Order Code RL31260
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Digital Television:
An Overview
Updated August 1, 2003
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Digital Television: An Overview
Summary
Digital television (DTV) is a new television service representing the most
significant development in television technology since the advent of color television
in the 1950s. DTV can provide sharper pictures, a wider screen, CD-quality sound,
better color rendition, and other new services currently being developed. The
nationwide deployment of digital television is a complex and multifaceted enterprise.
A successful deployment requires: the development by content providers of
compelling digital programming; the delivery of digital signals to consumers by
broadcast television stations, as well as cable and satellite television systems; and the
widespread purchase and adoption by consumers of digital television equipment.
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have set a target
date of 2006 for broadcasters to cease broadcasting their analog signals and return
their existing analog television spectrum licenses to be auctioned or used for other
purposes. While the nation’s transition to digital television is proceeding, most
observers believe that widespread adoption of DTVs by consumers will not be
achieved by 2006, and that television stations will continue to broadcast both analog
and digital signals past the 2006 deadline. The key issue for Congress and the FCC
is: what steps, if any, should be taken by government to further facilitate a timely,
efficient, and equitable transition to digital television?
To address this question,
Congress and the FCC must confront a highly complex policy landscape, involving
different industries, technologies, and interests, including: content providers,
commercial and noncommercial television broadcasters, cable and satellite television
providers, consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers, and consumers.
No major legislation was introduced into the 107th Congress directly related to
digital television. However, Congressional committees continued to monitor the
pace and progress of the digital transition. A number of options for Congressional
action in the 108th Congress have been proposed. These include: mandating digital
tuners; mandating cable and satellite carriage of digital signals; accelerating the
vacating of analog television spectrum; legislating a process whereby interoperability
standards and copyright protection technologies will be implemented; and extending,
strengthening, and/or altering the transition deadlines. While stakeholders and the
FCC are working to resolve some of these issues, pressure is building on the
Congress to act as the DTV transition deadlines become closer.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
What is Digital Television? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Role of Congress and the FCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Status of the DTV Buildout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Creation of Digital Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Delivery of Digital Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Consumer Purchase of DTV Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Digital “Must Carry” Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mandating Digital Tuners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Copyright Protection Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Cable/DTV Interoperability Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Digital Conversion of Public Broadcasting Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Reclaiming the Analog TV Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Low Power TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fees for Ancillary or Supplemental Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Public Interest Obligations of DTV Broadcasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Tower Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Activities in the 107th and 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix – Legislation in the 107th and 108th Congress Related to Digital
Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. Digital Conversion Schedule for Television Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Recent FCC Proceedings Related to Digital Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Digital Television: An Overview
What is Digital Television?
Digital television (DTV) is a new television service representing the most
significant development in television technology since the advent of color
television in the 1950s. DTV can provide sharper pictures, a wider screen, CD-
quality sound, better color rendition, multiple video programming or a single
program of high definition television (HDTV), and other new services currently
being developed. DTV can be HDTV, or the simultaneous transmission of
multiple programs of standard definition television (SDTV), which is a lesser
quality picture than HDTV but significantly better than today’s television. Or,
alternately, DTV could deliver as part of a multiple offering, some other service
such as the distribution of text or data (for example, electronic newspapers or
stock quotes) or even a high speed connection to the Internet.
The rationale often cited for the digital transition is that aside from offering
superior broadcast quality to consumers, DTV will allow over-the-air broadcasters
to offer the same kinds of digitally-based services (such as pay-per-view or high-
speed Internet) currently offered by cable and satellite television providers.
Additionally, it is argued that digital television uses the radiofrequency spectrum
more efficiently than traditional analog television, thereby conserving a scarce
resource (bandwidth) that can be used for other wireless applications.
There are three major components of DTV service that must be present in
order for consumers to enjoy a fully realized “high definition” television viewing
experience. First, digital programming must be available. Digital programming
is content produced with digital cameras and other digital production equipment.
Such equipment is distinct from what is currently used to produce conventional
analog programming. Second, digital programming must be delivered to the
consumer via a digital signal. Digital signals can be broadcast over the airwaves
(requiring new transmission towers or DTV antennas on existing towers),
transmitted by cable or satellite television technology, or delivered by a
prerecorded source such as a digital video disc (DVD).1 And third, consumers
must have a digital television product capable of receiving the digital signal and
displaying digital programming on their television screens. To receive digital
broadcast signals, consumers can buy digital monitors accompanied with a set-top
1 At present, commercially available DVD technology does not deliver digital high
definition programming.

---

CRS-2
converter box (a digital tuner),2 or alternatively, an integrated digital television
with digital tuning capability already built in.
Role of Congress and the FCC
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have played
major roles in the development of DTV. Starting in 1987, the FCC launched a
decade-long series of proceedings exploring the potential and feasibility of a
transition from conventional analog televisions to advanced television systems.
While the original term used to describe the new television system was high
definition television (HDTV), the FCC used a broader term – advanced television
(ATV) – referring to any television technology that provides improved audio and
video quality. After it became clear that ATV would be using digital signal
transmission, the FCC began (in 1995) to use the term DTV (synonymous with
ATV) to describe the new service more accurately.
In December 1996, after lengthy debate between television manufacturers,
broadcasters, and computer firms, the FCC adopted a standard for DTV signal
transmission based on recommendations of the Advanced Television System
Committee (ATSC).3 The ATSC standard allows for 18 different video formats,
of which four have subsequently been adopted for commercial use.4
Meanwhile, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) provided
that initial eligibility for any DTV licenses issued by the FCC should be limited to
existing broadcasters. Broadcasters would be issued DTV licenses while at the
same time retaining their existing analog licenses during the transition from
analog to digital television. The Act provided that broadcasters must eventually
return either their existing analog channel or the new digital channel. Also in the
104th Congress, a major debate took place over whether to direct the FCC to
conduct auctions for the spectrum allocated for DTV. The FCC estimated the
commercial value of the DTV spectrum to be between $11 billion to $70 billion.
No legislation was enacted, however, and the FCC did not obtain the authority to
auction the DTV licenses.
2 Set-top converter boxes can also be used to enable conventional analog televisions to
receive digital signals over the air. However, analog televisions hooked up to digital tuners
cannot display high definition pictures.
3 FCC Fourth Report and Order In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their
Impact on Existing Television Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 96-493, released
December 27, 1996.
4 Four video formats are being used commercially by U.S. television producers and
manufacturers. These four formats are described by the number of lines they produce per
each picture frame, and whether they use interlaced (i) or progressive (p) scanning
techniques. These are: 480i and 480p (suitable for SDTV broadcasts), and 720p and 1080i
(HDTV). The progressive scan video format is more compatible with PC displays, while
the interlaced scan is more compatible with analog television receivers.

