*Pages 1--360 from C:\Pdf2Text\Ready4Text_in\pdf\53611.pdf* Comments FCC 05- 94/ ET 05- 182 This listing of commenters does not include the Engineering comments submitted by Hammett and Edison on behalf of EchoStar Satellite L. L. C. The comment filings are separate due to the fact that they were submitted in a format that prevents their inclusion in this integrated electronic document. 1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technical Standards for Determining ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals ) Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer ) Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 ) COMMENTS OF THE ABC, CBS, AND NBC TELEVISION AFFILIATE ASSOCIATIONS Kurt A. Wimmer Wade H. Hargrove COVINGTON & BURLING Mark J. Prak 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. (20004) David Kushner Post Office Box 7566 BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, Washington, D. C. 20044- 7566 HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L. L. P. Telephone: (202) 662- 6000 Wachovia Capitol Center, Suite 1600 Facsimile: (202) 662- 6291 150 Fayetteville Street Mall (27601) Post Office Box 1800 Counsel for the CBS Television Network Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Affiliates Association and for the Telephone: (919) 839- 0300 NBC Television Affiliates Association Facsimile: (919) 839- 0304 Counsel for the ABC Television Affiliates Association June 17, 2005 2 - ii - Table of Contents Summary ................................................. iii I. In Addressing SHVERA’s Statutory Study Considerations, the Commission Should Be Guided by the Fundamental Nature of the Section 119 Compulsory License ................................ 1 II. The DTV Planning Factors Established Appropriate Signal Strength Thresholds for Reception of Real- World Digital Broadcast Signals .... 13 Thermal Noise ....................................... 15 Dipole Factor ........................................ 16 Carrier- to- Noise Ratio ................................. 16 Downlead Line Loss ................................... 16 Receiving Antenna Gain ............................... 17 System Noise Figure .................................. 28 Miscellaneous Considerations ........................... 29 III. The Commission’s Objective Test Methodology for Analog Signals Is Generally Sound but Must Be Modified Slightly to Test Objectively the Signal Strength of Digital Broadcast Signals ......... 38 IV. The Longley- Rice Model Is an Appropriate Predictive Model to Recommend to Congress for Future, But Not Immediate, Use ........ 42 Conclusion ................................................ 47 Engineering Statement of Jules Cohen, P. E. ................ Appendix Antennas ........................................... Exhibit 1 Low Noise Amplifiers ................................. Exhibit 2 Rotors .............................................. Exhibit 3 3 - iii - Summary SHVERA requires the Commission to report to Congress on a variety of factors that may ultimately affect whether a household is deemed to be “unserved” by a digital television signal as that term is defined in 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 10). While SHVERA specifies certain particular considerations the Commission is to study, as the Notice recognizes, the Commission’s inquiry must be predicated upon the fundamental nature of the “unserved household” limitation set forth in the Copyright Act. That fundamental nature is a compulsory license operating in derogation of the property rights of copyright holders which should, accordingly, always be conservatively construed in favor of the local broadcast station. In its SHVA Order, and in keeping with the narrow purpose of the distant signal compulsory license, the Commission properly allowed the principle of localism and several important corollaries to guide its decision to recommend to Congress the Individual Location Longley- Rice (“ ILLR”) predictive model in the form that it did. First, the Commission respected the fact that SHVA reflected “Congress’ intent to protect the role of local broadcasters in providing free, over- the- air television to American families.” Second, the Commission sought to formulate an approach whose effect would neither “increase the number of unserved households that already exist, nor . . . reduce the size of local stations’ markets by subtracting viewers who are able to receive their signal.” Third, the Commission properly observed that “when served households are deemed eligible for satellite-delivered broadcast network service, network affiliates are harmed and the SHVA’s intent is also thwarted.” Fourth, and finally, the Commission recognized that a “predictive model that includes truly served households in an unserved category, even temporarily, creates . . . undesired effects.” These same principles should continue to guide the Commission in the instant proceeding. 4 - iv - The Commission should also be mindful that SHVERA is not merely a continuation of the Section 119 status quo ante. Rather, SHVERA, building upon the local- into- local Section 122 compulsory license enacted in SHVIA, begins to phase out the Section 119 distant compulsory license. Although the definition of “unserved household” has not been substantively changed, the class of viewers to whom satellite carriers may retransmit distant duplicating network signals has been considerably narrowed through the principle of “if local, no distant.” The new, fundamental limitation imposed by SHVERA is the ineligibility for distant network signals of satellite subscribers who are able to obtain access to the local network signals of local broadcast stations via local- into-local service offered pursuant to the Section 122 license. This principle applies as fully to digital signals as it does to analog signals. In fact, the primary category of satellite subscribers for whom site testing is even statutorily authorized (and, hence, for whom this proceeding is even relevant) is narrower still: Where a satellite carrier does not offer local- into- local digital service but does offer local- into- local analog service, if the satellite subscriber is served over the air by the local station’s analog signal, then such a subscriber may be eligible for distant digital service provided a site test measurement, under certain further conditions as to market, date, and DTV build- out status and conducted pursuant to the current test methodology set forth in Section 73.686( d), demonstrates that the household cannot receive a digital signal of signal intensity that exceeds the DTV signal intensity standards set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1). Accordingly, what is left, then, for the Commission in this proceeding, like the Section 119 license itself, is narrow, requiring a conservative approach to respect the limited nature of the compulsory license and to preserve the integrity of the localism principle. Although SHVERA lists six specific items that the Commission is to study in this proceeding, logically these items may be 5 - v - reclassified into three separate, but ultimately interrelated, concerns: (1) the appropriateness of the DTV planning factors which resulted in the digital signal intensity standards set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1); (2) the appropriateness of the objective analog signal site test methodology in Section 73.686( d) in the digital signal context; and (3) the advisability of developing a predictive model for future use. Fundamental to digital television is the Commission’s decision to predicate the coverage area of the new DTV service upon each station’s existing NTSC Grade B service area. The Commission carefully crafted its approach to “foster the transition to DTV, while simultaneously preserving viewers’ access to off- the- air TV service and the ability of stations to reach the audiences they now serve.” Maintaining viewer “access to the stations that they can now receive over- the- air” was a critical component of the DTV replication scheme. Thus, the value of over- the- air service to both viewers and broadcasters was fundamental to the Commission’s actions. Obviously, the Commission would not have predicated DTV— for which broadcasters have invested many millions of dollars— on planning factors intended to replicate existing television service if those factors were not, in fact, adequate or up to the task. As the Notice correctly states— and critical to the Commission’s entire DTV plan to replicate NTSC Grade B service areas—“[ t] hese criteria presume that households will exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals.” As the extensive discussion herein of each of these planning factors demonstrates, the Commission’s existing noise- limited field strength thresholds for DTV service are more than adequate for real- world reception of local digital broadcast signals. In fact, the discussion of the adequacy of the DTV planning factors, the specifications and characteristics of currently available consumer equipment, and the Commission’s intentions and 6 - vi - expectations in promulgating the DTV planning factors all point ineluctably to the following answers to queries raised in the Notice: < The receiving antenna must be mounted outside on the roof or adjacent to the house. Moreover, the antenna must be oriented to the desired signal, and if the desired stations are not located in the same direction, then the antenna must be orientable in the direction of the desired signal( s). An excellent outdoor antenna receiving system can be installed for approximately $100, including an eight- way bowtie- with- screen antenna and a rotor with remote control. < The Commission should continue to recommend that the current signal strength thresholds for noise- limited digital service should be used to define the availability of a DTV signal for determining whether a household is eligible to receive distant digital signals from satellite services. Real- world equipment, including fifth generation receivers, demonstrates that the Commission’s current signal strength thresholds are more than adequate to receive a high- quality digital picture. < Variation in DTV set prices should play no role in determining whether a household is unserved by an adequate DTV network signal. The evidence shows that there is very little penetration (no more than 1%) of early generation DTV receivers in television households. Most households have or will acquire DTV sets with integrated tuners incorporating the latest generational chip design (fifth generation or later), including equalizers demonstrating superior multipath handling performance capabilities. < Multipath should not be taken into account in determining whether a household is served by an adequate digital signal. Fifth generation receivers incorporate equalizers that are remarkably good at handling very early pre- ghosts and very late post- ghosts (on the order of 50 microseconds each). But, more fundamentally, multipath is not a matter of signal strength, which is the objective means by which a digital “unserved household” should be determined. The effects of multipath, however, can be greatly, if not wholly, mitigated by the use of the latest generation receiver; by the use of an outdoor antenna raised to 30 feet which will place the antenna above many of the principal multipath reflectors; and by the use of highly directional antennas with high front- to- back ratios, properly oriented to the strongest desired signal. Although the Commission’s testing procedure for cluster measurements of signal strength at household locations in Section 73. 686( d) was developed specifically for analog signals, it is 7 - vii - generally workable for digital signals once several slight modifications are made to measure the signal strength of digital signals: First, a directional gain antenna should be utilized instead of a half- wave dipole. Second, the field strength of a digital signal should be determined by measuring the integrated average power over the 6 MHz bandwidth. Third, the tester should use a spectrum analyzer tuned to the center of the channel, sweep across a variety of small intermediate frequency bandwidths, and integrate the total power across the 6 MHz bandwidth. With these slight modifications, the testing methodology in Section 73.686( d) will permit the objective testing of the signal strength of digital signals. But this is true only if the remaining elements of the testing methodology are not altered. Most notably, the site test must measure signal strength outdoors, at the specified rooftop heights (20 feet for one- story residences, 30 feet for all others), and with the testing antenna properly oriented. Finally, the test methodology must remain objective. There is neither any basis nor any warrant for the Commission to consider altering any aspect of the test methodology that would add any element of subjectivity to the test. Network Affiliates believe that the Commission should develop and recommend a predictive model for digital signals, but only for future, and not immediate, use. By “future use,” Network Affiliates mean after the digital transition is complete. Before the end of the transition, too much is unknown, the process would be too complicated, and the resulting viewer confusion could be rampant. For example, not all stations have made elections for their final digital channel, and the spectrum repacking process is far from complete. Importantly, digital service for low power stations and translators has not yet been authorized. Because a household is considered “served” if it receives a signal from any station, be it full power, satellite, or translator, affiliated with the network in issue, it is not possible to predict whether a household can receive a digital signal if the station that could be delivering the signal has not yet been authorized to broadcast in digital or the station has not yet 8 - viii - had a reasonable opportunity to construct digital facilities. Waiting for the completion of the digital transition will not materially prejudice the distant signal license, especially when weighed against the countervailing harms to local affiliates if a predictive model is implemented prematurely. It would be appropriate for the Commission to recommend the ILLR model for digital signal prediction purposes at the end of the DTV transition— with one exception. The ILLR model as currently structured in OET 72 over- provides for clutter at UHF frequencies, and, in the digital context, these UHF clutter loss values make the model less accurate, rather than more accurate. In the case of digital signal predictions, the clutter considerations already inherent in the basic, semi- empirical Longley- Rice model provide a more accurate predictive model than the additional UHF clutter loss values added into the ILLR model in OET 72. The National Association of Broadcasters (“ NAB”) is providing extensive data (more than 2000 individual site predictions with associated measured field strengths) in its comments in this proceeding providing empirical support for this slight modification to the ILLR model. For the reasons contained herein, Network Affiliates respectfully request that the Commission recommend to Congress (1) that the digital signal strength thresholds set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1) remain the same for purposes of determining whether a household is “unserved” by a digital signal pursuant to 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 10); (2) that the testing methodology set forth in Section 73.686( d) be modified slightly so that the procedure may be correctly used for digital signal site tests; and (3) that Congress prescribe a slightly modified ILLR model (without UHF clutter loss values) to be used after the digital television transition is complete to presumptively determine the eligibility of a household to receive a duplicating distant digital network signal. * * * 9 1 The Network Affiliates collectively represent approximately 600 local television stations affiliated with the ABC, CBS, and NBC Television Networks. 2 Pub. L. No. 108- 447, Div. J, Tit. IX (2004), at § 204( b) (codified at 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1)). 95949.1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technical Standards for Determining ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals ) Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer ) Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 ) COMMENTS OF THE ABC, CBS, AND NBC TELEVISION AFFILIATE ASSOCIATIONS The ABC Television Affiliates Association, the CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, and the NBC Television Affiliates Association (collectively, the “Network Affiliates”), by their attorneys, hereby comment upon the Notice of Inquiry (“ Notice”), FCC 05- 94, released on May 3, 2005, in the above- referenced proceeding. 1 I. In Addressing SHVERA’s Statutory Study Considerations, the Commission Should Be Guided by the Fundamental Nature of the Section 119 Compulsory License The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (“ SHVERA”) 2 requires the Commission to report to Congress on a variety of factors that may ultimately affect whether a household is deemed to be “unserved” by a digital television signal as that term is defined in the Copyright Act pursuant to 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 10). While SHVERA specifies certain particular considerations the Commission is to study, as the Notice recognizes, the Commission’s 10 3 See 17 U. S. C. § 102( a). 4 See 17 U. S. C. § 106( 3). 5 See U. S. Copyright Office, A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals (Aug. 1, 1997) (“ Copyright Office Report”), at 13 (“ A compulsory license mechanism is in derogation of the rights of authors and copyright owners.” (continued...) - 2 - 95949.1 inquiry must be predicated upon the fundamental nature of the “unserved household” limitation set forth in the Copyright Act. That fundamental nature is a compulsory license operating in derogation of the property rights of copyright holders which should, accordingly, always be conservatively construed in favor of the local broadcast station. The Section 119 “unserved household” provision permitting the limited importation of a distant duplicating network signal in a narrow set of circumstances has been an element of copyright law since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act (“ SHVA”) in 1988. In the Copyright Act, Congress, pursuant to its constitutional authority in the Copyright Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, has granted an exclusive, albeit time- limited, right in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. 3 A copyright, therefore, is a constitutionally- and congressionally- sanctioned property right. One of the principal exclusive rights subsisting in copyright is the right to choose whether and how one’s copyrighted works can be distributed to others. 4 SHVA (as did the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (“ SHVIA”) and now SHVERA) granted a limited and conditional compulsory copyright license to satellite carriers to enable them to distribute distant network signals to a narrow class of viewers— a class of viewers that has shrunk even further under SHVERA, as explained below. This compulsory license is an express limitation on the distribution rights of creators of original works of expression, and, thus, is in derogation of the normally broad power to exercise control over one’s copyrighted works. 5 The 11 (... continued) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 6 Fame Publ’g Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc., 507 F. 2d 667, 670 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 841 (1975). 7 Reviewing the legislative history of the original SHVA and its 1994 renewal demonstrates that the original intent of Section 119 was to enable satellite carriers, through a compulsory license mechanism, to provide broadcast network service to rural areas: [The bill] will benefit rural America, where significant numbers of farm families are inadequately served by broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. H. R. REP. NO. 100- 887, pt. 1, at 15 (1988) (emphasis added). The extension of the SHVA “ensure[ s] that rural home satellite dish consumers will be able to continue to receive retransmitted broadcast programming. This is essential because in many rural areas satellite technologies represent the only way that rural families can receive the kind of information and entertainment programming that many urban Americans take for granted.” 140 CONG. REC. E1770 (daily ed. Aug. 19, 1994) (statement of Rep. Long) (emphases added). The extension of the SHVA is needed “to ensure that rural consumers will continue to receive television programming.” (continued...) - 3 - 95949.1 compulsory license permits satellite carriers to retransmit copyrighted material without having to obtain the express permission of the owner. Compulsory licenses are not favored in the law and, therefore, are narrowly construed. As stated by the Fifth Circuit, because a “compulsory license provision is a limited exception to the copyright holder’s exclusive right to decide who shall make use of his [copyrighted work] . . . it must be construed narrowly, lest the exception destroy, rather than prove, the rule.” 6 Each of the satellite laws has had a dual purpose: (1) to enable households located beyond the reach of a local affiliate, primarily in rural areas, 7 to obtain access to broadcast network 12 7 (... continued) 140 CONG. REC. H9268, H9270 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1994) (statement of Rep. Hughes) (emphasis added). This same basis has been expressed in the legislative history of SHVERA: Its [the Section 119 license] primary purpose is to ensure that those residing in rural areas or in areas where terrain makes it impossible to receive an acceptable over- the- air signal from their television stations can receive a “life- line” network television service from a satellite provider. H. R. REP. NO. 108- 660, at 10 (2004) (emphases added). 8 See H. R. REP. NO. 100- 887, pt. 1, at 8 (1988); H. R. REP. NO. 108- 660, at 11 (2004). 9 See H. R. REP. No. 100- 887, pt. 2, at 19- 20 (1988); H. R. REP. NO. 100- 887, pt. 1, at 14 (1988). 10 H. R. REP. NO. 100- 887, pt. 2, at 20 (1988); H. R. REP. NO. 108- 660, at 11 (2004). - 4 - 95949.1 programming by satellite and (2) to protect the integrity of the copyrights that make possible the existing free, over- the- air national network/ local affiliate broadcast distribution system. 8 Section 119, therefore, has always represented a careful balance between the public interest, on the one hand, in allowing households located beyond the reach of a local network station to secure access to broadcast network programming and, on the other hand, in preserving “localism” by protecting the copyrights each local network station has for the broadcast of its network programming in its local market. Each of these laws was designed to protect the exclusivity of the copyright held by each affiliate for exhibition in its market of its network programming. 9 At the heart of these laws is an acknowledgment by Congress of the national interest in preserving “local” broadcast service by protecting the longstanding, free, universally- available, over- the- air national network/ local affiliate television distribution system— a system Congress acknowledged “has served the country well.” 10 13 11 National Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F. 2d 1190, 1198 (D. C. Cir. 1984). 12 Restrictions on Use of Microwave Relay Facilities to Carry Television Signals to Community Antenna Television Systems, First Report and Order, FCC 65- 335, 4 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1725 (1965), ¶ 47. 13 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 98- 302, 14 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 2163 (1998). - 5 - 95949.1 Localism is a bedrock principle of the nation’s broadcast television system. “[ T] he Commission historically has followed a policy of ‘localism’ as a sound means of promoting the statutory goal of efficient public service.” 11 Indeed, the Commission has acknowledged that “our commercial television system is based upon the distribution of programs to the public through a multiplicity of local station outlets. [W] e have not turned to an alternative system of signal and program distribution, based upon a handful of ‘super stations. ’” 12 In initiating its first SHVA proceeding, in CS Docket No. 98- 201, the Commission recognized the central role that the core policy of localism plays in the Section 119 regime: The network station compulsory licenses created by the Satellite Home Viewer Act are limited because Congress recognized the importance that the network- affiliate relationship plays in delivering free, over- the- air broadcasts to American families, and because of the value of localism in broadcasting. Localism, a principle underlying the broadcast service since the Radio Act of 1927, serves the public interest by making available to local citizens information of interest to the local community (e. g., local news, information on local weather, and information on community events). Congress was concerned that without copyright protection, the economic viability of local stations, specifically those affiliated with national broadcast networks, might be jeopardized, thus undermining one important source of local information. 13 In the resulting SHVA Order, the Commission allowed the principle of localism and several important corollaries to guide its decision to recommend to Congress the Individual Location 14 14 Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2654 (1999) (“ SHVA Order”), at ¶ 11. 15 SHVA Order at ¶ 8. 16 SHVA Order at ¶ 65. 17 SHVA Order at ¶ 77. 18 See 17 U. S. C. § 122. - 6 - 95949.1 Longley- Rice (“ ILLR”) predictive model in the form that it did. First, the Commission respected the fact that the “Satellite Home Viewer Act limits the compulsory copyright license to ‘unserved’ households, reflecting Congress’ intent to protect the role of local broadcasters in providing free, over- the- air television to American families.” 14 Second, the Commission sought to formulate an approach throughout the SHVA Order whose effect would neither “increase the number of unserved households that already exist, nor . . . reduce the size of local stations’ markets by subtracting viewers who are able to receive their signal.” 15 Third, the Commission properly observed that “when served households are deemed eligible for satellite- delivered broadcast network service, network affiliates are harmed and the SHVA’s intent is also thwarted.” 16 Fourth, and finally, the Commission recognized that a “predictive model that includes truly served households in an unserved category, even temporarily, creates . . . undesired effects.” 17 These principles must continue to guide the Commission in the instant proceeding. While SHVIA in 1999 added new sections to the existing SHVA, most notably the Section 122 local- into- local compulsory license for satellite carriers, 18 the Section 119 distant compulsory license provision was reenacted basically unchanged. The Conference Report accompanying passage of SHVIA noted that “the Section 119 regime is largely being extended in 15 19 Conference Report on H. R. 1554, Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, 145 CONG. REC. H11793 (daily ed. Nov. 9, 1999) (hereinafter “SHVIA Conference Report”). 20 SHVIA Conference Report, 145 CONG. REC. H11792- H11793 (emphasis added). 21 SHVIA Conference Report, 145 CONG. REC. H11792 (emphasis added). 22 SHVIA Conference Report, 145 CONG. REC. H11792. - 7 - 95949.1 its current form.” 19 As the SHVIA Conference Report states: [T] he specific goal of the Section 119 license is to allow for a life- line network television service to those homes which cannot receive the local network television stations. Hence, the unserved household limitation that has been in the license since its inception. 20 When Congress passed SHVIA, it specifically reiterated its intention to promote the concept of localism. As the Conference Report accompanying SHVIA further states: [T] he Conference Committee reasserts the importance of protecting and fostering the system of television networks as they relate to the concept of localism. It is well recognized that television broadcast stations provide valuable programming tailored to local needs, such as news, weather, special announcements and information related to local activities. To that end the Committee has structured the copyright licensing regime for satellite to encourage and promote retransmissions by satellite of local television broadcast stations to subscribers who reside in local markets of those stations. 21 Congress continued to recognize that allowing satellite carriers to retransmit distant network programming into a local affiliate’s market is a violation of a local station’s exclusive copyright privileges. The SHVIA Conference Report observes that “allowing the importation of distant or out-of- market network stations in derogation of the local station’s exclusive right— bought and paid for in market negotiated arrangements— to show the works in question, undermines those arrangements.” 22 Congress, therefore, intended that the scope of this extraordinary privilege continue 16 23 SHVIA Conference Report, 145 CONG. REC. H11792 (emphasis added). - 8 - 95949.1 to be extremely narrow. As the SHVIA Conference Report further recognized: [P] erhaps most importantly, the Conference Committee is aware that in creating compulsory licenses, it is acting in derogation of the exclusive property rights granted by the Copyright Act to copyright holders, and that it therefore needs to act as narrowly as possible to minimize the effects of the government’s intrusion on the broader market in which the affected property rights and industries operate. 23 Against this consistent historical backdrop, Congress in SHVERA, in another full explication of these same underlying principles, continued to express its recognition of the need to minimize the abrogation of the rights of local broadcast stations: The abrogation of copyright owners’ exclusive rights and the elimination of transaction costs for satellite carriers are valuable accommodations that benefit the DBS industry. The terms and conditions of § 119, therefore, are crafted to represent a careful balance between the interests of satellite carriers who seek to deliver distant broadcast programming to subscribers in a manner that is similar to that offered by cable operators, and the need to provide copyright owners of the retransmitted broadcast programming fair compensation for the use of their works. [. . .] An element of the § 119 license since inception, the unserved household limitation has been a central tenet of congressional policy on distant signal carriage. Its primary purpose is to ensure that those residing in rural areas or in areas where terrain makes it impossible to receive an acceptable over- the- air signal from their television stations can receive a “life- line” network television service from a satellite provider. Where a satellite provider can retransmit a local station’s exclusive network programming but chooses to substitute identical programming from a distant network affiliate of the same network instead, the satellite carrier undermines the value of the license negotiated by the local broadcast station as well as the continued viability of the network- local affiliate relationship. . . . The Committee has consistently considered market- negotiated exclusive arrangements that govern the public performance of broadcast programming in a given geographic area to be preferable to statutory mandates. Accordingly, a second purpose of the unserved 17 24 H. R. REP. NO. 108- 660, at 9- 11 (2004). 25 See 17 U. S. C. § 119( a)( 4)( D); 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D). - 9 - 95949.1 household limitation is to confine the abrogation of interests borne by copyright holders and local network broadcasters to only those circumstances that are absolutely necessary to provide the “life- line” service. 24 But SHVERA is not merely a continuation of the Section 119 status quo ante. Rather, SHVERA, building upon the local- into- local Section 122 compulsory license enacted in SHVIA, begins to phase out the Section 119 distant compulsory license. Although the definition of “unserved household” has not been substantively changed, the class of viewers to whom satellite carriers may retransmit distant duplicating network signals has been considerably narrowed through the principle of “if local, no distant.” Thus, Section 103 of SHVERA, codified in 17 U. S. C. § 119( a)( 4), creates a new limitation on the applicability of the distant signal license, greatly restricting its applicability where local- into- local retransmissions are available. Section 204 of SHVERA, codified in 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2), creates a Communications Act analogue to the Copyright Act amendment. The new, fundamental limitation imposed by SHVERA is the ineligibility for distant network signals of satellite subscribers who are able to obtain access to the local network signals of local broadcast stations via local- into- local service offered pursuant to the Section 122 license. This principle applies as fully to digital signals as it does to analog signals. 25 The relationship between localism and the congressional policy preference for local- into- local service was expressed by Congressman Buyer as follows: The act imposes a variety of limits designed to protect free, local, over- the- air broadcasting. . . . Put another way, local- to- local service is the right way, and— except when there is no other choice— distant network stations are the wrong way, to deliver broadcast programming by satellite. Local- to- local fosters localism and helps 18 26 150 CONG. REC. H8221- H8222 (Oct. 6, 2004) (statement of Rep. Buyer). 27 See DIRECTV Local Channels available at (visited June 1, 2005). 28 See Dish Network Local Channels available at (visited June 1, 2005). 