[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24606-24609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11284]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 73

[MM Docket No. 95-42, FCC 95-155]


TV Broadcast Service, Ancillary Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this proceeding, comment is sought on what procedural and 
substantive rules, if any, should be established regarding the 
transmission of ancillary digital data within the active video portion 
of broadcast television NTSC signals. This action is needed to 
determine how best to permit certain digital technologies to be 
integrated with the current television broadcast service (NTSC).

DATES: Comments must be submitted by June 23, 1995. Reply comments must 
be submitted July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Gordon at (202) 776-1653 or James E. McNally, Jr. at (202) 418-
2190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 95-42, adopted April 
10, 1995, and released May 2, 1995. The complete text of this Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM'') is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 
1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC and also may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, at 
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

    1. The Commission initiates this proceeding to determine how best 
to permit certain digital technologies to be integrated with the 
current television broadcast service (NTSC). Specifically, it seeks 
comment on what procedural and substantive rules, if any, should be 
established regarding the transmission of ancillary digital data within 
the active video portion of broadcast television NTSC signals.
    2. Section 73.646 of the Commission's Rules allows the 
transmission, with prior Commission consent, of ancillary 
telecommunications services within the Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI) 
of television broadcast signals. No picture information is transmitted 
during the VBI. In order to ensure the public's ability to receive 
over-the-air video broadcast transmissions of the highest quality made 
possible by the current television standard, the Commission has 
generally not allowed the transmission of ancillary telecommunications 
services within the active video portion of broadcast television 
signals without specific approval.
    3. Recently, two general approaches have been proposed to the 
Commission for the transmission of digital data. The first replaces the 
transmitted video signal with digitally encoded information in a part 
of the picture not normally seen by viewers because all TV sets to some 
extent ``overscan'' the picture to ensure that the portion of the 
picture tube that is visible is completely filled with the picture. To 
date, the Commission has authorized only the top line of the video 
picture (line 22) for such activity, although in theory, digital 
signals also could be concealed in the left or right edges of the 
picture, or at the bottom. The second method of concealing digital 
signals distributes them throughout the visible picture The amplitudes 
of such signals are kept sufficiently low (or they are confined to such 
a limited part of the normally emitted video spectrum bandwidth) that 
they are invisible to the viewer. Tests of such systems indicate that, 
with a proper selection of system parameters, no degradation to picture 
brightness, contrast, color or focus is perceptible to the viewer.
    4. On December 9, 1993, WavePhore, Inc. (WavePhore) requested a 
declaratory ruling that television broadcast licensees may, without 
prior Commission authorization, use WavePhore's ``TVT1'' system to 
transmit digital data signals. This system transmits digital data on a 
subcarrier within the standard 6.0 MHz NTSC television signal, between 
3.9 HNz and 4.2 MHz above the visual carrier frequency, at an amplitude 
close to the video noise floor.
    5. On November 22, 1989, the staff granted A. C. Nielsen Company 
(``Nielsen'') temporary, conditional authority to use line 22 of the 
active portion of the television video signal to transmit the Nielsen 
Automated Measurement of Lineup (``AMOL'') system signal identification 
codes. By a subsequent letter dated May 1, 1990, the temporary 
authority as extended until the Commission acts on the request for 
permanent authority, or until the temporary authority is expressly 
withdrawn.
    6. As a result of the difficulties encountered in obtaining 
assurance that its system for identifying commercials would not be 
overwritten (and thus be rendered useless) by Nielsen's AMOL system, 
Airtrax filed a petition for rule making (RM-7567), which requested the 
Commission to set standard for ``special signal'' use of line 22. As 
justification for the rule making, Airtrax noted what even with the 
limited number of special signals currently authorized, disputes had 
arisen as to how to ensure [[Page 24607]] compatibility of existing 
systems and to ensure that one entity's system would not preclude other 
users from access to line 22 at individual TV broadcast stations. 
Airtrax argued that the Commission had a statutory duty to promote the 
provision of new technologies and service to the public and that it 
should establish the ground rules by which competition may take place.
    7. By letter of November 8, 1993 Yes! Entertainment Corporation 
(``Yes!'') requested the Commission to permit television broadcasters 
to transmit a pulsed amplitude (7.5 to 100 IRE) signal at the beginning 
of each line of active video, yielding a data rate of 14,160 pulses per 
second, which could be coded to carry audio information. By means of 
equipment at a viewer's television receiver, this signal would be 
detected, processed and retransmitted from a set-top box to an external 
``TV Teddy'' toy bear (a stuffed animal with a built-in receiver and 
speaker) for the purpose of making it ``talk.'' Yes! indicates that 
there would be no visible degradation of received video because the 
affected portion of each scanning line is in an ``overscanned'' area.
    8. On January 19, 1995, the Commission authorized Station WWOR-TV 
in Secaucus, New Jersey, to conduct tests of a data transmission 
technology developed by Digideck, Inc. (Digideck called) ``D-Channel.'' 
This system, like that of WavePhore, operates in the active video part 
of the TV spectrum and is represented as being imperceptible to 
viewers.
    9. The commission believes that it does not yet have sufficient 
information upon which to act on the requests from Yes! and WavePhore 
and therefore initiates this proceeding to address them as well as the 
Airtrax petition. Both requests raise significant questions pertaining 
to potential use for other purposes and technical compatibility. The 
Commission solicits additional information in order to ascertain the 
long-term impact the authorization of these or other potential systems 
may have on broadcasters, the data transmitting industry, consumers, 
and others.
    10. Generally, the Commission proposes that licensees be allowed to 
transmit acceptable data signals without prior Commission authority or 
notification but not be allowed to relinquish to the data or program 
supplier the right to delete the data. A licensee should be notified of 
any upstream data insertion in programming supplied to it unless the 
presence of the data is readily detectable. The Commission further 
proposes that a licensee be required to maintain a copy at the station 
of any contract regarding ancillary data transmissions within the 
video, as is currently required for data transmissions in the VBI.
    11. With the possibility that other manufacturers will want to 
employ different schemes for their own products or services, a 
substantial demand for such ``hidden video spectrum'' could develop, 
potentially posing difficult system compatibility problems. Maintaining 
the licensee's ultimate responsibility gives the broadcaster 
flexibility to choose among clearly mutually-exclusive uses. However, 
the Commission is concerned that newly-developed systems might be 
incompatible with systems already in use without that fact being 
obvious to the broadcaster. It is also possible that while a single 
