F.C.C. 70-679 BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Docket No. 18894 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (Adopted June 24, 1970; Released July 1, 1970) BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER COX CONCURRING IN THE RESULT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT. 1. Notice is hereby given of proposed rule making in the aboveentitled matter. 2. On November 19, 1969, Hammett and Edison, a firm of consulting engineers, filed a petition (RM-1530) asking that rule making be instituted to establish standards to govern the technical performance of CATV systems. Comments with respect to this petition were filed by: Association of Maximum Service Telecasting, Inc.; Frontier Broadcasting Company; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; Educational Television Stations Division of the National Association of Educational Broadcasters; The Montana Network; Garryowen Butte T.V., Inc.; and Garryowen Cascade T.V., Inc. Reply comments were filed by the National Cable Television Association, Inc., and the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. In formulating our present proposal, particular attention has been paid to the abovementioned documents. 3. All pleadings filed in Docket No. 18397 which touch upon technical standards have been reviewed, and particular attention has been paid to the more detailed recommendations contained in comments filed by Abraham L. Cohen, an engineering consultant; American Telephone and Telegraph Company; Archer S. Taylor, Vice President of the engineering consulting firm Malarkey, Taylor and Associates, Inc.; Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; and Storer Broadcasting Company. Particular attention has also been paid to reply comments in Docket No. 18397 filed by Archer S. Taylor, and by the National Cable Television Association, Inc. I. Technical Standards Transferred from Docket 18397 4. On December 13, 1968, the Commission issued its Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 18397, 15 FCC 2d 417, inaugurating a general inquiry into its appropriate regulatory posture with respect to the CATV industry. By design, this inquiry was intended to present in one proceeding the major CATV policy issues then confronting the Commission. Inter alia, we solicited comments on the question, "8. What technical standards would be necessary or desirable to achieve national and local compatibility and good quality service to the public?" At the same time, interested parties were advised that the Commission would manage the docket flexibly so that "further notices expanding or altering the scope of this Rule Making and Inquiry may subsequently be issued as necessary or appropriate" supra, para. 3. Recent developments suggest that it is now appropriate to utilize this retained flexibility to give appropriate consideration to establishment of the necessary technical standards for the CATV industry. Consequently, we will now separate the technical standards material from Docket No. 18397 in order to be able to give it early consideration. II. Possible Requirement of Minimum Channel Capacity 4 5. The Commission recognizes that CATV is rapidly evolving from its original role as a small, five-channel, reception service. In the First and Second CATV Reports, the Commission discussed the trend of CATV toward 12-channel or larger systems, as well as cable's likely entry into large metropolitan centers. And it appears that interest in these directions is high. In these circumstances, the Commission must consider the future possibility of a nationally as well as internationally interconnected cable grid which will cater to a variety of sophisticated communications needs. In this regard, the Commission has instructed its Cable Television Bureau to begin liaison with the appropriate Canadian and Mexican authorities to assure early cooperation in establishing compatible requirements for neighboring areas. Hopefully, this step should assist in prolonging national options in the CATV area. 6. Our present over-the-air television system operates as an economy of scarcity. There is more potential demand for access to television stations than there is available air time on the stations in even the most populous areas. Cable television offers the technological and economic potential of an economy of abundance. It is anticipated that cable television, once it attains this stature, will greatly alleviate the problem of availability of air time. We believe that the economic and social advantages of such a system are such that the public interest requires the Commission to encourage its development. 7. The Commission has been advised that there will be an ever increasing demand for cable channel capacities (some estimates ranging above 100). The Commission, therefore, wishes to place cable tele 1 Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 18397, para. 4. 2 FirstReport and Order in Dockets Nos. 14895 and 15233, 38 FCC 683 (1965); Second Report and Order in Dockets Nos. 14895, 15233 and 15971, 2 FCC 2d 725 (1966). 3 Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 18397, para. 4. 4 See the attached study of CATV development in the top 50 television markets. (Appendix B 5 Compare Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 18397, Part V. vision operators on notice that the Commission intends to continue to require minimum system capacities adequate to serve foreseeable demand, and thus cautions operators to avoid the economic burden of installing systems of inadequate capacity that will soon need to be expanded at extra cost. In short, two considerations emerge: (1) cable has great potential for new communications services of great benefit to the public; and (2) our present planning should promote achievement of that potential. In this latter respect, a major consideration is thus the specification of minimum channel capacity. It is easy to state our objective on this facet: to specify in the major markets the largest possible channel capacity, as a required minimum, which is compatible with the technology and with the rapid development of cable systems. We request comment on what that number should be, with a detailed showing as to the bases for any recommended number. Thus, we note that 20-channel systems are now proposed by many cable operators for these large city markets. We have been informally told that 40-channel systems can be installed without too great an incremental cost over the 20-channel systems. Clearly, this is an area where comments and our own further efforts should concentrate. We would stress the need for detailed comments, since we intend to adopt final rules in this respect on the basis of the comments. Also we request comment on whether some lesser figure should be applicable to systems operating in the smaller markets, and if so, the channel number and how such markets should be delineated. Finally, we request comments on the most appropriate time to make any regulation adopted in this area (and those discussed in pars. 8-11) applicable to CATV systems (e.g., the time period within which existing systems might be required to convert; applicability to systems not in operation on the date of publication of any rule in the Federal Register or to systems which have been extensively constructed prior to that date). In this connection, we would seek the adoption of an applicability or conversion requirement which