---

CRS-3
In 1997, the FCC adopted rules5 to implement the Telecommunications Act,
and granted DTV licenses to some 1600 full power incumbent television
broadcasters.6 The DTV licenses consist of 6 megahertz (MHz) of unused
spectrum within the VHF and UHF frequency bands. Because DTV signals
cannot be received through the existing analog television broadcasting system
(known as NTSC7) the FCC decided to phase in DTV over a period of years, so
that consumers would not have to immediately purchase new digital television
sets or converters. Thus, broadcasters were given 6 MHz of new spectrum for
digital signals, while retaining their existing 6 MHz for analog transmission so
that they can simultaneously transmit NTSC and DTV signals to their
broadcasting market areas.8 The simultaneous broadcasting (“simulcasting”) of
the same programs in both digital and analog modes was intended to allow
viewers who have not yet purchased DTV sets or converters to continue to receive
television programming during the transition to DTV.
The ruling required television stations receiving the DTV licenses to build
their DTV facilities according to a schedule determined by the size of their
markets. Table 1 shows the time line established by the FCC for DTV
conversion. The FCC can grant extensions to licensees unable to meet the
schedule due to unforeseeable or uncontrollable circumstances, such as an
inability to secure tower locations for new antennas.
5 FCC Fifth Report and Order In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their
Impact on Existing Television Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 97-116, released April
21, 1997.
6 A provision in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448, H.Rept. 107-481) addresses the digital conversion of full
power television stations that received their analog licenses after the FCC allocated digital
spectrum to existing analog stations in 1997. Section 531 requires the FCC to allot a digital
channel to any requesting full-power television station that had an application pending for
an analog television station construction permit as of October 24, 1991, and which had its
application granted after April 3, 1997. Any station receiving digital spectrum under this
provision is required to complete construction of its digital facility within 18 months,
without the possibility of an extension. Stations are also prohibited from operating an
analog signal on its designated digital channel. The bill’s conference report states that this
provision will allow recent broadcast licensees to foster a digital audience during the
transition period to digital television without having to terminate analog service, and that
without this change, those stations would be denied the flexibility to operate an analog and
a digital facility simultaneously in the near term, especially in major markets.
7 The National Television Systems Committee (NTSC) was the industry group that
developed the currently used U.S. television standards. For a discussion of the difference
between analog and digital signals, see CRS Report 96-401 SPR, Telecommunications
Signal Transmission: Analog vs. Digital.
8 Using digital technology, the DTV frequencies can be placed in the vacant portion of the
same spectrum band currently allocated for analog (NTSC) television without interfering
with analog television broadcasts. For background information on radiofrequency spectrum,
see CRS Report RL30829, Radiofrequency Spectrum Management: Background, Status, and
Current Issues.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Digital Conversion Schedule for Television Stations
Stations
Conversion Deadline
affiliates of the four major networks in
May 1, 1999
the top 10 markets.9
affiliates in markets 11-30
November 1, 1999
rest of all commercial television stations
May 1, 2002
in the smaller markets
noncommercial television stations
May 1, 2003
The FCC set a target date of 2006 for broadcasters to cease broadcasting the
analog signal and return their existing analog television spectrum licenses to be
auctioned for other commercial purposes. During the 105th Congress, the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) made the 2006 reversion date
statutory, providing that a “broadcast license that authorizes analog television
service may not be renewed to authorize such service for a period that extends
beyond December 31, 2006.” However, the Act requires the FCC to grant
extensions for reclaiming the analog television licenses in the year 2006 from
stations in television markets where any one of the following three conditions
exist:
! if one or more of the television stations affiliated with the four
national networks are not broadcasting a digital television signal;
! if digital-to-analog converter technology is not generally available
in the market of the licensee; or
! if at least 15% of the television households in the market served
by the station do not subscribe to a digital “multi-channel video
programming distributor” (including cable or satellite services)
and do not have digital TV sets or converters.
The FCC continues to monitor the status of the DTV conversion of both
commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations. On October 11, 2001, FCC
Chairman Michael Powell announced the creation of an FCC Digital Television
(DTV) Task Force to review the ongoing transition to DTV, and to make
recommendations on how to facilitate the transition and promote the rapid
recovery of broadcast spectrum for other uses.
Ongoing DTV-related FCC activities and proceedings are presented in Table
2. The FCC is issuing periodic progress reports on the DTV buildout,10 and has
the option of granting deadline extensions to broadcasters. On November 8, 2001,
the FCC announced it would modify a number of its DTV transition rules, in
order to facilitate and speed the DTV transition. The changes permit stations to
initially build lower-powered (and less expensive) DTV facilities, while retaining
9 The top ten television markets (in terms of advertising revenue), in order, are New York,
Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland, Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth,
Washington DC, Atlanta, and Detroit.
10 The most recent progress report is contained in: Second Report and Order and Second
Memorandum and Order, MM Docket No. 00-39, August 9, 2002, FCC 02-230, 41 p.

---

CRS-5
their option to expand their coverage area as the digital transition progresses.
Meanwhile, the FCC declined to issue a blanket extension of remaining DTV
construction deadlines. However, the FCC will consider, in limited
circumstances, individual requests for extensions due to financial hardship.
Specifically:
Stations seeking an extension of time to construct DTV facilities
on this basis must provide detailed evidence that the cost of
meeting the minimum buildout requirements exceeds the station’s
financial resources . . . a brief downturn in the economy or
advertising revenues will not be considered a sufficient showing of
financial hardship. Rather, the showing must reflect the particular
station’s financial status over an economically significant period of
time. In addition, the applicant must provide detailed evidence of
its good faith efforts to met the deadline, including its efforts to
obtain the necessary financing.11
Approximately three-quarters of the 1,240 full-power commercial stations in
the United States did not meet the May 1, 2002 conversion deadline.12 Most have
received six-month deadline extensions from the FCC. On May 16, 2002, the
FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes
increasingly severe sanctions every six months on stations who have not
constructed digital facilities and do not demonstrate that their failure to do so was
either unforeseeable, beyond their control, or due to legitimate financial hardship.
Sanctions progress from admonishment, to issuance of a notice of apparent
liability for forfeiture, to rescission of the station’s DTV license.13
On August 8, 2002, the FCC announced actions intended to further
encourage the roll-out of DTVs by the December 31, 2006 target completion date.
Specifically, the FCC adopted a Second Report and Order and Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 02-230) which requires television
receivers and receiving equipment (such as VCRs and DVD players/recorders) to
include DTV reception capability (see section in this report, “Mandating Digital
Tuners” for further details). Also on August 8, the FCC issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 02-231) which explores whether the FCC can and
should mandate copy protection technology for digital broadcast television (see
section in this report, “Copyright Protection Technology” for further information).
The FCC is planning to adopt additional major orders intended to hasten the DTV
transition. One will address the carriage of DTV broadcast signals on cable and
satellite TV systems. The other will address the issue of compatibility between
cable systems and commercial electronics devices.14
11 FCC News Release, “FCC Acts to Expedite DTV Transition and Clarify DTV Buildout
Rules, November 8, 2001.
12 See: General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Many Broadcasters Will Not Meet
May 2002 Digital Television Deadline, GAO-02-466, April 2002.
13 See: [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222561A4.pdf]
14 Communications Daily, “Powell Readies Orders on Cable Compatibility and Carriage,
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
On January 27, 2003, the FCC initiated its second periodic review of the
DTV transition. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 03-8) seeks comment
on a number of issues related to the DTV conversion.15 Included in the NPRM is
the issue of how the FCC will determine whether 85% of American households
have access to digital signals by 2006. The NPRM also reopens the issue of
public interest obligations of DTV broadcasters.
14 (...continued)
August 13, 2002, pp. 2-3.
15 See: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules
and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 03-15,
FCC 03-8, Jan. 27, 2003.

---

CRS-7
Table 2. Recent FCC Proceedings Related to Digital Television
In the matter of:
Type of Action
FCC and Docket Number
Review of the Commission’s
Second Report and Order and
FCC-02-23016
Rules and Policies Affecting the
Second Memorandum Opinion
MM Docket No. 00-39
Conversion to Digital Television
and Order
August 8, 2002
(DTV tuners)
Review of the Commission’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC-01-33017
Rules and Policies Affecting the
on Reconsideration
MM Docket No. 00-39
Conversion to Digital Television
November 15, 2001
Review of the Commission’s
Report and Order and Further
FCC-01-2418
Rules and Policies Affecting the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making MM Docket No. 00-39
Conversion to Digital Television
(FNPRM)
January 19, 2001
(includes FNPRM on digital
tuners)
Carriage of Digital Television
First Report and Order and
FCC-01-2219
Broadcast Signals
FNPRM
CS Docket No. 98-120
January 23, 2001
Commercial Availability of
FNPRM and Declaratory Ruling
FCC-00-34120
Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80
September 18, 2000
Compatibility Between Cable
Report and Order
FCC-00-34221
Systems and Consumer
PP Docket No. 00-67
Electronics Equipment
September 15, 2000
Nondiscrimination in the
Notice of Inquiry
FCC-01-1522
Distribution of Interactive
CS Docket No. 01-7
Television Services Over Cable
January 18, 2001
Remedial Steps for Failure to
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
FCC-02-150
Comply With Digital Television
MM Docket No. 02-113
Construction Schedule
May 16, 200223
Digital Broadcast Copy
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
FCC-02-23124
Protection
MB Docket No. 02-230
16 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-230A1.pdf]
17 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01330.pdf]
18 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf]
19 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.pdf]
20 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-341A1.pdf]
21 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/Orders/2000/fcc00342.pdf]
22 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01015.pdf]
23 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-150A1.pdf]
24 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-231A1.pdf]

---

CRS-8
Status of the DTV Buildout
The nationwide buildout of digital television is a complex and multifaceted
enterprise. A successful buildout requires: the development by content providers
of compelling digital programming; the delivery of digital signals to consumers by
broadcast television stations, as well as cable and satellite television systems; and
the widespread purchase and adoption by consumers of digital television
equipment.
Creation of Digital Programming. Digital programming is created with
digital cameras and other digital production equipment. Digital content tends to
favor more “visual” types of programming – such as sports events or movies –
which take full advantage of the high-definition viewing experience. Currently,
the amount of available digital programming is limited, but gradually becoming
more widespread. Among broadcast networks, CBS produces the largest amount,
with digital high-definition broadcasts available in all of its prime time scripted
entertainment series, as well as many of its national sports broadcasts. ABC is
offering HDTV broadcasts in nearly all of its prime time schedule and in some of
its sports broadcasts. PBS has also been active, producing digital programming as
well as offering multicasts over digital channels in some local markets. NBC and
FOX are offering digital programming as well (although not necessarily in high
definition), and FOX plans to transmit at least 50% of its prime time schedule in
HDTV by the 2004-2005 season. Cable networks producing (or planning to
produce) digital programming include HBO, Showtime, A&E, Discovery, ESPN,
Bravo, Cinemax, HDNet, In Demand, and Madison Square Garden.25
Two factors generally inhibit content providers from accelerating the
production of digital programming. First, because relatively few households have
digital televisions, networks have a diminished incentive to invest the money to
produce digital content. Some digital programming is being produced by
networks in sponsorship/partnership with consumer electronics companies who
manufacture digital televisions. Second, content providers (e.g. networks and
movie studios) are reluctant to provide digital programming until a digital
copyright standard is in place (see discussion below, under “Issues”).
Delivery of Digital Signals. Currently, there are three ways digital
programming is being delivered to consumers. Digital signals are: 1) broadcast
over the airwaves; 2) transmitted over a few channels provided by satellite
television systems; and 3) provided via digital cable service in a growing number
of markets.
Broadcasting. According to the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB), as of July 31, 2003, there were 941 stations (both commercial and public)
broadcasting digital signals in 195 markets.26 This represents about 59% of the
nation’s approximately 1600 television stations. On the other hand, the 195
25 Cable & Telecommunications Overview, 2001, June 2001, National Cable Television
Association.
26 For latest statistics, see: [http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp]

