specific to these higher modulation levels, akin to  Y:-  the data provided by Petitioners in support of the Petition. See Petition at Appendix B,  Y%-  Rationale for Interim Implementation of Wireless Cable Digital Transmission (hereinafter Interim  Y-  Implementation Report); Report on Wireless Cable Interference Testing, April 27May 4, 1995  Y-  (hereinafter Interference Testing Report). But see para. 19, infra. We will provide additional   ?flexibility by not prohibiting the simultaneous deployment of different authorized digital  Y-  [technologies in the same market by different licensees.T"Zf U zP!- !ԍAs described in para. 52, infra, we will accept modification applications or amendments to use digital   technology pursuant to this ruling on a per station basis. Therefore, we will not require a licensee to use the same modulation in different markets.T Further, pursuant to Sections 21.905,   ]21.907(c), and 74.936 of the Commission's Rules, which provide for use of more than one" "0*%%[[R"  Y-  .emission type,T#U zPy-ԍSee paras. 910, supra.T during this interim period, licensees may alternate between analog and digital   Otransmission systems, in order to compare their effects and make full use of available  Y-transmitting and receiving facilities.$ZU zP-ԍSee paras. 4546, infra. See also Tarrant County Comments at 4.   X-  X-C. Interference Considerations  Y_- 16. As the cornerstone of their interim proposals for digital wireless cable, Petitioners   emphasize that the Commission must assure that use of digital modulation will not cause harmful  Y1-  .electromagnetic interference to nearby analog or digital stations. See Petition at 16. Based on   industry test results, Petitioners submit that use of the existing interference protection ratios for   analog MDS and ITFS stations, together with a small relaxation in the currently permitted levels   of outofchannel emissions, is a conservative approach that would provide more than adequate  Y -interference protection to such stations. See id. at 2122 and 2728.  X - 1. Test Procedures  Y}- 17. The Petition appends a report of the findings of extensive tests that have been   /conducted with 64QAM and 8VSB modulation in a closed laboratory setting using actual  YO-  wireless cable equipment, as well as ITFS equipment and receiving configurations.d%ZOU xP- {ԍPetitioners state that 2,337 subjective evaluations and measurements were conducted. These tests are   described generally in the Petition at 1822. A full description of the test procedures and results is given in the  zP|-Interim Implementation Report.d Two basic   receive installations were employed in the tests, one replicating a typical wireless cable   subscriber installation and the other simulating an ITFS receive site that is not part of a wireless   cable system. With each configuration, several television receivers were used, and for each   -combination of equipment and transmission mode, the thresholds of perceptibility of interference   \to pictures and sound were measured, as well as the signal ratios producing a CCIR grade 4   level of television picture impairment. Petitioners explain that CCIR grade 4 was employed for  Y-  =these tests to provide a conservative safety margin of interference protection.&U xPm - ԍThe CCIR impairment scale grades are: 5 Imperceptible; 4 Perceptible, but not annoying; 3 Slightly annoying; 2 Annoying; and 1 Very annoying. Petition at 20 n.35. Accordingly,  Y-  ZPetitioners conclude that the interference results discussed in the Interim Implementation Report   [demonstrate a level of interference protection to existing NTSC analog facilities better than the" f &0*%%[["  Y-  current analogtoanalog protection.T'U xPy- ԍThe current 45 dB cochannel desiredtoundesired (D/U) signal strength ratio is based on TASO grade 3  zPA-  jpicture quality, which is defined as "passable." Report of the Television Allocations Study Organization to the  zP -  Federal Communications Commission (March, 1959). We agree with Petitioners that digitaltoanalog protection   standards based on a CCIR grade 4 result offer greater protection than do the current analog standards. We further   <agree with Petitioners that CCIR grade 4 quality should be treated as an interim measure, to be reexamined when  zPe-more information becomes available on the performance of digital technology. See Petition at 21 n.36.T Petition at 2021. Petitioners emphasize that the tests   analyzed only the susceptibility of analog MDS/ITFS reception to cochannel and adjacent  Y-  channel interference caused by digital signals.7(FU xP -  ԍAll interference results submitted with the Petition reflected the relationship between the peak power of  zP -NTSC analog signals and the average power of digital signals. Id. at 1920 n.32; see paras. 2627, infra.7 Because digital signals are "more robust to   interference" than are analog signals, application of the digitaltoanalog protection ratios to  Y-  digitaltodigital reception will even further limit the likelihood of interference. Petition at 21 Y-22; see Interim Implementation Report at 3.  Ya- 18. Based on the results of these tests, Petitioners conclude that under their requested   interim parameters and rule waivers, QAM and VSB digital modulation can be implemented  Y3-  without causing interference to analog systems or other digital systems. Petition at 17.   Petitioners maintain that following the technical proposals described below will enable the   [Commission to authorize the use of digital modulation techniques without requiring applicants   to present information beyond the standard interference studies now required by 47 C.F.R.   \  21.902 and 74.903, and without the staff conducting any materially different engineering   analysis than is now used to process MDS and ITFS applications. Petition at 18. Petitioners   also state that the Commission should rapidly grant applications to use digital technology based on the consent of all neighboring stations, where such consent is obtained. Petition at 16.  Yd- 19. Petitioners concede that as the modulation densities are increased, the susceptibility   of digital receivers to interference likewise increases. Thus, Petitioners encourage the continued   Nuse of the current conservative 45 dB cochannel and 0 dB adjacent channel interference   protection criteria in order to accommodate use of high modulation densities, until further testing  Y-  can be completed to establish optimum digital interference criteria. Petition at 22 n.38; see para.  Y-  20, infra. While we believe that the current interference protection criteria are sufficiently   conservative, we specify that we will not provide additional interference protection for digital systems with higher modulation densities.  Y- 2. Interference Protection Ratios and OutofBand Emissions Limitations   Yl- 20. Petitioners first propose the continued employment of the current 45 dB cochannel"l (0*%%[["  Y-  and 0 dB adjacent channel)U zPy- 0ԍSee Sections 21.902(b) and 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules. Under Section 74.903(a)(2), ITFS   [stations constructed before May 26, 1983 are entitled to at least 10 dB adjacent channel desiredtoundesired   ("D/U") protection, unless the receive site under consideration has been subsequently upgraded to utilize more   modern equipment. This ruling will refer to the 0 dB standard that is applicable to MDS stations and to most ITFS   receive sites, but does not modify the additional measure of D/U protection accorded ITFS stations constructed before May 26, 1983. D/U signal strength ratios as interim interference protection criteria,   ?while awaiting the results of further testing from which to develop recommendations for   permanent protection ratios. Petitioners assert that the tests conducted verify that these   interference criteria, when applied to a digitaltoanalog interference situation, will yield a   picture quality better than the picture currently delivered when these criteria are applied to an  Y-  lanalogtoanalog interference situation. Petition at 24.* BU xP - LԍThe test results show that cochannel and adjacent channel protection ratios of 45 dB and 0 dB, respectively,   yield a picture quality between CCIR grade 4, where interference is "perceptible, but not annoying," and the   threshold of visibility ("TOV"), where the effects of the interfering, undesired signal first become visible in the   picture of the desired signal. For example, in the case of a scrambled, desired analog signal, for 64 QAM   modulation of the undesired signal, the mean cochannel D/U ratios for all receivers tested are 46.9 dB for TOV   <and 40.5 dB for a CCIR grade 4 picture quality; for 8VSB digital modulation, the corresponding mean values are  zP0-  ,45.6 dB for TOV and 39.1 dB for CCIR grade 4. Petition at 19, 2324; see Interference Testing Report at 4, 2526.   The 45 dB protection ratio now applied between stations with analog transmissions yields a "passable" TASO grade  zP-3 picture quality. See note 39, supra.ĥ The tests also showed that the   degradation in aural distortion and stereo separation caused by 0 dB adjacent channel operation  Y_-  is "insignificant" in a digitaltoanalog interference situation. Id. Petitioners additionally   maintain that adhering to the current interference criteria as an interim step will allow an easy  Y3-fallback to analog transmission if such a change becomes necessary. Id.  Y - "21. Petitioners further request relaxation of the limitations on outofband emissions   .(spectral mask), found in Sections 21.908(b) and 74.936(b) of the Commission's Rules, as these   limitations relate to digital emissions. Specifically, Petitioners seek outofband emission limitations of:  Y- B  38 dB attenuation relative to the licensed average power levelQ+l zP[-ԍSee para. 27, infra.Q at the channel  edges, constant slope attenuation from that level to 60 dB attenuation at 3 MHz  #above the upper and below the lower channel edge, and 60 dB attenuation below  YO-the licensed average power level at all other frequencies.,$$Ol xP"-ԍSections 21.908(b) and 74.936(b) both currently provide for outofband emissions limitations of:  zP8$- |  38 dB relative to the peak visual carrier at the channel edges and constant slope attenuation from  zP%- this level to 60 dB . . . at 1 MHz below the lower band edge and 0.5 MHz above the upper band"%+0*%%-%"  zP- edge. All outofband emissions extending beyond these frequencies shall be attenuated at least  zPZ-60 dB below the peak visual carrier power.   