29 See Mark Seavey, DirecTV Expects to Have Local HD Available in 30- 40 Markets, COMMUNICATIONS DAILY (June 2, 2005) (citing DIRECTV CEO Chase Carey); see also DIRECTV’s Spaceway F1 Satellite Launches New Era in High- Definition Programming; Next Generation Satellite Will Initiate Historic Expansion of DIRECTV Programming (Apr. 26, 2005) available at (visited June 1, 2005) (stating that the Spaceway F1 satellite will provide local HD service to 32.8% of television households) ; DIRECTV Spaceway F2 Satellite will Expand Local Digital/ HD Services for DIRECTV Customers; Satellite shipped to French Guiana (May 25, 2005) available at (visited June 1, 2005) (stating that the Spaceway F2 satellite, and its twin, the Spaceway F1, “will provide the needed capacity to roll out local digital and HD in at least 24 markets this year, representing more than 45 percent of U. S. TV households”). According to Nielsen Media Research, the top 30 markets contain 53.4% of U. S. television households and the top 40 markets contain 60.8% of U. S. television households. - 10 - 95949.1 keep free, over- the- air television available to everyone, while delivery of distant network stations to households that can receive their own local stations (whether over the air or via local- to- local service) has just the opposite effect. 26 Currently, DIRECTV offers local- into- local analog service in 133 markets covering 92.53% of the nation’s television households. 27 EchoStar offers local- into- local analog service in 157 markets covering 95.25% of television households. 28 Accordingly, the number of households that cannot receive local network stations either over the air or via local- into- local satellite service is truly minuscule. In addition, DIRECTV has announced its intention to provide local- into- local digital service by the end of 2005 in 30- 40 of the largest markets in the country, providing local HD service to as many as 60% of television households just as the Commission’s report to Congress is due 29 ; local HD service to the rest of the country is expected by the end of 2007. When Congress enacted SHVERA with its substantially narrowed Section 119 compulsory license, it acted with 19 30 See 150 CONG. REC. H8222 (Oct. 6, 2004) (statement of Rep. Buyer) (citing local- into-local service figures and acknowledging DIRECTV’s announcement of its plans for local HD service). - 11 - 95949.1 knowledge of this extensive local- into- local service. 30 Against this background of a long history of minimizing the abrogation of the rights of copyright holders and of preserving and promoting localism, through both over- the- air and local-into- local satellite service, Congress enacted a very special and particularly limited regime for the satellite delivery of duplicating distant digital network signals. First, in any market where a satellite carrier offers local- into- local digital signals, any subscriber who did not purchase a distant digital signal of the relevant network prior to the commencement of local- into- local digital service would be ineligible for distant digital service. By the end of 2005, as many as 60% of television households subscribing to DIRECTV’s service will be able to obtain local- into- local digital service and thus will be ineligible for distant digital service. Second, in any market where satellite carriers do not offer either local- into- local digital service or local- into- local analog service, only subscribers living in an analog white area will be eligible for distant digital service (provided the relevant local affiliate has obtained a special testing waiver pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( viii)( VI) for just such a circumstance). As seen above, less than 5% of television households for EchoStar and less than 8% of television households for DIRECTV are even located in such markets, and the number of satellite subscribers who also live in an analog white area in those markets is virtually de minimis. In fact, the number of households who cannot receive local network stations by any means can only be counted in the thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands, and certainly not in the millions. Third, in a market where a satellite carrier does not offer local- into- local digital service but 20 - 12 - 95949.1 does offer local- into- local analog service, if a satellite subscriber lives in an analog white area and purchases the local analog signal of the relevant network, then that subscriber is eligible for a distant digital signal. Although not ideal for the local network station since DTV coverage can exceed analog coverage, because the Commission intended that a station’s digital facility only replicate its analog coverage area, Congress made the policy determination that such a subscriber unserved by the over- the- air analog signal would likely be unserved by the over- the- air digital signal. Moreover, Congress required that the subscriber “buy- through” the local- into- local analog service in order to obtain the distant digital service so that its local signal would still be received by the satellite subscriber. Fourth, and the primary category of relevance to this proceeding, in a market where a satellite carrier does not offer local- into- local digital service but does offer local- into- local analog service (as in the third category, supra), if the satellite subscriber is served over the air by the local station’s analog signal, then such a subscriber may be eligible for distant digital service provided a site test measurement, under certain further conditions as to market, date, and DTV build- out status and conducted pursuant to the current test methodology set forth in Section 73.686( d) of the Commission’s rules, demonstrates that the household cannot receive a digital signal of signal intensity that exceeds the DTV signal intensity standards set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1) of the Commission’s rules. As enacted, the digital “unserved household” scheme is virtually self- executing. SHVERA specifies the circumstances under which a subscriber may be eligible for a distant digital signal; specifies conditions under which a household site test may occur, including the beginning dates on which testing can begin for certain markets; specifies the initial objective test methodology; and specifies the DTV signal intensity standard the site measurement must exceed. Notably absent from 21 - 13 - 95949.1 this digital “unserved household” scheme as enacted is a predictive model. That is, eligibility for distant digital service for subscribers falling into the fourth category delineated above can only be determined by a household site test. Given the “if local, no distant” principle, given the local- into-local analog service “buy- through” requirement, and given the reliance on an analog white area determination in many circumstances, Congress obviously intended that actual household site tests for digital signal intensity be few and far between in order to protect the investments of local stations in the DTV transition. What is left, then, for the Commission in this proceeding, like the Section 119 license itself, is narrow, requiring a conservative approach to respect the limited nature of the compulsory license and to preserve the integrity of the localism principle. Although SHVERA lists six specific items that the Commission is to study in this proceeding, logically these items may be reclassified into three separate, but ultimately interrelated, concerns: (1) the appropriateness of the DTV planning factors which resulted in the digital signal intensity standards set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1); (2) the appropriateness of the objective analog signal site test methodology in Section 73.686( d) in the digital signal context; and (3) the advisability of developing a predictive model for future use. In addressing these issues, the starting point must always be a clear recognition that Congress has already made the policy determination to protect the exclusive arrangement the local network affiliate has made with its network partner and that distant service should only be available as a “life- line” for those subscribers for whom it is impossible to receive a local digital signal. II. The DTV Planning Factors Established Appropriate Signal Strength Thresholds for Reception of Real- World Digital Broadcast Signals In its DTV proceeding, the Commission decided to predicate the coverage area of the new DTV service upon each station’s existing NTSC Grade B service area. The Commission’s goals 22 31 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588 (1997) (“ Sixth DTV Report and Order”), ¶ 12. 32 Sixth DTV Report and Order at ¶ 14. 33 Sixth DTV Report and Order at ¶ 29. 34 See 47 C. F. R. § 73.622( e)( 1). - 14 - 95949.1 were two- fold: first, to provide DTV coverage comparable to a station’s current coverage area and, second, to provide the best correspondence between the size and shape of the proposed DTV channel’s coverage area and the station’s existing coverage. 31 The Commission carefully crafted this approach to “foster the transition to DTV, while simultaneously preserving viewers’ access to off-the- air TV service and the ability of stations to reach the audiences they now serve.” 32 Maintaining viewer “access to the stations that they can now receive over- the- air” was a critical component of the DTV replication scheme. 33 Thus, the value of over- the- air service to both viewers and broadcasters was fundamental to the Commission’s actions. Obviously, the Commission would not have predicated DTV— for which broadcasters have invested many millions of dollars— on planning factors intended to replicate existing television service if those factors were not, in fact, adequate or up to the task. DTV service areas are defined in terms of the geographic area within which a station’s noise-limited field strength is expected to exceed a pre- determined field strength level at 50% of the locations 90% of the time, i. e., F( 50,90). That pre- determined field strength depends on the broadcast band and is derived from the DTV planning factors intended, as stated above, to replicate NTSC service areas. The DTV noise- limited field strength standards are 28 dBu for the low VHF band, 36 dBu for the high VHF band, and 41 dBu for the UHF band, 34 which have been rounded up to the nearest whole number. The relationship between the planning factors and the requisite noise- 23 35 See Sixth DTV Report and Order at Appendix A & Appendix B; OET Bulletin No. 69, Longley- Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference (revised Feb. 6, 2004) (“ OET 69”), at Table 3. 36 Notice at ¶ 6 (emphasis added). 37 See generally Engineering Statement of Jules Cohen, P. E. (“ Cohen Engineering Statement”), at 1- 5 (attached hereto as an Appendix). - 15 - 95949.1 limited field strength is shown in Table 1. 35 DTV Planning Factors Table 1 Parameter Channels 2 to 6 Channels 7 to 13 Channels 14 to 69 Thermal Noise (106.2) (106.2) (106.2) Dipole Factor 111.8 120.8 130.8 System Noise Figure 10 10 7 Downlead Line Loss 1 2 4 Receiving Antenna Gain (4) (6) (10) Carrier- to- Noise Ratio 15.2 15.2 15.2 Median Field Intensity 27.8 dBu 35.8 dBu 40.8 dBu As the Notice correctly states— and critical to the Commission’s entire DTV plan to replicate NTSC Grade B service areas—“[ t] hese criteria presume that households will exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals.” 36 As the discussion below of each of these planning factors demonstrates, the Commission’s existing noise- limited field strength thresholds for DTV service are more than adequate for real- world reception of local digital broadcast signals. 37 Thermal Noise. Thermal noise is a function of the laws of physics. It has not and will not change. The Commission’s planning factor for thermal noise is appropriate as is. 24 38 See Sixth DTV Report and Order at Appendix A; Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, Final Technical Report (Oct. 31, 1995), at Table 5.1. 39 See Philip B. Gieseler et al., Comparability for UHF Television: Final Report (Office of Plans and Policy Sept. 1980) (“ UHF Comparability Final Report”), at 69 (stating that “RG- 6 coax offers very good performance” and that “an RG- 6 system is a good value because the coaxial systems offer even less performance variability than shielded twin- lead; and coax is much easier to manipulate than shielded twin- lead, and, therefore, presents fewer installation problems”). - 16 - 95949.1 Dipole Factor. The dipole factor is also a function of the laws of physics. However, the dipole factor is dependent upon frequency, and in the DTV planning factors the Commission utilized the geometric mean frequency of a UHF band extending from 470 MHz to 806 MHz (Channels 14 to 69). But the DTV transition is not just about migrating to digital broadcasting, it is also about reallocating Channels 52 to 69 (698 MHz to 806 MHz) to other services. Because the core DTV channels extend only to Channel 51— and the only channels for which digital site testing will ever occur are located in the core— the dipole factor should be recalculated on the basis of the geometric mean frequency of the UHF band extending from 470 MHz to 698 MHz (Channels 14 to 51). The geometric mean frequency of the core UHF band is 573 MHz, which results in a dipole factor of !130.2 dB. Carrier- to- Noise Ratio. The carrier- to- noise ratio of 15.2 dB (15.19 dB) for DTV is derived from measurements of the Grand Alliance system conducted by the Technical Subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service. 38 Thus, the carrier- to- noise ratio is empirically derived and represents the minimum ratio of signal strength to noise adequate for a digital receiver to decode the data and produce a digital picture. Downlead Line Loss. The Commission has long recommended the use of RG- 6 coaxial cable for television reception installations. 39 RG- 6 coaxial cable is a shielded cable for which 25 40 UHF Comparability Final Report at 60. See also Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121 (1982), ¶ 50 (noting that RG- 6 is a good quality cable). 41 Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 28. 42 See Channel Master Coaxial Cable and Wire available at (providing cable attenuation values at various frequencies for Channel Master’s RG- 6 Coaxial Cable— Pro Install Series). The UHF band was considered only through Channel 51 (mid- frequency 695 MHz). 43 Cf. Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 28 (stating that the “transmission loss planning factor values for Grade B provide a conservative margin for this type [RG- 6] of coaxial cable”). - 17 - 95949.1 “wetness and metal proximity ma[ k] e no change in the attenuation characteristics.” 40 As the Commission recently reported to Congress following SHVIA: “[ T] here is no serious question that RG- 6 is clearly the preferred and recommended choice that consumers residing near the Grade B contours of TV stations would typically employ . . . .” 41 RG- 6 coax cable is commonly available. Based on current specifications for such readily available RG- 6, attenuation for 50 feet is as follows 42 : Low VHF 0.75 dB to 0.93 dB High VHF 1.31 dB to 1.44 dB UHF 2.20 dB to 2.76 dB where the range provides the loss from the lowest to the highest channel in each band. Based on these current data, it is plain that transmission line loss occurring in 50 feet of recommended RG- 6 coaxial cable is, for low VHF, less than 1 dB; for high VHF, less than 2 dB; and for UHF, less than 3 dB. Therefore, the Commission’s DTV planning factor for downlead line loss is a little conservative. 43 Receiving Antenna Gain. SHVERA requires the Commission to examine a number of 26 44 Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121 (1982), ¶ 50; see also UHF Comparability Final Report at xiii, 52, 83. 45 See Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121( 1982), ¶¶ 47- 51 & Appendix B; UHF Comparability Final Report at xiii, 50 n. 8, 51, 83. 46 See Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121( 1982), at Appendix B; UHF Comparability Final Report at 51; W. R. Free et al., Final Report, Program to Improve UHF Television Reception, Project No. FCC- 0315 (Georgia Inst. of Tech., Eng’g Experiment Station, Sept. 1980) (“ UHF Antenna Report”). 47 Comments of the Electronics Technicians Association, International, Inc. (hereinafter “Electronics Technicians Association” and “Electronics Technicians Association Comments”) in CS Docket No. 98- 201, at 23 (emphasis added). - 18 - 95949.1 considerations concerning antennas. In order to do so, it is necessary to determine whether the basis for the receiving antenna gain assumed in the DTV planning factors is reasonable. Television receiving antennas have, of course, been a component of a home television receiving installation for more than 50 years, and existing consumer antennas are capable of receiving both analog and digital television signals. The Commission itself has recommended that consumers use “[ s] eparate UHF and VHF outdoor antennas” because separate antennas will “provide better performance on UHF than can a combination UHF/ VHF antenna, at little or no extra cost.” 44 Therefore, in determining appropriate gain figures, what is relevant are the results of analyses of separate VHF and UHF antennas. The Commission and its staff have recognized that the best UHF antenna, considering both performance and value, is an eight- bay bowtie- with- screen antenna. 45 An FCC- sponsored study in 1980 determined that the average gain for such an antenna is 13.4 dB. 46 In fact, the Electronics Technicians Association— the group that actually installs and works in the field with antennas on a day- to- day basis— stated in its Comments in CS Docket No. 98- 201 that the eight- bay and four- bay bowtie- with- screen antennas “are the conventional UHF antennas for fringe rural areas.” 47 Antennas 27 48 See Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121 (1982), at Appendix B (citing UHF Antenna Report). 49 See UHF Comparability Final Report at 76 (Table 3- 10) (citing UHF Antenna Report). 50 See Notice at ¶ 11. 51 See Exhibit 1. The Channel Master 4228 retails for $38.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). Winegard’s PR- 9032 retails for $34.99 from Solid Signal. Antenna Direct’s Model 91XG sells for $79 (antennasdirect. com). - 19 - 95949.1 with higher average UHF gains are available, although they are slightly more expensive. For example, one parabolic UHF antenna possessed an average gain of 14.6 dB. 48 The UHF Comparability Task Force used an average UHF antenna gain of 14.3 dB in one part of its analysis. 49 Each of these gain figures is well in excess of the 10 dB gain assumed in the DTV planning factors for UHF. Pursuant to the Notice’s request for information on currently available antennas, 50 the Network Affiliates have compiled data from several leading manufacturers of consumer television antennas which are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As can be seen from these data, Channel Master offers an eight- bay bowtie- with- screen UHF antenna, Model No. 4228, with an average gain of 12.0 dB. Winegard offers a UHF antenna designed for deep fringe areas, the Model PR- 9032, with a gain of 15.6 dB. Antennas Direct also offers a long- range UHF antenna, Model 91XG, with a gain of 16.7 dB. 51 In short, there is no question that the Commission’s DTV planning factor for UHF antenna gain, 10 dB, is very conservative and can easily be achieved with readily available consumer UHF antennas. The most recent study of VHF antennas of which the Network Affiliates are aware was conducted by the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (“ ITS”), an arm of the Department of Commerce, in 1979. That study indicates that the average gain in the low VHF band is 4.43 dB and 28 52 See R. G. FitzGerrell et al., Television Receiving Antenna System Component Measurements, Report No. 79- 22 (NTIA June 1979) (cited in Philip B. Gieseler et al., Comparability for UHF Television: A Preliminary Analysis (Office of Plans and Policy Sept. 1979), at 45 (Table 3- 1)). 53 See Exhibit 1. The Antennacraft CS1100 has a list price of $96.08 (antennacraft- tpd. com). Winegard’s HD4053P retails for $119.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). Pricing information on Channel Master’s 3610 is not available. 54 See Exhibit 1. The Winegard HD7084P retails for $127.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). Antennacraft’s HD1850 has a list price of $174.97 (antennacraft- tpd. com). - 20 - 95949.1 in the high VHF band is 8.34 dB. 52 These gains exceed the relevant DTV planning factor gains for the VHF bands. Currently, Antennacraft manufactures a VHF antenna, Model CS1100, with an average gain in the low VHF band of 6.9 dB and an average gain in the high VHF band of 9.6 dB. Channel Master offers a VHF antenna, Model No. 3610, with an average gain in the low VHF band of 5.8 dB and an average gain in the high VHF band of 11.4 dB. Winegard offers a VHF antenna, Model HD4053P, with a gain between 5.9 dB and 6.6 dB in the low VHF band and a gain between 9.6 dB and 11.1 dB in the high VHF band. 53 Again, there is no question that the Commission’s DTV planning factors for low VHF gain, 4 dB, and for high VHF gain, 6 dB, are also very conservative and can easily be achieved with readily available consumer VHF antennas. Although combination VHF/ UHF antennas do not generally perform as well as separate VHF and UHF antennas, there are consumer models available that still handily exceed the assumed gains in the DTV planning factors. For example, Winegard’s Model HD7084P has gains of from 6.2 dB to 7.6 dB in the low VHF band, from 10.8 to 12.0 in the high VHF band, and from 11.8 dB to 14.6 dB in the UHF band. Antennacraft’s Model HD1850 has an average gain of 6.2 dB in the low VHF band, 10.7 dB in the high VHF band, and 10.0 in the UHF band. 54 Even Channel Master’s 29 55 See Kerry W. Cozad, Measured Performance Parameters for Receive Antennas Used in DTV Reception (text available from the author at kerry. cozad@ dielectric. spx. com). Once again, the Channel Master 4228 retails for only $38.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). - 21 - 95949.1 eight- bay bowtie- with- screen UHF antenna, Model No. 4228, has been measured by an independent engineer, Kerry Cozad of Dielectric Communications, to possess an average gain of approximately 3.0 dB in the low VHF band, approximately 9.0 dB in the high VHF band, and approximately 15.0 dB in the UHF band (which exceeds the manufacturer’s own specifications). 55 Such high- gain antennas are not appropriate for all receiving locations. Where signal strength is already adequate, or nearly adequate, such a high- gain antenna could overload the receiver. For circumstances such as these, antenna manufacturers produce smaller antennas with less gain. But even if the gain of such an antenna is less than the gain assumed in the planning factors, that does not mean the planning factors are defective. At such locations, the ambient signal strength will already exceed the thresholds established by the planning factors. The Consumer Electronics Association (“ CEA”), in conjunction with Decisionmark, has created a website, AntennaWeb. org, that is designed to assist consumers in selecting an appropriate outdoor receiving antenna. It is evident from the website that CEA does not recommend a large high- gain antenna for all locations and all circumstances. In fact, CEA has introduced an antenna labeling program with six different categories, ranging from small, medium, and large antennas that are either directional or multi- directional, and the AntennaWeb. org website recommends an antenna from one or more of these categories depending on the consumer’s location in relation to the location, distance, and predicted signal strength of various desired television station signals. Although it is not an element affecting the digital signal intensity standards, the Commission did assume that the receiving antenna would have a directional gain pattern in order to discriminate 30 56 ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines, Doc. A/ 74 (June 18, 2004), at 24. 57 See OET 69 at Table 6. 58 See Exhibit 1. - 22 - 95949.1 against off- axis undesired stations and, therefore, ameliorate interference. In fact, the ATSC recommends the use of a directional gain antenna to enhance receiver performance with respect to multipath: “[ A] n antenna with a directional pattern that gives only a few dB reduction in a specific multipath reflection can dramatically improve the equalizer’s performance. Such modest directional performance can be achieved with antennas of consumer- friendly size, especially at UHF.” 56 Accordingly, an element of the DTV planning factors is the front- to- back ratio of the receiving antenna, which the Commission assumed to be 10 dB for low VHF, 12 dB for high VHF, and 14 dB for UHF. (Incidentally, these front- to- back ratios greatly exceed those assumed for analog television reception, which was 6 dB across all bands.) 57 It is common for readily available consumer antennas to meet or exceed these assumed front-to- back ratios. Thus, of the antennas mentioned in the text above for which data are available, the front- to- back ratio of Channel Master’s eight- bay bowtie- with- screen UHF antenna, Model No. 4228, exceeds 19 dB at all UHF frequencies and is 24 dB at Channel 43. These front- to- back ratios far exceed the 14 dB assumed in the DTV planning factors. Similarly, the front- to- back ratio of Winegard’s UHF Model PR- 9032 is 14 dB at Channel 14 and 20 dB at both Channel 32 and Channel 50, which meets or substantially exceeds the assumed front- to- back ratio for the UHF band. 58 Consumer VHF antennas appear to easily exceed the assumed front- to- back ratios for the low VHF and high VHF bands. Thus, Antennacraft’s previously mentioned VHF antenna, Model 31 59 See Exhibit 1. 60 See Exhibit 1. 61 OET 69 at 3. 62 Notice at ¶ 6. - 23 - 95949.1 CS1100, has a front- to- back ratio of 19.4 dB in the low VHF band and 17.6 dB in the high VHF band. The front- to- back ratio of Winegard’s VHF Model HD4053P is 17 dB or greater across both the low VHF and high VHF bands. 59 It appears that VHF/ UHF combination antennas also greatly exceed the Commission’s assumed front- to- back ratios for the low VHF and high VHF bands and just meet the assumed front-to- back ratio for the UHF band. For instance, the front- to- back ratio of Winegard’s VHF/ UHF combination antenna, Model HD7084P, is 20 dB or greater in the low VHF band, 15 dB or greater in the high VHF band, and is 11 dB at Channel 14 and 20 dB at both Channel 32 and Channel 50. The front- to- back ratio of Antennacraft’s VHF/ UHF combination antenna, Model HD1850, is 20.2 dB in the low VHF band, 17.3 dB in the high VHF band, and 13.7 dB in the UHF band. 60 In addition to the specific numerical values of antenna gain and front- to- back ratio, the DTV planning factors, more generally, are, as stated in OET 69, “assumed to characterize the equipment, including antenna systems, used for home reception.” 61 As the instant Notice aptly summarizes it: “These criteria presume that households will exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals.” 62 In the past, the Commission has always assumed that homeowners would employ an outdoor, directional gain antenna for over- the- air reception of television signals. Because of the directional nature of the receiving antenna, a typical installation also utilizes a rotor so that the antenna may be properly oriented. In addition, in fringe areas where signal strength is known to be weak, the typical home 32 63 UHF Comparability Final Report at 73- 74. 64 Id. at 78. 65 Electronics Technicians Association Comments, CS Docket No. 98- 201, at 6 (emphasis added). - 24 - 95949.1 installation uses a low- noise amplifier (“ LNA”), also known as a pre- amplifier. As the Commission has previously explained in the analog context but whose basic principles apply equally in the digital context: A radio frequency (RF) preamplifier is a device that is utilized in a receiving antenna system to increase the RF power of the desired signal delivered to the receiver. In a television receiving system, a preamplifier can improve overall system performance by both compensating for the decrease in signal strength (attenuation) caused by the transmission line and components, and by lowering the amount of noise, or snow, the receiving antenna system contributes to the displayed image. The degree to which the preamplifier affects the transmission line attenuation and system noise depends on its own gain and the amount of noise internally generated by the preamplifier (which to a certain extent are a function of its cost) and where in the receiving antenna system the preamplifier is installed. If the preamplifier is located at the antenna, the overall amount of noise in the picture will be established by the noise characteristic of the preamplifier, because its gain can then compensate for most, if not all, of the signal attenuation due to the transmission line and components. . . . When mounted at the terminals of an outdoor antenna, a preamplifier can provide its maximum degree of picture quality improvement. 63 The UHF Comparability Task Force itself noted that “[ p] reamplifiers have historically been utilized in ‘fringe’ reception areas.” 64 The Electronics Technicians Association— again, the group that installs antennas— stated in its comments in CS Docket No. 98- 201 that, in its home county in rural Indiana, “virtually all rooftop antenna systems include a pre- amplifier.” 65 And the ATSC has also recommended LNAs for digital reception: “Many reception problems can be mitigated by use 33 66 ATSC Technology Group Report: DTV Signal Reception and Processing Considerations, Doc. T3- 600r4 (Sept. 18, 2003), at 37. 67 Cf. Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 32 (stating that, “where needed, the combination of a smaller low gain antenna and an inexpensive low noise amplifier at the antenna terminals can easily provide an effective gain equal to the planning factor values”). 68 See UHF Comparability Final Report at 75 n. 18, 76 (Table 3- 10 n. 3). 69 See Electronics Technicians Association Comments, CS Docket No. 98- 201, at 14- 15. 70 See Exhibit 2. Winegard’s AP- 8275 LNA retails for $77.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). 71 The Channel Master 7777 LNA retails for $56.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). - 25 - 95949.1 of a mast- mounted low- noise amplifier (LNA). Currently, several manufacturers sell LNAs.” 66 The gain achievable with an LNA is more than sufficient to ensure the adequacy of the digital signal intensity standards in fringe areas. 67 For example, the pre- amplifier the UHF Comparability Task Force used in one study, which was chosen because of its good performance characteristics and relatively low price, possessed a gain of 16 dB and an internal noise figure of 3.7 dB, for an aggregate advantage of 12.3 dB. 68 The Electronics Technicians Association stated in CS Docket No. 98- 201 that typical gains with current pre- amplifiers are 17 dB to 24 dB. 69 Current offerings of LNAs from several manufacturers are compiled in Exhibit 2. For instance, Winegard currently offers 16 different LNAs with gains ranging from 17 dB to 29 dB. One of their LNAs, Model AP- 8275, provides an average gain of 29 dB for VHF and 28 dB for UHF with an internal noise figure of only 2.9 dB and 2.8 dB in those respective bands. 70 Channel Master offers an LNA, Model 7777, with an average gain of 23 dB for VHF and 26 dB for UHF with an internal noise figure of 2.8 dB for VHF and only 2.0 dB for UHF. 71 Antennacraft offers an LNA with adjustable gain to prevent receiver overload. This model, Model 10G212, provides an average gain 34 72 See Exhibit 2. 73 See Exhibit 2. Prices for these specialty LNAs from Advanced Receiver Research are not available online, but comparable models for other applications appear to list for approximately $80 and up (advancedreceiver. com). 74 See Exhibit 2. The Blonder Tongue Vaulter III Plus LNA retails for $99.99 from Solid Signal (solidsignal. com). 75 Cable Communications Policy Act Rules, Second Report and Order, FCC 88- 128, 64 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1276 (1988), ¶ 18. - 26 - 95949.1 of 30 dB for both VHF and UHF with a noise figure of less than 4.0 dB for VHF and less than 3.5 dB for UHF. This model’s list price is only $33.63 (antennacraft- tpd. com). 72 Specialty LNAs are also available from manufacturers such as Blonder Tongue and Advanced Receiver Research. Advanced Receiver Research manufactures single channel LNAs with exceptionally low noise figures. For example, single channel low VHF LNAs are available with a gain of 24 dB and a noise figure of only 0.5 dB. Advanced Receiver Research also manufactures a broadband UHF LNA with narrow tune capability with a gain of 15 dB and a noise figure of 0.6 dB. 73 Blonder Tongue not only makes single channel LNAs, but it makes broadband LNAs with exceptionally high gain figures. For instance, Blonder Tongue’s Vaulter III Plus model provides a gain of 31 dB in the VHF band and a gain of 38 dB in the UHF band with a noise figure of 4.5 dB across all bands. 74 In addition to LNAs, the Commission has always expected and recognized that persons living in areas located in the outer reaches of the service areas of broadcast stations (for example, at the edge of a predicted Grade B contour) can, and generally do, take relatively simple measures such as installation of an improved roof- top antenna and careful location and orientation of that antenna to enhance their off- the- air reception. 75 In fact, the Commission expressly advised that “[ a] ntennas should be installed by ‘probing’ for the best receiving location; signal strength can vary significantly over a very short distance; thus, the 35 76 Improvements to UHF Television Reception, Report and Order, 90 F. C. C. 2d 1121 (1982), ¶ 50. 77 Electronics Technicians Association Comments, CS Docket No. 98- 201, at 6. 78 Id. at 21 79 Id. at 24. - 27 - 95949.1 antenna should be installed at the location that provides good picture quality for the channels desired.” 76 As the Electronics Technicians Association showed in CS Docket No. 98- 201, the majority of home antenna systems in Putnam County, Indiana, a location representative of the outer reaches of the service areas of broadcast stations, contain a rotor (in addition to an LNA)— and this is true, as the Electronics Technicians Association further remarked, even though homeowners in Putnam County can receive network programming from each of the four major networks from affiliates all located in Indianapolis. 77 In fact, as the Electronics Technicians Association correctly pointed out: Rotors are as important in many areas as steering wheels are in automobiles. Because a household needs to reverse the antenna to get a signal 180 degrees from another should not be an excuse to pay $600 over ten years to receive the signal via satellite instead of installing the proper antenna system. 78 Rotors are economical ($ 60-$ 75) and they do not require constant rotation. . . . To circumvent the intent of the SHVA because the homeowner prefers to not invest in a rotor where needed[] is not right. 