---

CRS-9
markets currently receiving digital transmissions cover about 99% of U.S. TV
households. Television stations must construct new facilities and purchase new
equipment in order to transmit digital signals. According to NAB, costs range
from $8-10 million to fully convert a station to digital operation.27
As of June 25, 2003, the FCC has granted a construction permit or license to
1587 stations, about 94% of the total number of DTV allotments.28 Approximately
three-quarters of the 1,240 full-power commercial stations did not meet the May
1, 2002 conversion deadline. A total of 843 commercial stations requested from
the FCC an extension of the May 2002 deadline in order to complete construction
of their DTV facilities. So far, 772 have been granted and 71 have been
admonished. Of those stations granted extensions, 602 filed requests for second
extensions. Of this number, 527 extension requests have been granted, 68 have
been dismissed, and the rest remain pending. A third extension has been
requested by 107 stations. Meanwhile, 214 noncommercial educational stations
have requested extension of the May 1, 2003 buildout deadline. The FCC has
granted 211 of those extension requests.29
Satellite. There are two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) television services
available in the United States: Echostar’s DISH Network and Hughes’ DirecTV.
Both offer a limited number of channels of HDTV programming.
Neither
service offers local digital broadcast channels in most markets. Satellite TV
customers need added equipment (a slightly bigger satellite dish and either a set-
top box or built-in satellite HDTV reception capability) in order to receive high-
definition programming on their digital televisions.
Cable. Cable companies have been reluctant to carry channels of digital
programming (thereby displacing some existing channel offerings) until more
consumers have the digital television equipment necessary to view digital
programming (see discussion of “must carry” below).30 Also there are copyright,
standards, and interoperability issues between the cable system and DTV sets that
must be resolved (see “copyright and standards” below).
27 Testimony of Ben Tucker, Chairman of NAB Television Board, in: U.S. Congress,
House, “Digital Television: A Private Sector Perspective on the Transition,” Hearing Before
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet, March 15, 2001, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 72.
28 See: [http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvsum.html]
29 Ibid.
30 Many cable (and both DBS commercial services) are “digital.” However, “digital
cable”generally refers to technology which converts analog programming to a digital signal
which is transmitted to the consumer and then converted back to analog form for television
viewing. “Digital cable” allows cable companies to provide more channels, as well as high
speed (broadband) Internet service. However, the “digital” signals transmitted over cable
systems use different digital standards than the DTV standard used by broadcasters and
current DTV sets; therefore current digital cable services currently cannot be directly
received by DTV sets.

---

CRS-10
The reluctance of cable companies to carry digital programming is beginning
to change, however, as cable providers in several markets have begun to
implement plans to carry digital or high-definition channels. On May 1, 2002,
the nation’s top ten cable companies pledged to implement FCC Chairman
Powell’s voluntary plan, which calls on cable operators to carry digital signals of
up to five broadcast or other digital programming services by January 1, 2003.31
According to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA),
cable systems providing HDTV pass approximately 55 million U.S. television
households, and offer HDTV in 78 of the 100 biggest TV markets.32
Consumer Purchase of DTV Products. DTV products are now
available from several manufacturers that offer varying features and technical
characteristics. Currently, most consumers who purchase DTV products are
purchasing digital television monitors, available at prices ranging from about
$1000 to $3500, depending on screen size and other features. Digital monitors are
primarily being used by consumers to watch DVDs,33 regular analog television,
and digital programming over a satellite television system. A digital monitor
must be coupled with a set-top digital receiver or tuner (costing $500 to $600) in
order to receive digital broadcast signals.34 An integrated DTV, which contains a
built-in digital tuner, is sold at prices ranging from $3000 to $12,000.35 Over the
past two years, prices for DTV monitors and receivers have dropped by 50%. As
the market for DTVs expands, prices are expected to decrease further.36
According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), DTV sales (from
suppliers to retail outlets) totaled 2.5 million units in 2002, about a 73% increase
over the amount sold in 2001. The 2002 sales bring the total number of DTV
products sold since 1998 to just under 5 million. Of this number, approximately
31 McConnell, Bill, “Cable Takes the High-Def High Road,” Broadcasting & Cable, May
6, 2002, pp. 54-60.
32 Breznick, Alan, “MSOs Accelerate HDTV Rollouts as Consumer Demand Surges,”
Communications Daily, June 19, 2002, pp. 4-5.
33 Commercially available DVD technology does not yet support digital programming.
However, current DVDs viewed over a DTV provide a significantly higher quality picture
than DVDs viewed over regular analog televisions.
34 Many consumers are asking whether their current analog TV sets will become obsolete
with the advent of DTV.
Consumers can continue to use analog TV sets until the
broadcasters return the analog TV licenses to the FCC, after which, a set-top digital
converter box could be used to enable the analog TV set to receive the DTV signal. Digital
converters, however, will only enable the display of pictures comparable in quality to
existing sets. They will not provide HDTV-quality images, or other new services that may
come with DTV.
35 “Super-size Your Set,” Consumer Reports, March 2001, p. 16.
36 Testimony of David Arlin, Thomson Multimedia Inc. on behalf of the Consumer
Electronics Association, in: U.S. Congress, House, “Digital Television: A Private Sector
Perspective on the Transition,” Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, March 15, 2001, 107th Cong., 1st
Sess., p. 47.

---

CRS-11
575,000 integrated sets and set-top decoders (digital tuners) have been sold. CEA
estimates that 11.5% of DTV monitors and sets sold since introduction are
capable of receiving, decoding, and displaying a digital signal either on their own
or partnered with a set-top box. While growth has occurred, the penetration of
DTVs into the American home remains small, with between 4 and 5% of the 110
million American households having DTVs (mostly monitors), and less than 1%
having the ability to receive digital signals. The CEA predicts continuing
expansion of DTV sales, with projections of over 30 million DTVs sold to
retailers between 2001 and 2006.37
Policy Issues
While the nation’s transition to digital television is proceeding, industry
analysts believe that widespread adoption of DTVs by consumers will not be
achieved by 2006, and that television stations will continue to broadcast both
analog and digital signals past the 2006 deadline. The key issue for Congress and
the FCC is: what steps, if any, should be taken by government to further facilitate
a timely, efficient, and equitable transition to digital television? To address this
question, Congress and the FCC must confront a highly complex policy
landscape, involving different industries, technologies, and interests, including:
content providers, commercial and noncommercial television broadcasters, cable
and satellite television providers, consumer electronics manufacturers and
retailers, and consumers.
Currently the three critical components of the digital transition –
programming and content, delivery of a digital signal, and consumer purchase of
DTVs – appear to be lagging and hindered by what many describe as a “chicken
or egg” dynamic. Most consumers are reluctant to buy DTVs until there is more
high quality digital programming to watch. Content providers have a diminished
incentive to create digital programming until a larger number of consumers are
capable of receiving digital television service. And television service providers
(especially cable and satellite) have little incentive to provide digital programming
until more consumers have DTVs and content providers supply more digital
programming.
Broadcasters are currently under a statutory mandate to convert, with the
expectation that the presence of digital broadcast signals will provide sufficient
market incentives for other stakeholders to go digital. Much of the policy debate
revolves around the question of whether this strategy will yield a timely, efficient,
and equitable digital transition. If not, should conversion deadlines be extended,
or should additional government mandates – such as digital “must carry” or digital
tuners – be placed on other stakeholders in order to accelerate the pace of the
transition? Conversely, would further government intervention in the digital
transition produce undesirable market distortions? The following discusses a
number of specific policy issues related to the transition to digital television.
37 Consumer Electronics Association, Press Release, “CEA Releases Final 2001 DTV Sales
Figures,” January 17, 2002, available at:
[http://ce.org/market_overview/market_overview_newsroom.asp?area=21]

