[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65780-65781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32800]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 21 and 74

[MM Docket No. 97-217; DA 97-2547]


MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Order Extending Time for Filing Comments and Reply 
Comments (``Order''), comment is sought on additional proposals for 
amendment of the Commission's rules to enable Multipoint Distribution 
Service (``MDS'') and Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS'') 
licensees to engage in fixed two-way transmissions. In addition, the 
comment period in this docket is extended in order to allow for proper 
consideration of the proposals.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 8, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before February 9, 1998. Written comments by the public 
on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are due January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Jacobs, (202) 418-7066 or

[[Page 65781]]

Dave Roberts, (202) 418-1600, Video Services Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order 
Extending Time for Filing Comments and Reply Comments, MM Docket No. 
97-217, adopted and released December 5, 1997. The full text of this 
Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 
1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Order Extending Time for Filing Comments and Reply 
Comments

    1. This Order was issued in response to a request filed by the 
Catholic Television Network (``CTN'') for a supplemental period to 
comment on the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 
docket. MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions, 62 FR 60025 (Nov. 6, 1997), 
as corrected, 62 FR 60750 (Nov. 12, 1997). Expressing concern that the 
proposed rules would create a potential for ``brute force overload'' 
interference from response stations to nearby non-co- nor adjacent 
channel ITFS receive sites, CTN argued that a two-way system should be 
implemented only if sufficient frequency separation is provided between 
``downstream'' and ``upstream'' transmissions. CTN proposed to 
``refarm'' the E, F, G and H channel groups to create a band of 
contiguous ITFS spectrum at 2500-2620 MHz and a band of contiguous 
spectrum for response transmissions at 2644-2690 MHz, making available 
up to 24 MHz for downstream MDS operations as a guard band. ITFS G 
channel licensees would be allowed to (i) consent to their channels 
being used as response channels, so long as they satisfy ITFS 
programming requirements on other system channels; (ii) request 
relocation of some or all of their channels to vacant or vacated ITFS 
frequencies, or to MDS Channels E1-2 and F1-2; or (iii) enter into a 
shared-time agreement with another ITFS licensee, under which both 
licensees could use the G channels as response channels and the 
partner's channels for ITFS programming requirements. CTN added that 
the 125 KHz channels should be reallocated to ITFS and used only as 
response channels. CTN suggested that its proposal would reduce harmful 
interference potential, encourage efficient spectrum usage, and 
preserve the spectrum reservation for ITFS.
    2. The parties who commenced this proceeding (``Petitioners'') 
filed a response countering that other solutions to brute force 
interference may be more efficient, such as rendering the response hub 
licensee responsible to either cure any brute force interference to 
protected ITFS receive sites or to cease operating the offending 
transceiver. Regarding CTN's proposal, Petitioners disagreed with its 
limits on the location of response channels, and further disagreed that 
refarming only should occur where the ITFS G channels licensee 
voluntarily agrees.
    3. Given the recent submission of CTN's proposal and its potential 
importance to this proceeding, and the complexity of CTN's proposal and 
of the other issues involved in this proceeding, interested parties are 
afforded an additional 30 days in which to file comments and reply 
comments.
    4. Authority. This Order is issued pursuant to authority contained 
in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 USC Secs. 154(i) and 303(r), and Secs. 0.204(b), 0.283, and 
1.45 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.204(b), 0.283, and 1.45.

Federal Communications Commission.
Roy J. Stewart,
Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-32800 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P