10844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘primarily’’ determines price as claimed by the 

petitioners. 

11The Petitioners also argue any resulting lower 

price would still not match the price educational 

institutions could provide, but this is based on the 

$15/month price the Commission discounts for 

rural areas. In general, based on the historic success 

of spectrum auctions at the FCC and the ability of 

the overlay auction format to rationalize the 

irregular patchwork of EBS license areas with often 

complicated licensing arrangements, the 

Commission believes that auctioning the fallow 2.5 

GHz spectrum will provide the most benefit to the 

American consumers. 

12The SHLB et al. acknowledge that the 

Commission ‘‘attempt[ed] to distinguish the reasons 

for the Tribal priority window from the more 

general educational priority windows.’’ Id. at 16. 

Rather than address the reasons for distinguishing 

Tribal entities, the SHLB et al. cite a handful of 

submissions in the record to contend that the 

Commission’s ‘‘conclusion that many educators 

might not be positioned to provide broadband is 

unsupported in fact and in the record.’’ As 

discussed above and in the 2.5 GHz Report and 

Order, however, the Commission’s experience with 

the EBS service and its review of the record indicate 

that only ‘‘a small fraction of educational 

institutions’’ have expressed an interest in 

providing broadband service in rural areas, which 

does not provide a sufficient basis for establishing 

an educational priority window. 

the only measure of value of an 

auction; 11 society benefits when 

spectrum available for flexible use for 

next-generation wireless services and 

assigned to those who are most likely to 

use it themselves to deploy. The 

Commission therefore finds that making 

the remaining unassigned spectrum 

available via competitive bidding is in 

the public interest and is more likely to 

expeditiously put this spectrum to its 

highest and best use for the benefit of all 

Americans. 

31. Sixth, the Commission previously 

stated its reasons for establishing the 

Tribal Priority Window but not a broad 

window for educational institutions. 

Specifically, the Commission concluded 

that Tribes have an interest in obtaining 

access to 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve 

their rural Tribal lands that is greater 

than and distinct from that of 

educational institutions, based on: (1) 

The unique status of federally 

recognized Tribes and the nature of the 

Commission’s federal trust 

responsibility, (2) the right of Tribes to 

set their own communications policies 

in the lands they govern, (3) the unique 

and significant obstacles to offering 

service in Tribal areas, and (4) the fact 

that Tribes have not previously had 

access to this spectrum. The SHLB et al. 

fail to address these distinctions.12

32. In turn, the Commission finds that 

SHLB et al.’s advocacy for a narrower 

educational priority window analogous 

to the Tribal Priority Window, or an 

educational priority window limited to 

New Channel Group 3 (old Channels 

G1, G2, and G3), would not address the 

Commission stated deployment 

objectives. The Tribal Priority Window 

is readily distinguishable from any form 

of educator window. Moreover, their 

suggestion of creating an educational 

priority window limited to New 

Channel Group 3, comprised of 17.5 

megahertz of spectrum, would not only 

suffer from the same concerns the 

Commission has previously identified, 

but also would result in inefficient 

allocation of mid-band spectrum. Under 

that proposal, only the 17.5 megahertz 

of non-contiguous spectrum in New 

Channel Group 3 would be assigned and 

licensed differently than the adjacent 

commercial Broadband Radio Service 

spectrum. The result would be that 

educators would end up only with a 

narrow spectrum band that they might 

not be able to use fully because of the 

need to protect adjacent channel 

commercial operations. In contrast, in 

the auction context, potential bidders 

can take into consideration the 

availability of and ability to aggregate 

spectrum to make the best use of this 

smaller Channel Group. 

33. For these reasons, the Commission 

affirms its conclusion in the 2.5 GHz 

Report and Order that, ‘‘[g]iven the time 

and effort and delay that would be 

involved in establishing and running 

[an educational] priority window, and 

the likelihood that such a window for 

all educational institutions would result 

in having to auction the spectrum 

anyway, the Commission finds that 

moving directly to flexible use and open 

eligibility would be the most 

expeditious method of making spectrum 

available to provide broadband service 

in rural and underserved areas, 

consistent with the Commission’s 

statutory objective to ensure ‘the 

development and rapid deployment of 

new technologies, products, and 

services for the benefit of the public, 

including those residing in rural areas, 

without administrative or judicial 

delays.’ ’’ The Commission therefore 

denies the SHLB et al. Petition. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