79 Channel Master, Antennacraft, and Radio Shack each sell rotors for home antenna installations. Some of these rotors are available with a remote control so the viewer can properly orient the antenna from the couch. A sample of such rotors is compiled in Exhibit 3. Prices for rotors range from $68.99 for the Channel Master with remote control (available from Solid Signal 36 80 See UHF Comparability Final Report at 73 (“ If the preamplifier is located at the antenna, the overall amount of noise in the picture will be established by the noise characteristic of the preamplifier . . . .”). 81 See Robert A. O’Connor, Understanding Television’s Grade A and Grade B Service Contours, BC- 14 IEEE TRANS. ON BROADCASTING 137, 142 (Dec. 1968) (“[ M] ost receivers now have noise figures considerably better than indicated. This is particularly true in the outlying areas where the use of low- noise, moderate- gain antenna- mounted preamplifiers can reduce these figures by as much as 6 dB.”). 82 See Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 32 n. 115. - 28 - 95949.1 (solidsignal. com)) to a list price of $94.88 for the Antennacraft (antennacraft- tpd. com), with the Radio Shack rotor priced in the middle (radioshack. com). System Noise Figure. It is difficult to obtain data from receiver manufacturers on the specifications, including noise figure, of DTV receivers, and, thus, it is difficult to verify that the assumed noise figures in the DTV planning factors are accurate. However, it has long been recognized that the system noise figure is essentially determined by the noise figure of an LNA if the system incorporates such an amplifier, which, as shown above, is standard for fringe reception areas. 80 In fact, not long after the original Grade B planning factors were established for analog broadcasting, it was recognized that the system noise figure could be reduced by as much as 6 dB if an LNA were incorporated into the reception system. 81 When an LNA is combined with a DTV receiver in a system, the noise figure (NF) of the system is given by the following 82 : NFsystem = 10 log10 [NFLNA + (NFreceiver ! 1)/ GainLNA] Thus, when the noise figures of readily available consumer LNAs are considered, it is plain that system noise figures on the order of 3 to 4 dB, far below the assumed system noise figures of 10 dB, 37 83 See, e. g., International Telecommunications Union, Draft Revision of Recommendation ITU- R BT. 1368- 4, Document 6/ BL/ 32- E (Mar. 22, 2005), at Table 13 and note 1 to table. 84 See Tim Laud et al., Performance of 5th Generation 8- VSB Receivers, 50 IEEE TRANS. ON CONSUMER ELECS. 1076 (Nov. 2004); Communications Research Centre Canada, Results of the Laboratory Evaluation of Zenith 5th Generation VSB Television Receiver for Terrestrial Broadcasting (Sept. 2003). - 29 - 95949.1 10 dB, and 7 dB for the low VHF, high VHF, and UHF bands, respectively, are easily achievable in conventional home reception installations. There is, accordingly, no question that the Commission’s DTV planning factor for system noise figure can be considered conservative when viewed in the context of a complete reception system. Miscellaneous Considerations. Several other considerations are relevant to the adequacy of the Commission’s DTV planning factors for real- world reception of DTV signals. Perhaps most importantly, in the early stages of the DTV transition, multipath was known to be more difficult for digital reception than it is for analog reception. In fact, the International Telecommunications Union specifically incorporated an additional cushion into the carrier- to- noise ratio it assumed for its ATSC DTV planning criteria to account for typical multipath reception impairment, making the cushioned C/ N ratio 19.5 dB. 83 Fifth generation DTV receivers, which are now commercially available in integrated sets from manufacturers such as LG and Zenith, have made substantial improvements in equalizer architecture and can now handle 50 microsecond pre- ghosts and 50 microsecond post- ghosts. 84 As one recent report summarizes the current state- of- the- art: Because of the “all or nothing” nature of digital reception, digital TV must provide excellent reception even where analog reception is poor, in order to facilitate the transition for the large number of receivers that use over- the- air reception. This is beyond the requirements originally proposed at the inception of digital television, but it is 38 85 Performance of 5th Generation 8- VSB Receivers at 1080 (emphasis added). 86 It is difficult to obtain complete DTV receiver penetration information. In January 2004, in the Tenth Annual Video Competition Report, the Commission observed (i) that “[ w] hile over 1000 stations are providing a DTV signal, many consumers within those service areas are unable to view the DTV format either because they do not have DTV receivers or because they are subscribers to a MVPD that does not carry the DTV signal,” and (ii) that “[ f] rom their introduction in August 1998 through the second quarter of 2003, over six million HDTV- capable sets have been sold, but only 700,000 of these [i. e., 11.67%] have been purchased with a built- in tuner or add- on decoder box required for receiving an HDTV broadcast.” Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Tenth Annual Report, FCC 04- 5 (released Jan. 28, 2004), ¶ 96 n. 433 & ¶ 103. Updating that data through December 2003, as reported by the Consumer Electronics Association, indicates that approximately 8.88 million DTV units were sold from 1998 through December 2003. See Holiday Sales Boost DTV Numbers for October and November (Dec. 18, 2003), available at http:// www. ce. org/ press_ room/ press_ release_ detail. asp? id= 10375 (stating that the “total number of DTV products sold since introduction in the fourth quarter of 1998 is now 8. 24 million units”); 2003 a Banner Year for DTV; Unit Sales Top Four Million (Jan. 12, 2004), available at http:// www. ce. org/ press_ room/ press_ release_ detail. asp? id= 10396 (stating that “December 2003 sales totaled 640,443”). That number, of course, represents DTV- capable units and necessarily includes sales of units to restaurants, sports bars, and other public venues vis- à- vis private households; the number of DTV receivers in actual homes, as the Commission has observed, is far less. Considering that there were more than 108 million television households in the 2003- 2004 television season, according to Nielsen Media Research, it is clear that DTV receiver penetration did not reach even 1% by the end of 2003 ((( 700,000 ÷ 6,000,000) × 8,880,443) ÷ 108,410,160 = 0.96%). Network Affiliates recognize that this calculation does not include sales figures for 2004, but CEA appears not to have separately reported those figures for DTV receivers, and the Commission’s Eleventh Annual Video Competition Report makes no mention of them either. Cf. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual Report, FCC 05- 13 (released Feb. 4, 2005), ¶ 87 (similar figures (continued...) - 30 - 95949.1 being met by 5th generation designs. 85 Because multipath is not a function of signal strength per se and because current fifth generation receivers can handle multipath even in generally poor reception conditions, the Commission’s DTV planning factors do not need to be adjusted to account for multipath the way in which the ITU recommended. In addition, because so few earlier generation DTV receivers are owned by consumers— estimated at no more than 1% penetration 86 —it is clear that virtually all household sets 39 86 (... continued) as in Tenth Annual Video Competition Report not provided). DTV receiver penetration did undoubtedly increase in 2004, but the imbedded base of DTV receivers is still low, and, more importantly, any DTV receivers sold in 2004 would have contained later generation chips (fourth or fifth generation), which only underscores the point that there are very few early generation DTV receivers in consumers’ hands. 87 See Draft Revision of Recommendation ITU- R BT. 1368- 4 at Table 13. 88 See Draft Revision of Recommendation ITU- R BT. 1368- 4 at Table 13. 89 See Draft Revision of Recommendation ITU- R BT. 1368- 4 at Table 13. - 31 - 95949.1 do or will contain late generation receiver chips, especially given the effective dates of the Commission’s tuner mandates. Indeed, given SHVERA’s time table to implement the digital signal site testing regime, it is likely that sixth generation receivers with additional improvements will be commercially available by then. This obviates the need for the Commission to consider whether to artificially boost the digital signal strength thresholds to account for multipath. It is also worth comparing several of the other assumptions made by the ITU in its ATSC digital planning criteria with those assumed by the Commission. For example, the ITU assumed an antenna gain of 8.2 dB for low VHF, 10.2 dB for high VHF, and 12. 2 for UHF. 87 Each of these exceed the antenna gains assumed by the Commission in the DTV planning factors, but, as the Network Affiliates’ survey of commercially available antennas demonstrates, each of the ITU’s antenna gain assumptions are readily achievable by real- world antennas available for purchase today. In addition, the ITU assumed transmission line loss of 1.1 dB for low VHF, 1.9 dB for high VHF, and 3.3 dB for UHF. 88 The VHF line loss values are virtually identical to those assumed by the Commission, while the UHF line loss value is less. As the specifications for RG- 6 coax cable indicate, even the ITU’s assumptions remain slightly conservative. Finally, for receiver noise figure, the ITU assumed 5 dB for both low VHF and high VHF and 10 dB for UHF. 89 These assumed noise 40 - 32 - 95949.1 figures for VHF are substantially less than— indeed, they are half— what the Commission assumed, while the ITU’s UHF noise figure is higher. In any event, each of these noise figures is higher than the system noise figure would be if it incorporated an LNA. The ITU makes additional assumptions that the Commission did not (including incorporating an LNA and an antenna balun, among others), but the end result is signal strength levels generally in line with the Commission’s own, 35 dBu for low VHF, 33 dBu for high VHF, and 39 dBu for UHF. What the ITU’s independent results do is corroborate that the Commission’s 1997 DTV planning factors led to signal strength thresholds that are realistic for real- world reception conditions for a typical receiving installation located near the edge of coverage and for a viewer taking reasonable steps, including an outdoor antenna oriented or orientable to the desired signal and an appropriate receiver, to receive DTV service. * * * Based on the above survey of considerations affecting the Commission’s DTV planning factors, it is possible to adjust the DTV planning factors to account for what is possible under current real- world reception conditions— not NTSC replication conditions. Such adjustments would recognize the minor alteration in the dipole factor for UHF, a slight reduction in downlead line loss for UHF, slightly better receiving antenna gains from readily available outdoor antennas, lesser noise figures in all bands through use of an LNA (without even accounting for the additional gain to the receiving installation from the amplification provided by the LNA), and the ability of fifth generation DTV receivers to perform well when confronted with substantial pre- and post- ghosts. The results of these minor adjustments are shown in Table 2. 41 90 Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 68. 91 In addition, the “headroom” may be thought of as providing a margin of safety for any “slippage” in the receive system, such as, for example, a minor loss of signal strength due to an impedance mismatch. - 33 - 95949.1 Adjusted DTV Planning Factors Table 2 Parameter Channels 2 to 6 Channels 7 to 13 Channels 14 to 69 Thermal Noise (106.2) (106.2) (106.2) Dipole Factor 111.8 120.8 130.2 System Noise Figure 4 4 4 Downlead Line Loss 1 2 3 Receiving Antenna Gain (6) (10) (12) Carrier- to- Noise Ratio 15.2 15.2 15.2 Median Field Intensity 19.8 dBu 25.8 dBu 34.2 dBu Network Affiliates do not recommend that the Commission actually propose to Congress these adjusted planning factors as the basis for digital signal strength thresholds for site testing purposes. Rather, what these adjusted planning factors show is that the current planning factors, in a proper receive installation, have plenty of “headroom”— a “safety margin,” as the Commission has termed it 90 —to ensure that quality DTV reception is achievable precisely where the Commission expected it to be— in the replicated NTSC coverage area where 50% of the viewers would be able to receive acceptable service 90% of the time. In fact, that “headroom” or “safety margin” ensures that substantially more than 50% of the viewers are able to receive acceptable service 90% of the time or, equivalently, that 50% of the viewers are able to receive acceptable service substantially in excess of 90% of the time. 91 This level of coverage is more than the Commission ever anticipated in adopting the DTV planning factors, and it clearly demonstrates that the Commission need not 42 92 See Notice at ¶ 9. - 34 - 95949.1 recommend artificially boosting the planning factors for SHVERA purposes, which would be contrary to the limited purpose of SHVERA’s ever narrower distant signal license. The discussion of the adequacy of the DTV planning factors, the specifications and characteristics of currently available consumer equipment, and the Commission’s intentions and expectations in promulgating the DTV planning factors, together with Congress’s long history of minimizing the abrogation of the rights of copyright holders and of preserving and promoting localism and the network- affiliate distribution system and with the nature of the particularly limited— and now even narrower— regime for the satellite delivery of duplicating distant digital network signals, all appropriately drive consideration of the inquiries required by SHVERA and set forth in the Notice. All of these considerations point ineluctably to the following conclusions: First, the receiving antenna must be mounted outside on the roof or adjacent to the house. Moreover, the antenna must be oriented to the desired signal, and if the desired stations are not located in the same direction, then the antenna must be orientable in the direction of the desired signal( s). 92 In addition to all of the above considerations which point to this natural conclusion, it is worth observing that satellite receive antennas are mounted outside and are oriented to the satellite. It would be inappropriate to essentially penalize a local television station for a consumer who was only willing to install an indoor antenna or an antenna that was not capable of being oriented to the desired signal, especially when the consumer is willing to take additional, necessary steps to obtain adequate satellite reception. Consequently, there is no need for the Commission to consider modifying the inherent assumptions regarding DTV antenna receiving systems in the DTV 43 93 See Notice at ¶ 11. 94 See Notice at ¶ 14. 95 See Notice at ¶ 16. - 35 - 95949.1 planning factors. 93 An excellent antenna receiving system can be installed at relatively low cost. For example, the Channel Master Model 4228 eight- way bowtie- with- screen antenna, which even has adequate gain at VHF frequencies, costs only $39, and it can be paired with the Channel Master rotor with remote control for $69, for a complete system price of only $108. If additional gain were necessary or there were a desire or need to lower the system noise figure, the Antennacraft Model 10G212 LNA with adjustable gain can be added to the receive installation for an additional $33.63. Second, the Commission should continue to recommend that the current signal strength thresholds for noise- limited digital service should be used to define the availability of a DTV signal for determining whether a household is eligible to receive distant digital signals from satellite services. 94 As stated above, real- world equipment, including fifth generation receivers, demonstrates that the Commission’s current signal strength thresholds are more than adequate to receive a high- quality digital picture. There is no basis to artificially boost the current signal strength thresholds. And there is certainly no basis to retreat from a signal strength standard altogether when that can only jeopardize localism and the network- affiliate distribution system while running counter to the extremely narrow compulsory license that remains in SHVERA for satellite delivery of duplicating distant network signals. Third, variation in DTV set prices should play no role in determining whether a household is unserved by an adequate DTV network signal. 95 The evidence shows that there is very little penetration (no more than 1%) of early generation DTV receivers in television households. Most 44 96 See Notice at ¶ 17. - 36 - 95949.1 households have or will acquire DTV sets with integrated tuners incorporating the latest generational chip design (fifth generation or later), including equalizers demonstrating superior multipath handling performance capabilities. With digital tuners manufactured in mass quantities to satisfy the Commission’s tuner mandate, the cost of an integrated DTV set is not particularly dependent on the cost of the generation of chip design (say, fourth generation versus fifth generation). Instead, DTV set prices are largely dependent on features, such as ATSC format capabilities (enhanced definition versus high definition, particularly in smaller- sized models), screen size, screen technology (CRT, plasma, LCD, DLP), screen resolution, contrast ratio, and integration of other functions, such as digital video recorders (“ DVRs”). For example, a survey of the Sharp Aquos and LG websites revealed no difference in the type of ATSC tuner included in integrated DTV sets within each manufacturer’s product lines. It would make a mockery of the principle of localism, and of the objective standards Congress has always imposed on the “unserved household” definition, to permit a satellite carrier to deliver a duplicating distant network signal to a household merely because the household had purchased, probably unknowingly, an inferior quality DTV set. The current analog “unserved household” definition is not dependent on whether a household buys a $59 13- inch television set or a $400 27- inch television set. There is no reasonable, defensible basis to make such a distinction in the digital context. Moreover, there is no workable basis to incorporate a receiver quality factor into a site testing regime, given the many dozens, if not hundreds, of consumer DTV sets available for purchase in the market. Finally, as the Notice appears to recognize, 96 any limitations in fifth generation receiver design are likely to be highly mitigated by using higher performance antennas with high front- to- back ratios and auxiliary devices such as rotors and LNAs. 45 97 See Notice at ¶ 20. 98 ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines, Doc. A/ 74 (June 18, 2004), at 24 (emphasis added). 99 See Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, Report, 15 FCC Rcd 24321 (2000), at ¶ 59. - 37 - 95949.1 Fourth, multipath should not be taken into account in determining whether a household is served by an adequate digital signal. 97 As shown above, fifth generation receivers incorporate equalizers that are remarkably good at handling very early pre- ghosts and very late post- ghosts (on the order of 50 microseconds each). But, more fundamentally, multipath is not a matter of signal strength, which is the objective means by which a digital “unserved household” should be determined. The effects of multipath, however, can be greatly, if not wholly, mitigated by the use of the latest generation receiver; by the use of an outdoor antenna raised to 30 feet which will place the antenna far above the principal multipath reflectors, including moving vehicles such as cars, trucks, and buses, as well as neighboring houses; and by the use of highly directional antennas with high front- to- back ratios, properly oriented to the strongest desired signal. As the ATSC has observed: “[ A] n antenna with a directional pattern that gives only a few dB reduction in a specific multipath reflection can dramatically improve the equalizer’s performance. Such modest directional performance can be achieved with antennas of consumer- friendly size, especially at UHF.” 98 In addition, the Commission refused to include multipath within the distant analog signal eligibility standard, 99 and there is no principled basis to include multipath in the distant digital signal eligibility standard since there still remains no objective means to predict or evaluate multipath at any particular location or to evaluate the impact of multipath on local television service generally. In sum, the only way to respect the Commission’s own history of implementing the DTV 46 100 See Cohen Engineering Statement at 6- 7. 101 See Notice at ¶ 13. - 38 - 95949.1 service, to respect the narrow and limited purpose of the distant signal compulsory license, and to respect the bedrock principle of localism in television service is for the Commission to recommend to Congress that its existing signal strength thresholds remain the objective standards by which the eligibility of a household for duplicating distant digital signal service should be determined. III. The Commission’s Objective Test Methodology for Analog Signals Is Generally Sound but Must Be Modified Slightly to Test Objectively the Signal Strength of Digital Broadcast Signals Section 73.686( d) of the Commission’s rules sets forth the testing procedure for cluster measurements of signal strength at household locations. This methodology was developed specifically for analog signals, but it is generally workable for digital signals once several slight modifications are made to measure the signal strength of digital signals. 100 First, a directional gain antenna should be utilized instead of a half- wave dipole. Since the objective of the site test is to determine whether adequate signal strength exists to deliver high- quality DTV reception, use of a directional gain antenna that can be oriented to the strongest desired signal and that can ameliorate any difficulties that could be caused by multipath at the site would represent a better engineering practice than use of a half- wave dipole in these circumstances. Second, there is no visual carrier for digital signals, so the requirement in Section 73.686( d)( 2)( i) to measure the visual carrier makes no sense in the digital context. The Notice’s suggestion to substitute the pilot signal for the visual carrier is not feasible. 101 The Commission defines digital signals by their integrated average power over the 6 MHz bandwidth. It is this integrated average power that should be measured to determine the field strength. Because 47 102 See 47 C. F. R. § 73.686( d)( 2)( iii), (iv). 103 See Notice at ¶ 13. - 39 - 95949.1 the 6 MHz bandwidth of the digital channel will contain many sharp peaks and valleys and because the pilot signal, which is already down 3 dB, could fall within a valley, there is little likelihood that measurement of the pilot signal will tell one anything useful about the actual signal strength of the digital signal. Again, the field strength of a digital signal should be determined by measuring the integrated average power over the 6 MHz bandwidth. Third, a typical analog field strength meter cannot be used to measure digital signal strength since its bandwidth is too narrow. Instead, the tester should use a spectrum analyzer tuned to the center of the channel, sweep across a variety of small intermediate frequency bandwidths, and integrate the total power across the 6 MHz bandwidth. With these slight modifications, the testing methodology in Section 73. 686( d) will permit the objective testing of the signal strength of digital signals. But this is true only if the remaining elements of the testing methodology are not altered. Most notably, the site test must measure signal strength outdoors, at the specified rooftop heights (20 feet for one- story residences, 30 feet for all others), and with the testing antenna properly oriented. 102 The Commission should not consider developing specific procedures for measuring signal strength indoors. 103 As explained extensively above, DTV service was designed to provide a service that would replicate existing Grade B analog service, and that existing Grade B analog service was always predicated upon providing satisfactory service to 30- foot outdoor antennas, properly oriented, located at households near the fringe of the station’s service area. Local service will simply be eviscerated if the Commission were to recommend measuring signal strength indoors or establishing an indoor standard that the entire DTV 48 104 Tektronix White Paper, A Guide to Maintaining Video Quality of Service for Digital Television Programs (Feb. 2000), at 3. - 40 - 95949.1 service was never intended to be able to meet. Of course, the test methodology must remain objective. There is neither any basis nor any warrant for the Commission to consider altering any aspect of the test methodology that would add any element of subjectivity to the test. As one third party has explained it: [S] ubjective tests are only applicable for development purposes. They do not lend themselves to operational monitoring, production line testing, trouble shooting or repeatable measurements required for equipment specifications. Subjective testing is too complex and provides too much variability in results, making clear the need for an objective testing method of picture quality. 104 Finally, what is to be measured is as important as how it is to be measured. And there are numerous circumstances in which what is to be measured is not digital signal strength but analog signal strength. As noted above, in a market, for example, where a satellite carrier does not offer local- into- local digital service but does offer local- into- local analog service, if the satellite subscriber is served over the air by the local station’s analog signal, then such a subscriber may be eligible for distant digital service depending on the results of a site test measurement in conjunction with certain further conditions as to market, date, and DTV build- out status. Digital signal strength is to be measured at the site test only for those stations for which the SHVERA trigger events in 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( vii) are satisfied. For all other stations, the site test must continue to measure analog signal strength, even though it is eligibility for a distant digital duplicating network signal that is in issue. This principle is best demonstrated by an example. In local Market L, which is a top 100 market, the local ABC affiliate is Station X. Station X has received a tentative DTV service channel 49 - 41 - 95949.1 designation that is the same as its current DTV channel in the core. Station X also operates two translators T1 and T2. In an adjacent market, Market A1, which is a top 100 market, the local ABC affiliate is Station Y. Although Market A1 is a top 100 market, Station Y has received a testing waiver pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( viii) because Station Y has a side- mounted digital antenna that causes it to experience a substantial decrease in its digital signal coverage area. In another adjacent market, Market A2, which is not a top 100 market, the local ABC affiliate is Station Z. If, on July 1, 2006, a satellite subscriber located in Market L seeks to have a site test conducted to determine the subscriber’s eligibility for a distant digital duplicating ABC signal, then the site test must measure the following: (1) the digital signal strength of Station X (because the SHVERA trigger events are satisfied for Station X, see 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( vii)( I)( aa)), (2) the analog signal strength of translator stations T1 and T2 (because the trigger events for translator stations are not yet satisfied, see 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( vii)( II)), (3) the analog signal strength of Station Y (because Station Y obtained a digital testing waiver for a valid reason, see 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( viii)( IV)), and (4) the analog signal strength of Station Z (because the trigger events for stations that are not in the top 100 markets are not yet satisfied, see 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( vii)( I)( bb)). Only if the location of the subscriber’s household cannot receive the requisite signal strength (be it digital or analog, as stated) from any of these stations would the subscriber be deemed eligible to receive a distant digital signal. Therefore, even if the subscriber’s location is unable to receive the requisite signal strength of Station X’s digital signal, if the location can receive the requisite signal strength of Translator T1 or Translator T2’s analog signal or the requisite signal strength of Station Y’s analog signal or the requisite signal strength of Station Z’s analog signal, then the subscriber is not eligible for a distant digital ABC signal. (It should be remembered that the subscriber in this case is not left without life- line network service. Before the 50 105 Compare 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1) (enacted in SHVERA) with id., § 339( c)( 3) (enacted in SHVIA). 106 See S. REP. NO. 108- 427, at 8- 9 (2004). 107 See INS v. Cardoza- Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 442- 43 (1987) (stating that “[ f] ew principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). - 42 - 95949.1 testing could even occur in this example, SHVERA requires the subscriber to be receiving local Station X’s ABC programming as part of the satellite carrier’s local stations package offered under the Section 122 local- into- local compulsory license.) A testing regime implemented as described herein best comports with SHVERA and Congress’s long- standing policy goals to protect and preserve localism and to retain the extremely limited character of the distant signal compulsory license. IV. The Longley- Rice Model Is an Appropriate Predictive Model to Recommend to Congress for Future, But Not Immediate, Use SHVERA, unlike SHVIA, does not contain a requirement that the Commission promulgate a predictive model to presumptively determine whether an individual location can receive a digital signal of a certain threshold intensity. 105 Although Congress considered requiring the development of a predictive model for digital signals, 106 in the end it did not enact such a scheme. SHVERA, therefore, contains only a requirement for objective site testing to determine the adequacy of digital signal strength, and such testing can only occur after certain future trigger dates. The Commission, accordingly, has no authority to promulgate and implement a predictive model for digital signals. 107 SHVERA, instead, directs the Commission only to “consider whether to develop a predictive methodology for determining whether a household is unserved by an adequate digital signal under 51 108 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1)( B)( iv). 109 See 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 2), (3), (10). 110 Theoretically, it would be possible to predict whether a location is served by a digital signal of any station that does not have a Commission- sanctioned reason for not broadcasting in full power on its final DTV channel and, if not, to then predict whether that location is served by an analog signal of any station that does have such a Commission- sanctioned reason, but this process quickly becomes too complicated, too unworkable, and too subject to rampant confusion. Moreover, (continued...) - 43 - 95949.1 section 119( d)( 10) of Title 17.” 108 Network Affiliates believe that the Commission should develop and recommend a predictive model for digital signals, but only for future, and not immediate, use. By “future use,” Network Affiliates mean after the digital transition is complete. Before the end of the transition, too much is unknown, the process would be too complicated, and the resulting viewer confusion could be rampant. For example, not all stations have made elections for their final digital channel, and the spectrum repacking process is far from complete. Importantly, digital service for low power stations and translators has not yet been authorized. Because a household is considered “served” if it receives a signal from any station, be it full power, satellite, or translator, affiliated with the network in issue, 109 it is not possible to predict whether a household can receive a digital signal if the station that could be delivering the signal has not yet been authorized to broadcast in digital or the station has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to construct digital facilities. Local network affiliates, particularly those in western states that rely heavily on translators, should not be penalized by having their viewers siphoned away to distant duplicating stations solely because they are unable to provide a digital signal through no fault of their own. This is the antithesis of preserving and promoting localism and the network- affiliate distribution system as well as giving an expansive capability to a compulsory license intended to be, and that by law must be, narrowly construed. 110 52 110 (... continued) such a hybrid process does not appear to be what Congress intended the Commission to consider and recommend. 111 See H. R. REP. NO. 108- 634, at 19- 20 (2004) (stating that SHVERA requires the Commission to recommend “a methodology for determining whether a particular consumer would be unserved over the air by the digital signal of a specific network as transmitted by a broadcast station after the broadcasters in that consumer’s market have ceased to broadcast in analog because of implementation of section 309( j)( 14) of the Communications Act” (emphasis added)). - 44 - 95949.1 Consequently, Network Affiliates urge the Commission to recommend that no predictive model be implemented until the digital transition is complete. Waiting for the completion of the digital transition will not materially prejudice the distant signal license for a number of reasons. For instance, the delay will be minimal since the transition should be complete not long after SHVERA’s testing scheme is fully triggered, and, of course, a site test would always be available in such circumstances. In addition, given SHVERA’s “if local, no distant” policy, the need for a predictive model as well as for site testing should be rapidly diminishing over time as satellite carriers introduce local- into- local digital service into markets. Moreover, waiting for the completion of the digital transition also appears to have been Congress’s intent. 