is equitable and secures, to the maximum degree practicable, the public interest benefits sought here and in pars. 8-11. III. Possible Requirement of 2-Way Capability 8. We intend that future cable systems should be installed in such a manner that, with the additional provision of no more than appropriate sending devices for individual subscribers and minimal equipment (such as jumpers, additional switch contacts, or plug-in connectors, for example), each subscriber may be afforded a means for directly communicating with a local program origination point. This return communication capability should provide at least the capacity equivalent to a single 4 kHz message channel and may be shared with a limited number of other subscribers so that cuing problems are avoided. It is not our purpose at this time to prescribe how return communications should be facilitated nor to require that all subscribers avail themselves of this capability, but that future systems be designed to accommodate 2-way communication for those subscribers desiring it. IV. Possible Requirement of Separate Origination Centers 9. The structure and operation of our system of radio and television broadcasting affects, among many other things, the sense of "community" of those within the signal area of the stations involved. Recently, governmental programs have been directed toward increasing citizen involvement in community affairs. Cable television has the potential to be a vehicle to much needed community expression. To strengthen the sense of community and allow greater communication, cable systems should supply a separate channel, available on a when-desired basis, for each distinct community within its franchised area. It will also be necessary that each community possess the local capability for production of material to be cablecast over its channel. 10. These purposes could be achieved by limiting cable systems to franchised areas of limited size. But they might also be achieved by merely requiring all systems to have the technical facilities in each community-the studios, equipment and distribution facilities-designed to facilitate local access and service. However, we are willing to consider other arrangements which produce a community production capability comparable to the physical existence of a studio and a channel clearly identified as limited to local service. We propose to require that each community within the franchise area of the system be equipped with production capability for the programming of its community channel, and we invite suggestions as to the alternative means of providing such a system. 11. We also invite comments upon the proper means of determining a "community" within each market. It would be possible to define "communities" along ethnic, governmental, or historical lines, as well as the more conventional geographic boundaries. We propose to leave the details of such determinations to franchising authorities and cable system owners, but we do request comments on what should be appropriate general Commission guidelines in this area (e.g., 25,000 to 50,000 households generally as a "community"). V. Conversion Period 12. When technical standards are finally adopted, it is contemplated that all CATV systems would comply and file a certificate of compliance within 3 years from the date the standards are published in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the filing of an annual certificate of compliance would be required. As is customary in our procedures, variances of these requirements could be granted in unusual or hardship cases. Consequently, comment is solicited with regard to any anticipated problems which might be expected to justify delay. VI. Performance Tests and Certification 13. In line with our Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 18397, the standards we are proposing here are aimed primarily at furthering the quality of service rendered the public. Secondarily, we hope that the standards will help secure a degree of compatibility among systems which in the future may be useful for accomplishing system interconnection such as that alluded to in paragraph 5 above. In developing the proposed new rules, we have chosen to write the technical standards in terms of system performance as measured at subscriber terminals, preferring to avoid, at least at this time, problems involved in placing performance requirements on individual units in the system. We are concerned that each subscriber receive cabled signals of at least a certain standard of quality; we are not undertaking to prescribe the methods or the kinds of equipment the cable system must use. 14. Accordingly, we are proposing to require that each CATV system perform and report certain performance measurements at least once a year. The measurements should reflect the degree to which the system conforms to the prescribed technical standards. If the tests show that the system meets the standards, there is reasonable basis for considering that the system provides its subscribers with an acceptable service. We recognize, however, that conformity with these minimum standards is not absolute assurance that the service to an individual subscriber is satisfactory. Therefore, regardless of the performance tests, we shall expect that picture impairments attributable to the system which result in substantial subscriber complaints will be rectified by CATV operators. As special circumstances may dictate, we may require that additional tests be performed on certain systems, or that special measures be taken to ensure an acceptably good quality of service. 15. We intend to adopt technical standards which, without imposing unreasonable cost burdens, may require of most existing CATV systems a renewed attention to quality, some readjustment, and possibly some redesign. We intend to revise the standards or add new requirements as the state of technology and our regulatory experience may indicate. For example, we are not at this time proposing standards applicable to the carriage of FM broadcast signals on CATV systems. We may find it necessary to do so in the future. We are not at this time proposing a standard for the allowable degree of "ghosting" or interference caused by reflections, or for performance characteristics involving phase relationships in the system, all of which intimately affect the quality of color television transmission. Future experience may impel us to adopt such standards. We welcome comment on these points. 16. In their petition, Hammett and Edison suggest that, in order to avoid inconvenience to subscribers in whose homes the system terminals are located, CATV systems should be required to install a number of monitoring terminals readily available for checking the performance of the cable network. We consider that numerous readily available monitoring points should be installed throughout the system; their value to the system operator in maintaining system performance is so evident that a broad rule requiring them seemingly would generate no problems. However, a specific rule which covers the infinite range of circumstances under which cable systems are installed may involve cumbersome burdens which we find hard to justify. We think it preferable simply to indicate our strong belief that every good CATV system should be well endowed with monitoring check points and that an in-house program of monitoring them is necessary. At this time we |