---

CRS-12
Digital “Must Carry” Debate. Responding to the debate between the
broadcast and cable industries over whether cable TV providers should be
required to transmit DTV programming, in July 1998 the FCC initiated a
proceeding on the matter.38 Under the “must carry” provisions of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, cable TV
providers are required to transmit local analog programs to their customers. This
decision was based on the reasoning that since cable TV has a predominant
position in the market, “without mandatory carriage provisions, the economic
viability of local broadcast television and its ability to produce quality local
programming would be jeopardized.”39
The broadcasters (primarily the smaller networks and independent stations,
represented by the Association of Local Television Stations, but also the National
Association of Broadcasters) believe that the same principles and conclusions of
the 1992 Act should apply to DTV services, leading to mandatory carriage of the
DTV programming by cable operators. Broadcasters argue that because most
Americans (about 65%) receive their TV via cable, the carriage of DTV
programming by cable providers is essential for consumers to purchase DTV
receivers.
The cable companies (led by the National Cable Television Association,
NCTA) oppose any “must carry” requirements for cable operator carriage of DTV
programming, arguing that it would be an unlawful taking of their property, and
that they should be able to decide what content they provide on their own
networks. NCTA points out that, unlike the broadcasters who were given free
spectrum licenses for DTV, cable operators must build their own infrastructure to
be able to transmit DTV signals. Cable operators say they will carry broadcasters’
DTV programming as soon as consumer demand warrants it. Cable television
services provide a finite number of channels to consumers, and any mandate to
provide DTV programming would require cable companies to remove other non-
broadcast channels. Many cable operators are investing in the upgrades needed to
provide DTV, although the video transmission standards adopted by cable
operators may not be the same as those used by the broadcasters. This could mean
that different home equipment may be necessary for cable services than for over-
the-air TV reception. In addition, HDTV programming will require cable
operators to build a more robust transmission (i.e., greater bandwidth) capability
than is required by SDTV, and some cable operators may want to offer SDTV but
not HDTV services. The cable industry also contends that mandating carriage of
all DTV broadcast transmissions will financially devastate many smaller cable
operators.
38 FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Carriage of Transmissions of Digital Television
Broadcast Stations, CS Docket No. 98-120, released July 10, 1998.
39 Ibid., p. 5. Satellite television is also subject to must carry requirements. See CRS Report
RS20425, Satellite Television: Provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
and the Launching Our Communities Access to Local Television Act, and Continuing Issues,
by Marcia S. Smith.

---

CRS-13
On January 22, 2001, the FCC announced its adoption of rules for cable
carriage of digital TV signals. Most notably, the FCC ruling does not require
cable systems to simultaneously carry both the analog and digital signals (“dual
carriage”) of local TV stations. The FCC tentatively concluded that “such a
requirement appears to burden cable operators’ First Amendment interests more
than is necessary to further a substantial governmental interest.”40 A Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) will continue to collect public
comment and investigate this issue.41
While not approving a dual carriage mandate, the FCC did rule that a digital-
only TV station, whether commercial or non-commercial, can immediately assert
its right to carriage on a local cable system. Additionally, a TV station that
returns its analog spectrum and converts to digital operations must be carried by
local cable systems. Cable systems must carry “primary video,” defined as a
“single programming stream and other program-related content.” The FNPRM
will define the scope of “program-related content.”
The House Energy & Commerce Committees staff discussion draft would
prohibit any obligation of cable operators to simultaneously carry both the analog
and digital signals of the same broadcast (i.e. “dual must-carry”). However, the
draft bill contains a blank section 7 (marked “to be supplied”) which will address
the applicability of must-carry requirements to digital multi casting. Digital multi
casting refers to the ability of broadcasters to divide their 6 MHz of digital
spectrum into separate and discrete streams of content. Thus, for example, a
broadcaster could transmit alternate channels of programming, data, or interactive
services in addition to its primary video broadcast. At issue is whether cable
operators should be required to carry any or all multicasted channels transmitted
by broadcasters as part of their 6 MHz digital allotment.
Mandating Digital Tuners. Currently, less than one percent of American
households have purchased DTVs equipped or accompanied with digital tuners
that can receive digital broadcast signals. Some groups (for example,
broadcasters) advocate a government mandate that would require new televisions
to contain built-in digital tuners.
A study conducted by Arthur D. Little (and commissioned by the National
Association of Broadcasters and the Association of Maximum Service Television)
estimates that DTV set penetration would reach 75.5% by 2006, if the FCC were
to mandate that all new sets sold after January 1, 2004 have DTV reception
capability. Supporters of a mandate argue that requiring digital tuners would
ensure a quicker penetration of DTVs into American households, thereby giving
digital content providers and distributors greater incentive to produce and transmit
digital content.
Consumer electronics manufacturers and many consumer advocates oppose a
digital tuner mandate, arguing that it would raise prices of television sets beyond
40 See: [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2001/nrcb0103.html]
41 Federal Register, March 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 58), pp. 16523-16532.

---

CRS-14
the means of many consumers.42 Opponents also dispute whether a digital tuner
mandate would effectively hasten the DTV transition, since most households
currently receive their primary television service via cable or satellite and
therefore may not require an over-the-air digital reception capability. Finally, they
argue that a digital tuner mandate would constitute an inappropriate, unnecessary,
and counterproductive government intervention into an increasingly dynamic
digital television marketplace.
On August 8, 2002, the FCC adopted a phase-in plan requiring most new
television sets to contain digital tuners by 2007. Specifically, the FCC’s Second
Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 02-230)
requires all television sets with screen sizes of at least 13 inches, and all television
receiving equipment (such as video cassette recorders and DVD players/recorders
to include DTV reception capability according to the following schedule:
Receivers with screen sizes 36 inches and above -- 50% of a
responsible party’s units must include DTV tuners effective July 1,
2004; 100% of such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1,
2005.
Receivers with screen sizes 25 to 35 inches -- 50% of a responsible
party’s units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005; 100% of
such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2006.
Receivers with screen sizes 13 to 24 inches -- 100% of all such units
must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2007.
TV Interface Devices VCRs and DVD players/recorders, etc. that
receive broadcast television signals -- 100% of all such units must
include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2007.
The FCC’s phase-in plan is strongly opposed by the Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA), consumer groups, and antitax groups. The CEA, citing the
“scant percentage of households relying on over-the-air television reception”
argues that the mandate is a “multi-billion dollar TV tax on American
consumers,” and calls instead for an FCC mandate on cable-DTV compatibility
standards.43 This position is countered by the National Association of
Broadcasters, who argue that the mandate is necessary to hasten the DTV
transition and ensure the survival of free over-the-air broadcasting, which NAB
says is currently received by roughly one third of all TV sets in use. NAB also
argues that some consumer electronics companies, such as Zenith and Thomson,
support phased-in integration of digital tuners.44 The House Energy & Commerce
Committees staff discussion draft would affirm the FCC’s phase-in plan for
42 Estimated at an initial cost of $200 per set (see: April 6, 2001 Comments of the CEA to
the FCC, MM Docket No. 00-39). This figure is disputed by broadcasters (see: May 7,
2001 Comments of NAB/MSTV/ALTV to the FCC, MM Docket No. 00-39).
43 Consumer Electronics Association, Americans Should Not Be Forced to Buy DTV Over-
the-Air
Tuners
Says
CEA,
Press
release,
August
8,
2002,
available
at:
[http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10012]
44 National Association of Broadcasters, Fact Vs. Myth: The DTV Tuner Integration Debate,
available at: [http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/Issues/digitaltv/REBUTTAL080702.pdf]

---

CRS-15
digital tuners. Conversely, the TV Consumer Choice Act of 2003 (H.R. 426),
introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner on January 28, 2003, would prohibit the
FCC from requiring digital television tuners.
Meanwhile, the agreement between the consumer electronics and cable
industries on a cable-DTV interoperability standard could impact the CEA’s view
of the digital tuner mandate. If the agreement is approved by the FCC, the
circuitry enabling “plug and play” compatibility between digital televisions and
cable systems
could be modified to receive digital over-the-air signals at an incremental cost.
Under this scenario, it is possible the CEA could reassess its opposition to the
digital tuner mandate.45
On July 23, 2003, Representative Terry introduced H.R. 2825 (the Consumer
Access to Digital Television Enhancement Act of 2003) which would require the
FCC to adopt and implement the MOU between the cable and consumer
electronics industries regarding a cable/DTV interoperability standard. H.R. 2825
would also require all television receivers marketed or labeled as “digital cable
ready” to come equipped with the capability to receive over-the-air digital
broadcast signals.
Copyright Protection Technology. Many content providers (e.g. movie
studios and broadcast networks) are reluctant to provide high quality digital
content to DTV owners until they are assured that interoperability standards and
technology licensing agreements are in place to prevent consumers from making
unauthorized copies and Internet transmissions of digital content. In 1998, five
consumer electronics manufacturing companies – Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita, Sony,
and Toshiba – formed an entity called the Digital Transmission Licensing
Administrator (DTLA, also known as “5C”) to license a jointly developed Digital
Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) technology. DTCP is designed to
protect audiovisual and audio content against unauthorized interception or
retransmission in the digital home environment.
On July 17, 2001, two major studios – Warner Bros. and Sony Pictures
Entertainment – announced a licensing agreement to adopt DTCP. The agreement
is designed to permit the studios to protect prerecorded media, pay-per-view, and
video-on-demand transmissions against unauthorized copying, and to protect all
content against unauthorized Internet retransmission, while assuring consumers’
ability to continue customary home recording of broadcast and subscription
programming.46
Broadcast Flag. While DTCP protects content delivered to the home via
cable or satellite, the technology does not protect over-the-air broadcast content.
45 Clark, Drew, “Electronics Group Shows Flexibility on Digital TV Issue,” National
Journal’s Technology Daily, January 27, 2003.
46 DTLA Press Release, “DTLA, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Announce
First Studio Licenses for Digital Home Network Technology,” July 17, 2001, see:
[http://www.dtcp.com/data/press/DTCP_PRESS_010717.pdf]