111 Finally, the distant signal license existed for many years under SHVA without a predictive model, and it can do the same in the digital context, although the time frame is expected to be much less. When the relative harms are weighed, it is plain that the harm to local affiliates by permitting a predictive model to presume lack of service before the end of the digital transition is too great to be implemented prematurely. After the completion of the digital transition, it would be appropriate to utilize a predictive model for digital signals, and Network Affiliates urge the Commission to recommend the Longley- Rice model for use in this Section 119( d)( 10) context. Not only is DTV coverage predicated upon the Longley- Rice model, as set forth in OET 69, but both the broadcast and satellite 53 112 OET Bulletin No. 72, The ILLR Computer Program (July 2, 2002). 113 See H. R. REP. NO. 108- 634, at 20 (2004) (“ The Committee intends the FCC to base its methodology on the FCC’s existing technical specifications for digital television service and the individual location Longley- Rice algorithm.”). 114 See Cohen Engineering Statement at 5- 6. 115 G. A. Hufford et al., A Guide to the Use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction Mode, NTIA Report 82- 100 (U. S. Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 1982) (“ Longley- Rice Manual”), at 12 (emphases added); see also id. at 22. - 45 - 95949.1 industries have five years of experience with the modified Individual Location Longley- Rice (“ ILLR”) model described in OET Bulletin No. 72 (“ OET 72”). 112 Furthermore, Congress intended for the Commission to base its recommended predictive methodology on the ILLR model. 113 It would be appropriate for the Commission to recommend the ILLR model for digital signal prediction purposes— with one exception. The ILLR model as currently structured in OET 72 over- provides for clutter at UHF frequencies, and, in the digital context, these UHF clutter loss values make the model less accurate, rather than more accurate. 114 Predictive models such as Longley- Rice already account for clutter factors such as buildings and vegetation inasmuch as they are empirically- based. As the Longley- Rice Manual explains, the model combines certain theoretical treatments using empirical relations derived as fits to measured data. This combination of elementary theory with experimental data makes it a semi- empirical model . . . . The data used in developing the empirical relations have clearly influenced the model itself. It should then be noted that these data were obtained from measurements made with fairly clear foregrounds at both terminals. In general, ground cover was sparse, but some of the measurements were made in areas with moderate forestation. The model, therefore, includes effects of foliage, but only to the fixed degree that they were present in the data used. 115 The fact that Longley- Rice is semi- empirical and incorporates the then- existing clutter in the model 54 116 See, e. g., R. Grosskopf, Comparison of Different Methods for the Prediction of the Field Strength in the VHF Range, 35 IEEE TRANS. ON ANTENNAS & PROPAGATION 852 (July 1987), 852 (stating that in the Longley- Rice model “empirically gained quantities influence the field strength prediction”); M. L. Meeks, VHF Propagation over Hilly, Forested Terrain, 31 IEEE TRANS. ON ANTENNAS & PROPAGATION 483 (May 1983), 488 (recognizing the semi- empirical nature of the Longley- Rice model and the fact that if affects the model’s prediction of propagation loss); M. M. Weiner, Use of the Longley- Rice and Johnson- Gierhart Tropospheric Radio Propagation Programs: 0.02- 20 GHz, 4 IEEE J. ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS 297 (Mar. 1986), 297 (stating that Longley- Rice is a “statistical/ semi- empirical model[] of tropospheric radio propagation”); id. at 299 (stating that it is necessary to take account of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the receiving antenna because “knife- edge diffraction by vegetation distant from the antennas is usually included in the semi- empirical methods used for estimating the excess propagation loss”). 117 See Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12118 (2000), at ¶¶ 13- 15 & Appendix A, Table 3. - 46 - 95949.1 is well- recognized in the scientific and technical community. 116 In creating the ILLR model, the Commission was careful to include additional clutter, above and beyond that already accounted for in the semi- empirical model itself, only where it made the model more accurate. Thus, the Commission determined that any clutter loss values greater than 0 dB would make the model less accurate in the low VHF and high VHF bands for analog signal predictions. With respect to the analog UHF band, the Commission proposed modest clutter loss values for certain land use categories (between 3 dB and 6 dB for the lower half of the UHF band and between 5 dB and 8 dB in the upper half of the UHF band). The Commission determined that these UHF clutter factors, when analyzed with real- world data for over- predictions and under-predictions, made the model the most accurate. 117 In the case of digital signal predictions, the clutter considerations already inherent in the basic Longley- Rice model provide a more accurate predictive model than the additional UHF clutter loss values added into the ILLR model in OET 72. The National Association of Broadcasters (“ NAB”) is providing extensive data (more than 2000 individual site predictions with associated measured 55 - 47 - 95949.1 field strengths) in its comments in this proceeding providing empirical support for this new modification to the ILLR model. NAB shows, using the same basic form of analysis that the Commission undertook in creating the ILLR model, that the best balance of over- predictions and under- predictions— and, hence, the most accurate predictive model— is provided by the Longley- Rice model without the OET 72 UHF clutter loss values. In sum, Network Affiliates urge the Commission to recommend to Congress that it prescribe the Longley- Rice predictive model, without the OET 72 UHF clutter loss values, for use after the digital transition is complete in presumptively determining whether an individual location can receive a digital signal of the requisite threshold intensity. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Network Affiliates respectfully request that the Commission recommend to Congress (1) that the digital signal strength thresholds set forth in Section 73.622( e)( 1) remain the same for purposes of determining whether a household is “unserved” by a digital signal pursuant to 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 10); (2) that the testing methodology set forth in Section 73.686( d) be modified slightly, as explained herein, so that the procedure may be used for digital signal site tests; and (3) that Congress prescribe a slightly modified ILLR model, as explained herein, to be used after the digital television transition is complete to presumptively determine the eligibility of a household to receive a duplicating distant digital network signal. 56 - 48 - 95949.1 Respectfully submitted, ABC, CBS, AND NBC TELEVISION AFFILIATE ASSOCIATIONS /s/ /s/ Kurt A. Wimmer Wade H. Hargrove COVINGTON & BURLING Mark J. Prak 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. (20004) David Kushner Post Office Box 7566 BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, Washington, D. C. 20044- 7566 HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L. L. P. Telephone: (202) 662- 6000 Wachovia Capitol Center, Suite 1600 Facsimile: (202) 662- 6291 150 Fayetteville Street Mall (27601) Post Office Box 1800 Counsel for the CBS Television Network Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Affiliates Association and for the Telephone: (919) 839- 0300 NBC Television Affiliates Association Facsimile: (919) 839- 0304 Counsel for the ABC Television Affiliates Association June 17, 2005 57 Appendix Engineering Statement of Jules Cohen, P. E. 58 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer ENGINEERING STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMMENTS FCC NOTICE OF INQUIRY, ET DOCKET NO. 05- 182 This engineering statement, prepared on behalf of Network Affiliates, is in support of comments responding to the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, ET Docket No. 05- 182, released May 3, 2005. The statement is directed, particularly, to the equipment employed to intercept the desired digital signal and the effect of that equipment on Planning Factors. Included also are comments on field testing of the availability of an adequate digital signal from a local terrestrial television broadcast station. As a threshold matter, the criteria employed to determine eligibility for satellite-delivery of network signals should include an assumption that the receiving point apparatus includes equipment appropriate for the location of the household. Generally, that implies that distant locations use outdoor antennas of reasonably high gain, preferably supplemented by a mast- mounted low noise amplifier. Although at distances relatively close to the transmitter site indoor antennas may suffice for a satisfactory viewing experience, some locations may be so obstructed by terrain, either natural or man- made, that they require equipment generally considered necessary only for distant locations. Additionally, in each instance, the antenna should be assumed to be oriented toward the strongest signal arriving from the desired station. At times, that strongest signal may not be on the direct bearing to the transmitting station but may be from a 59 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 2 nearby water tower or large surface reflecting the desired signal. Receiving Antennas Outdoor antennas for fringe area reception are available from numerous sources. Web site listings can be found for such manufacturers as Andrew Channel Master, Antennas Direct, Winegard and AntennaCraft as well as for numerous retail outlets carrying the antennas of these manufacturers and others. Manufacturers’ specified antenna gains vary from averages of 5 to 7 dB for low band VHF, mostly about 10 dB for high VHF and 12 dB or more for UHF. Half- power beam widths are in the order of 70 degrees for low VHF, 35 degrees for high VHF and 35 to 40 degrees for UHF. List prices for individual VHF and UHF or all- band high gain outdoor antennas are in the order of $100 to $165 with lower prices found at the times of special sales. A useful collection of measured patterns of receiving antennas from a source independent of receiving antenna manufacturers is a paper delivered by Mr. Kerry W. Cozad at the 54 th Annual IEEE Broadcast Symposium on October 14, 2004. An even more extensive description of Mr. Cozad’s work is found in a paper he delivered at the 2005 National Translator Convention on May 15, 2005. Rotators Where television transmitting sites are located at a variety of bearings from the receiving location an antenna rotator is required. Rotators capable of handling the outdoor antennas are available from Radio Shack, Channel Master and others at a cost of about $75 plus about $15 for 100 feet of control cable, permitting adjustment to the optimum orientation from a location at the receiver. Manufacturers provide manuals to 60 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 3 guide the householder on the installation of antennas and rotators so that the cost of hiring an installer can be avoided if desired. Low- Noise Amplifiers Mast- mounted low noise amplifiers, at reasonable costs of 60 to 90 dollars, are readily available from equipment suppliers, either via the internet or retail outlets. They perform the useful function of assuring high quality digital television reception at marginal locations. A feature of their use is the substantial improvement of the system noise figure over that provided by the television receiver alone. System noise figure is equal to the sum of the amplifier noise figure plus the noise figure of the receiver divided by the amplifier gain (all in linear terms). Manufacturers’ published noise figures run from 2.5 to about 4.0 dB, with gains varying from 11 to 29 dB. A conservative choice of parameters to illustrate the advantage of using a pre- amplifier at the antenna would be: amplifier noise figure 5 dB (3.16), amplifier gain 20 dB (100), and receiver noise figure of 12 dB (15.85). The resulting system noise figure is 3.32, or 5.2 dB. Considering that the system noise factors used by the Commission for DTV reception are 10 dB for VHF and 7 dB for UHF, a system noise figure of approximately 5 dB can be seen to provide an extra margin to minimize the impact of system mismatches. Planning Factors Planning factors currently in use by the Commission, as shown in Table 3 of OET Bulletin No. 69, Longley- Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference, February 06, 2004, is shown in the table on the following page: 61 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 4 Planning Factor Symbol Low VHF High VHF UHF Geometric mean frequency (MHz) F 69 194 615 Dipole factor (dBm- dBu) Kd -111.8 -120.8 -130.8 Dipole factor adjustment Ka none none see below Thermal noise (dBm) Nt -106.2 -106.2 -106.2 Antenna gain (dBd) G 4 6 10 Downlead line loss L 1 2 4 System noise figure (dB) Ns 10 10 7 Required Carrier to Noise ratio (dB) C/ N 15 15 15 Bulletin 69 states as follows: “The adjustment, Ka = 20 log[ 615/( channel mid- frequency in MHz)], is added to Kd to account for the fact that field strength requirements are greater for UHF channels above the geometric mean frequency of the UHF band and smaller for UHF channels below that frequency. The geometric mean frequency, 615 MHz, is approximately the mid- frequency of channel 38.” From the foregoing discussion of equipment available, and employed by television viewers, factors such as antenna gain and system noise figure are well within the capabilities of receiving systems. As to downlead losses, they too are conservatively stated in the current planning figures. Losses for 50 feet of RG- 6 coaxial cable, the downlead recommended for television use, are shown by Channel Master to be: 0.75 to 0.93 dB for low VHF, 1. 31 to 1.44 dB for high VHF, and 2.20 to 2.76 dB for UHF. 62 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 5 Since UHF digital television broadcasting will be limited to channels 14 to 51 (470 to 698 MHz) after the transition, the geometric mean frequency of 615 MHz, based on the use of channels 14 to 69 (470 to 806 MHz), no longer applies in the digital world. The appropriate geometric mean frequency for the new channel alignment is 573 MHz and the dipole factor becomes -130.2. However, in light of an absence for need to change other quantities in the table, the planning factor table is not proposed to be changed. Prediction of Service Use of the objective determination of field strength above a suitable threshold level is urged strongly as the criterion of whether or not a particular location has available service from a local terrestrial digital broadcast station. The availability at reasonable cost of sophisticated receiving equipment capable of delivering to the receiver strong signals with suitable carrier- to- noise ratios, coupled with the demonstrated improvements in receiver technology, leaves little doubt that, given sufficient signal strength, the viewer will have excellent digital reception. Multipath degradation that affected early receiver designs has been conquered to a substantial degree. Further improvements have been promised and can be expected to be delivered as the demand for product grows. A method is already available for making those needed predictions of field strength at particular locations— ILLR. The Commission describes the use of the Individual Location Longley- Rice (ILLR) Computer Program in OET Bulletin Number 72 of July 2, 2002. That program has been proved to be reliable through comparison with several thousand measurements of received signal strength. No need exists for a new program with one exception. The clutter loss adjustments for UHF channels should be eliminated. Built into the Longley- Rice Model for the prediction of field strength over 63 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 6 irregular terrain are empirical factors based on actual field strength measurements. Addition of a clutter factor adjustment compounds field strength losses and serves to reduce rather than increase reliability of the prediction. In rare instances where a party chooses to challenge a prediction of the presence or absence of service, that challenge can be met only with appropriate field strength measurements. Local Field Strength Measurements A procedure for making field strength measurements at individual locations is described in Commission rules at 73. 686( d). With one major modification, that procedure is appropriate for digital television broadcasting. Section 73.686( d)( 2)( i) describes the testing equipment and procedure to follow for measuring the received field strength. The equipment and procedure are appropriate to measurement of a NTSC signal, but not digital. The field strength desired in the NTSC case is that at the peak of the synchronizing pulse. That is a convenient parameter because the synchronizing pulse has a relatively narrow bandwidth and is independent of the varying video modulation. In the digital case, the necessary measurement is the integrated average power over the full 6 MHz band. Instruments used in the NTSC case cover bandwidth too narrow for measurement of the digital signal. The most practical instrument to use for digital power measurement is a spectrum analyzer such as the Agilent Technologies Model E441B ESA- L (list price about $8,000). 64 JULES COHEN, P. E. Consulting Engineer 7 Use of a high gain antenna of known characteristics rather than a dipole is strongly recommended to eliminate to the extent possible interfering signals and to reflect the type of antenna employed by the viewers. Conclusions Determining the eligibility for satellite- delivered network stations requires an assumption that receiving equipment appropriate to the point of reception is in use. Threshold signal levels presently used as criteria for acceptable reception in the three TV bands are suitable because the planning factors used to develop those levels are consistent with readily available equipment. The presence or absence of those threshold signal levels is best determined by existing ILLR calculation procedures. In the event of challenge to the analytical results, only field testing is appropriate to reach a definitive conclusion. Field testing should be done by the presently specified procedure with the exception of substituting an appropriate wide- band instrument for the narrow- band field strength meter now used for NTSC. s/ Jules Cohen, P. E. June 16, 2005 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 DRAFT In the matter of ) ) Re Technical Standards for Determining ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network ) Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home ) Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ) To: The Commission COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC. The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (“ MSTV”) 1 files these comments and the corresponding Engineering Statement 2 to address some of the important issues raised by the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry (the “NOI”) for determining eligibility for satellite- delivered network signals pursuant the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA). 3 The NOI is seeking comments on the adequacy of the digital signal strength standard and testing procedures used to determine whether households are eligible to 1 MSTV represents nearly 500 local television stations on technology and spectrum policy issues relating to analog and digital television services. 2 Infra, Ex. 1, du Treil, Lundin & Rackely, Inc., Engineering Statement in Support of Comments of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., in Response to the Notice of Inquiry in the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act. ET Docket No. 05- 182. 3 Notice of Inquiry, In re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Determining Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA), ET Docket 05- 182, FCC 05- 1794 (rel. May 18, 2005). 179 receive distant digital television (DTV) network signals from satellite communication providers. Specifically, the Commission is seeking comments and information on whether the signal strength standards of 47 CFR 73.622( e) and the measurement procedures of 47 CFR 73.686( d) should be amended for the purpose of identifying if a household is underserved by a digital television signal and thus eligible for reception of a retransmitted distant network signal. MSTV urges the Commission to reaffirm the digital signal strength standards listed in Section 73.622( e) of the rules for determining service availability for DTV and thus identifying underserved households eligible for SHVERA. These standards -- grounded on sound engineering principles, are based on a set of planning factors recommended by the FCC Advisory Committee Television Services and subsequently adopted by the Commission. 4 These factors have been in use for almost a decade and have been proven in the field to be appropriate for determining service availability for DTV. Moreover, the attached Engineering Statement prepared by the firm of du Treil, Lundin and Rackley, Inc. have re- examined the premise for these planning factors and provided further evidence to demonstrate that the planning factors established a decade ago are achievable and are an appropriate metric for predicting DTV service under the terms of SHVERA. 4 From The Sixth Report and Order, Appendix A, Advanced Television Systems and their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, FCC 97- 115. 2 180 3 CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the Commission should not change the strength standards listed in Section 73.622( e) of the rules for determining service availability for DTV and use these standards to identify underserved households eligible for SHVERA. Respectfully submitted, ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC. /s/ David Donovan_ David L. Donovan Victor Tawil ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION, INC. P. O. Box 9897 4100 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20016 202- 966- 1956 (tel.) 202- 966- 9617 (fax) June 17, 2005 181 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 1 ENGINEER ING STATEMENT IN SUPPOR T OF CO MMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE TELEVISION IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR D ETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SATELLITE- DELIVERED NETWORK SIGNAL S PURSUANT TO THE SATELLITE HOME VIEW ER EX TENSION AN D REAUTHORIZATION ACT ET DOCKET NO. 05- 182 1. Introduction This engineering statement was prepared on behalf the Association for Maximum Service Television (“ MSTV”) in support of its comments in response to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry (“ NOI ”) in the matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (“ SHVERA”), ET Docket No. 05- 182. In the NOI, the Commission sought comments and info rmation on whether the signals strength standards of 47 CFR 73.622( e) and the m easurement procedures of 47 CFR 73.686( d) should be amended for the purpose of identifying if a household is unserved by a digital television signal and thus eligible for reception of a retransmitted distant network signal. For the purposes of predicting whether a household is unserved by a DTV signal, MSTV believes that the Commi ssion should not change the signal strength standards of 47 CFR 73.622( e). These standards were esta blished in the Sixth Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87- 268, Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, F CC 97- 115 (herein “DTV Sixth R& O”), and incorporated into Rule Section 73.622( e). As the NOI indicates, the signal strengths specified in Section 73.622( e) are expressed as the electric field strengths necessary at a receiving antenna to provide a signal sufficient to overcome the thermal and receiver noise present within the 6 MHz DTV channel to provide an acceptable picture on a DTV receiver, and thus they are termed the “noise- limited field strengths.” The noise limited field strength values listed in Section 73.622( e) are based on a set of planning factors recommended by FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service and are listed in A ppendix A of the DTV Sixth R& O. This engineering statement reviews the bases for these planning factors and provides examples of specifications for available equipment demo nstrating that the planning factors remain an appropriate means of defining digital television service availability. 182 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 2 2. DTV Planning Factors The DTV planning factors, as listed in the DTV Sixth R& O, are provided in Table 1 below. Following the table are detailed de scriptions of each factor including a summary of the parameters upon which each factor is based. Table 1 – DTV Planning Factors 1 Low VHF High VHF UHF Planning Factor Ch. 2- 6 Ch. 7- 13 Ch. 14- 69 Units Geometric Mean Frequency 69 1 9 4 6 1 5 M Hz D ipole Factor (dBm- dBu) - 111 .8 - 120 .8 - 130 .8 dB Thermal Noise - 106 .2 - 106 .2 - 106 .2 dB m Antenna Gain 4 6 10 dBd Downlead Line Loss 1 2 4 dB Antenna front- to- back ratio 10 12 14 dB Receiver Noise Figure 10 10 7 dB Time Probability Factor (90 % Availability) 0 0 0 dB Location Probability Factor (50 % Availability) 0 0 0 dB C/ N Ratio 1 5 .2 1 5 .2 1 5 .2 dB Noise-Limited Field Strength 28 36 41 dBuV/ m, f( 50 , 9 0 ) The DTV planning factors were listed in an alternate form in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) proceedings 2 . So that there is no confusion, where appropriate we provide an expl anation of the differences in form. No matter which form 1 From Sixth Report and Order , Appendix A , Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87 - 268 , FCC 97 -1 15 . 2 See Report , Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Docket No. 00- 90 , FCC 00- 41 6 . 183 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 3 is used to express the DTV planning factors, the noise- limited field strengths calculated from them are the same. 2.1 Use of Geometric Mean Frequency For DTV planning purposes, a frequency de pendent dipole factor was calculated for the three television bands (Low VHF, High VHF and UHF) based on the geometric mean of the frequencies at the upper and lo wer edges of each band. The geometric mean frequency was then used to calculate a single dipole factor for each of the three television bands, thus simplifying the planning proce ss by eliminating the need to separately calculate a dipole factor for each DTV channel. Absent this policy, the calculated noise-limited signal strengths would vary in a frequency- dependent manner from channel to channel across the entire band. The use of the geometric mean frequency is reasonable for planning purposes as differences between the dipole factor as calculated based on the geometric mean frequency and that calculated based on the center frequency of the actual channels are small (1 to 2 dB, depending on band). 2.2 Dipole Factor The dipole factor expresses the quantita tive relationship between the power or voltage present at the terminals of a half- w ave dipole antenna which is immersed in an electric field of known stre ngth. The DTV Sixth R& O expr esses the dipole factor in logarithmic form as the relationship between electric field strength and power. The SHVIA Report expresses the di pole factor in logarithmic form as the relationship between electric field strength and voltage. Both the DTV Sixth R& O and the SHVIA Report assume a 75- ohm load. It is important to note that no substantive differences arise from the variation in the form of expressing the dipole factor. 2.3 Thermal Noise For the DTV planning factors, thermal noi se is calculated based on a 6 MHz- wide channel and assumed temperature of 290K . The DTV Sixth R& O expresses it in logarithmic terms as power in decibels relative to a milliwatt. The SHVIA Report expresses it in logarithmic terms as voltage in decibels relative to a microvolt, assuming a 75- ohm impedance. We note that the DTV Sixth R& O corre ctly reports the thermal noise at -106.2 dBm. When expressed in terms of voltage in units of dB/ 1µV for a 75- ohm 184 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 4 impedance the value is 2.56 dB/ 1µV. It is not known why the ther mal noise is reported as 1.75 dB/ 1µV in the SHVIA Report. The 0.81 dB of difference does not result in a change in the noise- limited fi eld strengths in the SHVIA Repor t due to the fact that the SHVIA Report adjusts the Carrier- to- Noise ratio by 0.8 dB (15.2 to 16 dB) from that used in the DTV planning factors in the DTV Sixth R& O. This compensates for the difference in the reported thermal noise figure. 2.4 Antenna Gain and Downlead Line Loss In both the DTV Sixth R& O and the SHVI A Report, the presumed antenna gains are expressed in decibels relative to a half -wave dipole and the downl ead line losses are expressed based on assumed use of 50 feet of typical 75- ohm coaxial cable. 2.5 Antenna Front- to- Back Ratio The antenna front- to- back ratio, which is li sted in the DTV Sixt h R& O (but is not listed in the SHVIA Report) does not enter into the calculations of the noise limited field strengths. It is, however, pe rtinent to issues of interference from undesired signals, and it is used in the process of allotting DTV ch annels. The antenna front- to- back ratio expresses the assumed difference between th e maximum antenna gain (for an antenna properly oriented toward a desired station) and the gain for the antenna in the opposite direction (180°) to its maximum gain. 2.6 Receiver Noise Figu re The receiver noise figure expresses, in l ogarithmic terms, the increase in overall noise (above thermal noise) due to internal re ceiver circuitry. The figures are based on tests conducted on the Grand Alliance system (the 8- VSB system adopted by the FCC for US digital television) at the Advanced Televi sion Test Center and are reported in the “Final Technical Report” of the Technical Subgroup of the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, October 30, 1995. 2.7 Time and Location Probability Factors For the purpose of predicting the limit of DTV service, the time and location probability factors that were adopted are the same as the planning factors used for the Grade B analog (NTSC) television signal, namely a signal predicted to be received at 50 percent of the locations, 90 percent of the time. Unlike the analog Grade B planning 185 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 5 factors, however, no adjustment was made to the DTV noise limited field strengths in terms of a median field (50 pe rcent of the locations, 50 percen t of the time) as was done with the Grade B field strength. Rather, the noise limited field strengths for DTV service are expressed as fields received at 50 percen t of the locations, 90 percent of the time. When predicting DTV service based on the noise limited field strength, the prediction model takes into account both th e time and location probability factors. Therefore, the values of both factors are 0 dB when predicting the field strengths. 2.8 Carrier- to- Noise (C/ N) Ratio The carrier- to- noise (C/ N) ratio is al so based on testing done on the Grand Alliance system at the Advanced Television Test Center. The 15.2 dB fi gure listed in the DTV Sixth R& O expresses the minimum ratio of the desired carrier power to noise power necessary to produce an acceptable DTV picture. In the SHVIA Report, this figure is listed as 16 dB. However, sin ce the SHVIA Report understates the thermal noise by 0.81 dB (see Section 2.3 ), the net result is no change in the noise- limited field strengths. 3. Applicability of Planning Factors to Equipment Available for Purchase and Installation For the purpose of evaluating whether the noise limited field strengths, developed based on the DTV planning factors, are stil l valid based on performance of available receiving equipment, we provide the follo wing information comparing the applicable DTV planning factor values to the values of those factors as specified by manufacturers for equipment that is presently avai lable for purchase and installation. 3.1 Antenna Gain and Front- to- Bac k Ratio The planning factors for antenna gain and front- to- back ratio were for outdoor antennas. A search of web sites for supp liers and manufacturers of outdoor antennas reveals the following partial list of antennas (s ee Table 2) that meet or exceed the antenna gain and front- to- back ratio values contained in the DTV planning factors. The gain and front to back ratios shown in Table 2 we re obtained from information produced by the manufacturers and/ or equipment suppliers. 186 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 6 Table 2 – Specifications from Manufact urers of Outdoor Receiving Antennas Frequency B and M anufacturer Antenna Model Antenna Gain (dBd) Antenna Front- to- Back Ratio (dB) Antennacraft CS- 0011 6.9 1 9 .4 Channel Master (A ndrew) Crossfire Model 3671 5.6 (Band Average) 4.9 (min. Ch 2) 6.2 (max. Chs 5,6) 2 4 (minimum across band) Low VHF Winegard Prostar 1000 M odel 0350PR- 5.0 (min. Ch 4) 7.0 (max. Ch 6) 19 (min. Ch 2 ) Antennacraft CS- 0011 9.6 1 7 .6 Channel Master (A ndrew) Crossfire Model 3671 10.9 (Band Average) 9.5 (min. Ch1)3 11.5 (max. Ch 8) 1 4 (minimum across band) High VHF Winegard Prostar 1000 M odel 0350PR- 7.5 (min. Ch 7) 9.5 (max. Ch 9) 13 (min. Ch 7 ) >2 0 (max. Ch 6)4, Antennacraft 9-5MXU 1 0 .7 1 7 .0 Channel Master (A ndrew) UHF Model 4228 10.8 (min. Ch 14) 12.7 (max. Ch. 43) 19 (min. Ch 35) 24 (max. Ch. 43) UHF (Channels 14 –51) Winegard Prostar 1000 Model 9032 14.9 (min. Ch 14) 16.3 (max. Ch 32) 14 (min. Ch 14) 20 (max. Ch 0)32,5 As can be seen in Table 2, with respect to both the antenna gain and antenna front- to- back ratio, the data indicate that there are a number of receiving antennas available on the market that exceed the DTV planning factors. As an aide in reception, mast- mounted, lo w- noise pre- amplifiers are available which can further enhance system gain. For re ference, relevant spec ifications for three models are listed in Table 3. Table 3 – Specifications from Manuf acturers of Mast- Mounted Preamps Frequency B and Manufacturer Amplifier Model Amplifier Gain (dB) Amplifier Noise Figure (dB) Antennacraft 220G10 2 9 (avg VHF/ UHF) <3.0 (VHF) Channel Master (A ndrew) Titan 2 Model 7777 23 2.8 VHF Winegard Chromstar 2000 Model -2880AP 29 2.9 187 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 7 Table 3 – Specifications from Manuf acturers of Mast- Mounted Preamps Antennacraft 1 0 G 2 0 2 2 9 (avg VHF/ U HF) <2.6 (UHF) Channel Master (A ndrew) Titan 2 Model 7777 26 2.0 UHF W inegard Chromstar 2000 Model AP - 2880 19 2.9 When the improvements in system noise figure (see Section 3.3 below) resulting from implementation of a mast- mounted preamp lifier are taken into account, it is possible to meet the planning factor gain figures even when using antennas with passive gains less than the planning factor values. 