47 C.F.R.  21.908(b) and 74.936(b) (emphasis added)."O,0*%%[[ "Ԍ  ԙ  Petition at 26. Petitioners contend that application of the current analog spectral mask to digital   [use during the interim period both would be unnecessarily restrictive and could be very costly  Y-  kto wireless cable operators; for example, requiring the use of expensive filtering. Petitioners   report that the tests underlying the Petition demonstrate that even when the spectral mask is   loosened, as proposed, a digital station is less likely to cause adjacent channel interference than  Y-  Man analog station meeting the existing mask. Id. at 27./-U xP - zԍA sensitivity analysis was performed on the proposed spectral mask. This analysis demonstrated that the  zP -proposed mask provides more protection than the current analog mask. See Interference Testing Report at 2734./ Therefore, Petitioners assert that a   "blanket waiver" of Sections 21.908(b) and 74.936(b) for digital transmitters will benefit the   y"public interest in rapid, lowcost introduction of digital technology" in that it "will allow much   <of the installed base of analog transmission equipment to be converted rapidly and inexpensively  Y3-to digital usage without sacrificing interference protection standards." Id. at 2728.  Y - 22. We have reviewed the test results submitted with the Petition and are satisfied that   retaining the current 45 dB cochannel and 0 dB adjacent channel D/U signal strength protection   ratios will enable us as an interim step to authorize the use of the QAM and VSB digital   modulation formats requested by Petitioners without harmful interference to analog MDS and  Y -  1ITFS service. See paras. 1415 and note 39, supra. In view of the results obtained in   kconnection with the Commission's Digital Television proceeding, we are also confident that  Y-  harmful interference will not occur among digital MDS and ITFS stations. See Final Report and  Yj-  LRecommendations of the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service (November 28, 1995).  Y'- ^23. Generally, unless there is an interference agreement between the affected parties,   applicants must protect the 56.33 km (35 mile) service areas of MDS "incumbent" stations, those   authorized or proposed on or before September 18, 1995. Such interference protection must also   [be afforded to previously authorized or proposed service areas of ITFS stations. In expanding   the protected service areas of ITFS stations and MDS incumbent stations, we recognized that   there would be situations in which two expanded service areas would overlap. Accordingly, we   yadopted a limited exception to the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service area definition to govern  Y-  jmodification applications of MDS incumbents, where two protected service areas overlap. See  Yq-  Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 708384. In such cases,   applicants are allowed to request waiver of the protection criteria in Section 21.902 of the   Commission's Rules. The waiver submission must demonstrate that the facilities proposed in   the modification application will not increase the size of the geographic area predicted to receive".-0*%%[[>"   >interference, nor be predicted to cause harmful interference to any new portion of the other station's protected area.  Y- 24. Consistent with use of our existing interference criteria, the limited exception  Y-  described in para. 23, supra, will also apply to modification applications of MDS incumbents   seeking use of digital technology. We note that the same physical situation will be encountered   by "ITFS incumbents" whose facilities were either authorized or proposed on or before   kSeptember 18, 1995. The vast majority of these licensees are part of wireless cable systems,   Mhaving identical facilities to those of the MDS licensees in the same systems. Therefore, in   order to facilitate the introduction of digital technology on all of the channels in a wireless cable   jsystem, during the interim period, ITFS incumbent licensees applying for digital authority may,   }when applicable, request waiver of the interference criteria in Section 74.903 of the   [Commission's Rules based on the limited exception described above. This will further our goal   lof "enhancing the compatibility for the wireless cable operator who uses ITFS and MDS  Y -  channels." Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7079. This matter   will be revisited in a future rulemaking proceeding on use of digital technology in the MDS and ITFS services.  Yf- N25. We are also persuaded by Petitioners' arguments for interim waiver of the emissions   llimitations of Sections 21.908(b) and 74.936(b). When we considered the MDS and ITFS   spectral mask in 1990, we originally proposed a constant slope attenuation from the emission   Llevel at the channel edges to 60 dB attenuation at 3 MHz above the upper and below the lower  Y -  channel edge,. U zP- ԍSee Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules, Pertaining to Rules Governing   Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service,   hMultipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed Service,  zP-  xand Cable Television Relay Service, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry, 5 FCC Rcd 971, 977  zP-(1990) (hereinafter Wireless Cable NPRM). and Petitioners essentially reiterate that proposal here. While we eventually  Y-  adopted the more restrictive current spectral mask,c/~U zP"-ԍSee Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6421.c we did so, as Petitioners point out,J0U zP-ԍSee Petition at 27.J based   0on tests utilizing NTSC analog transmissions. We find, based on the digital test results   submitted by Petitioners, that we may allow Petitioners' proposed spectral mask as an interim   measure without sacrificing adjacent channel interference protection. Acceptable levels of out Y-  Lofband emissions shall reference the average transmitter output power. See para. 27 and note  Y-  54, infra. We also clarify that the relative power of outofband emissions shall be measured   with 100 kHz resolution bandwidth. As we have recently articulated, "[t]o maximize spectrum   efficiency . . . the shape of the emission mask [must] be designed to permit reasonable and   practical information transfer without excessively expensive filtering requirements. At the same"?00*%%[[{"   time, outofband emission limits must be judiciously selected to provide acceptable adjacent  Y-  channel protection." Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile   yRadio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and  Y-  Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, 10 FCC Rcd 10076,  Y-  /10117 (1995). 1"U xP!- ԍIn the Private Land Mobile Radio Services order, we approved a less restrictive spectral mask where, as   here, it provided acceptable adjacent channel interference protection. Our decision also rested on our finding that   "[e]xisting equipment would require redesign and the necessary modifications would not only be expensive but  zPy-would delay the use of 12.5 kHz bandwidth equipment in the marketplace." Id. at 10119.  Petitioners' proposed interim spectral mask will facilitate the swift, lowcost   introduction of digital technology to wireless cable, by allowing the use of existing transmission   equipment without the significant costs and delays associated with equipment upgrades. In this   Nmanner, the public interest is fulfilled, while at the same time, adequate adjacent channel interference protection is provided.   X - 3. Digital Power and Related Considerations   Y - 26. A major difference between analog and digital transmission systems is the measure   used to describe the transmitted power. For NTSC analog signals, the chosen measure is the   envelope power at the peak of the synchronizing pulses of the television video signal ("peak   !visual power"), which does not change appreciably during the course of normal station   operations. NTSC peak visual power is commonly thought of as a transmitter parameter;   Mhowever, it also determines the power radiated from a transmitting antenna, one measure of   which is the effective isotropically radiated power ("EIRP"). Digital signals based on VSB or   QAM modulation are different from NTSC signals. Except for a pilot carrier frequency in the  Y8-  [VSB format,Y28U zP-ԍSee paras. 30 and 32, infra.Y the digital signal waveform resembles random electrical noise, with many closely   ispaced irregular peaks at different levels evenly distributed above and below some average value,   ka value generally not affected by the modulating video signal. Therefore, digital signals are   Mnormally characterized by the "average" power in a 6 MHz digital channel, and calculations   jand/or measurements are made of average transmitter power, average EIRP, and average signal   [strength. In MDS and ITFS interference studies, a station's EIRP is entered into the free space   propagation formula to predict levels of desired and undesired signal strengths, which in turn   comprise the D/U interference protection ratios. The interim D/U protection ratios proposed   by Petitioners are based on measurements of the peak NTSC visual power of the "desired"   analog signal and the average power of the "undesired" digital signal, an established practice according to Petitioners:  _  This results in comparing apples and oranges.' So long as the measurements are  always made in the same way and the degree of acceptable interference is" D20*%%[[="  established using corresponding values, this is not a problem. Thus acceptable  Binterference from digitalintoanalog or from analogintodigital is expressed in  3decibels based upon the peak of one and the average of the other. This is the  Y-industry norm for describing such relationships.  