34. Accordingly, it is ordered 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 

and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 303(r), and 309(j), as well as 

§ 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.429, that the Petitions for 

Reconsideration filed by the National 

Congress of American Indians and 

jointly by the Schools, Health & 

Libraries Broadband Coalition; 

Consortium for School Networking; 

State Educational Technology Directors 

Association; American Library 

Association; National Digital Inclusion 

Alliance; Nebraska Department of 

Education; Utah Education and 

Telehealth Network; Council of Chief 

State School Officers; A Better Wireless; 

and Access Humboldt on November 25, 

2019, are dismissed to the extent 

specified in this Order on 

Reconsideration and, alternatively and 

independently, denied as specified 

herein. 

35. It is further ordered, pursuant to 

section 405 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, and § 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that 

the Request for Withdrawal of Petition 

for Reconsideration filed by the Hawaii 

Broadband Initiative on March 30, 2020, 

is granted, and the Petition for 

Reconsideration by the Hawaii 

Broadband Initiative on November 25, 

2019, is dismissed. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Editorial note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on January 4, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00051 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 03–123, FCC 20–105; FRS 

17377] 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

Rules Modernization 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) eliminates two 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(TRS) mandatory minimum standards 

because they are no longer necessary to 

provide functional equivalence with 

voice services, and ceases Federal 

Register publication of applications for 

certification of state TRS programs in 

favor of providing notice on the 

Commission’s website and in its 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS). 

DATES: Effective Date: These rules are 

effective March 25, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Wallace, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 

418–2716, or email William.Wallace@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10845 

and Order, document FCC 20–105, 

adopted on August 4, 2020, released on 

August 5, 2020, in CG Docket No. 03– 

123. The Commission previously sought 

comment on these issues in a Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2019 

TRS Rules Modernization FNPRM), 

published at 85 FR 1134, January 9, 

2020. The full text of document FCC 20– 

105 will be available for public 

inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission sent a copy of 

document FCC 20–105 to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

Document FCC 20–105 does not 

contain new or modified proposed 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. The Commission updates certain 

rules governing telecommunications 

relay services (TRS) to improve the 

efficiency and cost-effectiveness of TRS 

for both TRS providers and users. In 

keeping with current technology and 

prevailing offerings in the voice 

communications market, the 

Commission repeals the ‘‘equal access’’ 

and ‘‘billing options’’ requirements for 

TRS providers. The Commission also 

ceases Federal Register publication of 

state requests for TRS program 

certifications, relying instead on 

publication of these applications in the 

Commission’s electronic document 

management system and on its website. 

2. Equal Access and Billing Options 

Requirements. As required by section 

225 of the Communications Act (the 

Act), as amended, 47 U.S.C. 225, the 

Commission’s rules prescribe 

mandatory minimum standards to 

ensure that TRS providers offer 

telephone services for persons with 

hearing and speech disabilities that are 

functionally equivalent to voice 

communication services. The ‘‘equal 

access’’ rule provides that ‘‘TRS users 

shall have access to their chosen 

interexchange carrier through the TRS, 

and to all other operator services to the 

same extent that such access is provided 

to voice users,’’ and the ‘‘billing 

options’’ requirement directs TRS 

providers to offer ‘‘the same billing 

options (e.g., sent-paid long distance, 

operator-assisted, collect, and third 

party billing) traditionally offered for 

wireline voice services.’’ 

3. In 2014, the Commission revisited 

these rules in part. The Commission 

recognized that the voice 

communications marketplace had 

undergone major changes since the rules 

were adopted in 1991. As a result, 

consumers of Voice over internet 

Protocol and mobile telephone services 

routinely received long distance service 

as a bundled feature of their service 

plans, with no separate time- or 

distance-sensitive fees, eliminating the 

need for equal access and alternative 

billing options. The Commission 

concluded that these features had 

become unnecessary to ensure 

functional equivalence for internetbased forms of TRS in cases where the 

internet-based TRS provider is not 

charging users for long distance service. 

As a result, the equal access and billing 

options requirements currently only 

apply to the three non-internet-based 

forms of TRS, which are provided 

through state programs. 