3.2 Downlead Line Loss The line loss values contained in the DTV planning factors are based on 50 feet of 75- ohm coaxial cable. The planning fact or values appear reasonable based on the published attenuation values for 75- ohm RG -6 coaxial cable. Table 4 provides specifications from three different coaxial ca ble manufacturers. In all three cases, the attenuation values assumed in the DTV planning factors exceed that of available products. In other words, the DTV planning factors use conservative estimates of transmission loss. Table 4 – Specifications from Manuf acturers of Coaxial Cable (75 ohm) Frequency Manufacturer Cable Type and M odel Attenuation (dB/ 10 0 ft) Attenuation (50 feet of cable) Belden RG 6/ U Model 9116 1.71 0.86 Channel Master R G 6 9 5 3 3- 5 00 1.79 0.90 6 9 MHz (Low VHF) Coleman RG 6/ U Model 99212 7 1.9 0.95 Belden RG 6/ U Model 9116 2.73 1.37 Channel Master R G 6 9 5 3 3- 5 00 2.89 1.45 1 9 4 MHz (High VHF ) Coleman RG 6/ U Model 99212 7 3.2 1.6 Belden RG 6/ U Model 9116 5.00 2.50 6 1 5 MHz (U HF) Channel Master R G 6 9 5 3 3- 5 00 5.57 2.79 188 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 8 Table 4 – Specifications from Manuf acturers of Coaxial Cable (75 ohm) Coleman RG 6/ U Model 99212 7 6.2 3.1 3.3 Receiver Noise Figu re The receiver noise figures used in the planning factors are 10 dB for low- band VHF, 10 dB for high- band VHF and 7 dB for UHF, based upon test data from the Advanced Television Test Cent er. We have not independen tly tested a representative sample of DTV receivers, and since the Commis sion has stated in the NO I that it intends to conduct measurements on DTV receivers, we assume that the Commission will be drawing conclusions regarding the appropriate noise figure values for the purposes of the SHVERA. We note that analog (NTSC) UHF receivers have achieved noise figures in the range of 7 to 8 dB. It is noted that the overal l system noise figure can be significantly reduced with the use of a high- gain, low- noise, mast- mounted pre- amplifier. For example, assuming a mast- mounted, pre- amplifier gain of 19 dB with noise figure of 2.9 dB at UHF frequencies (based on values contained in Ta ble 3), and assuming a downlead line loss of 4 dB and receiver noise figure of 7 dB pe r the DTV UHF planning factors, there is a calculated improvement in the overall system noise figure of 7.8 dB. 3.4 Receiver C/ N Ratio Laboratory measurements on various DTV receivers were reported by Bouchard, et al. of the Communications Research Center Canada (CRC) in late 2000. 3 These measurements demonstrated C/ N levels cons istent with the FCC planning factor of 15.2 dB. The measurements were conducted on six DTV receivers manufactured in the period of 1999- 2000. For a weak desired signal level, the results demonstrated a C/ N range of 15.3 dB to 17.8 dB, with a median C/ N of 15.6 dB. The five best out of the six had a C/ N of 15.3 dB to 16.7 dB, with a me dian C/ N of 15.4 dB. The worst performing receiver was the oldest of the population measured. Recent laboratory measurements on a “fifth generation” DTV receiver also show C/ N measurement results consistent with the FCC planning factor. Laboratory measurements were conducted by the CRC on th e latest Zenith receiver in September 3 See Bouchard, Pierre, et al., “D igital Television Test Results – Phase 1”, Communications Research Center (Ottawa, Canada), CRC Report No. CRC- RP- 2000- 11, November 2000 . 189 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 9 2003. 4 These results showed a measured C/ N of 15.9 dB in the presence of a weak signal level. This is within 0.7 dB of the planning factor figure and indicates that the latest generation of DTV receivers will perform in line with those of earlier manufacture. 3.5 Antenna Orientation The DTV planning factors assume that the receiving antenna is properly oriented toward the desired station. In the S HVIA proceeding, the Commission affirmed the validity of this assumption with respect to reception of an analog TV signal. Channel Master (now owned by Andrew), Winegard and Delhi (formerly Je rrold) all manufacture antenna rotators for outdoor mast- mounted hom e antennas. All have control systems that may be operated inside the home to remotely actuate the rotator. The same assumption of proper antenna orientation, as affirmed in the SHVIA proceeding, is also valid for reception of DTV signals, and is therefore c onsistent with the DTV planning factors. 4. Other DTV Receiver Performance Factors The NOI requests information on DTV receiver performance as it may be affected by conditions not addressed by the planning factors. Among these conditions is performance in the presence of multipath. W ith regard to multipath conditions, we note that recent studies on “fifth generation”, 8- VSB receivers have shown significant improvement over the performance of earlier receivers. 5 In Laud’s paper, he reports laboratory tests demonstrating fifth generation receiver equalizer capability to handle up to 50- µs pre- and post- ghosts. He also indicates significant improvement in ghost- canceling capability of fifth generation receiver equalizers, with a capable of ha ndling ghost ensembles with up to 100 percent ghosts. His paper also reports on field tests on fifth- generation rece ivers in W ashington, DC; Ottawa, Canada; and Baltimore, MD where significant improvement in performance of fifth generation receivers at known “difficult” locations was demonstrated. In these field tests, fifth generation receivers showed improvements ranging from an elimination to near elimination of failures (in the O ttawa and Baltimore tests) to a reduction in failures by a factor of three (in the Washington tests). 4 See “Results of the Laborat ory Evaluation of Zenith 5 th Generation VSB Television R eceiver for Terrestrial Broadcasting”, Report Version 1. 1, Comm unications Reseach Centre Canada, September 20 0 3 . 5 See Tim Laud, et. al., “Performance of 5 th Generation 8- VSB Receivers”, I EEE Transactions of Consumer Electronics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov. 2004. Also Yiyan Wu, et. al ., “A n ATSC DTV Receiver W ith Improved Robustness to Multipath and Distributed Transmission Environments”, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, V ol. 50, No. 1, March 2004. 190 du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting Engineers 10 5. Conclusion In light of the foregoing information on performance of DTV reception equipment, we conclude that equipment is av ailable that will permit DTV reception in the presence of a signal equaling or exceeding that based on the DTV planning factors. Therefore, use of the DTV noise- limited si gnal strengths, deve loped based on those planning factors and contained in the DTV Sixth R& O, is an appropriate metric for predicting DTV service under the terms of the SHVERA. This statement was prepared by me or under my direction and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Louis Robert du Treil, Jr., P. E. du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. 201 Fletcher Ave. Sarasota, F lorida 34237 June 17, 2005 191 DCLIB02: 1446360- 17 DCLIB02: 1446360- 17 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 To: Office of the Secretary Attn: The Commission COMMENTS OF ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ATI Technologies, Inc. (“ ATI”), by its attorneys, hereby submits these Comments in response to the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry in the above- captioned proceeding. 1 In the NOI, the Commission requested comment on a number of issues related to the determination of eligibility to receive distant broadcast digital television (“ DTV”) signals from direct- to- home satellite operators. As the ind ustry leader in the design and production of DTV receiver chips, ATI respectfully submits these Comments to provide the Commission with timely and accurate information about the performance of DTV receivers and associated equipment that now is or soon will be available to end- user consumers. 1 Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, ET Docket No. 05- 182, Notice of Inquiry , FCC 05- 94 (rel. May 3, 2005) (“ NOI ”). 192 - 2 - Introduction Founded in Toronto, Canada in 1985, ATI designs, produces and markets graphics, video, and multimedia processors for use in personal computers including both PCs and Macs; video game consoles such as the X- Box; and consumer electronics devices, including mobile phones, personal digital assistants, and DTV receivers and set- top boxes (“ STBs”). In 2004, when ATI garnered US $2 billion in revenue, NASDAQ added ATI to its NASDAQ- 100 Index. 2 In 2004, ATI shipped more than five million DTV chips for use in high definition televisions and STBs. ATI supplies leading manufacturers of HD TVs and HD STBs including but not limited to Funai, Hitachi, JVC, Mitsubishi, Matsushita (Panasonic), Philips, Scientific-Atlanta, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TiVo, Toshiba, Thomson, TTE (RCA), and others. ATI holds an 85 percent share of the market for Integrated HDTV Digital Cable Ready (DCR) and DTV off- air VSB demodulators. In short, ATI has the most fielded VSB receiver chips, in the largest variety of consumer branded equipment, of any chip supplier in the world. As such, ATI is uniquely positioned to comment on DTV receiver technology. 3 ATI therefore offers the following: (1) The Commission should adopt the cross- industry receiver performance guidelines set forth in ATSC’s “A/ 74 Recommended Practice;” (2) The performance measurement factors known as A/ 74 Field Ensemble testing indicate actual receiver performance more accurately than do the A/ 74 Laboratory Ensembles and in fact provide the most reliable and accurate method of evaluating DTV receiver performance; 2 Launched in January 1985, the NASDAQ- 100 Index represents the largest non- financial domestic and international issues listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market based on market capitalization. See http:// dynamic. nasdaq. com/ dynamic/ nasdaq100_ activity. stm. 3 Attachment A diagrams the components of a typical DTV receiver. 193 - 3 - (3) The current DTV receiver marketplace offers end- users superior performance that is highly affordable, and market trends project increasing affordability and performance as equipment manufacturers integrate the latest generations of DTV receiver chips; and (4) Neither price nor brand name indicate to consumers the performance of DTV receivers and using the best chips does not necessarily cost more. As a result, consumers lack sufficient information for purchasing products based on DTV receiver performance. I. The ATSC “A/ 74 Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines” Best Characterizes DTV Receiver Performance. A. The A/ 74 Receiver Performance Guidelines Provide an Appropriate Set of DTV Receiver Performance Benchmarks. The NOI seeks comment on the appropriate parameters for testing the performance of DTV receivers and the interference rejection capability of these receivers. 4 ATI recommends that the Commission in this proceeding adopt the “A/ 74 Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines” as published by the Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc. (“ ATSC”). 5 In 2003, the Commission requested ATSC’s assistance in developing standards for DTV receiver performance. 6 The Commission specifically suggested an approach whereby “industry parties representing broadcasters, consumer electronics manufacturers, consumers, and others as appropriate, would identify the relevant DTV receiver performance parameters, 4 NOI at ¶ 17. 5 As the Commission is aware, ATSC is a cross- industry association comprised of approximately 140 member companies and organizations that participate in developing Standards and Recommended Practices for the DTV industry. 6 Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 03- 65; MM Docket No. 00- 39, Interference Immunity Performance Specifications for Radio Receivers; Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, March 2003. 194 - 4 - develop appropriate minimum performance specifications for those parameters, and publish them.” 7 In response, ATSC formed the Specialist Group on Receivers, commonly known as T3/ S10, comprised of representatives from across the range of industries and parties interested in DTV receiver performance. ATSC established this group specifically to develop performance guidelines and recommendations suited to represent accurately the demands of all interested parties. Working together, this cross- industry effort reached consensus on DTV receiver performance guidelines and created the “A/ 74 Recommended Practice.” ATI recommends that the Commission adopt the “A/ 74 Recommend Practice” because it reflects this cross- industry agreement and provides the most appropriate and accepted parameters for evaluating receiver performance. B. A/ 74 Field Ensemble Testing is the Best Available Indicator of Actual Receiver Performance. The A/ 74 Recommended Practice identifies two groups of performance vectors known as Laboratory Ensembles 8 and Field Ensembles. 9 ATI has found that testing to the A/ 74’s Laboratory Ensembles assists in demodulator characterization. Nevertheless, Laboratory Ensembles do not provide an adequate prediction of how well a receiver will perform in the field. In ATI’s experience, demodulators optimized for performance on these Laboratory Ensembles often suffer from degraded performance. 7 Id. at ¶ ¶ 34- 36. 8 A/ 74 Recommended Practice, Section 4.5.3. 9 A/ 74 Recommended Practice, Section 4.5.2. Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of the A/ 74 Recommended Practice also include RF measurement and pass/ fail thresholds for receiver RF parameters. ATI also has found that receivers that do not reach these thresholds are unlikely to deliver a satisfactory end- user experience. 195 - 5 - On the other hand, in ATI’s extensive experience, the fifty performance vectors known as Field Ensembles provide a comparatively better indicator of actual receiver performance than do Laboratory Ensembles. As described below, the A/ 74 Field Ensembles in fact provide the best available indicator of actual receiver performance. As such, A/ 74 Field Ensembles best satisfy the Commission’s need for guidelines to evaluate DTV receiver performance accurately. While the A/ 74 Field Ensembles identify the parameters for evaluating DTV receiver performance, they do not specify a detailed test procedure or grading system with which to evaluate a receiver’s performance quantitatively. ATI, in cooperation with its customers in all affected industries, developed a robust test procedure and grading system based on the A/ 74 Field Ensembles. Attachment B details this procedure. Applying this procedure in conjunction with the A/ 74 Field Ensembles, ATI conducted performance tests on VSB demodulator chips used in two high performing and two lower performing HDTV sets and STBs available at retail today. The VSB chips included in these DTV receivers incorporated “state of the art” technology as of 2003 and 2004. Figure 1 below indicates the results of ATI’s Field Ensemble tests on these four receivers. 196 - 6 - Figure 1 As shown in Figure 1, Receivers C and D clearly demonstrate superior performance on the A/ 74 Field Ensemble testing. All comprehensive independent field testing known to ATI also confirms that A/ 74 Field Ensemble is the best available indicator of actual DTV receiver performance. Likewise, ATI’s own independent field testing and analysis verifies that receivers such as Receivers C and D that show superior performance on the A/ 74 Field Ensembles tend to perform better in the field. In addition, ATI’s customers also report that Receiver D (the highest-performance receiver based on A/ 74 Field Ensemble tests) outperforms all other DTV receivers available today in their own (proprietary) independent field tests. Indeed, VSB demodulators of A/ 74 Vector Capture Receiver Performance 9 10 32 34 4 3 5 5 4 7 9 7 3 7 2 2 30 23 2 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower- Performance Receiver- A Lower- Performance Receiver- B High- Performance Receiver- C High- Performance Receiver- D Performance (%) 4 - Error Free 3 - Nearly Error Free 2 - Some Errors 1 - Intermittent 0 - No Video 197 - 7 - the type included in Receiver D are the best- selling demodulators on the market. 10 Consequently, ATI’s own field tests, independent field tests conducted by DTV manufacturers, and the marketplace itself therefore confirm A/ 74 Field Ensemble- based testing and grading procedures as the best currently available indicator of DTV receiver performance. Because A/ 74 Field Ensemble testing provides the best available information regarding the relative performance of DTV receivers and demodulators, the Commission should endorse Field Ensemble testing as developed by ATSC in the cross- industry A/ 74 Recommended Practice. II. Equipment Available in All Price Ranges Provides Exceptional DTV Receiver Performance, and Differences In Receiver Performance Do Not Appre ciably Affect the Price of Equipment to the End- User. The NOI also requested comment on whether a wide variation in the performance of reasonably priced DTV receivers exists, whether increases in the price of DTV sets correlate with improvements in receiver performance, and whether consumers are aware of the performance differences between DTV receivers such that they can take these differences into account when purchasing DTV equipment. 11 Based on ATI’s expertise and extensive experience in the DTV industry, ATI concludes that (1) exceptional DTV receiver performance is available in all price ranges; (2) the use of the highest quality receiver chipsets does not appreciably affect the cost to the end- user of such equipment; and (3) consumers lack sufficient information for purchasing products based on receiver performance. 10 DTV manufacturers may require up to twelve months or more to develop a new product and deliver that product to market. Thus, even though the vast majority of ATI’s customers adopted the more advanced technology found in Receiver D in the second half of 2004, consumer products containing this improved technology are only now beginning to be shipped to market. ATI’s research also indicates that some manufacturers are still introducing new DTV receivers incorporating lower performing VSB technology. These receivers continue to perform at a level roughly equivalent to that of Receivers A and B in Figure 1. 198 - 8 - The VSB technology used in a DTV receiver substantially impacts the performance of that receiver. As VSB technology continues to advance, the price of high- performing VSB demodulators decreases, and consequently, the end- user pays the same or less for relatively higher performing DTV equipment than previously available. As Chart A demonstrates, the price differences to equipment manufacturers between higher performing and lower performing VSB demodulator technology continually diminishes and may well disappear in the near term. VSB RF to Bits Price to CE Manufacturers (Million Units) $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hi Performance Lo Performance Chart A 12 In 2004, the price difference between a higher performing and lower performing VSB demodulator was approximately $3.30. Currently, the prices are nearly identical. Based on historical price reductions and anticipated manufacturing volumes, ATI projects that high performance VSB demodulators will be available in 2006 for less than the price today for lower performance VSB demodulators. 11 See NOI at ¶ 17. 12 Chart A includes the price of the Tuner/ IF and demodulator functions in high volumes (> 250K). It excludes the cost of license fees paid by receiver manufacturers. 199 - 9 - Current DTV receivers demonstrate this increased performance across a wide range of reception conditions, including less than ideal conditions, as a result of advances in the embedded VSB demodulator chips. Interference rejection capabilities have shown great increases, and prices for units with these capabilities have fallen. In short, the performance of reasonably priced DTV receivers has drastically improved in recent years as manufacturers have transitioned to the newest VSB demodulator technology. ATI anticipates that this trend will continue, as improved performance becomes increasingly affordable. Even low priced DTV sets and receivers today often have excellent reception capabilities, and, soon, all DTV sets and receivers should perform at least as well as the most advanced equipment available today. Consumers cannot purchase DTV sets based on receiver performance because consumers do not have ready access to information specifying the quality of the chip s inside the DTV sets. Even ATI is unable to predict receiver performance of end- user products because ATI cannot determine which chips are embedded in which units based on the material available at retail outlets. After ATI sells demodulator and/ or processor chips to its customers, those customers manufacture DTV sets with these chips and re- sell the finished products to wholesalers, retailers, or end- user customers without reporting back to ATI or disclosing to end- users which products include which chips. Brand names do not convey to consumers the quality of embedded chips, as the same manufacturer may use VSB demodulator chips from different suppliers in units offered under the same brand name. Indeed, field tests have shown that even some lower priced DTV receivers outperform higher priced DTV receivers produced by the same manufacturer due to the use of different VSB demodulator chips in the tested equipment that are not readily apparent to end- users. 200 - 10 - Because neither price nor brand name is predictive of performance, consumers consequently lack sufficient information for purchasing products based on the likely performance level of DTV receivers. 201 - 11 - CONCLUSION ATI recommends that the Commission utilize the ATSC’s A/ 74 Field Ensembles as appropriate parameters for testing the performance of DTV receivers. ATI’s own analysis and independent field tests demonstrate that the A/ 74 Field Ensembles are the best available indicator of actual receiver performance. As a market leader in the design and production of DTV receiver chips, ATI also submits that superior DTV receiver performance is ava ilable to consumers in equipment in all price ranges. As equipment manufacturers have transitioned to the newest generations of receiver chip technology, DTV sets with greatly improved performance are increasingly available at lower prices. The trends of increases in performance and affordability with simultaneous decreases in its costs will continue, leading to more widespread availability of affordable DTV equipment capable of excellent reception in even adverse conditions. Respectfully submitted, ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By: /S/ David Kleiman By: /S/ James M. Burger David Kleiman James M. Burger Kevin P. Latek ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, PLLC 1 Commerce Valley Drive East 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Markham, Ontario Washington, D. C. 20036 Canada L3T 7X6 (202) 776- 2000 (905) 882- 2600 Its Attorneys Dated: June 17, 2005 202 ATTACHMENT A A typical DTV receiver is comprised of four primary elements: the antenna, the Tuner/ IF, the Demodulation/ FEC (referred to commonly as the demodulator), and the CPU/ MPEG Processor. ATI sells the demodulator under the NXT and THEATER brand names and the CPU/ MPEG/ Graphics/ I/ O Processor under the XILLEON brand. Some of ATI’s XILLEON devices include THEATER technology. Tuners and antennas are available from various vendors. Audio Video Tuner & IF VSB Demodulator & FEC CPU, MPEG, Graphics & I/ O Antenna RF to Bits Reception 203 ATTACHMENT B 204 ATI Research Inc. White Paper Recommended Testing Procedure for the Evaluation of ATSC A/ 74 Vector Capture VSB Receiver Performance June 2005 Introduction. ATSC A/ 74, 18 June 2004, Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines [1], recommends 50 RF vector captures or field ensembles which can be used in the evaluation of DTV receiver performance. In order to properly characterize receiver performance against these 50 vector captures, a method was developed that standardizes the testing procedure. The evaluation of the receiver performance with any vector capture is subjective. The goal of this white paper is to document a standard testing procedure that creates consistent receiver performance results. This procedure can be used in the receiver evaluation of any RF vector capture data set and not specifically ATSC A/ 74 vector captures. Vector Captures. The best metric of receiver performance is real- world field testing. Although laboratory testing with multi- path scenarios has some merit, on- site field testing is the absolute final measure of receiver performance. Subjecting multiple receivers to different locations around the country and varied changing environments can reliably determine ranking of receiver performance and coverage. Unfortunately, this can be an expensive time consuming process with the exact signal conditions varying over time. If a snap- shot of the RF signal could be taken, then these unique signal conditions could be repeated in a lab environment any time on any receiver. This is the exact purpose of RF vector capture testing. A/ 74 Vector Captures. 50 RF vector captures cited in A/ 74 Annex A are indoor and outdoor field ensembles from the New York City and Washington, D. C. area. The A/ 74 Annex A, vector captures are approximately 24.4 seconds in length. The capture details and format are described in reference [1]. Overall the quality of these RF vector captures is good, but 9 of the 50 vectors have dropped samples and 3 of the 50 vectors have gray-screen video. Extreme care is needed in the evaluation of these particular vector captures. RF Playback Equipment. A Sencore RFP910 or compatible RF playback device is required for real- time playback and receiver evaluation of the vector captures. In addition to a 44 MHz output, the RFP910 can provide an RF output on terrestrial channels 2 through 69. The RFP910 has the capability of continually looping the vector captures which allows multiple evaluations of the same vector capture to measure subtle performance differences When using the RFP910, it is recommended to allow several loopings (i. e. at least 3 loopings) of the vector capture before any performance measurements are recorded to ensure stability of the playback device. Vector Capture Performance Criteria. Each vector capture is looped on the Sencore RFP910 and a 5- grade performance metric is assessed for each receiver. The vector capture is looped at least 3 times before any reception grade is assessed. Each receiver is then evaluated over a number of vector capture loops. Very often a vector capture 205 exhibits slightly different performance grades. In this case, the higher grade score is assessed. If dramatically different grades are observed on each loop, then the lower grade is recorded. To help evaluate closely performing receivers, notes can be added to help assess some of the lower grades. A pictorial representation of the receiver video performance criteria is shown in Figure 1. The following five performance grades are applied to a receiver per vector capture: 4 – Error Free. The receiver does not exhibit any visible reception problems. Note that errors may occur in the video but some of these errors can be virtually unseen by the observer due to MPEG decoder error concealment. Careful observation is required to identify these visual errors. Audio content can be used to identify reception issues. The home viewer would not notice reception issues. 3 – Mostly Error Free. The receiver is near perfect except for up to two visible video defects or events over the 24 second loop period. Note that depending on the quality of the MPEG decoder, error concealment versus receiver performance should be differentiated. With this grade, the home viewer would most likely continue watching the program but with noticeable occasional reception issues. 2 – Some Errors. The receiver exhibits some errors, but more than ½ of the video is error free. The receiver has marginal reception for this vector capture. With this grade, 4 – Error Free (no visible reception problems) Figure 1. Receiver Video Performance Criteria 3 – Mostly Error Free (viewable video with single defect) 2 – Some Errors (semi- viewable with >50% video) 1 – Many Errors (un- viewable, <50% video) 0 – Little or No Video (un- viewable or no picture) 206 although very annoying, the home viewer may watch a high demand content such as a World Cup soccer match. 1 – Many Errors. The receiver exhibit many errors, with less than ½ of the video as error free. The receiver has marginal reception on the vector capture. With this grade, the content is marginally watch- able to totally un- watch- able by a viewer. 0 – Little or No Video. The receiver exhibits constant errors, with 0% clear error- free video or no video. The receiver essentially has no reception. With this grade, the content is unwatchable by a home viewer. Test Procedure. The following is a step- by- step procedure for testing the vector captures. A block diagram of the test setup is shown in Figure 2. RFP910 2- Way RF Splitter RF Spectrum Analyzer Figure 2. Vector Capture Test Set- up N- Way RF Splitter DUT- 1 DUT- N DUT-... 1) Load a clean reference vector capture on a RFP910 such as Hawaii_ ReferenceA provided with the RFP910. 2) Set the RFP910 to Channel 26 (545 MHz). 3) Set the RFP910 is setup to playback at 21.52 MS/ s 4) Set the RFP910 to max power output. 5) Using an RF- splitter, equally split the RF signal from the RFP910 to the multiple devices under test (DUTs). It is recommended that an RF spectrum analyzer be connected to one of the split outputs to monitor the signal during playback. 6) Tune the DUTs and ensure reception of the clean test signal. All the DUTs should score a “4 – Error Free” on this reference vector capture. 7) Load and play any of the A/ 74 vector captures on RFP910. 207 8) Ensure the DUTs are properly tuned to Physical Channel 26. Some receivers may have problems with the switch of content from one vector to another. In this case, a channel re- scan or re- tune may be required. Careful effort is required to ensure that “no-video” on a DUT is due to a reception issue and not a program identification issue. 9) Allow at least 3 loops of the vector capture on the RFP910. 10) Evaluate all the DUTs over multiple loops of the RFP910 until a consistent and repeatable score can be determined. This may take a couple of loops for obvious grade scores to many loops and careful evaluation for non- obvious grade scores. If multiple DUTs have identical scores for the same vector capture, but there is a clear difference in performance, then this should be noted in the comments for the test. 11) The vector capture should be scored per DUT according to the guidelines discussed above. 12) Steps 7 through 11 should be repeated for all vector captures of interest. A/ 74 Vector Capture Limitations . 9 of the 50 A/ 74 field ensembles or vector captures have physical defects in the original data collections. This is a known issue and great care is needed to separate “real” receiver reception problems versus “non- real” problems caused from the physical defects of the vector captures. Additionally, the vector capture looping on the RFP910 causes a non- real event on the transition from the end of the video file to the start of the video file. This is a limitation of this type of evaluation method. These non- real events are ignored for this evaluation process. The following A/ 74 vectors have 48 dropped samples: Vector Capture 32 of 50, WAS- 038/ 34/ 01 Indoor @ 14.9905 sec Vector Capture 33 of 50, WAS- 038/ 34/ 01 Outdoor @ 15.07375 sec Vector Capture 34 of 50, WAS- 038/ 36/ 01 Indoor @ 22.2029 sec Vector Capture 35 of 50, WAS- 047/ 48/ 01 Indoor @ 13.773 sec Vector Capture 36 of 50, WAS- 049/ 34/ 01 Indoor possible dropped symbol not specified Vector Capture 37 of 50, WAS- 049/ 39/ 01 Indoor @ 24.855 sec Vector Capture 46 of 50, WAS- 082/ 35/ 01 Indoor @17.1644 sec Vector Capture 47 of 50, WAS- 083/ 36/ 01 Indoor @ 14.8805 sec Vector Capture 48 of 50, WAS- 083/ 39/ 01 Indoor @ 12.1696 sec 3 of the 50 vectors have a gray, white or blank video content. Determining receiver performance on these vectors can be difficult if internal receiver metrics can not be accessed. If internal metrics indicate no reception issues for these blank- content vector captures, then these vector captures are not included in the performance estimation. The following A/ 74 vectors have no content video (gray, white or black screen) : Vector Capture 22 of 50, WAS- 003/ 35/ 01 Outdoor Vector Capture 24 of 50, WAS- 311/ 35/ 01 Outdoor 208 Vector Capture 44 of 50, WAS- 080/ 35/ 01 Indoor Conclusion. The A/ 74 vector captures are an excellent tool for determination of receiver reception performance in the field. Careful evaluation and testing procedure of the vector captures is required to ensure consistent receiver performance results. References. [1] ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines, Doc. A/ 74, 18 June 2004, (www. atsc. org/ standards/ a_ 74. pdf). 209 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ) ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 To: The Commission COMMENTS OF THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION ____________________ The Consumer Electronics Association (“ CEA”), respectfully files these Comments in response to the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry (“ NOI”) in the above- captioned proceeding. 