Y-    Interim Implementation Report at 2. Accordingly, Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify that   all digital power measurements and values in the MDS and ITFS services be defined as average power levels. Petition at 20 n.32.   Y3- 27. We agree that average power, as described above, is a suitable measure for digital   transmissions, and is the most suitable for purposes of this interim ruling, in that it was a   measured variable in the testing in support of the Petitioner's interference protection proposals.   Thus, we determine here that interim digital authorizations for MDS and ITFS stations will   specify average values for EIRP, and that emissions in the spectral mask will reference the  Y -  0average powerQ3 U zP9-ԍSee para. 25, supra.Q in a 6 MHz bandwidth measured at the output of the digital transmitter.   Moreover, for purposes of this ruling, all other relevant signal propagation measures and  Y-  kparameters for digitally transmitted signals will reflect the use of average power; e.g., power  Y}-  Oflux density, received power, and electric field strength. As suggested in the Interim  Yh-  Implementation Report,[4hZU zPs-ԍInterim Implementation Report at 14.[ we will authorize digital transmissions with an average power level   k(EIRP) equal to the peak visual power (EIRP) of analog transmissions from the same facility.   Generally, applicants may seek an EIRP for their digital facilities up to the EIRP limits now   permitted in our rules for analog transmissions. An MDS or ITFS applicant proposing to use   an omnidirectional transmitting antenna may request authority to operate digitally with an EIRP   j(average) of up to 2,000 watts, based on compliance with the interim standards and procedures  Y-  for interference protection, spectral mask, and spectral energy dispersion. See para. 30, infra.  Y-  .This policy will facilitate the use of existing equipment (e.g., portions of an analog transmitter) and the rapid introduction of digital wireless cable systems into the competitive marketplace.  Y- 28. As a practical matter, in order to control the undesired effects of large amplitude   .peaks in a digital signal, "it will be necessary to back off' the power output by as much as 67  YZ-  kdB (to a level of 2025 per cent of the rated analog power output)."  Interim Implementation  YE-  Report at 14. According to Petitioners, some stations may find it necessary to temporarily   /operate with reduced power until they begin to operate with fully digital transmitters; thus,   <Petitioners request that the Commission permit licensees to operate at less than authorized power  Y-  during the interim period. Section 21.107(c) provides that transmitter power must be maintained   "as near as practicable" to the power specified in the station authorization, and Section 74.951(f)   states that a formal application is required for a change in operating power. 47 C.F.R. " 40*%%[["     21.107(c) and 74.591(f). Petitioners explain that a licensee may need to operate at reduced   power: (1) to eliminate distortion otherwise caused by irregular power peaks in the digital signal;   (2) to achieve the required 45 dB D/U protection ratio with respect to a closelyspaced station  Y-  that had been licensed through consent or through the use of frequency offset techniques;5zU xP4- ԍFrequency offset is a deviation in frequency from the nominal position of a carrier frequency in a given   Ychannel. This deviation makes the two signals with certain differences in frequencies less susceptible to interference   from each other. Petitioners contend that frequency offset techniques are of no utility in reducing interference   caused by a station utilizing digital modulation, because the digital signal is spread uniformly across the channel   bandwidth. Therefore, Petitioners maintain that absent successful coordination among the affected parties, a station   now providing less than 45 dB D/U cochannel interference protection must reduce power in order to convert to use  zP -of digital technology. Petition at 29 n.53. See paras. 3334, infra. or   (3) because its existing transmitter equipment is incapable of meeting even the relaxed limitations   on outofband emissions proposed by Petitioners. Petition at 2829. Generally permitting   ylicensees converting to digital technology to operate at reduced power on an interim basis will,   LPetitioners assert, avert a flood of individual requests for special temporary authority. This, in   turn, will add an element of certainty, reduce Commission staff workload, and expedite the deployment of digital technology in the wireless cable industry. Petition at 30.  Y - P29. We are persuaded by Petitioners' justification of their request for operation at   .reduced power by licensees employing digital modulation during this interim period. We note   that our rules contemplate operation at reduced power where necessary to avoid harmful  Y -  interference. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  74.903(a) ("Interference may also be controlled through  Y -  . . . use of the minimum power required to provide the needed service."). See also Second  Y-  "Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7084 ("There are a number of   engineering techniques which can be used [by an MDS applicant], singularly or in combination,   to avoid or eliminate the potential for harmful interference. Examples of such techniques include   k. . . decrease of transmitter power . . . ."). Interpreting Sections 21.107(c) and 74.951(f) to the   extent of permitting, without application to the Commission, operation at less than authorized   -power will expedite introduction of digital technology in the wireless cable industry, as described   by Petitioners. Although MDS licensees may operate with reduced power without notifying the   Commission, licensees are cautioned that interference protection will be based on the authorized EIRP.   Y- O30. While we agree with the specification of average power for digital transmissions,   =we are concerned that the power spectrum of digital signals be properly shaped to produce an  Y-  average power that is meaningful for controlling interference; i.e., that the power spectral   density be uniform across the digital channel. To achieve this uniformity, the digital signal input   must be suitably randomized before being modulated, in order to avoid "symbol patterns"   (clustering of high energy symbols) that cause significant power peaks in the digital spectral   waveform, which in turn increases the potential for cochannel interference. Accordingly, we"( 50*%%[[>"   believe it is necessary to stipulate interim measures for ensuring that adequate energy dispersal   will be provided at all times for digitally modulated signals, including times when no data (input   signal) is applied to the transmitter. The means of energy dispersal shall insure substantially   =uniform power spectral density across the occupied bandwidth (within the 3 dB power points)   of the signal, except for the spectral region of any system pilot carrier used, when averaged over   both relatively long and short periods. Such energy dispersal may be accomplished through the   use of data randomization by scrambling the digital signal input with a pseudo random binary   sequence ("PRBS") generated from a polynomial randomizer. Other methods of energy dispersal   are possible. However, no segment of the bandwidth of the transmitter output signal, other than  Y1-  =at the pilot frequency, shall be above the energy level expected for uniform dispersal.61U xP K @ԍThe expected power level for any segment of a uniformly dispersed signal is expressed as 10 log10   (frequency segment in kHz / frequency passband in kHz) dB below the power level for the total signal. For  zP: -  licensees using existing equipment modified for digital transmissions, see para. 40, infra, the average digital   transmitter output power will be considered to be the rated peak visual output power of the analog transmitter. In   the case of a new digital transmitter design, the average digital transmitter output power will be the manufacturer's rated power. When   ktransmitting a VSB signal, a small inphase pilot carrier may be added to the data signal. As   [another safeguard against interference, we stipulate that the level of the pilot carrier be at least   !11.3 dB below the average signal power. We believe that these additional measures are   necessary during the interim period covered by this ruling; particularly, in view of our permitted  Y -  use of transmission equipment that has not been type accepted for digital operation.U7 BU zP-ԍSee paras. 3941, infra.U In this   =regard, we will require licensees of stations that will operate transmitters not type accepted for   \digital use to test the inchannel power dispersal, pilot carrier level and level of outofband   Lemissions, and certify compliance with the above provisions. Testing of the power dispersion   at the output of such transmitters shall be made both with and without the presence of a digital   input signal to the transmitter. A statement certifying compliance with the above provisions,   accompanying the licensee's certification or notification to the Commission that construction of   the station has been completed, will be a necessary condition for obtaining digital operating  Y-authority. See para. 41, infra.  X- 4. Use of Frequency Offset Techniques and Frequency Tolerance   Y- 31. With respect to frequency tolerance, Petitioners state that 47 C.F.R.  21.101 and   .74.961 can and should continue to apply, but that for some types of digital signals, there is no   carrier frequency to measure. Petition at 33. Petitioners additionally maintain that frequency   offset techniques are of no utility in reducing interference caused by a station employing digital  YP-modulation.P8PU zP$-ԍSee note 53, supra.P Petitioners cite our recent acknowledgement that:"Pf 80*%%[["Ԍ ԙ  We are especially concerned about the imminent transition from analog to digital  _transmissions for MDS stations and the effect of frequency offset transmitters on  that transition. . . . [I]t is possible that our authorization of an involuntary  frequency offset may frustrate the subsequent conversion of [a] particular MDS station to digital compression technology. This is not a desirable result.  