---

CRS-16
Other major studios have been reluctant to sign licensing agreements with DTLA
until broadcast content can also be protected. Additionally, broadcast networks
(ABC, CBS, and Fox) have opposed the 5C standard, arguing that the
technology’s inability to encrypt over-the -air broadcasts will cause high quality
content to migrate toward cable and satellite exclusively. A week after the 5C
agreement with Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. was announced, the five other
major studios (Disney, Paramount, Fox, Universal, and MGM) submitted a
proposal to DTLA which would require digital broadcast content to be encrypted
with a “broadcast flag” preventing Internet distribution or retransmission of digital
content broadcast over-the-air. On June 3, 2002, a group of engineers from the
motion picture and technology industries47 released a detailed “broadcast flag”
proposal. While the proposal is strongly supported by the content industry, the
technology industry remains divided, with some companies supporting and others
opposing this particular proposal. Some consumer groups have also expressed
opposition.
Those supporting a broadcast flag (such as the Motion Picture Association of
America and other content providers) argue that the protections against piracy
offered by a broadcast flag are crucial to ensure that content providers to make
high-value programming available over the digital airwaves. Supporters also
argue that a broadcast flag will not prevent consumers from making physical
copies of DTV programs, or from distributing such copies within a person’s home
digital network.
Opponents of a broadcast flag (many consumer electronics and high tech
companies, as well as consumer groups) assert that because electronic devices will
have to be meet certain specifications in order to process the broadcast flag, the
innovation and functionality of consumer electronics equipment will be adversely
affected. Additionally, they argue, because the broadcast flag would effectively
ban any retransmission not approved by content providers, legitimate consumer
rights (e.g. “Fair Use”) would be compromised .
At the behest of House Committee on Energy & Commerce Chairman
Tauzin, continuing negotiations between the interested parties are ongoing.
However, agreement on the use and implementation of a “broadcast flag” has not
been reached among industry groups. On August 9, 2002, the FCC issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (FCC 02-231, MB Docket 02-230) in the matter of digital
broadcast copy protection. Noting that the lack of digital broadcast copy
protection is a significant impediment to the DTV transition, the FCC solicited
public comment on whether the FCC can and should mandate the use of a copy
protection mechanism for digital broadcast television. The comment period
closed on February 18, 2003; over 6000 comments were received, most from
individual citizens. FCC staff is reviewing comments and will develop
recommendations for FCC consideration.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee staff discussion draft would
direct the FCC to require that, by January 1, 2006, all digital devices capable of
47 The Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), a subgroup of the Copy Protection
Technical Working Group (CPTWG).

---

CRS-17
receiving a digital signal shall recognize the use of a broadcast flag in order to
prevent the unauthorized redistribution of digitally broadcast content to the public
over the Internet. The draft language would require content protection regulations
while also protecting, to the maximum extent possible, “the full functionality to
consumers of equipment manufactured before January 1, 2006.” Additionally, the
use of a broadcast flag for news and public affairs programs would be prohibited.
On March 6, 2003, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, held a hearing on “Copyright Piracy
Prevention and the Broadcast Flag.”
Analog Hole. Another copyright protection issue of concern to content
providers is what’s commonly referred to as the “analog hole.” In the foreseeable
future, many consumers will continue to use analog televisions. In order to
display the content carried by digital signals, analog televisions will be equipped
with a digital tuner (a set-top box) which converts the signal from digital to
analog. At this point, the digital signal, even if content protected, is converted
into an unprotected analog form which could then be easily converted into a
similarly unprotected digital form subject to the unauthorized copying and
Internet transmission the content providers are seeking to prevent. Accepted
copyright protection technologies to “plug” the “analog hole” have not yet been
developed, and will likely require further technology development and negotiation
involving the content providers and consumer electronics manufacturers. The
House Energy & Commerce Committee staff discussion draft would address the
“analog hole” issue by providing for the termination of the manufacture of
equipment that has analog outputs by July 1, 2005. Some testimony at the
September 25 hearing criticized this draft provision, arguing that it would ban the
manufacture of digital/audio converter boxes, thus making existing analog
televisions, VCRs, and other equipment unusable after the digital transition.48
Cable/DTV Interoperability Standards. Interoperability standards
between digital televisions and cable systems are necessary in order for consumers
to be able to watch digital programming over their cable systems. Currently,
interoperability is achieved via the proprietary set-top box leased to the subscriber
by the local cable company. Given the absence of a national interoperability
standard, consumers are, at present, unable to purchase DTV products from
consumer electronics stores which can be directly connected to cable systems
without the use of a set-top box. Two separate entities – the consumer electronics
industry (including manufacturers and retailers) and the cable system operators –
have embarked on an often contentious process of determining the specific
technical details of how DTV devices might achieve nation-wide compatibility
and interoperability with cable systems.
Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the FCC to
adopt regulations to assure the commercial consumer availability of “navigation
48 Testimony of Gene Kimmelman, Senior Director of Public Policy, Consumers Union,
before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, September 25,
2002.

---

CRS-18
devices” (i.e. set-top boxes, remote control units) without jeopardizing the rights
of a cable provider to protect its signal from theft. Currently, proprietary set-top
boxes are “integrated” with two overall functions: security and navigation (i.e.
allowing the subscriber to flip from channel to channel). A 1998 order adopted by
the FCC (FCC 98-116) requires the cable operators to separate the security
functions from non-security functions and to make available (by July 1, 2000)
modular security components to the consumer electronics industry.49 Allowing
time for transition, the FCC would prohibit the sale or lease of new “integrated”
boxes as of July 1, 2006.
On February 22, 2000, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and the
National Cable Television Association (NCTA) announced a voluntary agreement
on a set of technical requirements that permit the direct connection of digital
television receivers to cable television systems. In January 2002, CableLabs (a
research organization of the cable industry) published specifications for the
OpenCable Applications Platform (OCAP), which would serve as a uniform
interoperability cable/DTV standard. However, consumer electronics
manufacturers and retailers and the cable industry sharply disagree over the pace
and specific technical details (including copy protection requirements) of how
interoperability should be implemented.
Disagreement over DTV/cable interoperability continues was prominently
aired during the September 25, 2002 House Energy & Commerce Committee
hearings on the digital transition. NCTA argued that proprietary set-top boxes
already allow a seamless DTV/cable interoperability, that there are, therefore, no
compatibility problems between DTVs and cable systems, and that consumers’
inability to purchase cable-ready DTVs or set-top boxes from consumer
electronics stores is not a critical component of the digital transition. However,
regardless of digital transition issues, the cable industry said it supports the retail
availability of cable-ready DTV products because it is in its own business interest
to do so.50 NCTA added that it has developed the required interoperability
standards, and is further advocating a “DVI connector” on all integrated DTV sets,
which would allow consumers to upgrade and receive advanced interactive
services from their cable or satellite provider.51
An opposing view was expressed at the hearings by consumer electronics
manufacturers and retailers. A spokesperson for the Consumer Electronics
49 Also referred to as a Point of Deployment or “POD” module, this would consist of a smart
card that could be inserted into the consumer electronics device to provide the security
required by the cable operator. A “national security interface” is required to ensure that
POD modules from all the different local cable operators would satisfactorily operate in
every device. To manufacture a “POD reliant” device, the manufacturer must sign a POD-
Host Interface License Agreement (“PHILA”).
50 Subscribers of satellite TV (“DBS,” the primary competitor to cable) can use the same
equipment anywhere in the country. This “portability” gives DBS a marketing advantage
over cable.
51 Testimony of Michael Wilner, Vice Chairman and CEO, Insight Communications, and
Chairman, NCTA, before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet,
September 25, 2002.