system's digital data insertions on a particular video signal would 
cause no discernible degradation to reception of the TV signal by 
itself, a combination of transmissions could have destructive 
cumulative effects. Comment is sought on how to be certain that 
broadcasters and users are aware of such cumulative effects and also on 
how, if at all, such incompatibilities could harm consumers, 
broadcasters, or the data delivery industry. Comment is also sought on 
whether the resolution of questions concerning system compatibility and 
the impact of cumulative effects on the video signal should be left to 
presumably informed broadcasters or whether compatibility standards and 
insertion limits should be prescribed by regulation.
    12. There are two fundamentally different methods employed to 
prevent the inserted data from being discernable to viewers. In this 
proceeding, the Commission will refer to them as ``overscan'' 
technology, where data is inserted at the top, bottom, right or left 
edge of the picture and ``sub-video'' technology, where data is 
inserted in a manner that could affect regularly viewable portions of 
the TV picture but would still not be detectable by the ordinary 
viewer. Line-22 uses and the Yes! proposal are examples of the 
``overscan'' approach. WavePhore's and Digideck's proposals use the 
``sub-video'' approach. Comments are sought to explore two aspects of 
these different approaches: discernable degradation and broadcasters' 
ability to delete the data.
    13. Current policy generally does not allow any use of the video 
portion of the TV signal for ancillary purposes if the picture or sound 
would be adversely affected in a manner that is discernable by viewers. 
The Commission proposes to continue to require that broadcasters not be 
allowed to use any digital data transmission system (or combination of 
such systems) that would perceptibly degrade the video signal. Comment 
is also sought on whether further reductions in overscan might result 
in signals in ``overscan'' areas becoming discernible to viewers in the 
future and on whether ``overscan'' technologies are visible on standard 
TVs and VCR recordings when ``picture-in-picture'' modes of viewing are 
invoked or will be more visible in the future when a TV signal is 
displayed as a ``window'' on a computer terminal graphics display. If 
development of these methods of television video display suggests that 
continuing use of ``overscan'' data transmission technology could 
create problems as the previously hidden information becomes visible on 
the screen, comment is sought on whether ``overscan'' technologies 
should be phased out in favor of more subtle, less intrusive methods of 
data transmission, and if so, on a timetable for such a phase out.
    14. Comment is sought on whether there is some method by which 
picture degradation or ``distortion'' due to sub-video methods of data 
transmission can be objectively measured and on whether there is some 
limit which should not be exceeded. Comment also is invited on the 
extent if at all, the Commission should permit alteration of the video 
signal or the video bandpass characteristics to permit the insertion of 
data. Any further information on the potential for Digideck's D-Channel 
system to cause adjacent channel interference also is requested. 
Finally, the Commission asks whether some types of receivers might be 
more prone to showing degradation caused by any method of sub-video 
data transmission.
    15. Licensees must maintain control over all aspects of their 
signal, including data transmissions within the video and must thus 
retain the right to reject any material they deem unsuitable. Comment 
is sought on whether an ability to reject the entire program should be 
considered to satisfy this obligation or if any acceptable data 
insertion method must allow the broadcaster the option of stripping out 
the data.
    16. ``Overscan'' data signals are limited to specific places in the 
picture and are easily deleted by the licensee. Comment is sought on 
what would happen to the picture if the licensee deletes sub-video 
data, if the licensee replaces sub-video data, and if multiple 
occurrences of such deletions or replacements take place. The 
Commission is concerned that individually insignificant degradations 
[[Page 24608]] to the picture could become cumulative, noticeable, and 
objectionable.
    17. The Commission wishes to encourage the use of television 
signals for ancillary data transmission and to permit new technological 
developments. Comment is sought on whether special rules should be 
applied to digital data transmissions that are directed to the general 
public.
    18. While the Commission seeks comments now to expedite resolution 
of this proceeding and to gain information that can assist any interim 
decisions it may make, it intends also to consider the work of the 
National Data Broadcasting Committee as requested by several commenters 
in this proceeding.
    19. The Commission next seeks comments on whether there are 
limitations that should be imposed on a technical standard developed by 
industry. The Commission asks whether any system that may be 
recommended as a standard must be ``partitioned by use'' at the time of 
its possible adoption or whether its design permits its adaptation to 
potential future uses on a flexible or dynamic basis. This question 
should also be considered in relation to digital signal decoders that 
might be used by the general public, either as an optional accessory 
provided on certain models of televisions or as some kind of external 
converter.
    20. Comment is sought on how the rules should reflect the industry 
standards. The options range from continuing to authorize such 
transmissions on an ad hoc basis to adopting a comprehensive set of 
rules defining and regulating permissible transmissions. Comment is 
requested on adopting rules analogous to those that govern multichannel 
television sound, where an industry committee evaluated the technology 
and recommended a standard. The Commission's Rules refer to the 
standard, which is also published in a Bulletin issued by the 
Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, but are only 
designed to protect receivers designed to the standard from signals to 
which they would respond incorrectly.
    21. Pending the Committee's completion of its work, comment is 
invited on whether the Commission should consider the near-term 
authorization of individual methods of such transmission on an ad hoc 
basis. The Commission expects technical conflicts between users to be 
resolved by the individual licensees, but requests comments on whether 
Commission involvement or guidance is necessary to focus licensee 
decisions on the public interest. Commenters are invited to address how 
questions of picture or sound degradation can be resolved.
    22. The Commission proposes that the policies currently contained 
in Sections 73.646 (which sets forth the rules currently applicable to 
non-broadcast services provided in the VBI) and 73.667 (TV subsidiary 
communications services) be extended to include non-broadcast use of 
overscan and sub-video data transmission technologies.
    23. Lines in the VBI are also used for broadcast and broadcast-
related services. The Commission proposes to permit both broadcast and 
broadcast-related use of sub-video data transmission technology and 
asks for comment on this proposal.
    24. As a final matter, given the pendency of the advanced 
television proceeding, MM Docket No. 87-268, which proposes to replace 
the current NTSC transmission standard, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether by further enhancing NTSC television in the manner described 
herein the Commission would provide a disincentive for the public to 
readily accept and upgrade to the digital service that the Commission 
expects will be introduced in the near future. Similarly, the 
Commission requests comment on the extent to which enhancing NTSC 
service in the manner described herein could slow or create a 
distincentive to the recovery of the spectrum currently used by NTSC 
stations, as discussed in the advanced television proceeding.