4. Federal Register Publication. 

Section 225 of the Act provides that 

states choosing to establish state TRS 

programs for intrastate service must 

request and receive certification for 

such programs from the Commission. 

Since 1991, the Commission’s TRS rules 

have required that, upon the filing of 

state certification applications, a notice 

seeking public comment on such 

applications shall be published in the 

Federal Register. In 2000, the 

Commission established EDOCS, and 

decided that notice of applications for 

certification of internet-based forms on 

TRS would be published in EDOCS and 

on the Commission’s website, with no 

requirement to publish such notice in 

the Federal Register. 

5. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. In the 2019 TRS Rules 

Modernization FNPRM, the Commission 

proposed (1) to repeal the equal access 

and billing options rules for all TRS 

providers and (2) to cease Federal 

Register publication of state TRS 

certification applications in favor of 

publication on its website and in 

EDOCS. 

6. Repeal of Equal Access Rule. The 

Commission repeals the equal access 

requirement in its entirety. This rule is 

no longer needed to ensure the 

functional equivalence of TRS. Because 

voice customers today typically obtain 

telephone service by paying a bundled 

or flat rate without time or distance 

differentials for long distance calls, the 

ability to select a long distance provider 

is no longer an essential aspect of 

telephone service, and the Commission 

has terminated equal access 

requirements for voice service. Further, 

section 225 of the Act only requires TRS 

to include equal access ‘‘to the same 

extent that such access is provided to 

voice users,’’ and there are few 

situations in which a TRS provider 

would be obligated to provide equal 

access under the current rule, even if a 

consumer were to request such access. 

7. This unnecessary rule also burdens 

TRS providers with the cost of 

maintaining an equal access 

infrastructure, hindering the efficient 

provision of TRS. Deleting the equal 

access rule will allow TRS providers to 

modernize their TRS facilities and 

discontinue what can be a confusing 

and time-consuming call setup process. 

8. Clarification Regarding Financial 

Incentives. The Commission clarifies 

that, when TRS providers allow 

consumers to make long distance calls 

without incurring per-minute charges, 

such offerings do not constitute an 

impermissible financial incentive for 

TRS use. In today’s marketplace, the 

widespread bundling of long distance 

and local calling negates any risk that 

offering free long distance to TRS users 

would create an impermissible 

incentive to make long distance calls. 

This clarification is limited to the 

specific issue regarding per-minute 

charges for long distance service and 

does not, for example, authorize a TRS 

provider to reimburse or otherwise 

assume payment for charges currently 

assessed on TRS users for internet 

access or telephone service. 

9. Repeal of Billing Options 

Requirement. The Commission repeals 

the billing options requirement in its 

entirety. Alternative billing options are 

disappearing from the world of voice 

services, and thus options such as sentpaid long distance and collect, calling 

card, and third-party billing are no 

longer essential to ensure that TRS is 

functionally equivalent to voice service. 

10. Eliminating this obligation will 

relieve TRS providers from any need to 

maintain obsolete features of circuitswitched networks at a time when they 

and others within the communications 

industry have been transitioning to IPbased platforms. In addition to 

10846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

functional equivalence and efficiency, 

allowing TRS users access to 

improvements in technology is another 

one of the Commission’s mandates 

under section 225 of the Act. Repealing 

the billing options rule will benefit TRS 

providers and users by allowing 

technological improvements with no 

consequential costs or harms to the 

functional equivalence and efficiency of 

TRS. 

11. Ceasing Federal Register 

Publication. The Commission deletes 

the requirement that public notices of 

applications for certification of state 

TRS programs be published in the 

Federal Register. This action will 

improve the efficiency of the 

Commission’s TRS certification process 

and conserve administrative resources, 

and will not conflict with statutory 

requirements or the Commission’s 

ability to make informed certification 

decisions. Federal Register publication 

of state certification applications is not 

required by section 225 of the Act or the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq. Such certifications do not 

involve rulemaking, and the 

Commission’s review is conducted 

based on the documentation submitted 

by a state, with no adjudicatory hearing 

ordinarily needed to determine whether 

a state program merits certification. 

Moreover, for comparable Commission 

authorization processes, such as 

certifications for internet-based TRS 

providers and common-carrier 

applications for certificates of ‘‘public 

convenience and necessity,’’ Federal 

Register publication is not required 

unless special circumstances apply. 