Yv-  \  Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7093; see Petition at 29 n.53.   kThus, Petitioners request that the Commission "reiterate" that it will not mandate frequency   offset operations for stations utilizing digital modulation, despite the provisions of Sections   21.905(c) and 74.961(c) of the Commission's Rules that MDS or ITFS licensees may be required to use frequency offset to avoid or minimize interference. Petition at 29 n.53.  Y - 32. We concur that frequency tolerance is not relevant to the digital modulation systems   involved herein, with the exception of the pilot carrier frequency in VSB systems. Testing of   the 8VSB modulation in connection with our advanced digital television proceeding has   discovered that the "beating" of the pilot carrier and visual carrier frequency of a lower adjacent   \NTSC channel can introduce interference in the adjacent NTSC channel. This effect can be   mitigated by precisely controlling the difference (offset) between the two frequencies.   [Accordingly, we believe that there may be some utility in frequency offset operation involving   VSB digital transmissions. However, in this ruling, we will not mandate either a frequency   joffset or a tolerance for the 8VSB pilot carrier. In view of the nature of the collocated adjacent   channel stations that comprise wireless cable systems, this is a matter best left for now to the   0control of system operators. Thus, also keeping in mind our pronounced concerns that   involuntary frequency offset may in fact frustrate the ability of an MDS or ITFS station to   convert to digital transmissions, we grant, on an interim basis, Petitioners' request that we not  Y-  mandate frequency offset operations for stations utilizing digital modulation,59"U xP<- ԍWe note, however, that by requesting that we "reiterate" that we will not mandate use of frequency offset   by such stations, Petitioners may have misinterpreted our recent statements regarding mandatory frequency offset.   We stated that we will continue to evaluate involuntary MDS frequency offset proposals for analog transmissions  zP-on a case by case basis. See Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7093 n.14.5 subject to the  Y-  outcome of any future rulemaking proceeding. See Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration  Y-  Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 7093. Nonetheless, we encourage the inclusion of pilot carrier offset   studies in the additional program of testing to be conducted by those in the wireless cable industry, looking toward the adoption of permanent rules for digital systems.  X=- 5. Responsibility and Procedures for Alleviating Potential and Actual Interference  Y-  33. While Hammett generally supports the Petition, it raises as an issue Petitioners'   treatment of existing wireless cable stations that have engineered their systems, on the basis of   frequency offsets, to allow cochannel D/U signal ratios of less than the 45 dB which is required"90*%%[["   for nonoffset operation. Specifically, Hammett is concerned about the statement that "a station   jthat provides less than 45 dB D/U to a cochannel station will have to reduce power in order to   convert to digital technology, absent successful coordination." Petition at 29 n.53. Hammett   requests that Petitioners clarify which station, the analog station or the station electing to switch  Y-  to digital modulation, would be the candidate for a power reduction. See Hammett Comments   =at 2. Moreover, in a case where two cochannel analog stations have engineered their systems   Mto less than 45 dB D/U ratios through frequency offsets and both wish to convert to digital   operations, mutual reductions in power would not be helpful, because that would leave the D/U   ratio unchanged. Hammett again questions which station should be the one to reduce power,   [and states that apparently, "the only solution in such cases would be for each licensee to give   up half of its channels, so that the remaining channels can be afforded D/U ratios of 45 dB or   better." Hammett Comments at 23. Assuming these two interference concerns can be adequately addressed, Hammett fully supports the Petition.   Y - |!34. In their reply, Petitioners indicate that the language referenced by Hammett is not   intended to force a station that is remaining analog to reduce power. Reply at 45. Instead, they   affirm that under their proposed interim standards, "it is the station that desires to convert to   .digital technology that will have to reduce power to provide a 45 dB D/U [ratio] to the existing  Yd-  lanalog facility, absent agreement among the parties." Id. at 5. In response to Hammett's   ysecond situation where two closelyspaced stations both wish to convert to digital operations,   Petitioners state that Hammett's solution is one possible approach, but suggest that "the parties   could also logically agree to convert to digital technology in tandem and retain their existing  Y -  zpower levels." Id. Petitioners also maintain that the Commission should permit licensees to   [mutually agree to convert to digital technology, even if the 45 dB D/U standard cannot be met.  Y-  Id. at 6.":$U zPW- MԍCf. Section 21.937 of the Commission's Rules (providing in pertinent part that "[t]he level of acceptable   electromagnetic interference that occurs . . . can be negotiated and established by an agreement between the   appropriate parties," if the parties to the agreement file with the Commission a statement of no objection to the  zP-lesser level of interference protection). MDS Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 969596." As acknowledged by Petitioners, in the absence of an agreement between the parties   0in such situations, resolution of the issue would depend upon the final digitaltodigital   interference protection standards to be developed in a future rulemaking proceeding. Although   Petitioners believe that "closelyspaced digital systems will be able to operate with D/U ratios   Lbelow 45 dB and still provide subscribers with signal quality no worse than that afforded in an   janalog environment under the 45 dB D/U standard," Petitioners reiterate that further testing, at   higher modulation densities, will be required before the Commission can adopt the final  Y?-interference protection standards. Id. at 56.  Y- "35. Similar to Hammett, Tarrant County generally supports the Petition, but it urges the   Commission to establish a mechanism to ensure that ITFS and MDS licensees are protected from  Y-  .actual interference caused by digital transmissions. Tarrant County asserts that where actual":0*%%[["   interference occurs, the digital operator must be required to remove the interference  Y-  immediately, at its own cost. See Tarrant County Comments at 23. In its reply, Petitioners   =contend that the Commission should apply its current policies regarding actual interference to   ITFS and MDS signals, whether the interfering signal is from analog or digital transmissions,   because digital transmissions are no more likely to cause harmful interference than analog   >transmissions. Petitioners add that Tarrant County has given no reason to believe that the  Yx-Commission's current policies in this regard are inadequate. See Reply at 7 n.14.  YL- #36. We believe that our current rules provide adequate mechanisms to deal with the   mpotential for harmful interference, as well as actual interference. Section 21.902 of the   /Commission's Rules provides that MDS applicants, conditional licensees and licensees are   expected to "cooperate fully" in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before   Lbringing them to the attention of the Commission, and are required to "[c]ooperate fully and in  Y -  0good faith" to resolve interference problems. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a) and (b)(2).; U xPR- ԍNewlyadopted Section 21.938(a) of the Commission's Rules similarly provides that Basic Trading Area   -(BTA) or partitioned service area (PSA) authorization holders "are expected to cooperate with one another" to  zP-  xprotect service in adjoining BTAs and PSAs. See MDS Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9696. The newlyadopted   ;MDS rules also contain specific provisions for cure of actual interference. For instance, Section 21.938(d) provides   that it is the responsibility of a BTA or PSA authorization holder "to correct at its expense any condition of harmful   electromagnetic interference caused to authorized MDS service at locations within other BTAs or PSAs or within   -the . . . protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed ITFS and MDS stations (incumbents), or at  zP-  Yauthorized or previously proposed ITFS receive sites." MDS Auction Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 13839.   ;Section 21.939 also provides that Commission staff may require an MDS conditional licensee or licensee to employ   any one of several enumerated interference abatement techniques, in the event "harmful interference occurs or  zP&-appears to occur." MDS Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9697. Section   74.903 likewise provides that existing licensees and prospective applicants are expected to   "cooperate fully" in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing  Y-  0them to the attention of the Commission. 47 C.F.R.  74.903(c); see 47 C.F.R.  74.903(d)   and (e). As Petitioners articulate, "given the paucity of complaints of actual interference that   >the Commission has been called upon to resolve over the years, it appears that the existing   ?policies work well." Reply at 7 n.14. In addition, we have declared with respect to MDS   stations and ITFS facilities being leased or used for nonITFS purposes, that if a station causes   ]harmful interference within the protected service area of another existing station and the  Y -  interference is not de minimis, "we will require the offending station to cease operations until   0the interference is eradicated. The station alleging that it is being interfered with will be  Y-  required to make a clear and convincing showing that the interference is occurring." Amendment   of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical   ,requirements applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Fixed Television  Y-  Service and the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984).  