1 CEA does not at this time wish to recommend specific rules changes related to determining whether a household is unserved by a DTV signal. However, CEA appreciates the FCC’s consideration of this important subject and makes the following general comments. It is beneficial to consumers, broadcasters, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service providers to make the determination of whether a household is unserved by an adequate digital TV signalas simple and consistent as possible. The goal of this proceeding should be to find an agreeable method of making this determination that relies first on prediction or modeling and does not require in- situ field testing. To that end, CEA is supportive of the FCC’s current reliance on the modified Longley- Rice model for evaluating the field strength of a particular DTV station at a specific location. Whatever the result of this inquiry, it is imperative that the FCC have a single, consistent definition of the service area for each analog and digital TV station. Those definitions today are 1 In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 05- 182, FCC 05- 94 (rel. May 3, 2005) (“ NOI”). 210 2 the Grade B contour and the DTV noise- limited service contour, respectively. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Unlicensed Operation in the Broadcast TV Bands 2 , the FCC chose to use the Grade B contour as a precise demarcation of which channels should be considered unoccupied for the purpose of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in TV bands. Broadcast television viewers have a right to a consistent definition of whether their household is considered serve by a television station. That definition should not differ based on whether the reason for the question is determining if an unlicensed device can occupy that channel or if a DBS provider can deliver that channel as part of its service. In fact, it is entirely logical that if a station is weak enough to be considered an unoccupied channel, one should expect to receive that station by DBS service. The FCC must be careful not to end up with two regimes such that a household might be told that they can receive a weak local station (based on field measurement) and, therefore, are not eligible to receive that station by satellite and yet that same broadcast channel could be occupied by a nearby unlicensed transmitter (based on Grade B contour) and, therefore, rendered unusable. Both receivers and the DTV receiving environment are extremely complex. It seems impractical and counterproductive to even attempt to factor in all the options that are available to consumers for determining whether an adequate DTV signal exists. Even if all receivers were found to perform very nearly the same, each installation is entirely different, both in the ambient RF environment and the antenna used to extract energy from that environment. The questions raised by this inquiry, although directed by Congress, can distract from the basic goal. The issue of DTV reception is tremendously complicated in an engineering sense, but the Government’s involvement should be limited and specific so as to let the marketplace deliver the best solutions. The FCC should be wary of starting down a path of determining how much effort a consumer should put into broadcast DTV reception. 2 In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the Broadcast TV Bands , Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 04- 186, FCC 04- 113 (rel. May 25, 2004) (“ NPRM”). 211 3 Comments on Specific Factors Raised by this Inquiry The Notice provides six factors that are specified by the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) 3 to be considered by the FCC in this inquiry regarding whether rules should be revised for determining if a household is unserved by a DTV station. These factors are repeated here with brief comments as to their relevance for any rule changes. · whether to account for the fact that an antenna can be mounted on a roof or placed in a home and can be fixed or capable of rotating; Although antenna type and placeme nt is indeed a critical factor in DTV reception, it is not appropriate for the FCC to consider these details for the rules in question. It is necessary and sufficient for the FCC to state that a given field strength, predicted or measured, at a known height above the location determines whether the household is served. · whether Section 73.686( d) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, should be amended to create different procedures for determining if the requisite digital signal strength is present tha n for determining if the requisite analog signal strength is present; The FCC rightfully points out the fundamental differences between analog and digital TV signals and the need for adapting measurement details to the particulars of DTV signals. CEA has not taken a position on the correct intermediate frequency (i. f.) bandwidth or tuning location to use for DTV signal strength measurement. · whether a standard should be used other than the presence of a signal of a certain strength to ensure that a household can receive a high- quality picture using antennas of reasonable cost and ease of installation; 3 The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 , Pub. L. No. 108- 447, § 207, 118 Stat 2809, 3393 (2004) (to be codified at 47 U. S. C. § 325), § 204( b). 212 4 Again, CEA believes that determining the presence of a signal of a certain strength is the right level of involvement for the FCC. Going beyond that invites the quagmire of assessing reasonableness, cost effectiveness, and ease of installation. · whether to develop a predictive methodology for determining whether a household is unserved by an adequate digital signal under section 119( d)( 10) of title 17, United States Code; CEA is supportive of using a predictive methodology for the benefit of all parties involved and to reduce the burden of determining whether a household is unserved. Our own efforts to help consumers select the best antenna for DTV reception 4 indicate that predictive modeling of reception at a given location is a tall challenge. However, the Longley- Rice model is a very good tool with years of engineering development. CEA is not aware of any industry discussion regarding a better model that might be used for the same purpose. · whether there is a wide variation in the ability of reasonably priced consumer digital television sets to receive over- the- air signals, such that at a given signal strength some may be able to display high- quality pictures while others cannot, whether such variation is related to the price of the television set, and whether such variation should be factored into setting a standard for determining whether a household is unserved by an adequate digital signal; Within the ATSC’s work on A/ 74, ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver Performance Guidelines , the tradeoffs involved in receiver design have been discussed in some detail among broadcasters and TV manufacturers. In a market guided by competition and not Government intervention, it should be expected to have products that optimize for different parameters. These variations are relatively small, as every 4 See www. antennaweb. org. 213 5 manufacturer is motivated by competition to build good receivers, but these variations still serve the market. A DTV that has relatively poor weak signal reception as compared to every other receiver in the market, might have excellent selectivity and prove to be the ideal receiver for a particular location with closely packed channels. Conversely, suppose the FCC determines that there is very little variation in the ability of existing DTVs to receive over- the- air signals. Those same DTVs when connected to the many available antennas and placed in the infinitely complex RF environment will certainly demonstrate a wide variation in reception capability. · whether to account for factors such as building loss, external interference sources, or undesired signals from both digital television and analog television stations using either the same or adjacent channels in nearby markets, foliage, and man-made clutter. Again, CEA asserts that there is only so much that the FCC can factor into its determination of served households. Broadcasters, manufacturers, and retailers are all highly motivated to make broadcast television consumers successful in their quest to receive pristine HDTV signals. And yet, in the fringe areas that are the subject of this inquiry, there is no perfect predictor or guarantee of reception. The FCC should not attempt to account for the listed environmental factors beyond the degree to which they are accounted for today. Conclusion For the reasons expressed herein, CEA recommends that the FCC focus its attention on a consistent definition of served households based on field strength at the location, improvement of the Longley- Rice model if needed, and refinement of measurement procedures to accommodate 214 6 the specific nature of DTV signals. The FCC should not attempt to account for the myriad other factors that make up the DTV receiving system unique to every installation. Respectfully submitted, Michael D. Petricone, Esq. Vice President, Technology Policy Brian E. Markwalter Vice President, Technology CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION 2500 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: (703) 907- 7644 June 17, 2005 215 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of: Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ET Docket No. 05- 182 COMMENTS OF DIRECTV, INC. Viewers want their local broadcast signals. DIRECTV, Inc. (“ DIRECTV”) has found that viewers prefer – by substantial margins – their local broadcast signals to similar out- of- town signals. 1 This is why DIRECTV has made delivery of local signals such a high priority. DIRECTV now retransmits local analog signals in over 130 markets, representing 93 percent of U. S. television households. And it recently announced plans to offer as many as 1500 local digital signals by 2007. From DIRECTV’s perspective, the future is local. The point of this proceeding is to begin developing a methodology for determining when viewers are eligible for distant digital signals. 2 By the time any such methodology is finalized, however, it will be irrelevant to many DIRECTV subscribers 1 Indeed, as DIRECTV has launched local markets, it has seen a marked decrease in distant signal subscribership. In each of 2003 and 2004, DIRECTV experienced a net loss of around 170,000 distant network subscribers. Put another way, in early 2002, approximately 16 percent of DIRECTV customers subscribed to at least one distant network signal feed – now the number is under 9 percent. 2 Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Ex tension and Reauthorization Act, Notice of Inquiry, 20 FCC Rcd. 9349 (2005) (“ Notice”). 216 2 because subscribers to whom DIRECTV provides local digital signals cannot sign up for distant digital signals. 3 The methodology developed in this proceeding will thus be used less frequently than the existing methodology. 4 But to viewers who rely on it, the methodology developed for digital signals will be no less important. For this reason, DIRECTV urges Congress and the Commission to heed perhaps the most important lesson from the last decade of distant network signal qualification – predictive modeling is better than on- site testing. On- site tests frustrate and inconvenience subscribers, cost far more money than they are worth, and should be used – if at all – only as a last resort. The primary goal of this proceeding should be to create an accurate, reliable model to predict over- the- air digital reception. DISCUSSION On- site testing is far from the norm today. In the last five years or so, only about 3,200 DIRECTV customers – or only 0.3 percent of those requesting distant network signals – asked for an on- site test. Only about 1,400 of these actually received an on- site test. At Congress’s direction, 5 however, the Commission has requested comments about predictive modeling as only one among many topics – most of which concern on- site 3 See 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( iv) (providing that, “[ a] fter the date on which a satellite carrier makes available the digital signal of a local network station, the carrier may not offer the distant digital signal of a network station affiliated with the same television network to any new subscriber to such distant digital signal after such date, except that such distant digital signal may be provided to a new subscriber who cannot be reached by the satellite transmission of the local digital signal”). 4 See Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 2654, 2689, 2890 (1999) ( “SHVA Report and Order ”) (endorsing method for predicting signal strength at individual locations); 47 C. F. R. § 73.686( d) (setting forth testing procedures). 5 47 U. S. C. § 338( a)( 4); Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (“ SHVERA”), Pub. L. No. 108- 447 § 204, 118 Stat. 2809, 3428- 29 (2004). 217 3 testing. 6 The implication, perhaps, is that on- site testing should be the norm for digital signals. But testing is frustrating to subscribers and costly to satellite operators and consumers (and, presumably, local broadcast stations, who must pay for testing when customers qualify for distant network signals). 7 It thus deserves an even smaller role in the digital world than it has today, not a bigger one. To begin with, on- site testing is extraordinarily time consuming for subscribers. In order to seek on- site testing, subscribers must wait at least thirty days after they have received the results of the predictive model for broadcasters to decide whether to grant waiver( s). 8 Then, they must wait until an independent, 9 qualified tester can be identified in their area. Once DIRECTV places an order for the test, the customer must wait for the tester (not DIRECTV) to arrange the appointment. While DIRECTV often tries to expedite this process, tests must often be delayed because of scheduling issues or bad weather (particularly in the winter months). 10 Moreover, in many areas there are very few independent entities available to conduct such tests – extending the wait time even longer through no fault of DIRECTV. Thus, even if every subscriber to get an on- site test ultimately were to receive all channels requested, many would still be unhappy as a result of the delay. Subscribers are also frustrated by the testing process. Viewers unfamiliar with section 76.686( d) of the Commission’s rules might reasonably think that an on- site test 6 See Notice, 20 FCC Rcd. at 9356, 9357. 7 See 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 4)( B) (allocating cost for on- site testing). 8 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 4)( A) (providing for testing only “[ i] f a subscriber's request for a waiver . . . is rejected and the subscriber submits to the subscriber's satellite carrier a request for a test”). 9 See id. (requiring selection of “a qualified and independent person” to conduct testing). 10 See 47 C. F. R. § 76.686( d)( 2)( ii) (instructing testers to “not take measurements in inclement weather or when major weather fronts are moving through the measurement area”). 218 4 involves somebody looking at their television to determine whether or not they receive an adequate signal. Most are not expecting what actually happens: · Assuming good weather, the tester raises a “test antenna” to twenty feet above ground level for a single story house (or thirty feet for a two story house), and orients the antenna in the direction of maximum signal strength on each channel. · The tester takes a “cluster measurement” consisting of five readings in four corners of a three- meter square and one reading in the center of the square. · The tester ranks the cluster measurement results in order to determine the median number. · The tester adjusts the figures for line loss and antenna factors, and converts them to dBu. · After the signal test is complete, the tester sends a form back to DIRECTV, which processes the test within several days. In DIRECTV’s experience, those denied their requested distant signals based on such a process end up angry at DIRECTV, at their local broadcast stations, and at the FCC as well. Even setting aside customer relations, on- site testing is a losing economic proposition. Over the last five years, the average cost of an on- site test has been around $150, although in some areas it can now cost as much as $450. DIRECTV estimates that it would take at least five years to recoup this cost from revenues generated by providing distant signals to those tested eligible for such signals – a time frame unlikely to be realized given churn rates for distant signals. 11 Based on these figures, DIRECTV has a difficult time imagining that on- site testing makes economic sense for broadcasters, either. 11 See footnote 1, above (discussing churn rate for distant signals in areas where local signals are offered). 219 5 Analog on- site testing, then, frustrates and inconveniences subscribers and costs money that DIRECTV is unlikely to recoup. Digital on- site testing will be worse on both scores (especially if it becomes the norm) because there are far fewer “independent” entities qualified to conduct on- site tests for digital signals than there are for analog signals and because equipment is in shorter supply. This means that wait times will increase – making viewers even more frustrated than they are now. And it means that costs will increase – making on- site testing an even less attractive economic proposition than it is now. DIRECTV can think of no reason why federal policy should encourage such a result. It thus urges the Commission and Congress to develop an accurate and reliable predictive model for digital signals rather than relying on on- site testing. If on- site testing is to continue to be part of the methodology for digital signals at all, it must remain strictly at the satellite operator’s option, to be used only in close cases. 12 * * * 12 See 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 4)( E) (“ A satellite carrier may refuse to engage in the testing process. If the carrier does so refuse, a subscriber in a local market in which a satellite carrier does not offer the signals of local broadcast stations under section 338 may, at his or her own expense, authorize a signal intensity test to be performed pursuant to the procedures specified by the Commission in section 73.686( d) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, by a tester who is approved by the satellite carrier and by each affected network station, or who has been previously approved by the satellite carrier and by each affected network station but not previously disapproved.”). 220 6 Congress and the Commission should not create a distant digital signal methodology that gives prominence to on- site testing. They should, instead, devote their energies toward developing a digital predictive model that is as accurate as possible. DIRECTV looks forward to assisting Congress and the Commission in this endeavor. Respectfully Submitted, /s/____________________________ William M. Wiltshire Michael Nilsson HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1200 Eighteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 730- 1300 Counsel for DIRECTV, Inc. Susan Eid Vice President, Government Affairs Stacy R. Fuller Vice President, Regulatory Affairs DIRECTV, INC. 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 728 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 715- 2330 June 17, 2005 221 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technical Standards for Determining ) Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer ) Extension and Reauthorization Act ) Reauthorization Act of 2004 ) COMMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. David K. Moskowitz Executive Vice President and General Counsel ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. 9601 South Meridian Boulevard Englewood, CO 80112 (303) 723- 1000 Karen Watson Ross Lieberman ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. 1233 20th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036- 2396 June 17, 2005 Pantelis Michalopoulos Chung Hsiang Mah STEPTOE &JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 429- 3000 Counsel for EchoStar Satellite L. L. C. 222 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE DIGITAL STRENGTH STANDARD SHOULD BE REVISED TO ACCOUNT FOR DTV RECEIVER PERFORMANCE AND MAN- MADE NOISE............................................................................................................................. - 4 - II. DIGITAL SIGNAL TESTING SHOULD INCLUDE TESTING FOR MULTIPATH INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS............................................................. - 5 - III. THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND TESTING PROCEDURES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INDOOR ANTENNA USE AND THE LACK OF ROTATION IN OUTDOOR ANTENNAS.................................................................... - 6 - A. Indoor Antennas.................................................................................................. - 6 - B. Lack of Rotation and Antenna Pointing Error .................................................... - 7 - IV. DIGITAL SIGNAL STRENGTH TESTING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED OVER A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN SIGNAL STRENGTH............................................... - 8 - V. THE INDIVIDUAL LOCATION LONGLEY- RICE PREDICTIVE MODEL MUST BE IMPROVED BEFORE IT IS USED TO DETERMINE WHEN A HOUSEHOLD IS UNSERVED BY A LOCAL DIGITAL STATION......................... - 9 - A. Improved Time Variability Factor ...................................................................... - 9 - B. System Noise .................................................................................................... - 10 - C. Building Penetration ......................................................................................... - 10 - D. Land Use and Land Cover ................................................................................ - 10 - VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. - 11 - 223 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Technical Standards for Determining ) Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer ) Extension and Reauthorization Act ) Reauthorization Act of 2004 ) COMMENTS OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. EchoStar Satellite L. L. C. (“ EchoStar”) hereby submits its comments on the Notice of Inquiry released by the Commission on May 3, 2005 (“ NOI”) seeking comment on the adequacy of the digital signal strength standard and testing procedures used to determine whether households are eligible to receive distant digital television (“ DTV”) network signals from satellite carriers. 1 Section 204( b) of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (“ SHVERA”) substituted a new Section 339( c)( 1) of the Communications Act, 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1), directing the Commission to complete, not later than one year after SHVERA’s enactment, “an inquiry regarding whether, for purposes of identifying if a household is unserved by an adequate digital signal under [17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( 10)], the digital signal strength standard in [47 C. F. R. § 73.622( e)( 1)], or the testing procedures in [47 C. F. R. § 73.686( d)], such statutes or regulations should be revised” to take into account various statutory 1 Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, FCC 05- 94, Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 05- 182 (rel. May 3, 2005), published 70 Fed. Reg. 28503 (2005) (“ NOI”). 224 - 2 - factors affecting signal strength and reception. 2 SHVERA also directed the Commission to consider whether a predictive methodology should be developed for determining whether a household is unserved. 3 The Commission is required to submit a report to the House and Senate Commerce Committees containing the results of its inquiry and recommendations for changes, if any, to the statutes and regulations in question. 4 The issues raised in the NOI are vital to the DTV transition and to Congress’s intent to provide households unserved by an adequate digital signal from their local network station with the option of obtaining a distant digital station affiliated with the same network from their satellite carrier. The issue is more stark for digital than for analog signals. More often than with analog signals, reception problems for DTV are more dramatic, meaning that the picture cannot be received at all. At the same time, the Commission should not ignore lesser problems such as tiling or other digital artifacts – consumers have higher DTV picture quality expectations and should not be expected to tolerate reception of such quality. In addition, reception problems that are not associated with inadequate signal strength (e. g., the multipath phenomenon) still have to be taken into account. In the case of DTV reception, multipath problems do not result in a “ghosted” image as in the case of analog reception. Rather, as the Commission itself has recognized, “[ t] hese signals, although they originate from the same transmitting source, are out of phase and can cause severe interference that can result in the complete loss of the digital service.” 5 2 See 47 U. S. C. §§ 339( c)( 1)( A) and (B). 3 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1)( B)( iv). 4 47 U. S. C. § 339( c)( 1)( C). 5 NOI at ¶ 20 (emphasis added). 225 - 3 - For these reasons, it is important to ensure that the digital signal strength standard, the testing procedures, and any predictive model used to determine whether a household is unserved, take into account all factors that affect whether an artifact- free DTV picture can actually be received, and not merely whether the DTV signal is strong enough at the location in question. To this end, EchoStar commissioned an engineering study by Hammett & Edison, Inc. (“ H& E”) (see Attachment A). The results of that study suggest a number of changes to the Commission’s rules are necessary to make the digital signal standard and testing procedures more accurate. In short:  The Commission should revise upwards its DTV signal strength standard.  The Commission should revise its testing rules to take account of multipath interference. Static multipath corresponds to a measurable signal strength penalty. The Commission should make allowance for this penalty.  The Commission should also revise its testing to reflect the fact that the vast majority of DTV households have either indoor antennas or imperfectly pointed outdoor antennas. The Commission should prescribe indoor testing, preferably by use of typical indoor antennas, and allow for an appropriate adjustment if perfectly pointed professional equipment is used.  The Commission should revise the measurement rules to take account of the significant time variability of DTV signals.  The Commission should recommend to Congress the adoption of a predictive model with an improved time variability factor and improvements to account for DTV signal loss due to building penetration, land use and land cover variations, as well as certain other adjustments. EchoStar also notes that with the exception of the DTV predictive model, the Commission today has the authority to promulgate rules that implement these recommendations and should commence a rulemaking proceeding to that end. 226 - 4 - I. THE DIGITAL STRENGTH STANDARD SHOULD BE REVISED TO ACCOUNT FOR DTV RECEIVER PERFORMANCE AND MAN- MADE NOISE H& E points to two reasons why the digital strength standard may be inadequate. First, H& E tested five commercially available DTV receivers – four consumer receivers and one professional receiver – and found that the signal sensitivities of the current generation consumer DTV receivers can be significantly worse than the signal sensitivities assumed in the Commission’s DTV planning factors for the digital signal strength for VHF and UHF DTV channels. 6 As a result, many consumer DTV sets may not be able to display a DTV picture even when the strength of the digital signal meets the Commission’s standards. Accordingly, the digital strength standard should be revised upwards to take into account these marketplace realities. Another reason is man- made noise, which particularly affects signal levels at low-band VHF channels (2- 6). 7 As more fully explained in the H& E study, man- made (or impulse) noise was not adequately taken into account in the Commission’s DTV planning factors, particularly at low- band VHF frequencies (TV Channels 2- 6). As a result, the Commission did not build in a sufficient margin for noise when it set the signal strength standard for those channels. H& E cites studies that found that median noise levels in Boulder, Colorado approached 20 dB at 137 MHz, which implies a median value approaching 30 dB at 54 MHz. As H& E concludes, “[ i] f 20 or 30 dB of man- made noise is added to the thermal noise floor, certainly, some viewers in urban areas will be unable to receive low- band DTV signals due to 6 H& E at 12- 13. 7 H& E at 9- 11. 227 - 5 - excessive man- made noise.” 8 H& E concludes that the signal strength standard for the low- band VHF signals should be increased by 12- 30 dB to account for such noise. II. DIGITAL SIGNAL TESTING SHOULD INCLUDE TESTING FOR MULTIPATH INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS Multipath interference in the analog context results in “ghosted” images that are of poor quality, but that are typically still viewable unless the problem is severe. In contrast, as the Commission has recognized, multipath interference is an even more acute problem for DTV reception: “[ t] hese signals, although they originate from the same transmitting source, are out of phase and can cause severe interference that can result in the complete loss of the digital service.” 9 Moreover, multipath interference can be static (caused by signal reflections off fixed structures) or dynamic (caused by signal reflections off moving objects, e. g. airplanes or cars). While dynamic multipath interference is difficult to account for, the H& E study shows that static multipath interference can be measured and its severity can be expressed as a signal strength penalty caused by the equalizer on the DTV receiver attempting to compensate for the multipath “echoes.” 10 This penalty should be subtracted from the measured digital signal strength before it is compared against the Commission’s digital strength standard. Given the acuteness of multipath interference for DTV reception, the Commission should change its testing rules accordingly to incorporate the methodology described in the H& E study for taking such problems into account. 8 Id. at 10. 9 NOI at ¶ 20 (emphasis added). 10 H& E at 8- 9. 228 - 6 - III. THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND TESTING PROCEDURES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INDOOR ANTENNA USE AND THE LACK OF ROTATION IN OUTDOOR ANTENNAS As the H& E study points out, the testing procedures assume an outdoor antenna that can be accurately pointed so as to receive the strongest possible signal. 11 However, an outdoor antenna is not practicable for many households, particularly people who live in apartment buildings. Moreover, even households that have outdoor antennas often do not have rotating antennas or have a practicable means of re- pointing their antennas “on the fly” to achieve optimum reception for every broadcast station in the market. These realities need to be taken into account. A. Indoor Antennas With respect to indoor vs. outdoor antennas, the Commission has recognized that “because structures located within the line of sight between the transmitter and the receiving antenna can block or weaken the strength of received signals, an outdoor antenna installation . . . will generally allow a stronger signal to be received by the antenna than will an indoor antenna installation. Thus, households in which the antenna is placed indoors will generally need an antenna with greater gain than will a household in which the antenna is placed outdoors.” 12 However, as the H& E study shows, “[ b] ecause of limitations on the physical dimensions of indoor antennas, they have always had less gain than typical outdoor antennas.” 13 Indeed, H& E’s review of the existing literature published as recently as 2005 and as far back as 1959 show that indoor antennas consistently have gains of about 9 dB below those for outdoor 11 H& E at 2. See also 47 C. F. R. § 73.686( d)( 2)( iv) (requiring the testing antenna to be oriented in the direction which maximizes the value of field strength). 12 NOI at ¶ 9 (emphasis added). 13 H& E at 4. 229 - 7 - antennas. Moreover, the problem of the reduced gain of indoor antennas is exacerbated by building penetration losses. As the H& E study shows, because the signal has to penetrate the roof and walls of the building before it can be received by the low- gain indoor antenna, the signal strength loss can be as great as 30 dB for VHF in a high clutter area like New York City, but can vary depending on which floor of a building the indoor antenna is placed. Because the signal testing procedures require an outdoor test with professional equipment, those procedures penalize the many apartment dwellers and others that cannot practically install and make use of an outdoor antenna. Perhaps in recognition of this, the Commission sought comment on whether and when indoor testing should be performed. 14 Indoor testing should be required. Moreover, the test should ideally be conducted using a typical indoor antenna. However, if a professional antenna were to be used instead then the signal test result should be reduced by 9 dB (at the very least) to account for the lower gain of indoor antennas. B. Lack of Rotation and Antenna Pointing Error Because the signal strength testing procedure requires the testing antenna to be oriented so as to maximize signal strength, it implicitly assumes that every household has a rotating antenna that can be re- pointed to optimize reception for each local station. This is an unrealistic assumption. Indeed, in some markets, not all of the network stations may be transmitting from the same site, so there may be no single “optimal” orientation. Even households with antennas capable of rotating generally do not have the ability to adjust the orientation of the antenna “on the fly” so that, for most intents and purposes, the antenna is a non- rotating antenna. 14 NOI at ¶ 13. 