Before
the
Federal
Communications Commission
Washington,
DC 20554
In the Matter of
The 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review )
Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules in )
MM Docket No. 98-93, 98-117
Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules )
Comments Filed by:
V-Soft Communications/ Doug Vernier
Telecommunications Consultants
1600 Picturesque Dr.
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
V-Soft Communications designs broadcast
propagation software for mapping radio and TV station coverage and interference
and for preparing the required exhibits for FCC applications. V-Soft
Communications contains a broadcast technical consulting unit that provides
consultative assistance for solving broadcasting engineering problems. The
information put forth in this document is in response to the Commission’s
request for comments under MM Docket 98-93, "Streamlining of Technical
Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules,"
We applaud the Commission’s efforts to
streamline the rules to provide new flexibility to the broadcast community.
Docket MM 98-93 suggests many changes which will have that affect, however the
Commission remains concerned (and rightly so) about the short and long term
impact of the proposed rules. Since many of the docket’s proposals may affect "equitable
service" and may allow an increased amount of interference, the options
need to be carefully examined. We think that any interference should be avoided
but balanced against service some increase of interference may be the public
interest.
Negotiated Interference:
The Commission seeks comments on whether it
should amend Section 73.215(a) and 73.509 to permit applications that would
result in prohibited overlap. We think that the four criteria outlined on page
#10 of the docket are appropriate. We believe the proposed restrictions will
serve to protect the integrity of local service and at the same time give
broadcasters a moderate amount of additional flexibility.
Since there are fewer educational stations
than commercial stations, loss of service of any given station may have a
larger and more significant impact.
We feel that any service floor that is
applied to non-commercial educational broadcasters should be balanced against
non-commercial service, not commercial service, with the goal of restricting
the creation of new white or gray NCE areas.
We agree with the Commission’s conclusion
that form 301 (or 340 for NCE operators) should be modified to require an
applicant’s certification to the negotiated interference standards. It would be
appropriate for the Commission to provide a supplemental form that will detail
the responses and exhibits required for such certification.
We note that the Commission proposes to
assign all new construction permits as 73.215 proposals. We support this notion,
knowing that it could restrict the flexibility these stations have to move to
new transmitter sites. The Commission has a history of successful NCE band
regulation where protection is afforded to the actual service contour. It makes
sense to us that expansion of contour protection though new licensing can work
without creating new interference.
Regarding the proposal to amend Section
73.509 to prohibit second and third-adjacent channel NCE stations from
proposing transmitter sites within an affected station’s 63 dBu contour. We do
not support this restriction, since all stations that participate in negotiated
interference must agree to it, it seems to us inappropriate to deny two
stations the ability to improve their facilities. This proposal also assumes
that all stations have transmitters "deep" within the community of
license, which is not true. There may, in fact, be a very good reason to
approve such interference if it meets other criteria and falls outside a highly
populated area yet within the 63 dBu contour.
We support the Commission’s proposal to
allow all applicants to improve facilities by receiving second or third
adjacent interference without negotiation as long as the negotiated
interference criterion are met and no interference would be caused to the
service contour of any other station. The exception to this would be
short-spacing to another station not conditioned as 73.215 when permission from
the station would be required. It is important that the Commission adhere to
its standard of no more than five percent (received) interference in these
cases. Since such operation may reduce the flexibility to move the transmitter
site of the station causing the interference, we suggest that the Commission
require the station wishing to receive interference to notify the station
causing the interference at the time of filing the application. This
notification would be in addition to the issuance of the Commission’s
traditional public notice.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether
it should follow the methodology adopted in the recent grandfathered
short-spaced FM station proceeding to determine the areas of interference using
the desired-to-undesired signal strength ratio analysis and the standard
propagation curves. While, for the sake of accuracy, we support using the D/U
ratio method over the standard overlapping contour method, we think that the
Commission needs to develop a more sophisticated approach to determining
whether interference exists. The PTP method (when modified) will partially meet
this requirement. However, considering that quality signal FM listening may be
at risk by these proposals, we believe it is time for the Commission to develop
a contemporary approach. Many of the current assumptions of D/U ratios are
built upon outdated studies of receiver sensitivity and selectivity. We think
it is time for the Commission to establish a base line for modern receiver
performance. New studies are in order that would also consider the future needs
of digital radio transmission.