Y-See id. at 9293. "s. ;0*%%[["Ԍ Y- $37. Thus, we find that Petitioners present satisfactory approaches for resolving   Hammett's first concern and those concerns expressed by Tarrant County. As for the situation   where two closelyspaced stations, which operate on the basis of frequency offset, both seek to   convert to digital operations, Hammett and Petitioners have proposed three solutions involving   agreement between the two parties. We believe, in the interest of fostering a clear, market  based solution, that for the interim period governed by this ruling, any conflict resulting from   this type of situation must be resolved by agreement between the two parties, or we will grant  Y_-  neither party the authority to modify its operations to employ digital technology. This approach   will maintain an environment free of harmful interference until we have the opportunity to adopt   the final interference protection standards applicable to the use of digital technology in the MDS and ITFS services.  X - D. Application of Other MDS and ITFS Technical Rules in a Digital Environment  Y - %38. Petitioners argue that while there is flexibility in our current rules for authorization  Y -  <of the use of digital technology,T< U zP"-ԍSee paras. 911, supra.T the rules nevertheless remain focused on NTSC transmissions,   [and there are instances where the use of digital technology does not comport with these rules.   yConsequently, Petitioners maintain that the Commission should clarify how it will apply certain   of these rules in the digital environment, and permit "deviations" from any rules designed solely   to address NTSC issues, which are "inherently unsuitable for application to the use of digital technology." Petition at 30.  X- 1. Equipment Approval   Y- &39. Petitioners request that the Commission provide manufacturers an opportunity to   xsecure type acceptance for digital transmitters that comply with the relaxed outofband emissions   limitations proposed by Petitioners. They also request that manufacturers be offered the option   of obtaining digital type acceptance for "earlier designs that are already installed in analog   systems," but where a manufacturer does not do so, the Commission should afford the affected   MDS or ITFS licensee a vehicle for utilizing its existing transmitters, without meeting the type   kacceptance requirement under 47 C.F.R.  21.907(c). Petition at 32. Petitioners propose that   the Commission allow use of existing analog transmitters adapted for digital transmission, but   0that have not received digital type acceptance, to operate at reduced power and/or with   appropriate filtering, if necessary, in order to comply with the interim spectral mask sought by  Y-  Petitioners.U=ZU zP"-ԍSee paras. 2829, supra.U Petitioners further suggest that absent type acceptance, the licensee should be   required to submit a "proofofperformance at the time of construction" of the digital system, demonstrating compliance with the interim spectral mask. Petition at 3233." =0*%%[["Ԍ Y- ԙ'40. Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules require that all MDS and ITFS  Y-  Ntransmitters be type accepted. See 47 C.F.R.  21.120, 21.907(c), 74.938 and 74.952. For   manufacturers who seek to secure digital type acceptance for newlydesigned or modified   transmitters that comply with the interim spectral mask approved above, upon an appropriate   -showing the Commission will grant type acceptance based on the conditions of waiver described  Y-  in this ruling. See 47 C.F.R.  2.915(a) and (b). We intend to reevaluate digital type   -acceptance issues in a future rulemaking proceeding on digital modulation for the MDS and ITFS   |services. At the present time, given the public and industry interest in expediting the   employment of digital technology, notwithstanding the type acceptance requirements in Parts 21  Y5-  and 74, we also will allow MDS and ITFS licensees to use existing analog equipment modified   for digital transmissions that comply with the interim spectral mask approved above, without   obtaining digital type acceptance, subject to certain conditions incorporating Petitioners' "proof Y -  Kofperformance" proposal. Approval of the use of newlydesigned digital transmitting equipment   will still be subject to type acceptance procedures pursuant to Parts 2, 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules.  Y- (41. Under this scheme, after the Commission staff grants a licensee's application to  Y-  [employ digital technology, the licensee will incorporate a digital component (e.g., modulator or   _exciter) into its existing base of transmission equipment, and perform onsite tests   (measurements) at the transmitter output to determine compliance with the interim spectral mask,  Y<-  as well as power level and energy dispersal strictures discussed above. See paras. 21, 25 and  Y'-  2730, supra. The licensee may rely on tests performed by the equipment manufacturer or by   a test laboratory confirming compliance with the interim spectral mask for a specific combination   of digital modulator and amplifiers. The licensee will then certify to the Commission, at the  Y-  time it certifies or notifies the Commission that construction of the station has been completed,>U zP]-ԍSee para. 54, infra, for a specific description of these procedures.   >that these tests have been performed, the transmissions meet the interim spectral mask, the   Nmaximum EIRP of its facility does not exceed the authorized EIRP, and the transmissions   .comply with the spectral energy dispersal requirements. Test results must be furnished to the   Commission upon request. Thus, in furtherance only of the scheme delineated herein, we waive  Yq-  the requirements, contained in Subpart J of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules,W?qZU zP|-ԍ47 C.F.R.  2.901 et seq.W pertaining to   yissuance of equipment authorizations prior to operation, though we will allow manufacturers to   seek type acceptance of existing analog equipment modified for digital transmissions under the   technical guidelines described above in this ruling. Furthermore, any other rules in Parts 2, 21   >and 74 containing requirements for type acceptance and applicable to analog MDS or ITFS   transmissions are waived for existing analog equipment modified for digital transmissions.   These waivers, as well as the testing and statementofperformance process set forth above and additionally described below, will be effective until final rules are adopted in the future." ?0*%%[["Ԍ X-ԙ 2. Emission Designators  Y- ^)42. Petitioners state that MDS and ITFS stations using digital modulation "will likely   employ" emission designators of 6M00D7W for QAM and 6M00C7W for VSB. Petition at 13   n.23. ITS believes that both applicants and equipment manufacturers who must seek type   <acceptance of transmitting equipment would benefit from standardized emission designators, and   posits that 6M00D1W for QAM and 6M00C1W for VSB may be more accurate. ITS suggests   .that a "1," signifying a single channel of digital information, would be more correct than a "7,"   which is generally reserved for multiple channels of unrelated digital information. ITS  Y1-  kComments at 12.s@1U xP -ԍITS is one of the Petitioners and otherwise supports the Petition.s In its reply, Petitioners agree with ITS that it would be beneficial for the   ]Commission to clarify its policy regarding emission designators and to apply that policy  Y -  uniformly.cAz XU xP - ԍPetitioners note that there are several applications pending at the Commission which specify the same   emission designator as that referenced in the Petition. If the Commission determines that a different emission   designator is proper for digital wireless cable, Petitioners request that the Commission permit amendments to those   applications. Petitioners further request that the Commission treat those amendments as minor amendments, though   emission designator changes are normally treated as major amendments under MDS rules. Petitioners reason that  zP-  there would be no actual change to the modulating signal itself and hence no threat of increased interference. See Reply at 34 n.8.c However, Petitioners contend that the issue of which emission designator is   =appropriate to QAM and VSB systems has no bearing on the issues addressed in the Petition,   and that the results of the testing conducted for the Petition and the conclusions from that testing  Y -remain valid. See Reply at 34.  Y- *43. We agree with ITS and Petitioners that standardization of emission designators would   .be beneficial in eliminating confusion. Emission designators are governed by Section 2.201 of  Yd-  the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  2.201. Section 2.201(d) provides that use of a "1," as   suggested by ITS, indicates that the signal modulating the carrier is a "single channel containing  Y6-  quantized or digital information without the use of a modulating subcarrier, excluding time  division multiplex." 47 C.F.R.  2.201(d) (emphasis added). We envision that the modulating   signal will contain a time division multiplex of video, audio, and data signals from two or more   sources. Therefore, the more appropriate emission designators are 6M00D7W for QAM and   6M00C7W for VSB. Where necessary, applications may be amended to change the emission   designator to bring it into conformance with those specified herein, and we will treat these  Y-changes as minor amendments. See paras. 5557, infra.  