12. Ceasing Federal Register 

publication will not prevent or deter 

public input on state TRS certification 

proposals. Since this rule was adopted, 

the Commission has introduced an 

internet-based document management 

system, which makes public notices 

requesting comment on applications (as 

well as the applications themselves) 

readily accessible through the 

Commission’s EDOCS and ECFS on the 

Commission’s website. Posting 

electronic notices of state TRS 

certification applications via EDOCS 

and the Commission’s website will 

provide sufficient notice to enable 

interested members of the public to 

comment on an application. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended, the 

Commission incorporated an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

into the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the 

proposals in the 2019 TRS Rules 

Modernization FNPRM, including 

comment on the IRFA. 

Need For, and Objectives of, the Rules 

13. Document FCC 20–105 eliminates 

the outdated equal access and multiple 

billing options requirements form the 

TRS mandatory minimum standards 

and streamlines Commission processes 

by ceasing Federal Register publications 

of state requests for TRS program 

certification, while continuing to 

publish notice of certification 

applications in the Commission’s 

electronic document management 

system and on the Commission’s 

website. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by 

Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

14. No comments were filed in 

response to the IRFA. 

Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

15. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Rules 

Will Apply 

16. The amendments to rules adopted 

in the Report and Order will affect the 

obligations of non-internet based TRS 

providers. These services can be 

included within the broad economic 

category of All Other 

Telecommunications. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

17. Elimination of the equal access 

and billing options for TRS providers 

and ceasing Federal Register 

publication for state TRS program 

certification applications do not create 

direct reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements on TRS 

providers. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

18. Repeal of the equal access and 

billing options requirements will reduce 

the burden on small entities subject to 

the rule. Such entities would no longer 

need to provide TRS users with the 

ability to select their long distance 

carrier or offer billing options, and the 

providers would no longer be required 

to configure their networks for such 

functionalities. Other small entities 

would not be affected. 

19. Eliminating the requirement for 

the Commission to publish in the 

Federal Register notice of applications 

for certification of state TRS programs 

will have no impact on small entities 

because only the Commission is 

burdened by this obligation. 

Ordering Clauses 

20. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, 

document FCC 20–105 is adopted, and 

the Commission’s rules are amended. 

21. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Report and Order, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Individuals with disabilities, 

Telecommunications, 

Telecommunications relay services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless 

otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec. 

503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.604 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows 

and removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(3): 

§ 64.604 Mandatory Minimum Standards. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Relay services shall be capable of 

handling any type of call normally 

provided by telecommunications 

carriers unless the Commission 

determines that it is not technologically 

feasible to do so. Relay service providers 

have the burden of proving the 

infeasibility of handling any type of call. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 64.606 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 10847 

1Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation 

Through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20–145, 

Declaratory Ruling and notice of proposed 

rulemaking, 85 FR 43142 and 85 FR 43195 (July 16, 

2020) (Declaratory Ruling and NPRM). The 

Commission referred to these new ancillary 

offerings over broadcast spectrum as ‘‘Broadcast 

internet’’ services to distinguish them from 

traditional over-the-air video services. We note that 

the rule changes we adopt herein will apply equally 

to all ancillary and supplementary services 

provided using either the ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 

transmission standards. 

§ 64.606 internet-based TRS provider and 

TRS program certification. 

(a) * * * (1) Certified state program. 

Any state, through its office of the 

governor or other delegated executive 

office empowered to provide TRS, 

desiring to establish a state program 

under this section shall submit 

documentation to the Commission 

addressed to the Federal 

Communications Commission, Chief, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, TRS Certification Program, 

Washington, DC 20554, and captioned 

‘‘TRS State Certification Application.’’ 