---

CRS-19
Retailers Coalition (CERC) argued that interoperability standards will be
ineffective unless and until the cable industry’s own proprietary equipment relies
on and supports those same standards. Without that reliance and support, they
argued, interoperable DTV devices manufactured by the consumer electronics
industry cannot be competitive (in terms of cost or functionality) with the cable
industry’s proprietary equipment.52 Additionally, testimony from a consumer
electronics manufacturer stated opposition to a mandated and ungradable
connector on all DTVs, arguing that this equipment is likely not needed on small
and mid-size televisions, and that making such connectors compatible with future
digital technologies is a “daunting, if not impossible, task.”53
The FCC will address the cable-DTV interoperability issue in a forthcoming
Second Report and Order in conjunction with its ongoing proceeding on
Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices (CS Docket No. 97-80). As part
of this proceeding, the cable and consumer electronics industries conducted
extensive negotiations over interoperability standards for possible adoption by the
FCC. On December 19, 2002, the cable and consumer electronics industries
announced they had reached an agreement on a cable compatibility standard for an
integrated, unidirectional digital cable television receiver.
The two industry groups filed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the FCC, outlining the agreement. According to the MOU, the industries will
continue to negotiate a “bidirectional” standard that would enable consumers to
receive advanced services (such as video on demand) without the need for an
external navigation device. On January 7, 2003, the FCC issued a Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 03-3) which seeks comment on the MOU and
proposed FCC rules which would be necessary to implement the industry
agreement. Opposition to the agreement’s “encoding rules” has been expressed
by several organizations, including the Motion Picture Association of America,
makers of personal video recording technology (TiVo), and consumer groups.
On July 23, 2003, Representative Terry introduced H.R. 2825 (Consumer
Access to Digital Television Enhancement Act of 2003) which would require the
FCC to adopt and implement the MOU between the cable and consumer
electronics industries regarding a cable/DTV interoperability standard. H.R. 2825
would also require all television receivers marketed or labeled as “digital cable
ready” to come equipped with the capability to receive over-the-air digital
broadcast signals.
Digital Conversion of Public Broadcasting Stations. The FCC set a
deadline of May 1, 2003 for public television stations to convert to digital. Public
television consists of 176 licensees operating 357 stations nationwide. According
52 Testimony of Alan McCullough, Chairman, President & CEO, Circuit City Stores, Inc.,
representing CERC, before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet, September 25, 2002.
53
Testimony of Richard M. Lewis, Chief Technology Officer, Zenith Electronics
Corporation, before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet,
September 25, 2002.

---

CRS-20
to the Association of America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), as of July 24,
2003, 174 public television stations were offering digital broadcast services,
covering 76% of all U.S. households.54 According to the FCC, 214
noncommercial educational stations have requested extension of the May 1, 2003
buildout deadline. The FCC has granted 211 of those extension requests.55
Raising money for the digital conversion is a challenge for many public
television stations, especially those in small markets. According to APTS, the
total nationwide cost of conversion is $1.7 billion. State governments have
provided most of the funding to date, about $476 million, with private sources
providing $260 million. The federal government has provided $221 million.56
Public broadcasters have been seeking a substantial federal contribution ($699
million over five years) for digital conversion. This funding would be used to
pay for the new equipment and physical infrastructure required for digital
conversion (e.g. transmitters, translators, and production equipment). Public
stations are seeking this funding from the Public Telecommunications Facilities
Program (PTFP), a grant program administered by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department
of Commerce.
The PTFP, which has provided matching grants for public broadcasting
equipment for over 35 years, has begun funding digital conversion, awarding
$15.7 million for 44 television projects in FY1999, $18 million for digital
television transition for 31 projects in FY2000, and $35 million for 52 digital
conversion projects in FY2001. Funding for digital conversion represented 83%
of the total FY2001 PTFP grant awards (which includes funding other equipment
needs not related to digital conversion).
For FY2002, the Administration requested $43.46 million for PTFP
(approximately the same as appropriated for FY2001). The FY2002 Commerce-
State-Judiciary Appropriations (CJS) Act (P.L. 107-77/H.R. 2500/S. 1216)
matched the Administration’s request of $43.46 million.57 On November 20,
2001, NTIA published in the Federal Register a notice soliciting applications for
FY2002 funding.58 On September 30, 2002, NTIA announced 52 awards totaling
$36 million in PTFP grants to assist 97 public broadcasting stations across the
country in their digital conversion efforts. For FY2003, the Administration
requested $43.58 million for PTFP, virtually the same level appropriated by the
FY2002 CJS Act. In the 108th Congress, the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations
(P.L. 108-7) provides $43.5 million to the PTFP. For FY2004, the Administration
proposes to suspend all grants under the PTFP. As an alternative, the
54 For the latest count, see: [http://www.apts.org/html/digital/dtv/ptv_digitalstations.htm]
55 Ibid.
56 Communications Daily, May 1, 2003, p. 10.
57 For FY2002, PTFP received an additional $8.25 million through the Emergency
Supplemental, P.L. 107-117 (bringing the total FY2002 PTFP appropriation to $51.7
million).
58 See: [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/pdfForms/pffp_noa_2002.pdf]

---

CRS-21
Administration is proposing to make $80 million available for the digital
transition from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s already enacted FY2004
funding. The FY2004 CJS bill (H.R. 2799, H.Rept. 108-221), as passed by the
House on July 23, 2003, would also provide no funding for PTFP grants.
Whereas PTFP grants go for equipment, federal funds from the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are supporting the development and distribution of
digital content. For FY2001, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation Act (P.L.
106-554) appropriated $20 million to CPB for investment in DTV programming
and distribution, but required congressional authorization before it could be
released. The FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 2216, P.L. 107-
20, signed July
24, 2001) contained language authorizing release of those funds to CPB. For
FY2002, the Administration requested an additional $20 million for CPB for the
purposes of digital conversion. Both House and Senate versions of the FY2002
Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bills (H.R. 3061, H.Rept. 107-229/S. 1536,
S.Rept. 107-84) sought to provide $25 million to CPB for digital conversion. The
House bill would provide the funding pending authorization legislation. The
Labor-HHS conference report (H.Rept. 107-342) provided $25 million for
equipment and facilities to enable public broadcasters to meet the statutory
deadline for digital conversion as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement did not provide these funds contingent upon authorization as proposed
by the House. The bill was signed into law (P.L. 107-116) on January 10, 2002.
For FY2003, the 108th Congress, the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations (P.L.
108-7) provides $48.7 million to CPB for digital conversion. The
Administration’s FY2004 budget proposal requests that $80 million of CPB’s
already enacted FY2004 appropriation be allocated to digital conversion. The
House version of the FY2004 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R.
2660, H.Rept. 108-188), as passed by the House on July 10, 2003, matches the
Administration proposal. The Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill
(S. 1356, S.Rept. 108-81) would provide an additional $55 million in “new
money” for digital conversion in FY2004.
Reclaiming the Analog TV Spectrum. The goal of the FCC and
Congress has always been to complete the transition to DTV as quickly as
possible, so that NTSC (analog) spectrum can be reclaimed and reallocated for
other purposes. Some of the NTSC spectrum will be auctioned for commercial
wireless services, and some of it will be used for new public safety services (the
FCC has already designated some of the analog TV spectrum for public safety
use).59
The current target date for broadcasters to return analog spectrum is
December 31, 2006. However, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows a station
to delay the return of the analog spectrum if 15% or more of the television
households in its market do not subscribe to a multi-channel digital service and do
59 See: CRS Report RS21570, Spectrum Management: Public Safety and the Transition to
Digital Television, by Linda K. Moore.

---

CRS-22
not have digital television sets or converters. Given the slower-than-expected
pace that digital televisions have been introduced into American homes, few
observers believe that the goal of digital televisions in 85% of American homes by
2006 will be reached.60 Thus, some observers are concerned that if digital
television does not sufficiently penetrate American homes in the near future, the
analog spectrum will not be reclaimed, and broadcasters will keep both analog and
digital television spectrum licenses indefinitely, thereby preventing spectrum from
being available for commercial wireless services and public safety applications
(for example, police and firefighter radio communications).
Some have urged Congress to require broadcasters to return the analog
spectrum on “a date certain.” Under this approach, spectrum would be freed up
for other uses. Legislation in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1425, the Homeland
Emergency Operations Response Act introduced by Rep. Harmon on March 25,
2003) would prohibit any delay in reassigning the 24 MHz for public safety
purposes, and require those frequencies to be operational by January 1, 2007. The
Spectrum Commons and Digital Dividends Act of 2003 (H.R. 1396), introduced
by Rep. Markey on March 20, 2003, requires the FCC to ensure that any rules
necessary to effectuate the timely transition to digital television are promulgated
and completed prior to making available 700 MHz bands to commercial wireless
services. Finally, the September 25, 2002 House Energy & Commerce
Committees staff discussion draft seeks to ensure the availability of analog
television spectrum for other uses by removing from the Communications Act the
paragraph which allows a station to delay the return of the analog spectrum if 15%
of the television households in its market do not subscribe to a multi-channel
digital service and do not have digital television sets or converters. Therefore,
under this draft provision, all analog spectrum would be returned by December
31, 2006.
The Bush Administration, in its FY2004 budget request, is proposing an
analog spectrum lease fees as an incentive for broadcasters to surrender their
analog spectrum. Under this proposal, the FCC would establish an annual lease
fee of $500 million which commercial broadcasters would begin paying in 2007.
While similar fees were proposed by the previous two Administrations, Congress
has neither implemented nor endorsed this approach.
Low Power TV. Low Power Television (LPTV) was created by the FCC in
1982 to serve rural areas and individual communities within larger urban areas.
LPTV stations may not exceed 3 kilowatts for VHF channels or 150 kilowatts for
UHF channels, and must not cause interference in the reception of full service
television stations. Currently, there are 2119 LPTV stations in the United States.
Concerns have arisen that many LPTV stations will lose their licenses in the
transition to DTV. While the FCC’s February 1998 modification to its table of
allotments for DTV licensees did provide for some LPTV licensees to be
relocated to new frequencies, many would still lose their licenses under FCC
60 Historically , consumer electronics products take many years to be adopted. Since its
introduction in 1953, color television took roughly 25 years to enter 85% of American
homes. The video cassette recorder (VCR) took 15 years to reach 85% of homes.