X- 3. Transmission standards   YT- +44. Petitioners request that despite the mandates of 47 C.F.R.  21.907 that all MDS   licensees equip their facilities for NTSC transmission capability, the Commission not require"=A0*%%[[{"   MDS licensees to offer NTSC service if the operator using the station elects and receives   Lauthorization to transmit digitally. Petition at 31. When the Commission promulgated this rule   as part of the original rules governing MDS, NTSC transmission capability was retained as a  Y-  safeguard against other transmission standards that might prove lacking in quality. See MDS  Y-  >Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 624. We acknowledge that the technology upon which the   standards adopted in 1974 were based has changed substantially, and we recognize that digital   will likely be the primary transmission method for video programming for the foreseeable future.   =In further recognition of the tested and proven quality of the digital modulation formats which  YL-  jPetitioners seek to utilize,(BLU zP - ԍSee, e.g., Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service,  zP -Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 87268, FCC 96207 (released May 20, 1996).( we find that waiver of Section 21.907 does not undermine the rule's   purpose. In addition, compliance with Section 21.907 for licensees who transmit digitally places  Y -  unnecessary burdens on such licensees. Cf. note 77, infra (MDS station identification   yrequirements removed where burdens on licensees outweighed benefits). Accordingly, we will   not require MDS licensees who utilize digital transmissions to equip their facilities for NTSC   transmission capability. Section 21.907 is hereby waived to the extent indicated in this   zparagraph. For the same reasons, we also waive Section 74.950(f)(1) to the extent it requires   ITFS translators and boosters relaying digital signals to be designed so that the electrical   characteristics of an NTSC signal introduced into the input terminals will not be significantly   altered, except as to frequency and amplitude, by passage through the translator or booster. 47  Yh-C.F.R.  74.950(f)(1).C\h$U zP=- LԍSection 74.950(f)(1) was adopted in 1971. See Amendment of Part 74, Subpart I of the Commission's Rules   wand Regulations Governing Instructional Television Fixed Stations to Provide for the Operation of Low Power Relay  zP-Stations (Translators or Boosters), 29 FCC 2d 192, 196 (1971).  Y:- P,45. Tarrant County maintains that "for at least the near term" licensees should be   Mpermitted to (1) flexibly employ digital operations on one or more, but not necessarily all, of   their authorized channels; (2) freely switch from analog to digital and digital to analog   modulation among channels and on the same channel; and (3) freely utilize digital technology   >to transmit other modulations in addition to those advanced in the Petition, such as "high   definition'" or "digital data broadcasting in the NTSC blanking intervals." Tarrant County  Y-  LComments at 34. Petitioners agree that the flexibility sought by Tarrant County is appropriate   [at least for the time being, and they assert that the Petition contemplated that sort of flexibility.  Y-  MSee Reply at 7. However, Petitioners note that to the extent the technologies mentioned by  Ym-  1Tarrant County do not employ QAM or VSB, Tarrant County "should be required to   demonstrate that its digital proposal will not cause harmful electromagnetic interference to  Y?-nearby stations." Id. at n.15.  Y- -46. We fully support the flexibility sought by Tarrant County in its first two proposals. "HC0*%%[[="   Such flexibility could benefit both existing licensees and new applicants alike. However, as with   !SR Telecom's request for consideration of the use of wireless loop technology on MDS  Y-  frequencies,QDU zPK-ԍSee para. 12, supra.Q no data was submitted here for evaluation of the merits of Tarrant County's third   proposal regarding transmission of other digital modulations. Therefore, we find clarification  Y-  of the use of other digital modulation techniques beyond the scope of this ruling.|EZU xP-ԍOur action is without prejudice to any subsequent filing by Tarrant County.| We intend,   in a future rulemaking proceeding, to approach the issue of alternative uses of MDS and ITFS spectrum in a digital environment.  XH- 4. Equipment standards, Modulation Limits and Aural Power Limitations  Y - m.47. Petitioners contend that the transmission equipment requirements imposed by 47   mC.F.R.  21.908(a) and 74.950(a) pertaining to NTSC signal waveform and transmitter   performance characteristics are "[b]y their very nature" incompatible with digital transmissions,   and "should be inapplicable" in the digital environment. Petition at 31. Similarly, Petitioners   maintain that the Commission should not apply 47 C.F.R.  74.970 to a station utilizing digital   transmissions because the modulation parameters specified in that rule are specific to analog   transmissions. Petition at 33. Petitioners likewise assert that Sections 21.904(d) and 74.935(d)   Oof the Commission's Rules regarding aural signal power are inapplicable in the digital  Yb-  ]environment, where there are no separate aural and visual carriers.FXbU xP- [ԍSections 21.904(d) and 74.935(d) identically provide that the peak power of the aural signal may not exceed   -10 percent of the peak visual power of the transmitter, and that the Commission may order a reduction in aural signal power to diminish the potential for harmful interference. 47 C.F.R.  21.904(d) and 74.935(d). Moreover, waiving   zSections 21.904(d) and 74.935(d) when digital modulation is employed is consistent with the  Y4-  rules' purpose, namely the reduction of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference,cG4 U zP-ԍSee Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6421.c  Y-  because Petitioners' proposal will result in improved adjacent channel performance.YHU zPj-ԍSee paras. 17 and 20, supra.Y Petition   Nat 34. To the extent that Sections 21.904(d), 21.908(a), 74.935(d), 74.950(a) and 74.970 are   incompatible with digital transmissions or the provisions of this ruling, those rules are hereby waived.  X- 5. Transmission of ITFS Call Signs  ". H0*%%[[Q"Ԍ Y- %/48. Section 74.982(b)(f) requires ITFS licensees to transmit their call signs  Y-  periodically.IU xPy-ԍPart 21 of the Commission's Rules does not impose a corresponding obligation on MDS licensees. 47 C.F.R.  74.982(b)(f). Petitioners argue that compliance with this rule, once   Man ITFS station commences digital transmission, will be costly and will provide little, if any,   kpublic benefit. Petitioners therefore request that until permanent rules regulating the use of   digital in MDS and ITFS are adopted, "the Commission should spare licensees the cost of   compliance . . . by not applying the requirements of Sections 74.982(b)(f) to ITFS facilities   operating in a digital mode." Petition at 35. In the alternative, Petitioners seek clarification of   whether the Commission intends for the call signs to be transmitted in analog format or digital   format, and if in digital format, whether such transmission must be made over one channel or all of the channels created through use of compression. Petition at 3435.  Y - 049. In establishing the station identification requirements of Section 74.982, the  Y -  Commission described their primary purpose as showing that the operation is licensed. ITFS  Y -  jAllocation Order, 39 FCC at 860.iJZ oU zP- zԍSection 74.982 was originally codified as Section 4.982. Id. The ITFS station identification rules remain   essentially unchanged from those originally promulgated in 1963, except for added provisions covering low power ITFS relay stations and temporary fixed ITFS stations.i The importance of showing that the station is licensed was   [further explained in another context as protecting stations against accusations of wrongdoing,   .because there was a "strong suspicion" that signals originated from an unlicensed transmitter  Y-  where signals were observed but call signs were not transmitted. See Amendment of Section   J74.682 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Concerning Station Identification of Television  Yh-  Auxiliary Broadcast Stations, 5 FCC 2d 767, 769 (1966). In the television auxiliary broadcast   zstation identification order, the Commission emphasized that adequate station identification   "assure[s] proper enforcement of our rules and prompt relief from disruptive interference should  Y%-  lsuch occur." Id. at 771. Call sign transmission also keeps the public aware of a station's   Nidentity and facilitates the reporting by members of the public of infractions, though the  Y-  [reporting of infractions by the public "is not the primary purpose of station identification." Id. at 769.  Y- 2150. The Commission's rules currently require public services such as ITFS, low  Y-  power TVQKU zP-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  74.783.Q and AMFMTV broadcast servicesRL#U zPs -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  73.1201.R to broadcast station identifications, while  Y-  Lprivate services such as MDS%MZU xP"- ԍCall sign transmission was required for MDS stations until these station identification requirements were   ;removed in 1987. In so doing, we concluded that the station identification requirements, among others, "have been  zP~$-  a burden without corresponding benefits to licensees." Revision of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, Report and"~$L0*%%$"  zP-Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5727 (1987).% and Private OperationalFixed Microwave ServiceN&ZU zP"- ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  94.105. We recently consolidated the fixed microwave rules into a new Part 101, and  zP-  Section 94.105 will be recodified as Section 101.213. Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the  zP-  Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Report and Order, FCC 9651 (released February 29, 1996). are exempt"HN0*%%[["   from this requirement. Although requiring transmission of station identifications may continue   .to benefit the enforcement process, it appears that such requirements create some burdens on  Y-  licensees.sO\HU zP - ԍSee note 77, supra. For instance, the justification of protecting stations from false accusations of  zP -  hwrongdoing, see para. 49, supra, while wellintentioned as a protective benefit to licensees, may in reality constitute more of a burden than a benefit.s In this regard, Petitioners complain about the potential costs of complying with the   call sign transmission requirement once an ITFS station commences digital transmission, and   =they argue that "there is no evidence that the transmission of call signs by ITFS licensees has   resulted in any better operating environment than is the case with respect to the MDS. It is a   relatively simple matter to determine any source of harmful electrical interference without   reference to a call sign." Petition at 34 n.62. In addition, keeping the public aware of a   station's identity may be particularly less important with respect to the channels that are leased   jto a wireless cable operator, because the subscriber will know the identity of the wireless cable operator.  Y - "251. Section 74.982 was last amended in 1984,P l U zP - ԍSee ITFS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 941, adding Section 74.982(f) dealing with temporary fixed ITFS stations. prior to adoption of most of the rules   encouraging the use of excess ITFS spectrum for wireless cable video programming services.   <The ITFS channels that are leased to wireless cable operators arguably function as private, rather   [than public, services. Moreover, the burdens of requiring ITFS licensees to transmit call signs   may outweigh the benefits, especially where the channels are leased to a wireless cable operator,   whose identity is readily discernible and whose licensing status is readily ascertainable. For   these reasons, we plan to address the wisdom of continued ITFS call sign transmission   requirements in a future rulemaking proceeding. Until that time, however, we do not find a   jwaiver of these requirements for ITFS stations employing digital technology to be appropriate.   In response to Petitioners' alternative request that we clarify our ITFS call sign transmission   >requirements as they apply to stations utilizing digital technology, we will interpret Section  Y-  74.982(b),Q U xPf"- ԍSection 74.982(b) provides in pertinent part that "each instructional television fixed station shall transmit its call sign." for the interim period governed by this ruling, as requiring ITFS stations to transmit   jcall signs only on channels reserved for ITFS programming during the hours reserved for such"Q0*%%[[r"  Y-  programming.RU zPy-ԍSee para. 58, infra, for discussion of ITFS programming requirements. Until we undertake a future rulemaking on the issue, the interpretation of   mSection 74.982(b) set forth herein will apply, regardless of whether the ITFS station is   transmitting in analog or digital. Furthermore, the call sign should be transmitted in the same  Y-  =modulation in which the ITFS programming is transmitted. Cf. paras. 4546, supra (authorizing   ITFS and MDS licensees to flexibly switch from analog to digital and digital to analog modulation among channels and on the same channel).  Xa- E. Application Procedures  Y3- 352. This Declaratory Ruling and Order clarifies the Commission's interim policies, rules   and procedures pertaining to MDS licensees, conditional licensees and applicants with pending   -applications, as well as ITFS licensees, permittees and applicants with pending applications, who   elect to transmit a QAM or VSB digital signal. It also governs the new station applications filed   by MDS auction winners or BTA authorization holders, or filed for ITFS licenses in a filing  Y -  window, S ZU zP- ԍSee Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed  zP-Service, 10 FCC Rcd 2907 (1995) (hereinafter ITFS Window Filing Order).  seeking authority to transmit digitally. This ruling makes clear that each party   desirous of utilizing digital transmissions must apply for such authority by filing a formal   application or application amendment, and receive such authority from the Commission, prior   to installing and operating digital transmission equipment. A separate application or amendment   must be filed for each station for which digital authority is sought. These applications or   amendments must specify use of either a type accepted digital transmitter or a digital transmitter  Y6-  to be approved through the testing and statementofperformance process described above. See  Y!-  Lparas. 4041, supra. As discussed in paras. 1415, supra, we will grant authority to utilize such   transmitters for transmission in QAM with modulation densities up to 256 or VSB modulation   with densities up to 16. Digital signals must be transmitted on a noninterference basis, subject to meeting the interim spectral mask and other interim technical specifications described above.  Y- 453. To assist Commission staff in expediting the processing of these applications and   amendments, each application or amendment should include a cover letter clearly indicating that   the attached application or amendment requests authority to utilize digital transmissions. MDS   zlicensees, conditional licensees or applicants must file a formal application to specify digital   emissions on FCC Form 304, while ITFS licensees, permittees or applicants must do so using   FCC Form 330. Pending applications in either service must be amended to specify a digital   emission designator. In either case, the MDS applicant for interim digital transmission authority   must, in addition to meeting all other pertinent application requirements, prepare a new or   -amended interference showing to demonstrate noninterference to others by the new or amended   /application for digital operations, and serve the showing and/or copy of the application on"S0*%%[["   ypotentially affected parties, in accordance with Sections 21.902 and recently added 21.938(g) of   the Commission's Rules, in the same manner that these rules relate to applications for analog  Y-  jtransmissions.uT^U zPK- ԍSee MDS Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 968588, 9697; MDS Auction Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC  zP-  xRcd at 13838, 13839; Second Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 709899; and Third Wireless  zP-Cable Reconsideration Order at 17.u MDS applicants generally are not required to include the interference studies   with their applications; nevertheless, applicants for interim digital transmission authority may   Mwish to submit these studies or any other information which they feel may be helpful to the   processing of their applications. While applicants for minor changes to ITFS applications or  Yv-  facilitiesUUvU zP -ԍSee paras. 5556, infra.U normally are not required to prepare or serve interference showings, we will require   during the interim period that ITFS applicants for digital authority follow the same procedures   as those that we have mandated for MDS applicants, as discussed above. We will use the same   japproach for MDS and ITFS applicants in light of the newness of digital operations in wireless  Y -  jcable, as well as the fact that most ITFS stations are part of wireless cable systems.V U xPK- ԍApproximately 95 percent of all new ITFS applicants lease excess capacity to wireless cable operators.  zP-See MDS Auction Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9594. We hold   zthat all of the waivers in this ruling, which are granted in the public interest, are conditioned   !upon applicants for interim digital authority complying with these interference showing   \requirements. In lieu of an interference showing, MDS or ITFS applicants for interim digital   jtransmission authority may submit with their applications written statements of "no objection"   {from all potentially affected licensees, conditional licensees, permittees, or applicants for   previously proposed stations, stating that these parties do not object to the digital operation of  Yy-  the MDS or ITFS station, in accordance with Sections 21.902 and 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, as applicable.  Y4- 554. Upon grant of the modified, amended or new application, a conditional licensee or   0licensee who specifies use of a type accepted digital transmitter may install and test the   ^transmitter. An ITFS licensee may immediately begin to operate the transmitter upon   Lcompletion of construction, while an MDS conditional licensee may begin regular operation of   the transmitter upon proper submission of the FCC Form 304A, described below. Conditional   <licensees or licensees who specify transmitters that are not type accepted for digital transmission   may activate their digital transmitters for the purpose of testing, as described in paras. 30 and  Y-  41, supra. After installation or activation of the digital transmitter, whether type accepted or   [not, completion of other necessary construction, and completion of any necessary testing, the   MDS conditional licensee will certify completion of construction on FCC Form 304A, and the   ITFS licensee will submit a letter notifying the Commission that construction has been"P V0*%%[["  Y-  completed.W~U xPy-  ԍThe ITFS service has a "onestep" licensing process whereby a successful applicant is awarded, as part of   the same authorization, both an implied construction permit and a license which is conditioned upon construction.  zP -  See ITFS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93435. While no formal mechanism exists for the ITFS licensee to notify   the Commission that construction has been completed, this is customarily done in a letter sent by the licensee to the  zP-  ;Commission. See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in Regard to the Instructional  zPe-  Television Fixed Service, 59 RR 2d 1355, 1381 n.46 (1986) ("[T]he onestep licensing process . . . requires notification of the completion of construction."). In conjunction with the filing of the FCC Form 304A or the submission of the   ZITFS construction notification, conditional licensees or licensees who specify a digital transmitter   that is not type accepted must also provide a statement certifying that the aforementioned tests   jhave been performed, the transmissions meet the interim spectral mask, the authorized value of   EIRP is not exceeded, and the transmissions comply with the spectral energy dispersal   requirements. The statement accompanying the FCC Form 304A or ITFS construction   notification must also identify the name, address, telephone number, and firm or company name of the person who performed the tests.  