We think that, when it comes to interference
signal projection, the Commission’s current method of predicting interference
is inadequate. (More on methods under P.T.P.)
We believe that the Commission’s "no
waiver" policy with regard to Section 73.207 minimum distances is too
severe. For example, we have experienced cases where an antenna move was
rejected that would have changed a station’s antenna from one tower to another
300 feet away on the same antenna farm because it caused a shortspace. This
kind of blind adherence to the "no waiver" policy is inappropriately
harsh on the broadcaster. We recommend that the Commission be open to the
consideration of waivers with a minimum 600 foot leeway (or approximately 6
seconds after rounding.)
We applaud the Commission’s offer to publish
decisions that explain or clarify the new procedures. In this regard, we urge
the Commission to enhance its technical computer databases by adding
information on existing class A and new negotiated shortspace situations.
Continuing to update this information would provide the user with a way, at
some future date, of sorting out hundreds of stations that neither meet the
Commission’s minimum spacings rules nor qualify under section 73.215. This
additional information will be vital to expanded computerization methods that
will be required.
With regard to a broader perspective, we
feel that the listener will benefit more from the proposal than not. It seems
to us that the four stated negotiated interference criteria are designed to protect
the listener. It is possible that new opportunities for "move-ins"
may come out of these proposed rules, yet, we believe there are ample
safeguards built in to the criteria so that small communities will not lose
their service.
We see no reason to consider agreements
between NCE stations differently than between commercial stations. The
Commission may also want to consider the possibility of an agreement between an
NCE station and a commercial station, since such agreements will be likely for
the six channels between channel 218 and channel 223. We think a standard
agreement will satisfy all parties involved.
From what we have learned regarding the IBOC
testing that has already gone on, interference from strong co and
first-adjacent channels can be very disruptive. Until broadcasters agree on a
system, we can only assume that any new interference will have a detrimental
effect on the development of digital radio transmissions. As we have already
stated, we feel the Commission should take a stronger role in the development
of D/U standards for both conventional and digital radio broadcasts.
There is a danger that the many elements of
the Commission’s negotiated interference proposal will reduce a station’s
flexibility to move its transmitter to a new location. The broadcaster who uses
Section 73.215 or the proposed negotiated interference rules should be made
fully aware of the potential consequences. Loss of future transmitter site
flexibility by the applicant will have to be balanced against new service that
will result. We think that it should be the Commission’s responsibility to
provide information to the public that will outline the dangers involved.
We support a tough approach to enforcing
rules with regard to negotiated interference. It is incumbent upon Commission
engineers to fully confirm the proposals before approving them. The Commission
should not be hesitant to rescind approval in the event it finds an applicant
has misrepresented the facts in some manner. The Commission should make all possible
efforts to require compliance with the terms of any negotiated interference
agreement… including revoking licensees if misrepresentations are made.
The Point to Point method:
As stated, we believe the FCC’s standard
method for determining the distance to a signal contour is outdated. Since the
entire path between a transmitter and receiver has an effect on the signal,
using only a portion of the path will produce errors that will result in overly
severe protection. For FM, the Commission uses only the portion of the path
from 3 to 16 kilometers from the transmitter. A large hill or mountain beyond
16 kilometers will be completely missed, therefore, we support a prediction
method (such as the P.T.P.) that considers the entire path. However, we have
concerns about the implementation of any new method without looking at the
existing rules for exceptions that cause interference rather than protect a
station from interference.
Our analysis indicates that the proposed
P.T.P. method should be altered to correct certain inaccuracies before it is
adopted in its final form. We have found several instances when using the
Commission’s P.T.P. FORTRAN code where the interference signal contour actually
traveled farther for a lower E.R.P. than a higher E.R.P. with the antenna
height and path being held constant. In examining the code we find that the
problem stems from the curve fitting routine, because the program attempts to
fit the entire curve and not a pertinent window along the radial. We have also
found circumstances where the change in power of a watt or two results in a
change in the predicted signal contour of ten or twenty kilometers. While this
may be consistent with a curve fitting and point extraction methodology, it is
not consistent with reality.