230 - 8 - While the H& E study does not provide an average signal loss from mispointing, it does note a worse case loss scenario of 14 dB for a high performance antenna at UHF. 15 This suggests that the signal strength loss from the lack of rotating antenna can be significant and should therefore be taken into account. One way to do so would be to conduct further study to determine the “average” signal loss caused by the lack of a rotating antenna and to subtract that from the measured signal strength before comparing it against the Commission’s signal strength standard. IV. DIGITAL SIGNAL STRENGTH TESTING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED OVER A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN SIGNAL STRENGTH Current digital signal strength testing procedures involve the taking of essentially instantaneous signal strength measurements. However, the H& E study shows that digital signal strength is characterized by significant variability over time, usually caused by atmospheric conditions. 16 Indeed, as H& E point out, the Longley- Rice propagation model is based on empirical data about time variability. It would be strange for a predictive model to incorporate time variability but for actual testing to ignore it completely. Accordingly, the Commission’s signal strength testing procedures should be modified to take into account this variability in signal strength over time. This could be achieved by taking the cluster measurement as the assumed median and applying a correction factor so that the 90% time reliability is achieved. The correction factor can be derived from the F( 50,50) (median) and F( 50,90) values used by the Commission for contour projection. As more fully described in the H& E study, the difference in decibels between the two values at any given 15 H& E at 3. 16 Id. at 4- 6. 231 - 9 - distance from the transmitter could serve as an appropriate correction factor to adjust for time variability. 17 V. THE INDIVIDUAL LOCATION LONGLEY- RICE PREDICTIVE MODEL MUST BE IMPROVED BEFORE IT IS USED TO DETERMINE WHEN A HOUSEHOLD IS UNSERVED BY A LOCAL DIGITAL STATION Finally, the H& E study suggests changes to the current Individual Location Longley- Rice (“ ILLR”) predictive model if it were to be used to determine when a household is digitally unserved, including an improved time variability factor and incorporating more realistic values for system noise, building penetration, and land cover and clutter. A. Improved Time Variability Factor As H& E points out, The ILLR model developed to predict analog signal strength is based on a time variability factor of 50%, which implies that a household predicted to be served may not actually have an adequate signal 50% of the time. 18 For DTV reception purposes, this likely means inability to receive a DTV picture for 50% of the time, which is clearly unacceptable. Even improving time reliability factor in the model to 90% would help but would still mean that households predicted to be served may not actually have digital service for up to five weeks of the year. Consequently, H& E suggests that “[ a] n increase in temporal reliability to 99% (or better) seems prudent until there is greater experience with consumer reception of DTV signals, although this represents still 3.65 days a year without a usable signal.” 19 17 Id. 18 Id. at 11. 19 Id. at 7. See also id. at 11. 232 - 10 - B. System Noise With respect to system noise, H& E notes that while the FCC planning factors for DTV receivers did include a system noise figure, it assumed a conjugate- impedance match between the receiver and antenna. This is rarely the case. H& E’s calculations based on the characteristics of more typical antennas suggest that the predictive model should take into account an effective system noise figure increased by 3 dB to correct for the inaccuracy in the FCC planning factors. C. Building Penetration As noted earlier, the H& E study shows that signal strength loss due to building penetration can be as great as 30 dB for VHF in a high clutter area like New York City, but that such values will vary depending on which floor of a building the indoor antenna is placed. 20 The typical loss figures reported by H& E are preliminary, but clearly illustrate the existence of the building penetration loss phenomenon. Further study may yield a more complete set of figures for incorporation into the ILLR predictive model, especially as applied to apartment dwellers using indoor antennas. D. Land Use and Land Cover With respect to land cover and clutter, the Commission has repeatedly recognized that incorporation of such factors into the ILLR model would improve its accuracy. 21 However, while the Commission in the NOI claims that the ILLR currently takes into account land use and 20 Id. at 13- 14. 21 Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12118, 12121 (2000) (“ assignment of clutter loss values based on LULC categories would enhance the accuracy of predictions made with the ILLR model.”) (“ ILLR Order”); Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households For Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 17373, 17377 ¶ 8 (1999) (“ We believe that consumers will benefit when the effects of trees and buildings are included in the ILLR prediction model.”). 233 - 11 - land cover, 22 the Commission has in fact set almost all of the clutter- loss values for the VHF channels at zero for every land use/ land cover category in the model -- which means that the signal loss from land use and land cover will be the same in the urban canyons in New York City as in the plains of Kansas. 23 EchoStar has challenged this approach in the analog context, but incorporation of more realistic values for land use and land cover is even more important for DTV reception than for analog reception. As noted earlier, while analog signal strength and quality problems may lead to deterioration in picture quality, digital signal problems can lead to not just a degraded picture with tiling and digital artifacts, but also an abrupt and total loss of digital service. VI. CONCLUSION EchoStar urges the Commission to take the above comments and the H& E study into account in formulating its report and recommendations to Congress. David K. Moskowitz Executive Vice President and General Counsel ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. 9601 South Meridian Boulevard Englewood, CO 80112 (303) 723- 1000 Karen Watson Ross Lieberman ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L. L. C. 1233 20th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036- 2396 Respectfully submitted, ____________/ s/________________ Pantelis Michalopoulos Chung Hsiang Mah STEPTOE &JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 429- 3000 Counsel for EchoStar Satellite L. L. C. June 17, 2005 22 NOI at ¶ 15. 23 See ILLR Order at 12127 ¶ 15, aff’d on recon. 19 FCC Rcd 9964 (2004). 234 ATTACHMENT A Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers 235 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In Re Technical Standards for Determining 1 Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network 1 ET Docket No. 05- 182 Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home 1 Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ) COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Marsha J. MacBride Benjamin F. P. Ivins Kelly Williams NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 1771 N Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 June 17,2005 236 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv I. THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT, THE SHVIA, AND THE SHVERA .................. 1 SHVA (1988, 1994): Distant Signal Delivery to "Unserved" Households -- Those Unable To Receive a Grade B Signal From An Over- the- Air Network Station with a Rooftop Antenna ........................................................................................... 1 SHVIA (1999) Permits DBS Firms to Deliver Distant Signals Based on Either a Measurement or a Prediction that the Household Cannot Receive a Grade B Intensity Analog Signal.. .................................................................................................... .. 2 SHVERA Confirms that DBS Firms Can Deliver Distant Digital Signals Based on an ILLR Prediction that the Household Cannot Receive a Grade B Intensity Analog Signal ..................................................................................................................... .. 2 SHVERA Authorizes DBS Firms to Deliver Distant Digital Signals Based on Site Tests of Certain Over- the- Air Digital Signals, But Does Not Authorize DBS Firms to Do So Based on Predictions About Over- the- Air Digital Signals ..... : .................. 3 11. THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCALISM AND THE NEED TO PROMOTE LOCAL- TO- LOCAL SERVICE, RATHER THAN DISTANT SIGNALS .......................................... 4 A. The Commission's Recommendations Should Reflect the Importance of Preserving Localism and Free, Over- the- Air Broadcasting ................................................. 5 1. Congress and the Commission Have Consistently Recognized the Importance of Protecting Free, Over- the- Air, Local Television Broadcasting .................................... .5 2. Unlike Delivery of Distant Signals, Local- to- Local is a Winning Formula for Satellite Carriers, Broadcasters, and Consumers Alike ................................................... 6 3. SHVERA Explicitly Reaffirms And Strengthens Congress' Longstanding Preference For Local Over Distant Station Delivery ...................................................... 7 B. Local- Into- Local Service Is Almost Universally Available Today, And Local Digital Signals Will Soon Be Available On DBS ................................................................ 9 C. The Commission Should Encourage the Growth of Digital Local- to- Local and Discourage Use of Distant Digital Signals As a Substitute for Local Signals .................. 11 A. The Commission's Use of Planning Factors to Determine the Minimum Signal Strength Needed to Receive Over- the- Air Analog and Digital Signals ............................ 13 237 IV. RESPONSES TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION ............. 25 A. The Commission's Existing Site Testing Procedures In Section 73.686( d), With Minor Adjustments, Will Work Well For Digital .............................................................. 25 B. As with Analog Testing, Signal Strength Tests are the Best Way to Determine Whether Households Can Receive Digital Signals Over the Air ...................................... 27 C. The Longley- Rice Model Is Very Accurate At Predicting Whether Signal Strength At Particular Locations Is Above Or Below DTV Minimums, But There Are Practical Issues About Use Of A "Digital ILLR" Model For SHVERA Purposes ......................................................................................................................... 3 1 1. The Results of Thousands of Digital Signal Tests Show that Longley- Rice is a Highly Accurate Model ................................................................................................ -32 2. Although Longley- Rice Will Work Well Once the Digital Television System is Fully Operational, There Are Major Practical Concerns About Giving Legal Effect Now to Predictions of Digital Field Strength ..................................................... 33 Even If Congress Does Not Alter the Act to Make Subscribers Eligible Based on Predictions about Digital Service, the Law Already Authorizes Signups for Distant Digital Signals Based on the Analog ILLR Model ................................................ 38 "Fifth Generation" Receivers, Which The DBS Firms Can Build Into Their Set- Top Boxes, Do Much Better In Handling Difficult Reception Environments ................. 39 The Addition of an Extra Clutter Factor for DTV Would Make the Longley- Rice Model Less Accurate in Predicting Whether Households Can Receive the Minimum DTV Field Strength.. ........................................................................................ .4 1 238 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The philosophy behind the latest revision of the original SHVA - the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (" SHVERA") - is captured in Section 204, which is entitled "Replacement of Distant Signals with Local Signals." That provision reiterates Congress' strong preference for local over distant signals in a variety of ways, including through implementation of the "if local, no distant" principle. That simple - and sensible - policy is at the heart of SHVERA. Because local- to- local service is the desirable way to deliver network affiliates to satellite subscribers, and because distant network station signals are at best a necessary evil, the SHVERA pushes the DBS industry towards the former and away from the latter. While recognizing the overwhelming desirability of local- to- local over distant network signals, Congress also decided to create a narrowly- limited new right to transmit distant signals based on the unavailability of an over- the- air digital signal. 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( i)( III). This new method of qualifying subscribers to receive distant signals will not go into effect until April 30,2006, and even then it will apply only to a limited number of stations in the top 100 markets. (Other stations will be subject to this new rule in 2007 or later.) While the Senate Commerce Committee approved a bill in 2004 that would have enabled DBS companies to use a digital predictive model to sign up new subscribers for distant digital signals, Congress as a whole ultimately rejected that approach. As enacted, therefore, the SHVERA allows a satellite carrier to sign up a subscriber claiming unavailability of an over- the- air digital signal only based on the results of an actual field measurement. 47 U. S. C. $8 339( a)( 2)( D)( i)( III), 339 (a)( 2)( D)( vi). It would take an act of Congress for a DBS firm to be able to rely on a digital predictive model to sign up a subscriber for a distant digital signal. 239 The Commission's current Inquiry concerns the extent to which the DBS companies will be authorized to use the SHVERA compulsory license to retransmit the HD signals of New York or Los Angeles stations to customers in Glendive, Montana, Presque Isle, Maine, Dayton, Ohio and more than 200 other markets across the United States. In preparing its recommendations, the Commission should ensure that no DBS company can use the distant digital compulsory license as an inexpensive, large- scale substitute for digital local- to- local. Broadcasters, Congress, and the Commission all remember well what it was like in the 1990's when the DBS industry massively abused the analog distant- signal compulsory license, illegally "hooking" millions of ineligible customers on distant signals. The Commission's recommendations should be carefully designed to ensure that this sordid history does not repeat itself. The following is a brief summary of NAB'S comments in response to the specific questions that the Commission has asked about technical issues: Type of antenna: The Commission should continue to assume use of a properly- oriented directional rooftop antenna with substantial gain. Antennas of that kind, which fully satisfy (or exceed) the Commission's DTV planning factors, are readily available at low cost. It would be difficult to overstate the unfairness of assuming that viewers will use only indoor (or low- quality outdoor) antennas. Satellite antennas (dishes) do not work when they are placed indoors, or pointed the wrong way, and it would be arbitrary and capricious to force over- the- air antennas to overcome these severe obstacles to successful reception. It would also violate one of the most fundamental assumptions of the Commission's entire DTV planning process, leaving broadcasters in the position of having built a system to Commission 240 specifications that the Commission would now condemn as inadequate (because it is not designed for indoor or low- quality outdoor antennas). Signal strength measurements: The Commission's existing procedures for measuring signal strength at individual locations will work well, with minor modifications, for measuring digital signal strength. Objective vs. subjective test for which households are "unserved": If a location has objective signal strength above the minimums specified for digital (e. g., 41 dBu for UHF), field tests show it is overwhelmingly likely that a high- quality picture can be received at that location. The Commission's existing DTV minimum signal strengths are therefore an excellent metric for determining which households are "served" by digital signals. Use of a subjective standard would be a disaster, just as it was when the DBS industry (illegally) implemented such a standard a few years ago. Application of such a standard would be arbitrary and capricious. Development of a predictive model: When given the ultimate test -- being compared to the results of actual measurements -- the Longley- Rice model does exceptionally well at predicting whether or not particular locations will receive a signal above the DTV minimums. Longley- Rice makes correct predictions 95% of the time about digital signals, and the model's errors are divided roughly evenly between over- and underpredictions. Thus, if and when a predictive model is needed for over- the- air digital signals, Longley- Rice is the right choice. In the short run, however, there are very serious practical problems with using the results of a digital Longley- Rice model as a basis for signing up subscribers. First, certain stations can be evaluated starting in April 2006; many others not until July 2007; and still others at a variety 241 of different (currently unknown) dates thereafter. Keeping track of all of this in a predictive model would be daunting, to say the least. Second, the channels on which particular stations will broadcast in digital are still -- and will remain for some time -- in flux. Third, the Commission would need to design a hybrid digitalhalog predictive model to take into account those stations (such as translators) that are not expected to broadcast in digital until some future date. Finally, if this complex, changing, hybrid digital/ analog Longley- Rice model were being run internally by EchoStar, still another layer of concern would arise, since a federal judge found that EchoStar illegally manipulated the analog ILLR model in three different ways (behind the scenes) to sign up ineligible subscribers. See CBS Broadcasting Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1248- 50 (S. D. Fla. 2003). Because of these many concerns, implementing a "digital ILLR model in the near term is fraught with difficulties. To the extent that the DBS companies do not offer digital local- to- local in every market at the end of the transition, however, there may be a need then for a digital predictive model to be applied to individual households. The Commission should endorse Longley- Rice for that long- term purpose. Variations in DTV receivers. Since one can obtain a high- quality picture from an above- minimum strength signal almost all the time using even early- generation DTV receivers, differences in quality among receivers are not material to an objective signal strength test. In any event, the most recent round of receivers -- the fifth generation -- does vastly better than older receivers at achieving reception in difficult environments, such as multipath. As these (and future, still further- improved generations of) receiver chips are incorporated into set- top boxes, the already strong connection between signal strength and picture quality will become even more robust. vii 242 Additional clutter factor. Longley- Rice already reflects environmental "clutter" -- trees and buildings -- because it was built in part based on real- world measurements, which can't help but reflect the effects of clutter. In any event, since the Longley- Rice model without a special clutter factor is already highly accurate -- and well- balanced between overpredictions and underpredictions -- putting a thumb on one side of the scale with a new clutter factor would make the model less accurate. . . . V l l l 243 The National Association of Broadcasters (" NAB") hereby files its comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry (" Notice") released by the Commission on May 3, 2005, in the above- referenced proceeding. u I. THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT, THE SHVIA, AND THE SHVERA The Commission's Notice of Inquiry asks for comment on several specific issues relating to the measurement and prediction of over- the- air digital television signals. Because it is important to appreciate both the broader policy issues behind these issues and the specific statutory context, we begin with a brief history of the key features of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (" SHVERA") and its predecessors. A. SHVA (1988,1994): Distant Signal Delivery to "Unserved" Households -- Those Unable To Receive a Grade B Signal From An Over- the- Air Network Station with a Rooftop Antenna Section 119 of the Copyright Act, first enacted as part of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 and renewed in 1994, allows satellite companies to provide a lifeline service to the small number of households that cannot receive ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC stations over the air -- i. e., "unserved households." 17 U. S. C. 5 119. The key test for whether a household is "unserved" is whether it can receive an analog signal of "Grade B intensity." Id., 5 119( d)( 10). Despite claims by DBS companies that "Grade B intensity" could be determined by asking viewers if they are satisfied with their TV reception, the courts -- and the Commission -- have uniformly and correctly concluded that Grade B intensity is an objective measure of analog signal strength. - NAB is a nonprofit, incorporated association of radio and television broadcast stations that serves and represents the American broadcast industry. 244 Congress has revised the original SHVA in 1994, 1999, and 2004. In each instance, Congress has confirmed that, to evaluate whether a household can receive a Grade B intensity analog signal, the Act assumes use of a rooftop -- not an indoor -- antenna. In addition, as the Commission found in 2000, the rooftop antenna must be properly oriented to obtain the strongest signal from the station in question. In Re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Under the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Dkt. No. 00- 90, 11 33- 36 (released Nov. 29,2000). B. SHVIA (1999) Permits DBS Firms to Deliver Distant Signals Based on Either a Measurement or a Prediction that the Household Cannot Receive a Grade B Intensity Analog Signal In 1999, in revising the distant signal license as part of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (" SHVIA"), Congress decided that a satellite carrier could show that a household was "unserved" over- the- air by an analog station either through a field test or through a prediction made by the Individual Location Longley- Rice (" ILLR") model. 17 U. S. C. 9 119( a)( 2)( B)( ii). Last year, in the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Renewal Act (" SHVERA"), Congress extended the basic "Grade B intensity" standard for reception of distant analog network affiliate signals, including eligibility based either on a field measurement or on an ILLR prediction. C. SHVERA Confirms that DBS Firms Can Deliver Distant Digital Signals Based on an ILLR Prediction that the Household Cannot Receive a Grade B Intensity Analog Signal In the 2004 SHVERA, Congress endorsed (for the next five years) the principle that a household unable to receive a Grade B analog signal from any station affiliated with the relevant network may receive either a distant analog or a distant digital signal of an affiliate of that network. 47 .U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)( D)( i)( I), (11). Thus, under current law, a household that is 245 unable to receive a Grade B signal from (say) an NBC station is eligible to receive a distant digital NBC station signal. In other words, satellite companies can already rely on the ILLR model -- the analog ILLR model -- to determine whether it is lawful to deliver a distant digital signal to a household. D. SHVERA Authorizes DBS Firms to Deliver Distant Digital Signals Based on Site Tests of Certain Over- the- Air Digital Signals, But Does Not Authorize DBS Firms to Do So Based on Predictions About Over- the- Air Digital Signals In the SHVERA, Congress for the first time modified the distant signal statutory scheme to permit transmission of distant signals based on the unavailability of an over- the- air digital signal. 47 U. S. C. Q 339( a)( 2)( D)( i)( III). This new method of qualifying subscribers to receive distant signals will not go into effect until April 30,2006, and even then it will apply only to a limited number of stations in the top 100 markets. (Other stations will be subject to this new rule in 2007 or later.) If a satellite company wishes to deliver distant digital signals to a subscriber based on this new criterion, it must conduct a site measurement to establish that fact. 47 U. S. C. Q 339( a)( 2)( D)( vi) (" Signal Testing for Digital ~i ~n a l s ").~ Whether a satellite household should be considered eligible to receive a distant digital ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC signal based on aprediction that it cannot receive an over- the- air digital signal is a separate issue. While the Senate Commerce Committee approved a bill in 2004 authorizing creation of digital predictive m ~d e l ,~ Congress as a whole ultimately rejected - 2' As discussed below, distant digital signals cannot be offered to new subscribers once the DBS company offers digital local- to- local service to the those subscribers. 47 U. S. C. Q 339( a)( 2)( D)( iv). In addition, if analog local- to- local is available to the household, the subscriber must purchase that service in order to receive a distant digital signal, even if the household has been tested and found not to receive a digital signal over the air. 47 U. S. C. Q 339( a)( 2)( D)( iii)( III) (analog bu y- through provision). - 31 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Satellite Home Viewer Extension And Rural Consumer Access To Digitpl Television Act Of 2004, S. Rep. No. 108- 427, 246 that approach. As enacted, the SHVERA allows a satellite carrier to sign up a subscriber claiming unavailability of an over- the- air digital signal only based on the results of an actual field measurement. 47 U. S. C. $8 339( a)( 2)( D)( i)( III), 339( a)( 2)( D)( vi). It would take an act of Congress for a DBS firm to be able to rely on a digital predictive model to sign up a subscriber for a distant digital signal. 11. THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCALISM AND THE NEED TO PROMOTE LOCAL- TO- LOCAL SERVICE, RATHER THAN DISTANT SIGNALS As just discussed, in the SHVERA Congress elected to take a cautious approach in authorizing DBS companies to carry digital signals of distant ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC stations based on claims that subscribers cannot receive digital signals from nearby over- the- air stations. That decision fits squarely into the philosophy that both Congress and the Commission have followed for many decades: that the public interest is served when multichannel video programming distributors carry local television stations, but can easily be harmed when they import distant TV stations. at 8- 9 (2004) (" Thus, the Commission would (1) determine the appropriate signal standard for determining eligibility for distant digital signals; (2) develop a predictive model for presumptively determining the ability of individual locations to receive digital signals in accordance with the signal standard . . . ."). 247 A. The Commission's Recommendations Should Reflect the Importance of Preserving Localism and Free, Over- the- Air Broadcasting 1. Congress and the Commission Have Consistently Recognized the Importance of Protecting Free, Over- the- Air, Local Television Broadcasting Unlike many other countries that offer only national television channels, the United States has succeeded in creating a rich mix of local television outlets through which more than 200 communities can have their own local voices. But as the House Judiciary Committee observed last year, "[ tlhe availability of local programming is largely dependent on the continued health of network affiliates, who use revenue from the sale of advertising, the rates for which depend on audience size, to produce local content." Committee on the Judiciary, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, H. R. Rep. No. 108- 660, at 7- 8 n. 4 (2004). Although cable, satellite, and other technologies offer alternative ways to obtain television programming, at least 20 million American TV households still rely on broadcast stations -- principally ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC stations -- as their exclusive source of television programming. 4/ In addition, tens of millions of other households rely on over- the- air reception for some of the televisions in their homes. ' The 1988 SHVA and its successors (including the 2004 SHVERA) implement a longstanding communications policy of ensuring that these free, local, over- the- air outlets will - 4' See Reply Comments of National Association of Broadcasters, In Re Over- the- Air Broadcast Television Viewers, MB Docket No. 04- 210, at 3 (Sept. 7,2004) (" NAB . OTA Reply Comments"); see Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 04- 227, at 52 (2005) (citing conservative estimate of 16 million households). - 51 NAB OTA Reply Comments, MB Docket No. 04- 210, at 9. 248 continue to provide high- quality programming in more than 200 local markets, large and small, around the United States. In particular, the "unserved household limitation of SHVA and its successors is designed to protect local network affiliates from importation of duplicative network programming, such as delivery of the New York City ABC station to viewers in Omaha. In considering possible recommendations about how to implement the latest revision of the SHVA, the Commission should keep these overarching policy considerations in mind. 2. Unlike Delivery of Distant Signals, Local- to- Local is a Winning Formula for Satellite Carriers, Broadcasters, and Consumers Alike Unlike importation of distant network affiliates, delivery of local stations is good for consumers, for broadcasters, and for DBS firms alike. For that reason, Congress and the Commission have consistently sought to foster local- to- local service and to minimize delivery of distant signals. From a policy perspective, there is no benefit -- and there are many drawbacks -- to satellite delivery of distant, as opposed to local, network stations. Unlike local stations, distant stations do not provide viewers with their own local news, weather, emergency, and public service programming. Nor does viewership of distant stations provide any financial benefit to local stations to help fund their free, over- the- air service. To the contrary, distant signals, when delivered to any household that can receive local over- the- air stations, simply siphon off audiences and diminish the revenues that would otherwise go to support free, over- the- air programming. Until 1999, satellite carriers, unlike cable systems, lacked a copyright compulsory license authorizing them to carry local TV stations. The 1999 SHVIA created, for the first time, such a compulsory license. And thanks to the ability to offer local stations, DirecTV and EchoStar have enjoyed growth rates since SHVIA's enactment that any industry would envy. 249 In June 1999, just before the enactment of the new local- to- local compulsory license in the SHVIA, the DBS industry had 10.1 million subscribers. 2000 Annual Assessment, ¶ 8. As of March 2005, the DBS firms have 25.7 million subscribers.@ That this supercharged growth has been spurred by the availability of local- to- local is beyond doubt: the DBS industry's trade association has explained that over the past few years, "the availability of local services has been a key factor driving the continued growth of DBS." Comments of the Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Ass'n at 4, Dkt. No. 04- 227 (filed July 23,2004) (emphasis added). 3. SHVERA Explicitly Reaffirms And Strengthens Congress' Longstanding Preference For Local Over Distant Station Delivery The philosophy behind the latest revision of the original SHVA - the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (" SHVERA") -- is captured in Section 204, which is entitled "Replacement of Distant Signals with Local Signals." This provision reiterates Congress' preference for local over distant signals in a variety of ways, including through implementation of the "if local, no distant" principle. For example: Analog "if local, no distant" rule: the Act prohibits signups of subscribers for distant analog signals if the satellite carrier offers analog local- to- local service to the subscriber, 47 U. S. C. 8 339( a)( 2)( C). - 61 Press Release, The DIRECTV Group Announces First Quarter 2005 Results (May 2, 2005), available at www. forbes. com/ businesswire/ feeds/ businesswire/ 2005/ 05/ 02/ businesswire20050502005455r1 .html (DIRECTV had 14.45 million subscribers as of March 2005); Press Release, EchoStar Reports First Quarter 2005 Financial Results (May 5,2005), available at www. forbes. com/ businesswire/ feeds/ businesswire/ 2005/ 05/ 05usinesswire 20050505005159r1 .htrnl (EchoStar had 11.23 million subscribers as of March 2005). 250 Digital "if local, no distant" rule: the Act precludes new signups of subscribers for distant digital signals if the satellite carrier offers digital local- to- local service to that household, id., $ 339( a)( 2)( D)( iv). Analog local- to- local buythrough as prerequisite for receipt of distant digital signals: the Act requires subscribers to purchase analog local- to- local service (if available) if they wish to receive a distant digital signal, even if they are tested and found to be unable to receive an over- the- air digital signal, id., $ 339( a)( 2)( D)( iii)( III). No testing of digital signals in markets with no analog local- to- local: to encourage the further spread of local- to- local service, the Act provides for digital testing waivers in any DMA in which satellite carriers do not offer analog local- to- local service, id., 5 3 39( a)( 2)( D)( viii)( VI). No use of distant signals from another time zone to watch programming earlier than when it is broadcast locally: the Act bars importation of distant digital signals from a time zone in which programming is broadcast earlier, such as delivery of the digital signal of the New York City ABC station to a viewer in San Diego or Missoula, id., 5 339( a)( 2)@)( iii)( I), 339( a)( 2)( D)( v). It thus prevents use of the compulsory license to "scoop" local stations in the Mountain, Pacific, Alaskan, or Hawaii- Aleutian time zones with their own programming from distant signals. No distant signals for "grandfathered" subscribers who receive local- to- local: the Act bars delivery of distant signals to subscribers who were "grandfathered" by the 1999 SHVIA but who now receive local stations by satellite, 47 U. S. C. $ 339( a)( 2)( A)( i). 