---

CRS-23
digital transition plans. To provide some relief for LPTV licensees, the
Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 was enacted as part of the
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (P.L.
106-113). This law established a “class A” status to qualifying LPTV licensees,
giving them a measure of protection from full-power TV stations in the transition
to DTV. The Act directs that class A licensees be accorded primary status as
television broadcasters, prescribes the criteria LPTV stations must meet to be
eligible for class A status, and outlines the interference protection class A stations
must provide to other television stations. To implement the Act, in April 2000, the
FCC established rules for class A LPTV licensees, to facilitate the acquisition of
capital for LPTV stations to continue to provide free, over-the-air programming to
their communities.61
In accordance with the 1992 Cable Act (47 USC 534), cable television
providers are required to transmit to their audiences the locally-generated
programming of all full-power TV broadcasters that request carriage, a provision
known as “must-carry.” Under the 1992 Act, some LPTV stations are entitled to
“must-carry”status if they meet certain criteria.62 The FCC’s April 2000 ruling did
not address the question of whether class A licensees should be entitled to the
“must-carry” provision, as are full-power broadcast TV stations. A petition filed
with the FCC argued that class A licenses should be granted the same “must-
carry” status as full-power broadcasters. The FCC subsequently ruled that class A
stations do not have the same must carry rights as full service television stations.63
The Local Voices on TV Act of 2003 (H.R. 1626, introduced April 3, 2003 by
Representative Peterson of Minnesota) would provide cable carriage rights for
qualified class A television stations.
Fees for Ancillary or Supplemental Services. The
Telecommunications Act (P.L. 104-104) states that if a DTV licensee offers
ancillary or supplemental services for which they receive a subscription fee or
other compensation, the FCC “shall establish a program to assess and collect from
the licensee...an annual fee or other schedule or method of payment ...” The Act
further states that the collection of fees “shall be designed (i) to recover for the
public a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource made available for
such commercial use, and (ii) to avoid unjust enrichment through the method
employed to permit such uses of that resource.”64 Congress is overseeing the
61 FCC Report and Order in the Matter of Establishment of Class A Television Service, MM
Docket No. 00-10, FCC 00-115, released April 4, 2000.
62 Those criteria (47 USC 534) include (among other requirements) that the community of
license of the LPTV station has a population not exceeding 35,000, that there is no full-
power TV station licensed to any community within the county or other political subdivision
(of a state) served by the cable system, and that the LPTV station provides the only news
coverage in its community of license.
63 FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration in the Matter of Establishment
of Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10, FCC 01-123, released April 13, 2001.
64
The Budget Resolution of 1997 (H.Con.Res.84) included a provision requiring
broadcasters to pay a spectrum usage fee of $2 billion over five years. Broadcasters strongly
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
FCC’s actions regarding implementation of this law. Public interest groups have
also maintained pressure on the FCC to establish a fee program, arguing that
broadcasters should compensate the American people for the use of the DTV
spectrum, and that fees should be required out of fairness to those who paid for
spectrum at FCC auctions (such as licensees for personal communications
services).
In November 1998, the FCC adopted rules to require broadcasters to pay 5%
of their gross revenues from ancillary or supplementary uses of DTV spectrum for
which they charge subscription fees or other specified compensation.65 These
include subscription video, software distribution, data transmissions, teletext,
interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, and audio signals. Home
shopping channels and “infomercials” are not subject to fees because the FCC did
not consider them new services. The FCC has initiated a separate proceeding to
determine how much non-commercial stations can use the DTV spectrum for
revenue-generating services, and whether they should have to pay spectrum fees.
Some consumer groups say that the FCC’s spectrum fees are not heavy enough on
commercial broadcasters, arguing that most revenue will come from home
shopping and infomercials. They also warn that public broadcasters should not be
over-regulated, arguing that too heavy a burden placed on public broadcasters
could impair their long-term viability.
On October 11, 2002, the FCC ruled that noncommercial stations are
required to use their entire digital capacity primarily for nonprofit,
noncommercial, educational broadcast services. However, the FCC also ruled
that the statutory prohibition against advertising on noncommercial broadcasts
does not apply to any ancillary or supplementary services presented on an excess
DTV channels that does not constitute broadcasting. The FCC further ruled that
public stations must pay a fee of five percent of gross revenues generated by
ancillary or supplementary services provided on their DTV service.66
Public Interest Obligations of DTV Broadcasters. In March 1997,
President Clinton established an Advisory Committee on Public Interest
Obligations of DTV Broadcasters, to make recommendations on how DTV
licensees should compensate the public for their licenses. Committee members
were selected from government, the broadcasting industry, academia, and
consumer interest organizations. After a series of public meetings in 1997 and
1998, the Committee submitted a set of recommendations to Vice President Gore
in December 1998. The recommendations consist of mostly voluntary actions by
broadcasters, including providing five minutes per night of air time for candidate-
centered discourse in the 30 days prior to an election. Some panel members
64 (...continued)
opposed that provision, however, and it was not included in the Budget Act of 1997.
65 FCC Report and Order on Fees for Ancillary or Supplementary Use of Digital Television
Spectrum, MM Docket No. 97-247, released November 19, 1998.
66 FCC Report and Order in the Matter of Ancillary or Supplementary Use of Digital
Television Capacity by Noncommercial Licensees, MM Docket no. 98-203, FCC 01-306,
released October 17, 2001.

---

CRS-25
wanted to recommend mandating the free air time as well as other Committee
proposals. The White House referred the report to the FCC, which on December
15, 1999, opened a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) proceeding to solicit public comment
on public interest obligations of TV broadcasters as they transition to DTV.
After reviewing public comment, the FCC, in September 2000, issued the
DTV Public Interest Form Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which sought
to require television broadcasters (both digital and analog) to disclose on a
quarterly standardized form how they are serving the public interest. Also in
September 2000, the FCC issued the Children’s DTV Public Interest NPRM,
which focused on the obligation of broadcasters to provide educational and
informational programming for children, and the requirement that licensees limit
advertising in children’s programs. The FCC has not yet issued any decisions in
those proceedings. Given the significant amount of time that has passed, the
Second Periodic Review of FCC rules and policies affecting DTV conversion,
issued on August 9, 2002, has asked for further comment on the public interest
obligation issue.67
Tower Siting. One obstacle to the broadcasters’ ability to offer DTV
services is the opposition from state and local communities over the building of
new signal transmission towers.68 In most cases, DTV antennas can be built on
top of existing towers used for analog TV broadcasting. If new towers are
required, however, they must be constructed before the stations can transmit DTV
signals. In August 1997, the FCC released an NPRM (FCC 97-182) to consider
the preemption of state and local zoning restrictions on the siting, placement, and
construction of DTV broadcasting facilities. In its January 18, 2001 Report and
Order, the FCC concluded that “while some stations are facing problems with
tower availability and/or local zoning issues, such problems do not seem to be
widespread at this time.”69 The FCC will continue to monitor the situation and
intends to work with the involved parties as problems arise.
Activities in the 107th and 108th Congress
During the 107th Congress, Congressional committees keenly monitored the
pace and progress of the digital transition. On March 1, 2001, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the
transition to digital television.70 The House Energy and Commerce Committee,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, held a hearing on March
15, 2001 entitled, “Digital Television: A Private Sector Perspective on the
67 NPRM, Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion to Digital Television, p. 39-42.
68 For more information on DTV tower siting, see: [http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/dtv/]
69 FCC Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of
Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital
Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, FCC 01-24, p. 37.
70 See: [http://commerce.senate.gov/issues/telco.htm#Hearings]