Y - 655. Amendments to pending ITFS applications and applications to modify ITFS facilities   are governed by Section 74.911 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  74.911. Section   74.911(a) states that an application will be considered to be one for a major change if it involves   Ladding or changing channels, changing polarization, increasing power or transmitting antenna  Y -  /height by certain amounts, or relocating a facility's transmitter site by at least 10 miles. See  Y -  ]ITFS Window Filing Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 292324. Applications for any other changes normally are considered to be for minor changes.  Yf- 756. We do not believe that proposals to use digital transmitters need to be considered   major changes under Part 74 of the Commission's Rules. Classifying such proposals as major  Y8-  changes would restrict their filing to filing windows. See ITFS Window Filing Order, 10 FCC   Rcd at 290711. In addition, the proposed use of digital compression does not give an applicant  Y -  kfor interim digital authority the right to add any new ITFS channels, as contemplated by the  Y-  \major change provisions of Section 74.911(a). See note 11, supra; cf. Comband II, 61 RR 2d   at 146 (use of Comband analog compression does not increase the number of channels utilized).   Furthermore, while a major change triggers a petition to deny period under Section 74.911(c),   interested parties are provided adequate announcement of a minor change through its listing on   public notice, and they may file objections pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  74.910 and 73.3587.   Commission staff also retains the flexibility under Section 74.911 to reclassify any application   as a major change should the circumstances warrant. Therefore, ITFS applications proposing   substitution of a digital transmitter, which are filed in accordance with the procedures described  YA-  "above, will normally be regarded as minor changes. Cf. Comband II, 61 RR 2d at 146   (considering substitution of a Comband analog compression transmitter to be a minor change",!W0*%%[[>"   ?under Section 74.911). Such applications may be filed at any time and are not subject to  Y-  window filing procedures. However, we still are as concerned about interference avoidance with   yITFS digital operations as we are with MDS digital operations, so we are requiring performance  Y-  of interference studies by ITFS applicants for interim digital transmission authority. See para.  Y-  53, supra. We intend to reexamine the classification of such applications in a future rulemaking proceeding.  Yc- n857. An MDS application amendment to change the type of transmitter emission is  YL-  normally considered to be a major amendment under 47 C.F.R.  21.23(c)(2)(iii). However,  Y5-  for purposes of this interim ruling, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.3 , we waive Section   21.23(c)(2)(iii) on our own motion and will consider amendments to change to digital  Y -  transmission to be minor.X U xP - =ԍWhen completing FCC Form 304, MDS applicants filing amendments to change to digital transmission shall check "Minor amendment to pending application" for Question 3. Modifications to MDS facilities to change to digital transmission  Y -  are governed by 47 C.F.R.  21.40(a).vY U xP- ?ԍWe will classify such filings as modifications of station licenses under Section 21.40(a). Although we   believe the terms "major" and "minor" are not precisely pertinent, the MDS applicant for interim authority to   modify its facilities for digital operations nevertheless shall check "Major change to authorized station" for Question   3 when completing FCC Form 304. Likewise, the MDS applicant for such modifications shall remit the fee prescribed in 47 C.F.R.  1.1105(7)(b) when filing the FCC Form 304.v Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.27(a)(1) and (5), as   applicable, public notice will be given of the filing of either a formal application by a licensee   =or conditional licensee proposing to add or switch to digital transmission, or an amendment to   a pending application for this purpose. For purposes of this interim ruling, we also waive 47   C.F.R.  21.27(c) to the extent it requires a thirty day waiting period following the issuance of   a public notice listing an application to modify an MDS facility for digital operations. MDS and   ITFS parties in interest will be given an opportunity to comment and to raise interference   objections in accordance with Section 21.30(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.    >21.30(b). These rule waivers will expedite the introduction of digital technology to wireless   cable under interim authority, and bring the procedures for processing such applications into   conformance with the procedures pertaining to ITFS applications for interim digital authority.   Moreover, there will be no detriment to the public interest resulting from these waivers, because   MDS applicants for interim digital authority must comply with all interference protection and   \study requirements normally relevant to MDS applicants, and the testing and statementof  performance process described above will provide further safeguards against harmful interference.  Xi- F. ITFS Programming Requirements  Y;- 1958. Section 74.931 of the Commission's Rules describes the purpose and permissible";"Y0*%%[[{"   service of ITFS stations, and also sets forth the minimum ITFS programming requirements for  Y-  /ITFS licensees. See 47 C.F.R.  74.931. Section 74.931(e)(9), which allows an ITFS licensee   to shift its required educational programming onto fewer than its authorized number of channels   via channel loading or channel mapping, specifies that an ITFS licensee who leases excess   channel capacity to a wireless cable operator must provide a total average of at least 20 hours   Lper channel per week of ITFS programming on its authorized channels. ITFS licensees in such   lease arrangements also retain the right to recapture "an average of an additional 20 hours per   channel per week for simultaneous programming on the number of channels for which it is   authorized." 47 C.F.R.  74.931(e)(9). Petitioners ask the Commission to confirm that, at least   1during the interim period governed by this ruling, we will not require additional ITFS   jprogramming by licensees who expand their spectrum capacity by utilizing digital compression  Y -  {technology. See Petition at 35. Petitioners particularly rely on the Mass Media Bureau's  Y -  decision in Comband II and urge the Commission to retain the policy announced in that case.  Y -  zPetitioners suggest that any interim ruling would be without prejudice to any rules that may   ultimately be adopted establishing the recapture rights of ITFS licensees with respect to the  Y -  increased capacity made available by digital compression. See Petition at 37.(Z U xP&- ԍIn their comments, both Kraskin & Lessee and the Rural Coalition reiterate Petitioners' request with regard  zP-to ITFS programming requirements. See Kraskin & Lessee Comments at 2; Rural Coalition Comments at 3.( We decline in   the context of this petition for declaratory ruling to impose any changes in ITFS programming   requirements. Those requirements remain the same regardless of the modulation technology.   .We will defer consideration of any changes to our ITFS programming requirements to a future rulemaking.  Y%- 4%IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  Y- :59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that under the authority contained in Section 4(i) of   the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 554(e) of the   MAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  554(e), the Petition For Declaratory Ruling, on the   juse of digital modulation by Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed   Service Stations, IS GRANTED to the extent specified above. This Declaratory Ruling and   {Order shall be effective upon its release and shall remain effective until adoption of rules  Ym-  governing digital transmissions in MDS and ITFS in a future rulemaking proceeding. See 47   C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2) and 1.103. Nothing in this Declaratory Ruling and Order shall prejudice the outcome of such a rulemaking proceeding.  _;60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Subpart J of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules  Y-  (Sections 2.901 et seq.) pertaining to issuance of equipment authorizations prior to operation,   and Sections 21.120, 21.907(c), 74.938, 74.952, and any other of the Commission's Rules in   =Parts 2, 21 and 74 containing requirements for type acceptance of equipment and applicable to   =analog MDS or ITFS transmissions, ARE WAIVED for existing analog equipment modified for"!#"Z0*%%[[ "   digital transmissions, to the extent specified above, subject to such conditions set forth in paras. 41 and 53 in the foregoing order.  ~<61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sections 21.23(c)(2)(iii), 21.27(c), 21.904(d),   221.907, 21.908(a) and (b), 74.935(d), 74.936(b), 74.950(a) and (f)(1), and 74.970 ARE   WAIVED to the extent specified above, subject to such conditions set forth in para. 53 in the foregoing order. "H$Z0*%%[["  =62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send   copies of this declaratory ruling to the parties filing formal comments by certified mail, return receipt requested. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   ` `  hh,William F. Caton  Y1-` `  hh,Acting Secretary