Mr. Edward O. Fritts

President and Chief Executive Officer

National Association of Broadcaster

1771 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Fritts:

The Commission and the broadcast industry have worked together for many
years to develop and implement a plan to bring digital technology to the
broadcast television service in a manner that will benefit both
consumers and broadcasters. While much progress has been made in this
transition for which broadcasters are to be commended, I am concerned
that the industry's current review of the digital television (DTV)
transmission standard may be considering options for uses that are
inconsistent with the intent of both Congress and the Commission in
providing broadcasters with a free second channel for DTV operations.

Congress and the Commission gave each broadcaster temporary use of an
extra six megahertz for the DTV transition and intended that stations
use this resource principally for television broadcasting. Section
336(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 336(b)(2), directed the
Commission to permit flexible use of the digital licenses but to "limit
the broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary services ... so as to
avoid derogation of any advanced television services, including high
definition television broadcasts...." It is the mandate of Congress and
the desire of the American people that the principal service of
broadcast television remain the provision of video programming to
television viewers. Broadcasters need to plan for the digital transition
in accordance with this purpose.

In the DTV rulemaking process, the Commission agreed with the
overwhelming consensus of the broadcast industry that the DTV channels
should provide for replication of existing analog television service so
that broadcasters have the ability to reach the audiences that they now
serve with a free, over-the-air video service and that viewers continue
to have access to the stations that they can now receive. Another
objective of the DTV transition process has been to minimize
interference to both the existing analog and new digital television
services. The Commission's Advisory Committee on Advanced Television
Service, the group selected to represent the interests of broadcasters
and others in this matter, chose the 8-VSB system as the modulation
method that would best allow achievement of these goals. This choice was
made after a long and thorough process of laboratory and field testing
and subsequent evaluation that found 8-VSB superior to other modulation
technologies, including COFDM.

Given that cable, satellite and other video competitors have already
made the transition to digital technologies, broadcast television cannot
afford to be left behind. I believe that broadcasters, out of
self-preservation and in order to serve the viewing public

Mr. Fritts Page 2

for which they have received licenses, must quickly make this transition
in order to remain competitive.

It is my understanding that broadcasters are now looking at COFDM
technology as a possible alternative to the 8-VSB standard because of
its reputed benefits for new service applications, including mobile and
data transmission operations. I believe that a mid-course change to
introduce a new modulation technology at this late date could lead to
lengthy and unacceptable delays in the DTV transition process and could
undermine the service replication and interference goals on which the
DTV transition is based. Notwithstanding the arguments of the COFDM
proponents that allowing optional use of COFDM could be accomplished
quickly, any changes to the DTV transmission standard that would
necessitate revisions to the DTV Table of Allotments could result in
years of delay in the DTV transition process. Such a delay would, at
best, be unfortunate for broadcasters and the viewing public, and could
lead to uncertainty that might jeopardize the ultimate success of the
transition.

While I have urged broadcasters to develop new business models for
digital television, in addition to high definition television (HDTV)
programming, it is wrong to read into my comments that broadcasters
should abandon their core business of television. Quite the contrary, my
intent is to encourage broadcasters to recognize the potential of the
broadcast digital transmission technology in order to explore the
flexibility of that technology to the fullest extent to provide new,
enhanced broadcast and ancillary services.

I do not oppose efforts to reconfirm that 8-VSB operates as designed to
replicate NTSC. Nor do I oppose efforts to improve the 8-VSB standard to
permit reception even where NTSC service is not available today.
However, these efforts should be focused on performance attributes that
are relevant to digital television broadcasting and are consistent with
the goals established by the Commission for DTV. In particular, any
efforts by the broadcast industry should ensure that no changes would be
required to the DTV Table of Allotments. In addition, they should adhere
to our service replication and minimum interference goals to ensure that
the American public will not be deprived of free, over-the-air
television service.

As you may know, the FCC staff is conducting a field study of DTV
receiver performance and is coordinating their work with MSTV's study
team. I look forward to results that will help to resolve the questions
currently surrounding the DTV technical standard so that the transition
can continue forward expeditiously.

Sincerely,

> William E. Kennard

Chairman

CC: Ms. Margita White, MSTV