Order Code RL31260
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Digital Television:
An Overview
Updated November 7, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Reclaiming the Analog TV Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Low Power TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Fees for Ancillary or Supplemental Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Public Interest Obligations of DTV Broadcasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Tower Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Activities in the 107th and 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix – Legislation in the 107th and 108th Congress Related to Digital
Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
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
1 At present, commercially available DVD technology does not deliver digital high
definition programming.

---

CRS-2
monitors accompanied with a set-top 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 their option to
expand their coverage area as the digital transition progresses. Meanwhile, the FCC
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
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).
On September 10, 2003, the FCC adopted a Second Report and Order which
adopts, with certain modifications, an agreement between the cable and consumer
electronics industries ensuring the compatibility between cable systems and
commercial electronics devices (see section in this report, “Cable/DTV
Interoperability Standards.”
On November 4, 2003, the FCC adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 03-273) which gives broadcasters the option of
inserting a “broadcast flag” into their over-the-air broadcast transmissions (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
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]

---

CRS-6
transition. One will address the carriage of DTV broadcast signals on cable and
satellite TV systems.
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.14 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 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-02-23015
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-01-33016
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-01-2417
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-01-2218
Broadcast Signals
FNPRM
CS Docket No. 98-120
January 23, 2001
Commercial Availability of
FNPRM and Declaratory Ruling
FCC-00-34119
Navigation Devices
CS Docket No. 97-80
September 18, 2000
Compatibility Between Cable
Second Report and Order and
FCC-03-22520
Systems and Consumer
Second Further Notice of
PP Docket No. 00-67
Electronics Equipment
Proposed Rulemaking
September 10, 2003
Nondiscrimination in the
Notice of Inquiry
FCC-01-1521
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, 200222
Digital Broadcast Copy
Report and Order and Further
FCC-03-27323
Protection
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
MB Docket No. 02-230
15 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-230A1.pdf]
16 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01330.pdf]
17 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf]
18 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01022.pdf]
19 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-341A1.pdf]
20 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf]
21 [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01015.pdf]
22 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-150A1.pdf]
23 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-273A1.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.24
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 October 28, 2003, there were 1060 stations (both commercial and public)
broadcasting digital signals in 202 markets.25 This represents about 66% of the
nation’s approximately 1600 television stations. On the other hand, the 202 markets
currently receiving digital transmissions cover about 99% of U.S. TV households.
Television stations must construct new facilities and purchase new equipment in
24 Cable & Telecommunications Overview, 2001, June 2001, National Cable Television
Association.
25 For latest statistics, see: [http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp]

---

CRS-9
order to transmit digital signals. According to NAB, costs range from $8-10 million
to fully convert a station to digital operation.26
As of October 15, 2003, the FCC has granted a construction permit or license
to 1605 stations, about 95% of the total number of DTV allotments.27 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 142 stations.
Meanwhile, 290 noncommercial educational stations have requested extension of the
May 1, 2003 buildout deadline. The FCC has granted 214 of those extension
requests, 3 have been dismissed, and 73 remain pending.28
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).29 Also there are copyright,
standards, and interoperability issues between the cable system and DTV sets that
must be resolved (see “copyright and standards” below).
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
26 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.
27 See: [http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvsum.html]
28 Ibid.
29 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
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, 2003.30 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.31
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,32 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.33 An integrated DTV, which contains a built-in digital
tuner, is sold at prices ranging from $3000 to $12,000.34 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.35
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
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
30 McConnell, Bill, “Cable Takes the High-Def High Road,” Broadcasting & Cable, May
6, 2002, pp. 54-60.
31 Breznick, Alan, “MSOs Accelerate HDTV Rollouts as Consumer Demand Surges,”
Communications Daily, June 19, 2002, pp. 4-5.
32 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.
33 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.
34 “Super-size Your Set,” Consumer Reports, March 2001, p. 16.
35 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
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 2006.36
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.
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
36 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
matter.37 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.”38
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.
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
37 FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Carriage of Transmissions of Digital Television
Broadcast Stations, CS Docket No. 98-120, released July 10, 1998.
38 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
a substantial governmental interest.”39 A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM) will continue to collect public comment and investigate this issue.40
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 the
means of many consumers.41 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
39 See: [http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2001/nrcb0103.html]
40 Federal Register, March 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 58), pp. 16523-16532.
41 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).

---

CRS-14
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.42 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.43 The House
Energy & Commerce Committees staff discussion draft would affirm the FCC’s
phase-in plan for 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
42 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]
43 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
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.44
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.45
Broadcast Flag. While DTCP protects content delivered to the home via
cable or satellite, the technology does not protect over-the-air broadcast content.
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
44 Clark, Drew, “Electronics Group Shows Flexibility on Digital TV Issue,” National
Journal’s Technology Daily, January 27, 2003.
45 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
industries46 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.
On November 4, 2003, the FCC adopted a rule which gives broadcasters the
option of inserting a “broadcast flag” into their over-the-air broadcast transmissions.
By July 1, 2005, all consumer electronics devices capable of receiving an over-the-air
DTV signal must be manufactured to incorporate content protection technologies that
will limit the redistribution of digital television content when the broadcast flag is
recognized. Before DTV devices can be manufactured, however, content protection
technologies must be approved. The FCC has established an “interim procedure”
whereby parties will certify that their content protection technology meets FCC
criteria. After a period of public comment, the FCC will determine whether or not
to approve that particular technology. The FCC has issued a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in order to formulate a permanent approval procedure for
content protection technology.47
46 The Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), a subgroup of the Copy Protection
Technical Working Group (CPTWG).
47 FCC Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of
Digital Broadcast Content Protection , MB Docket No. 02-230, FCC 03-273, released
November 4, 2003.