Procedural Matters

    25. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments on or before June 12, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before June 27, 1995. To file formally in this 
proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, 
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner 
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original 
plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, 
DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
room 239, at the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20554.
    26. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the 
Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement

I. Reason for Action
    In recent years, a number of requests have been submitted to the 
Commission concerning systems of embedding digital data within 
television video signals. These proposals raise important questions 
about how embedded data systems could be accommodated, concerns over 
the extent to which broadcasters' control over their signals may be 
impaired or lost, and to what degree embedding multiple digital signals 
in the television picture may result in discernable picture 
degradation.
II. Objectives of the Action
    The purpose of this proceeding is to develop policies and rules 
defining the respective rights and responsibilities of broadcast 
licensees and persons wishing to provide different types of digital 
information service, to explore the potential uses of such digital 
technology, to determine to what extent different systems may be 
compatible, to determine whether a national technical standard is 
necessary for the provision of such service, and to determine the 
probable impact of such service on the quality of primary television 
service.
III. Legal Basis
    Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in 
Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154 and 303.
IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
    Policies adopted in this proceeding could lead to increased record-
keeping requirements being imposed on broadcast licensees and/or 
providers of digital information service. If such requirements are 
imposed, they would probably take the form of such entities being 
required to maintain copies of contracts relating to the provision of 
such service and making them available to the Commission upon request.
V. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules
    None.
VI. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Involved
    Approximately 10,000 licensees of television broadcast facilities 
of all types (Commercial and educational VHF and UHF stations, 
translators, boosters and Low Power TV stations) could be 
[[Page 24609]] affected. The number of digital service providers 
affected would probably be much less.
VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small 
Entities Consistent With Stated Objectives
    A decision to implement a national standard applicable to all 
digital information to be contained within the television picture, in 
conjunction with a decision as to the general types of information that 
could be provided, could greatly reduce or eliminate the compatibility 
problems related to the provision of digital data services and decrease 
the need for additional record-keeping requirements.
    27. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals 
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth above. Written public 
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in 
accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of 
the Notice, but they must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981).
    28. Authority for the proposed amendments is contained in Section 
4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11284 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M