All documentation shall be submitted in 

narrative form, shall clearly describe the 

state program for implementing 

intrastate TRS, and the procedures and 

remedies for enforcing any requirements 

imposed by the state program. The 

Commission shall give public notice of 

state applications for certification. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–00792 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 20–145; FCC 20–181; FRS 

17327] 

Promoting Broadcast Internet 

Innovation Through ATSC 3.0 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Through this final rule, the 

Commission fosters the efficient and 

robust use of broadcast spectrum 

capacity for the provision of Broadcast 

internet services consistent with 

statutory directives. In this document, 

the Commission concludes that 

ancillary and supplementary (A&S) fees 

should be calculated based on the gross 

revenue received by the broadcaster, 

without regard to the gross revenue of 

an unaffiliated third party, such as a 

spectrum lessee; should retain the 

existing standard of derogation of 

broadcast service, but amend the 

wording of the rules to eliminate the 

outdated reference to analog television; 

and should reaffirm that noncommercial 

educational television broadcast stations 

(NCEs) may offer Broadcast internet 

services. The Commission also 

reinterprets the application to permit 

noncommercial educational stations 

(NCEs) to devote the substantial 

majority of their spectrum not just to 

free over-the-air television but also 

ancillary and supplementary services; 

lowers the ancillary and supplementary 

service fee for certain NCE services; and 

clarifies that NCEs may offer limited 

Broadcast internet services to donors 

without transforming those donations 

into feeable ancillary and 

supplementary service revenue. 

DATES: Effective March 25, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Lyle 

Elder, Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– 

2120. Direct press inquiries to Janice 

Wise at (202) 418–8165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 20–181, adopted and 

released on December 10, 2020. The full 

text of this document is available 

electronically via the FCC’s Electronic 

Document Management System 

(EDOCS) website at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs. (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. Earlier last year, the Commission 

initiated a proceeding to encourage the 

provision of new and innovative 

Broadcast internet services enabled by 

ATSC 3.0—the ‘‘Next Generation’’ 

broadcast television standard often 

referred to as Next Gen TV—that can 

complement the nation’s 5G wireless 

networks.1 In so doing, the Commission 

sought to eliminate uncertainty cast on 

such services by legacy regulations and 

to consider whether, and if so how, to 

update the Commission’s rules 

regarding ancillary and supplementary 

services, adopted over 20 years ago. 

With this item, we take additional steps 

to clarify and update the regulatory 

landscape in order to foster the efficient 

and robust use of broadcast spectrum 

capacity for the provision of Broadcast 

internet services consistent with 

statutory directives. 

2. In this Report and Order (Order), 

we adopt, with only minor changes, four 

of the tentative conclusions set forth in 

the NPRM. Specifically, we clarify the 

basis on which to calculate ancillary 

and supplementary service fees. We 

retain the existing standard of 

derogation of broadcast service. We also, 

however, amend the derogation rule to 

eliminate an outdated reference to 

analog television. We reaffirm the 

freedom of noncommercial educational 

television stations (NCEs) to provide 

ancillary and supplementary services. 

And while we generally decline at this 

time to adjust the fee imposed on 

ancillary and supplementary services, 

we intend to revisit this issue at a future 

date to determine whether we should 

adjust the fee or the basis of the fee once 

the market for Broadcast internet 

services develops. 

3. Recognizing the unique educational 

public service mission of NCEs seeking 

to provide Broadcast internet services, 

we also adopt a number of additional 

proposals designed to preserve and 

expand this essential mission. Notably, 

we find that an NCE television 

broadcast station may use its 6 MHz 

channel capacity primarily not only for 

its free, over-the-air nonprofit, 

noncommercial, educational, television 

broadcast service, as under our current 

interpretation of the rule, but also for 

any nonprofit, noncommercial, 

educational (‘‘primary’’) ancillary and 

supplementary services. We also adopt 

a reduced fee of 2.5% on gross revenue 

generated by such ‘‘primary’’ ancillary 

and supplementary services, as opposed 

to the 5% fee applied to ancillary and 

supplementary services generally. With 

these actions, this Order continues to 

lay the groundwork for broadcasters, 

and thereby the general public, to 

explore and benefit from the 

possibilities and opportunities that 

Broadcast internet provides. 

4. Background. As the Commission 

explained in the NPRM, the ATSC 3.0 

IP-based standard offers greater effective 

spectral capacity than ATSC 1.0, the 

current digital broadcast television 

standard. The additional capacity will 

allow broadcasters to expand their 

traditional television offerings, 

including by offering higher quality 

video and audio and a wider range of 

programming choices. Broadcasters may 

also provide innovative non-traditional 

services, and the NPRM asked about the 

‘‘types of Broadcast internet services 

that are likely to be provided in the 

future.’’ Commenters describe a wide 

array of exciting possibilities. APTS/