---

CRS-17
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 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
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
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 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
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
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.
On September 10, 2003, the FCC adopted a Second Report and Order which
adopts, with certain modifications, the MOU agreement between the cable and
consumer electronics industries. The new rules allow for the manufacture of “plug
and play” television sets that will receive one-way digital signals (from the cable
company to the consumer) without the need for a set-top box. However, consumers
will have to obtain from their cable operator a security card (a “POD” or “cable
card”) that must be inserted into the TV set. A set-top box will still be required for
two-way services such as video on demand or pay-per-view.
The cable and
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
consumer electronics industry will continue to negotiate over this issue. Finally, the
Order initiates a subsequent proposed rulemaking (Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking) which will examine some remaining issues.54
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
to the Association of America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), as of October
2003, 193 public television stations were offering digital broadcast services, covering
78% of all U.S. households.55 According to the FCC, 290 noncommercial educational
stations have requested extension of the May 1, 2003 buildout deadline. The FCC
has granted 214 of those extension requests, 3 have been dismissed, and 73 remain
pending.56
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.57 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.58 On November 20, 2001, NTIA
54 FCC Press Release, FCC Eases Digital Transition for Consumers, September 10, 2003,
available at: [ http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238850A1.pdf}
55 For the latest count, see: [http://www.apts.org/html/digital/dtv/ptv_digitalstations.htm]
56 Ibid.
57 Communications Daily, May 1, 2003, p. 10.
58 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-21
published in the Federal Register a notice soliciting applications for FY2002
funding.59 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 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. The Senate version of the FY2004 CJS bill (S. 1585, S.Rept. 108-144),
as reported, would provide $55 million for PTFP.
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.
Additionally, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill (S. 1427;S.Rept. 108-107)
would provide $15 million in public broadcasting system grants (from the Distance
Learning and Telemedicine account of the Rural Utilities Service) to allow
noncommercial stations that serve rural areas to convert from analog to digital
operations.
58 (...continued)
million).
59 See: [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp/pdfForms/pffp_noa_2002.pdf]

---

CRS-22
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).60
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 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.61
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
60 See: CRS Report RS21570, Spectrum Management: Public Safety and the Transition to
Digital Television, by Linda K. Moore.
61 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
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 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.62
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.63 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.64 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.
62 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.
63 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.
64 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.

---

CRS-24
On August 6, 2003 the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking65 to seek
comment on rules for digital low power television and digital television translator
stations. Meanwhile, the FCC Reauthorization Act of 2003 (S. 1264; S.Rept. 108-
140), introduced by Senator McCain on June 13 and reported by the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on September 3, 2003, would
direct the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to authorize the operation of digital television
translators and digital on-channel repeaters.
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.”66 Congress is overseeing the 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.67 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.
65 FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of
the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television
Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A
Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, FCC 03-198, released August 29, 2003.
66
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
opposed that provision, however, and it was not included in the Budget Act of 1997.
67 FCC Report and Order on Fees for Ancillary or Supplementary Use of Digital Television
Spectrum, MM Docket No. 97-247, released November 19, 1998.

---

CRS-25
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.68
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 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.69
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.70 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
68 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.
69 NPRM, Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the
Conversion to Digital Television, p. 39-42.
70 For more information on DTV tower siting, see: [http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/dtv/]

---

CRS-26
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.”71 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.72 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 Transition,”73 and on
September 25, 2002 entitled, “H.R.__, Regarding the Transition to Digital
Television.”74 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;
71 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.
72 See: [http://commerce.senate.gov/issues/telco.htm#Hearings]
73 See: [http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03152001Hearing108/hearing.htm]
74 See: [http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/09252002Hearing719/hearing.htm]

---

CRS-27
! 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
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.75
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.”76 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.
75 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]
76 For proposal and cover letters to Committees, see:
[http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_proposal_to_speed_dtv_transition.pdf]

---

CRS-28
! 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. 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 bill77 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. Meanwhile, the FCC, having already
issued rulings on digital tuners, broadcast copy protection, and cable-DTV
compatibility, is expected to issue proceedings on additional DTV issues, including
cable and satellite TV carriage of digital signals.
77 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.
Introduced May 2, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation.

---

CRS-30
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, and establishes
minimum required power levels for digital broadcasts. Introduced July 23, 2003;
referred to Committee on Energy & Commerce.

---

CRS-31
S. 1264 (McCain)
FCC Reauthorization Act of 2003. Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to
authorize the operation of digital television translators and digital on-channel
repeaters. Introduced June 13, 2003; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation. Reported by Committee (S.Rept. 108-140) September 3, 2003.
S. 1621 (Brownback)
Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act
of 2003.
Prohibits the FCC from mandating particular content protection
technologies in its regulation on Digital Broadcast Content Protection; rather the
FCC will establish objective standards and allow manufacturer self-certification to
meet those standards. Introduced September 16, 2003; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation.

---