Consequently, we support a method such as
the P.T.P. however we think that without modification the method currently
envisioned by the Commission is not the answer. We, have concerns about any
interference prediction method that attempts to simplify the prediction of the
location of interference by fitting a curve to calculate a single signal value.
Knowing that the signal along any given radial from a transmitter can reach a
given value more than once, we believe a more accurate method would be achieved
by using the DTV Longley-Rice model where each square kilometer is
interrogated. This model, while being more difficult to implement, will result
in greater accuracy.
We support allowing the use of a revised PTP
method to determine the 3.16 mV/m signal and compliance with the main studio
requirements.
Reduced Minimum Separation Requirements
for Second and Third Adjacent Channel Stations:
We support revisions to the Section
73.215(e) minimum distance shortspacing table to reduce the distances by the
suggested 6 km. Such an action puts the commercial shortspacing rules more in
line with those that have been used successfully in the NCE band for many years
and it increases a broadcaster’s flexibility to move a transmitter to an
available site.
New Class C Height Above Average Terrain
Requirements:
We strongly support the Commission’s
proposal to create a new C0 class. This would make possible a more efficient
use of the spectrum rather than protecting class C stations that have made no
effort to improve facilities to other than the minimum for the class. Since
there is a significant coverage difference between a minimum class C and a
maximum facility, a large amount of spectrum is wasted by protecting minimum
facilities. Such spectrum could be put to better use. The use of a "buffer
zone" will give existing class C stations enough time and protection to
plan an upgrade. The "buffer zone" procedure is consistent with the
Commission’s practices when the C1 class was created.
Streamlined Application Processing
Changes:
We support the Commission’s proposal to
extend "first come first serve" to AM, NCE FM and FM translator minor
change applications. We also believe that translator stations that are forced
to change channels by full service stations should be considered as minor
change applications regardless if the channel has been changed. This would
prevent a displaced translator applicant from being shut out on a new channel
by another conflicting translator application for the same channel.
Revisions of the Definition of "Minor"
Change in AM, NCE FM and Translator Services
We support redefining a "minor
change" for AM, NCE FM and FM translators to conform to the commercial FM
"minor change" definition.
However, we are concerned many stations will
rush to maximize their facilities only to be first, so as to assure their
grant. This will result in a glut of applications to the Commission and in the
"warehousing" of upgrade proposals. To counteract
"warehousing" the Commission will need to be more diligent in
enforcing the construction permit renewal regulations. We think that, under any
circumstances, 18 months plus one six-month extension should be set as the
absolute limit.
Coordinate Corrections by Single
Application for Licensed Stations:
We support the proposal to allow the use of
a single license application to correct coordinates up to three seconds or to
apply for a power reduction of a booster or translator.
Second-Adjacent Channel Ratios for
Predicting Prohibited Overlap in the Reserved Band:
We are inclined to support the use of the
100 dBu signal contour as the interfering signal strength for both the second
and third adjacent channels. However, we feel that in order be fully confident,
the Commission should confirm the impact on NCE broadcasters of new second adjacent
interference through the application of a scientific study using an appropriate
sampling of modern receivers.
Minimum Coverage Over the Community of
License:
Requiring that a least a portion of the
community of license for an NCE station be served by the 60 dBu also seems
reasonable. This rule should also be carried over to the FM translator rules
where no such minimum service standard exists. Perhaps the 50 dBu should be
used for translators. This would eliminate the licensing of spurious
translators that have no way of reaching the community of license with an
adequate signal to be heard above the noise floor.
Revisions to Class D Rules:
We oppose the proposal that would require a
class D station to move to a second or third adjacent NCE channel in the event
it could not identify an interference free channel. It is a bad idea to exclude
the commercial second and third adjacent channels from this requirement. There
are 80 additional channels in the commercial band that could rightly be used.
On the average, the commercial band FM stations transmit with higher power than
the NCE stations, therefore, as a whole, they are less susceptible to the
impact of interference than the NCE stations.
Otherwise we support the rule changes being
proposed and note that many of these rules are already implemented in staff
policy.
Finally, we thank the Commission for the
opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of V-Soft Communications/Doug
Vernier Telecommunications Consultants.