---

CRS-26
Transition,”71 and on September 25, 2002 entitled, “H.R.__, Regarding the
Transition to Digital Television.”72 Meanwhile, a number of bills were introduced
into the 107th Congress, and subsequently into the 108th Congress, relating in some
way to digital television (see Appendix).
On September 18, 2002, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce
released a “staff discussion draft” of a comprehensive DTV bill which would
require the FCC to take actions necessary to advance the transition to digital
television service. Intended as a legislative starting point on the DTV debate, the
draft bill would address the DTV transition from a number of different aspects.
Specifically the draft bill would:
! require broadcasters to return their analog spectrum by December
31, 2006, regardless of whether 85% of households have the
capability to receive digital signals;
! require cable operators, by July 1, 2005, to adhere to nationally
accepted DTV/cable interoperability standards;
! eliminate FCC rules prohibiting cable operators from continuing
to deploy set-top boxes with integrated security features;
! require all DTV products manufactured after January 1, 2006 to
recognize a “broadcast flag” that would prevent unauthorized
copying and distribution of digital content;
! prohibit, after July 1, 2005, the manufacture of DTV products
with analog outputs;
! require consumer electronics manufacturers to meet the FCC’s
phase-in plan for mandatory digital tuners;
! require network affiliates to pass through a network’s entire
digital signal without degradation; and
! require labels that inform consumers if televisions are not capable
of displaying digital or copy-protected content.
Meanwhile, at the request of Representative Edward Markey, Ranking
Minority Member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet, the General Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a report on the digital
transition entitled, Additional Federal Efforts Could Help Advance Digital
Television Transition. Released in November 2002, the GAO report found that
few consumers own digital television equipment, that many consumers are
unaware of the DTV transition, and
71 See: [http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03152001Hearing108/hearing.htm]
72 See: [http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/09252002Hearing719/hearing.htm]

---

CRS-27
that cable and satellite carriage of DTV signals is limited. Concluding that it is
unlikely that 85% of households will be able to receive DTV signals by December
2006, GAO recommended that the FCC: explore options to raise public awareness
about the DTV transition; examine the costs and benefits of mandating that all
new televisions be digital cable-ready; and examine the advantages and
disadvantages of setting a fixed date for transferring must-carry rights from
broadcasters’ analog signals to digital signals.73
The FCC is seeking to encourage industry stakeholders to voluntarily take
steps necessary to ensure a successful and timely digital transition. On April 4,
2002, FCC Chairman Michael Powell submitted, to the Chairmen of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, a proposal for voluntary industry actions to speed the digital
television transition. The proposal, which is purely voluntary, is intended (in
Commissioner Powell’s words) “to provide an immediate spur to the transition by
giving consumers a reason to invest in digital technology today, while we
continue to work on resolving the longer-term issues.”74 Specifically, the proposal
calls on industry to do the following:
! Broadcast networks – provide high-definition or other value
added DTV programming during at least 50% of their prime-time
schedule, beginning with the 2002-2003 season.
! Broadcast licensees – affiliates of top four networks in markets 1-
100 broadcast a digital signal by January 1, 2003.
! Cable – systems with 750 MHz or higher carry digital signals of
up to five broadcast or other digital programming services by
January 1, 2003.
! Direct Broadcast Satellite – carry signals of up to five digital
programming services by January 1, 2003.
! Equipment Manufacturers and Retailers – include over-the-air
broadcast tuners in new broadcast television receivers according
to a specified timetable.
To the extent that industry can voluntarily meet some or all of the digital
transition goals, the pressure for Congressional action in the face of looming
deadlines may lesson. However, if industry cannot take the voluntary steps
necessary to accelerate the digital transition, Congress and the FCC may take
action in the 108th Congress to ensure a smoother and more timely nationwide
adoption of digital television. July 19, 2002 letters from the leadership of the
73 General Accounting Office, Additional Federal Efforts Could Help Advance Digital
Television
Transition,
GAO-03-7,
November
2002,
52
p.
Available
at:
[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d037.pdf]
74 For proposal and cover letters to Committees, see:
[http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_proposal_to_speed_dtv_transition.pdf]

---

CRS-28
House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee to FCC Chairman Powell raised the prospect of new
DTV legislation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on
September 25, 2002 to hear testimony on the Committee’s staff discussion draft of
a comprehensive DTV bill75 which would encompass a variety of issues,
including: DTV tuners, DTV cable carriage limitations, DTV set-top-box
compatibility, pass through of high definition programming by broadcast network
affiliates, and content protection for digital video programming. Legislation is
likely in the 108th Congress that will address those issues. Meanwhile, the FCC,
having already issued proceedings on digital tuners and broadcast copy protection
in August 2002, is expected to issue proceedings on additional DTV issues,
including cable and satellite TV carriage of digital signals and cable-DTV
compatibility.
75 See: [http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/drafts/dtvstaff.htm]

---

CRS-29
Appendix – Legislation in the 107th and 108th Congress
Related to Digital Television
107th Congress
H.R. 3397 (Harmon)
Homeland Emergency Operations Response Act. Prohibits any delay in
reassigning 24 MHz in the upper 700 MHz band (currently occupied by television
broadcasters) for public safety purposes, and requires those frequencies to be
operational by January 1, 2007. Introduced December 4, 2001; referred to
Committee on Energy & Commerce.
H.R. 3448 (Tauzin)/P.L. 107-188
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001. Section 531
requires the FCC to allot a digital channel to any requesting full-power television
station that had an application pending for an analog television station
construction permit as of October 24, 1991, and which had its application granted
after April 3, 1997. Signed into law, June 12, 2002.
H.R. 4560 (Tauzin)/P.L. 107-195
Auction Reform Act of 2002. Repeals statutory deadlines for spectrum
auctions of the 700 MHz band currently occupied by television broadcasters.
Directs FCC to indefinitely postpone scheduled June 2002 auctions of 700 MHz
band. Introduced April 24, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy & Commerce.
Reported by Committee (H.Rept. 107-443) May 7, 2002. Passed House on May 7,
2002, passed Senate on June 18, 2002. Signed into law, June 19, 2002.
H.R. 4641 (Markey)
Wireless Technology Investment and Digital Dividends Act of 2002.
Requires FCC to ensure that any rules necessary to effectuate the timely transition
to digital television are promulgated and completed prior to making available the
bands of frequencies at 747-762 and 777-792 MHz for advanced commercial
mobile services or other competitive wireless services. Also provides increased
funding to assist digital conversion of public television stations. Introduced May
2, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy & Commerce.
S. 2048 (Hollings)
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. Providing for
private sector development of technological copyright protection measures to be
implemented and enforced by federal regulations to protect digital content and
promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television. Introduced
March 21, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
S. 2448 (Hollings)
Broadband Telecommunications Act of 2002. Title IV provides grants to
public broadcaster through the Department of Commerce for facility upgrades to
transmit digital television and to develop educational and public interest digital
programming.

---

CRS-30
Introduced May 2, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation.
S. 2454 (Ensign)
Auction Reform Act of 2002. Repeals statutory deadlines for spectrum
auctions of the 700 MHz band currently occupied by television broadcasters.
Directs FCC to indefinitely postpone scheduled June 2002 auctions of 700 MHz
band. Introduced May 2, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
S. 2481 (Stevens)
Auction Timing Completion Act. Requires auction of 700 MHz spectrum in
compliance with existing statutory deadlines and gives the FCC discretion to set
the auction date for all other spectrum auctions in the future. Introduced May 8,
2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
108th Congress
H.R. 426 (Sensenbrenner)
TV Consumer Choice Act of 2003. Prohibits the FCC from requiring digital
tuners in television receivers. Introduced February 3, 2003; referred to Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1396 (Markey)
Spectrum Commons and Digital Dividends Act of 2003. Requires FCC to
ensure that any rules necessary to effectuate the timely transition to digital
television are promulgated and completed prior to making available the bands of
frequencies at 747-762 and 777-792 MHz for advanced commercial mobile
services or other competitive wireless services. Also provides increased funding
to assist digital conversion of public television stations. Introduced March 20,
2003; referred to Committee on Energy & Commerce.
H.R. 1425 (Harmon)
Homeland Emergency Operations Response Act. Prohibits any delay in
reassigning 24 MHz in the upper 700 MHz band (currently occupied by television
broadcasters) for public safety purposes, and requires those frequencies to be
operational by January 1, 2007. Introduced March 23, 2003; referred to
Committee on Energy & Commerce.
H.R. 1626 (Peterson)
Local Voices on TV Act of 2003. Provides cable carriage rights for qualified
class A television stations. Introduced April 3, 2003; referred to Committee on
Energy & Commerce.
H.R. 2825 (Terry)
Consumer Access to Digital Television Enhancement Act of 2003. Requires
the FCC to adopt and implement the MOU between the cable and consumer
electronics industries regarding a cable/DTV interoperability standard. Also
requires all television receivers marketed or labeled as “digital cable ready” to
come equipped with the capability to receive over-the-air digital broadcast signals,

---

CRS-31
and establishes minimum required power levels for digital broadcasts. Introduced
July 23, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy & Commerce.

---