251 Grandfathering terminated for those not receiving distant signals as of October 2004: the Act ends "grandfathering" for those subscribers who did not receive a distant signal as of October 2004, id., 8 339( a)( 2)( A)( ii). B. Local- Into- Local Service Is Almost Universally Available Today, And Local Digital Signals Will Soon Be Available On DBS EchoStar and DirecTV already offer transmissions the analog signals of local ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC stations to nearly all U. S. television households -- and soon all local markets will have the option of receiving local programming from DBS. In this sense, no household in an analog local- to- local market is truly "unserved," regardless of the ambient field strength of the station's over- the- air digital signal near his or her home. Ever since SHVIA was passed, DBS has rapidly rolled out local- into- local service across the country. Today, EchoStar alone reaches 155 markets, covering more than 95% of TV households, while DirecTV reaches 130 markets. I Soon, DBS local- into- local service will be available everywhere: DirecTV has committed to offering local channels in all 210 markets as early as 2006 and no later than 2008." In their local- to- local service, both DBS firms typically work with stations to obtain a direct feed from the stations' studios. The DBS firms then "digitize" the signals for retransmission to their customers. 71 - DlRECTV web site, www. directv. com; EchoStar Press Release DISH Network Satellite Television Brings Local Channels to Billings, Mont. (March 5,2005). - *I See Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, Transferors, And The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, For Authority to Transfer Control, ¶ 332, FCC 03- 330, MB Docket No. 03- 124 (released Jan. 14, 2004). 252 DirecTV and EchoStar often boast about the reception quality their subscribers can enjoy through their "digitized" analog local- to- local service. For example, DIRECTV tells customers that it "offers local channels in most major U. S. cities and their surrounding areas, always in digital quality," and EchoStar declares that its local- into- local programming is in " 100% digital clarity." g1 The result, according to the DBS industry's trade association, is that DBS "always delivers a 100 percent, crystal- clear digital audio and video signal." SBCA Web site, www. sbca. com/ mediaguide/ faq. htm (emphasis added). The SBCA tells consumers that, unlike a signal delivered by cable, "[ tlhe quality of a digital signal beamed from a satellite to a dish is not subject to degradation and therefore, is a superior quality signal." Id. (emphasis added). Even as the DBS firms continue to expand their analog local- to- local offerings, they are simultaneously planning to roll out digital local- to- local. In September 2004, DirecTV announced plans to launch four new satellites through 2007 that would give it the capacity to carry up to 1,500 HD local channelsm Since then, DirecTV has announced plans to offer local HD channels this year in at least 24 large markets that collectively cover 45% of U. S. television household^.^^ The first 12 markets in which DirecTV will launch HD local- to- local are New ' See DIRECTV Local Programming FAQ (available at www. directv. com/ DTVAPP/ 1earnIFAQ- DTVProgrammingLocal. dsp# l); www. dishnetwork. com/ content/ getdish/ what~ is/ index. shtrn1. - lo' Press Release, DIRECTVAnnounces Plan to Launch Next Generation Satellites to Provide Dramatic Expansion of High- Definition and Advanced Programming Services (Sept. 8, 2004), available at http:// phx. corporate- ir. net/ phoenix. zhtml? c= l27 16O& p= irol- newsArticle& ID= 6 179 1 &% highlight=. These plans by the DBS firms are logical, given the advantage their cable competitors currently enjoy from their local HD offerings. "/ Press Release, DIRECTV Spaceway F2 Satellite will Expand Local DigitalHD Services for DIRECTV Customers (May 25,2005), available at www. directv. com/ DTVAPP/ aboutus/ headline. dsp? id= 05- 25- 2005A. 253 York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Dallas, Washington D. C., Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, and ~a r n ~a .~ Id. Once DIRECTV or EchoStar offers digital local- into- local in a particular market, of course, that firm will be barred from signing up new subscribers for distant digital signals, under the "if local, no distant" rules discussed above. Although EchoStar has not announced detailed plans for offering digital local- to- local, the competitive pressure on EchoStar to do so will be intense, since its two principal competitors (cable and DIRECTV) are now offering, or will soon offer, HD local- to- local to the vast majority of U. S. television households. As discussed below, the Commission should take care not to endorse a system that would encourage EchoStar to use distant digital signals as a large- scale alternative to local- into- local service. C. The Commission Should Encourage the Growth of Digital Local- to- Local and Discourage Use of Distant Digital Signals As a Substitute for Local Signals In the 1990s the DBS companies illegally delivered distant analog signals to millions of their customer^.^^ The Commission should keep that experience in mind as it considers the practical consequences of satellite delivery of distant digital signals. While DlRECTV is commendably making a major investment to offer local HD programming in markets across the country, EchoStar has signaled that it may make a much more limited investment in delivering Press Release, New HD Local Markets Mark First Stage in Dramatic Expansion of HD Programming Over the Next Two Years (Jan. 6,2005) (available at http:// phx. corporate- ir. net/ phoenix. zhtml? c= 127 160& p= irol- newsArticle& ID= 660037 &highlight=. - 13/ CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. PrimeTime 24,9 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S. D. Fla. 1998) (entering preliminary injunction against DirecTVYs and Echostar's distributor, PrimeTime 24); CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 48 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (S. D. Fla. 1998) (permanent injunction); CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 99- 0565- CIV- NESBTTT (S. D. Fla. Sept. 17, 1999) (permanent injunction after entry of contested preliminary injunction); ABC, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24, 184 F. 3d 348 (4th Cir. 1999) (affirming issuance of permanent injunction). 254 local digital and HD signals, at least in the near term. See EchoStar Wants to 'See the Playing Field' Before Making HDTV and Broadband Bets, Satellite Week (May 9, 2005) (" while HD 'on a national level is relatively economical, [the economics of] HD on a local level is still unknown" '); (" We're pretty sure that the top 20 markets make sense, but we're not sure about the 21st market, and we're definitely not sure if the 5 1 st market makes sense. ") (quoting EchoStar CEO Charlie ~r ~e n ).~ There is a serious danger of history repeating itself: that is, that EchoStar will again try to use national feeds -- this time of the HD broadcasts of the network stations in New York and Los Angeles -- as an inexpensive way to deliver ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC programming to large numbers of customers, rather than promptly investing in local- to- local HD service as its competitors have done. As the record shows, EchoStar has no compunction about bending -- or breaking -- signal carriage rules. CBS Broad., Znc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1237, at 9 46 (S. D. Fla. 2003) (" EchoStar executives, including Ergen and [General Counsel] David Moskowitz, when confronted with the prospect of cutting off network programming to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, elected instead to break Mr. Ergen's promise to the Court.") (emphasis added); see also EchoStar Satellite Corp. v. Brockbank Ins. Servs., Inc., No. OO- N- 1513, at 23 (D. Colo. Feb. 5,2004) (EchoStar's actions "rose to the level of conscious 141 - As to the Mr. Ergen's stated doubts about Echostar's ability to offer digital local- to- local: in 2002 the two DBS firms claimed that unless they were permitted to merge, neither firm could offer local- to- local in more than about 50 to 70 markets. EchoStar, DirecTV CEOs Testify On Benefits of Pending Merger Before U. S. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, www. spacedaily. com/ newslsatellite- biz- 02p. html (" Without the merger, the most markets that each company would serve with local channels as a standalone provider, both for technical and economic reasons, would be about 50 to 70."). Since EchoStar alone now offers local- to- local service in 155 markets, the Commission should be skeptical of its current claims that it would be difficult (or uneconomical) to offer digital local- to- local in a large number of markets. 255 wrongdoing"); National Association of Broadcasters and Association of Local Broadcasters Request for Modification or Clarification of Broadcast Carriage Rules for Satellite Carriers, Declaratory Ruling and Order, DA 02- 765, ¶ 37 n. 116 (released April 4,2002) (collecting examples of EchoStar misconduct in Commission proceedings). As the Commission considers possible recommendations about carriage of distant digital signals, therefore, it should keep in mind the need to prevent the recurrence of past DBS industry abuses of distant signals. 111. THE COMMISSION'S PLANNING FACTORS FOR DIGITAL SERVICE As we show here, the present proceeding is intimately related to, and for powerful policy reasons must be consistent with, the Commission's decisions over the past decade concerning the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting, including most notably the planning factors that the Commission relied on in making digital channel assignments. A. The Commission's Use of Planning Factors to Determine the Minimum Signal Strength Needed to Receive Over- the- Air Analog and Digital Signals In planning the analog television system decades ago, and in devising the digital television system much more recently, the Commission needed to determine how strong a signal is required to receive a television picture. In each case, the Commission has used a formula based on a set of "planning factors," that is, assumptions about a variety of technical issues, including about the types of equipment that would be used in the "receive" setup, i. e., by consumers at their homes. In previous proceedings under SHVA and its successor laws, the Commission has carefully reviewed the analog planning factors and endorsed the long- standing definition of "Grade B intensity" for analog signals (e. g., 47 dBu for low- VHF channels). E. g., Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of Satellite Home Viewer Act, 256 Report and Order, FCC 99- 14 (released Feb. 2, 1999). The Commission has also evaluated the antennas and other equipment available to consumers and concluded that the analog planning factors make realistic assumptions about what steps consumers can be expected to take to receive over- the- air signals. See id.; In Re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Under the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Dkt. No. 00- 90, 33- 56 (released Nov. 29,2000). To implement digital television and to make digital channel assignments, the Commission developed a similar set of planning factors to determine the minimum signal strengths -- in dBu's -- that are the digital equivalent of "Grade B intensity" for analog. As it did with the analog planning factors, the Commission again had to make assumptions about the types of equipment that consumers can reasonably be expected to acquire to obtain over- the- air TV signals. For example, as with the analog planning factors, the Commission's DTV planning factors assumed an outdoor antenna with substantial gain. In predicting the expected service areas of digital TV signals -- using the Longley- Rice propagation model -- the Commission likewise had to make assumptions about consumer reception equipment. As the Commission explains in its Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, the procedures the Commission has used in predicting expected digital service areas "presume that households will exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals." NOI, ¶ 6. 257 Based on the analog and digital planning factors, the Commission's rules (Sections 73.622( e)( l) & 73.683( a)) specify the following minimum signal strengths for analog and digital 151 service:- As explained in the Engineering Statement of Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace (Attachment 1 hereto), the minimum field strengths for DTV are derived from the planning factors shown in the following table: Minimum Digital Field Strength (dBpV/ m) 28 36 14- 69 '5/ While OET Bulletin 69 provides for slight variations in the UHF minimum field strength, based on the dipole factor, the Commission's regulations specify the specific dBu levels indicated in the text, including for UHF. In the SHVERA, Congress specifies that the specific dBu levels mentioned in the regulations shall be used in determining whether households are considered "unserved." See 17 U. S. C. § 119( d)( lO)( A) (incorporating analog signal strength figures from Section 73.683( a)) and 47 U. S. C. § 339( a)( 2)@)( vi)( I) (incorporating digital signal strength figures from Section 73.622( e)( l)). Minimum Analog Field Strength (dBpV/ m) 47 5 6 Channel Numbers 2- 6 7- 13 Channel Label LOW VHF High VHF UHF 64 4 1 258 Planning Factor I Symbol I Low VHF I High VHF UHF Geometric Mean Frequency I Dipole Factor adjustment I Ka I None I None I See text Dipole Factor nominal (dBm- dBp) I Thermal Noise (dBd6 MHz) I Nt 1 -106.2 1 -106.2 1 -106.2 F I Antenna Gain (dBd) I G 1 4 1 6 1 1 0 & 69 -1 11.8 I I I I 194 Downlead Line Loss, 50' cable (dB) System Noise Figure (dB) B. The Assumptions Made in the Commission's DTV Planning Factors and in the Longley- Rice Model About Household 615 -120.8 14 Required Carrier Noise (dB) Calculated Minimum Rx Power (dBml6 MHz) Reception Equipment kre Reasonable and Realistic -130.8 Antenna Front/ Back Ratio (dB) L NS Because the topic is germane to many of the specific questions raised by the Commission in its Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, we show here that the Commission's assumptions about consumer equipment for DTV reception are entirely reasonable. 1. Rooftop vs. indoor antennas. The Commission asks whether it should assume, for purposes of implementing SHVERA, that consumers use a rooftop antenna or instead an indoor antenna. NOI, ¶ 7. The answer is plain: the Commission should assume use of a rooftop antenna. a. Indoor antennas perform much less well at receiving over- the- air TV signals. As the Notice of Inquiry observes, the reception characteristics of indoor antennas are much worse than those of outdoor rooftop antennas. E. g., NOI, 'I[ 20 (" indoor- mounted antennas will generally receive weaker signals than outdoor- mounted antennas"). In particular: 10 FB C/ N Pmin 12 1 10 15 -8 1 2 10 4 7 15 -8 1 15 -84 259 Indoor antennas have lower gain: As recent tests confirm, indoor antennas have much less gain than good outdoor antennas, and in some cases actually deliver a weaker signal than a reference dipole (i. e., the indoor antenna has a "loss," not a gain). See Kerry W. Cozad, Measured Parameters for Receive Antennas Used in DTV Reception (Attachment 2 hereto). The location of indoor antennas is much worse for reception of over- the- air signals: An indoor antenna is placed at a location inside a building and below -- sometimes much below -- the location of an outdoor rooftop antenna. This location hurts the antenna's performance in two ways: the lower height usually means reduced signal strength, and placement behind walls (sometimes multiple walls) translates into still lower ambient field strength. MSW Engineering Statement, 1 38. Indoor antennas are typically nondirectional: Indoor antennas are usually nondirectional, and therefore more prone to problems from both multipath and interference. Id. Indoor antennas are affected by the motions of people in the room: Because indoor antennas are so close to the viewers, they can easily be affected by the changing positions of people in the room, which can radically alter the antenna's reception pattern. Id. Because rooftop antennas are so much better than indoor antennas, households have long used rooftop antennas to achieve over- the- air reception, particularly if the household is at some distance from the transmitting tower. In fact, rural households often rely on small towers -- with over- the- air antennas considerably higher than rooftop level -- to receive a strong signal from stations several dozen miles away. MSW Engineering Statement, 1 39. 260 b. Satellite antennas work only outdoors, and are usually placed on the rooftop. This proceeding is about how satellite subscribers can receive over- the- air digital signals. But when those same subscribers wish to receive signals from DIRECTV or EchoStar, they use a satellite reception antenna (popularly known as a satellite dish) that can only be used outdoors, ' and usually on a rooftop. An "indoor" satellite antenna would be useless. It would be egregiously discriminatory to conclude that while satellite subscribers are expected to rely on a rooftop antenna for their satellite reception, they cannot be expected to do the same to pick up over- the- air signals. c. The Commission's digital transition proceeding has always assumed use of a rooftop antenna. The Commission's entire digital transition effort - assigning digital channels to TV stations, determining their coverage area, replicating analog coverage areas, and assessing the power levels at which the stations should operate -- has been based on the assumption that consumers are using rooftop receiving antennas to receive DTV signals. See NOI, 16. It would be totally unfair -- and without any rational basis -- for the Commission to now treat households as "unserved" by digital signals, and allow importation of duplicative signals from other cities, based on the new premise that households even 50 miles from TV towers use only indoor antennas. Such an eleventh- hour change would be like telling hurdlers, as they line up for the final race of the Olympics, that the officials have decided to raise the height of the hurdles by two feet. Had the Commission assumed use of indoor antennas in planning the digital transition, that process would have been radically different. For example, to replicate analog coverage areas (which have always been premised on outdoor antennas), the Commission would need to have authorized stations to transmit their digital signals at enormously higher power levels to 261 reach indoor antennas 50 or 60 miles away. Those vastly higher power levels, in turn, would have required completely different interference calculations. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 9. Having correctly rejected -- throughout the digital transition -- the assumption that consumers use only indoor antennas, and having encouraged broadcasters to build out their digital facilities based on outdoor antennas, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Commission suddenly to reverse course now. d. Proper vs. improper antenna orientation. The Commission asks whether it should assume that the over- the- air antenna is properly oriented to achieve the best reception from the station in question. NOI, ¶ 7. Again, it is essential to assume proper orientation. In particular: Assuming improper orientation would be discriminatory and unfair. As with the issue of rooftop vs. indoor antennas, it would. be exceedingly discriminatory to assume that a DBS household's over- the- air antenna is improperly oriented when the same household's satellite antenna must be precisely oriented towards the satellite to get any signal at all. In addition, as discussed above, the entire digital transition has been premised on the assumption that consumers will use properly- oriented rooftop antennas to receive digital TV signals. E. g., Notice of Inquiry, ¶ 10 (process used by the Commission in assigning digital channels assumes that receive antenna "is oriented in the direction which maximizes the values for field strength for the signal being measured."). Similarly, SHVA and its successors have always assumed that a household's ability to receive an analog signal assumes use of a properly- oriented directional antenna. See, e. g., In Re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Under the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Dkt. No. 00- 90, 33- 36 (released Nov. 29,2000). For the same reasons 262 it would be unfair to suddenly assume an indoor antenna for purposes of evaluating the availability of a digital signal in this context, it would be unfair to assume that the household's outdoor antenna is improperly oriented. TV towers are co- located in many markets. Although consumers can reasonably be expected to orient their over- the- air antennas correctly in any market, it will often be possible for consumers to do so with a single, fixed antenna, because the TV transmitters in many markets are co- located. In these cases, there will be no need for a rotor. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 44. Special antennas for non- co- located towers. In markets in which TV towers are located at different sites, local electronics installers sometimes offer a special antenna designed to receive signals from two different directions, again without the need for a rotor. Id. Rotors are readily available at modest cost. For those instances in which the options just discussed are not available, consumers can acquire, at modest cost, a rotor that enables a rooftop antenna to be moved to achieve the best signal from a particular station. Manufacturers today sell not only basic rotors but new, sophisticated models that offer features such as remote control operation. For example, the CM 9521A manufactured by Channel Master (sold by Solid Signal for only $68.99) includes a remote control that allows television viewers to select the proper orientation to receive a particular station simply by keying in that station's channel. See www. solidsignal. com/ prod~ display. asp? main- cat= O3& CAT= &PROD= MTRTR200# MORE. e. Antenna gains. In its digital planning factors, the Commission assumes use of a receiving antenna with gains of 4 dB for low- VHF, 6 dB for high- VHF, and 10 dB for 263 UHF. As discussed in greater detail by the Network Affiliates in their Comments, a wide variety of rooftop antennas are available at reasonable prices with these or greater gains. The Commission has "long recommended that consumers in outlying or difficult reception areas use separate UHF and VHF outdoor antennas, which provide better performance on UHF than a combination UHFNHF antenna, at little or no additional cost." In Re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Under the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Dkt. No. 00- 90, ¶ 32 (released Nov. 29,2000) (emphasis added). As the Network Affiliates discuss in their Comments, separate UHF and VHF outdoor antennas can easily be purchased at moderate expense to achieve gains better than those assumed in the DTV planning factors. That fact alone means that the DTV planning factors already contain a substantial "safety margin." For the Commission's convenience, in these Comments we show that even if a consumer prefers not to use separate antennas, he or she can easily obtain (I) a single antenna (the Channel Master 4228, costing $39) that exceeds (or is very close to) the DTV planning factors across all channel bands, or (2) a single, attractive, relatively small antenna / preamplifier combination (the Winegard Squareshooter SS- 2000, costing about $100) that will substantially exceed the performance assumptions in the DTV planning factors. As recent empirical tests show, the Channel Master 4228 achieves gains that are at least as good as, and in some cases better than, those assumed in the DTV planning factors. Kerry W. Cozad, Measured Parameters for Receive Antennas Used in DTV Reception (Attachment 2 hereto). Specifically, the Channel Master antenna achieves gains of about 14 or 15 dB for most UHF channels, while the planning factors call for a gain of only 10 dB for UHF. Similarly, for 264 high- VHF, the Cozad paper shows that the Channel Master antenna achieves gains of about 8 or 9 dB, compared to the assumption in the planning factors of only 6 dB of gain. Even for low- VHF -- a channel range in which very few network affiliate stations will broadcast in digital -- the Channel Master 4228 antenna offers gains nearly as high as those specified in the DTV planning factors. (In the relatively unusual case of a household located at the fringe of the coverage area of one of the few low- VHF DTV stations, one can either use a preamplifier with this antenna, or use a separate VHF antenna, to deliver results far above the planning factors for VHF.) The Channel Master antenna is available for as little as $39. See Solid Signal web site, www. solidsignal. com/ prod~ display. asp? main- cat= 03& CAT=& PROD= ANC4228. Another option is the Winegard SquareShooter 2000, a small, attractive directional antenna with a preamplifier. Although the manufacturer states that the antenna alone has a gain of 4.5 dB for UHF (below the planning factor assumption), the combined setup with the preamplifier far exceeds the planning factors. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 46. The SquareShooter 2000 is available for $98.99. See www. solidsignal. com/ prod~ display. asp? main- cat= 3& CAT=& PROD= SS- 2000. f. Svstem noise figure. The Commission's planning factors assume a system noise figure of 10 dB for VHF channels and of 7 dB for UHF channels. While there is little published data about receiver noise figures, consumers can in any event make the noise figure of the receiver irrelevant -- and achieve many other benefits -- with an inexpensive preamplifier. €3 Use of low- noise amplifier (or "preamplifer"). Although not included in the DTV planning factors, consumers can easily do much better than the DTV planning 265 factors by using a low noise amplifier (LNA), or "preamplifier," mounted on the mast that holds the rooftop antenna. As explained by Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace, a preamplifier offers several different advantages, that cumulatively can add at least 12- 15 dB of effective gain -- and sometimes much more -- to the consumer's system. Low- noise amplifiers are readily available at a modest price: Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace identify four highly effective low- noise amplifiers that range in price from $56.99 to $164.00. MSW Engineering Statement, q[ 50 and Table 5. Because of their benefits and low cost, consumers in locations where signal strength may be marginal often use preamplifiers to boost reception. As Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, "[ tlhe availability o f . . . preamplifiers . . . provides a substantial 'cushion' against the possibility of losses not specifically accounted for in the planning factors, including impedance mismatches and additional attenation from signal splitters." MSW. Engineering Statement, ¶ 5 1. h. Downlead line loss. As the planning factors recognize, a certain degree of signal loss occurs as the signal is transmitted from the rooftop antenna through a cable to the household's television equipment. The extent of the loss depends, of course, on the type of cable used. EchoStar recommends use of RG- 6 coaxial cable as the downlead for satellite signals, '61 and it is reasonable to assume use of that same type of cable for the off- air signal downlead. See In Re Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Under the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, ET Dkt. No. 00- 90, '1[ 28 (released Nov. 29, 2000) (" there is no serious question that RG- 6 is clearly the preferred and recommended choice that consumers residing near the Grade B contours of TV stations would typically employ"). - 16/ Echostar web site, www. dishnetwork. com/ content/ products/ installatiodindex. shtd. 266 The DTV planning factors assume downlead line losses of 1 dB for low- VHF, 2 dB for high- VHF, and 4 dB for UHF. According to the specifications published by two major manufacturers of RG- 6 cable, the actual line losses are lower than those assumed in the planning factors. MSW Engineering Statement, 'l[ 53. It is therefore reasonable to assume that consumer downlead losses will be no greater than -- and often less than -- those specified in the DTV planning factors. I. Front- to- back ratio. For DTV, the Commission's planning factors assume that the consumer's receiver antenna has a front- to- back ratio of 10, 12, and 14 dB for low- VHF, high- VHF, and UHF, respectively. These ratios are readily available in consumer equipment; for example, the Channel Master 4228 rooftop antenna (which costs $39) does considerably better than the planning factors assume, with a front- to- back ratio of roughly 25 dB for VHF and 18 db for UHF. See MSW Engineering Statement, 147. j- Conclusion with respect to DTV planning: factors. Even if they choose not to take advantage of the benefits of a preamplifer, consumers can easily acquire, at relatively modest expense, reception equipment that is in line with -- or somewhat better than -- what the DTV planning factors assume. If the consumer chooses to use a preamplifer, he or she can easily have a reception setup that is much superior to what the DTV planning factors assume. Particularly since satellite subscribers must pay roughly $6 per month ($ 72 a year, or hundreds of dollars in just a few years) to a satellite company to receive retransmitted TV station signals, the modest expenditures required for an over- the- air antenna and associated equipment are plainly reasonable. Put another way, the Commission has it exactly right in its Notice of Inquiry (at 'J[ 6) in stating that households should be expected to "exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast 267 stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals," including the use of directional rooftop antennas with significant gain. IV. RESPONSES TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION The preceding section answers the Commission's first inquiry, namely whether, for purposes of SHVAJSHVERA, the Commission should assume use of a properly oriented rooftop antenna as opposed to an improperly oriented outdoor antenna or an indoor antenna. In this section, we respond to the other specific questions in the Notice of Inquiry. A. The Commission's Existing Site Testing Procedures In Section 73.686( d), With Minor Ad. iustments Will Work Well For Digital The Commission has previously developed standardized procedures for measuring analog signal intensity at individual households for purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act and successor legislation. See 47 C. F. R. 8 73.686( d). Those procedures call for signal strength measurements at five locations near the household, with a properly- oriented antenna raiied to 30 feet above ground level (for two- story homes) or 20 feet above ground level (for one- story homes). As discussed below, and as explained in more detail in the Engineering Statement of Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace, the Commission's existing methods for measuring field intensity at individual households will -- with a few minor modifications -- work well for digital. (Messrs. Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace have collectively performed thousands of digital signal strength measurements, and are therefore in an excellent position to provide guidance to the Commission on this topic.) The procedures adopted by the Commission for signal intensity testing at individual sites are very similar to those used by engineers around the world for that purpose. MSW Engineering Statement, 9[ 56. With minor adjustments, these procedures will work well for 268 digital testing as well. Before discussing those adjustments, however, we discuss a special challenge that will have to be confronted in implementing the "digital testing" process. The challenge arises because Congress has postponed -- in some cases by years -- the dates by which certain stations (including virtually all translators) may have their digital signals tested for SHVERA purposes. See below. But simply ignoring those stations in the testing process would be wrong: it would amount to pe$ orming the prohibited test (of a nonexistent signal) and finding that the station had failed the test. As more fully explained below, the Commission's rules for digital testing should, until the end of the transition, call for testing of the analog signals of any stations that are exempt from digital testing under the Act. With regard to those stations that are subject to digital signal tests under SHVERA, the adjustments required to adapt the existing measurement procedures in Section 73.686( d) to digital testing are as follows: Different minimum signal values: the signal intensity thresholds (in dBu's) that must be met for a location to be considered "served" are, obviously, different for analog and for digital. Engineers performing signal strength tests must be careful to ensure that they are looking for the correct minimum dBu figure for each station (and in some cases for analog minimum dBu levels). No "visual carrier." The Commission's Notice of Inquiry (1 13) correctly points out that there is no visual carrier to be measured in a digital television signal. In response to the Commission's specific question (NOI, ¶ 13), the digital "pilot signal" is not a good substitute for the visual carrier in analog testing: the engineer doing the test should not simply measure the pilot power in a narrow band, and then attempt to determine the total power from this value. As Meintel Sgringnoli & Wallace explain, in doing field measurements, 269 multipath can create sharp peaks and valleys in the pilot signal that could easily cause large measurement errors. (What should be measured is discussed below.) Need for different measuring equipment. As explained in the MSW Engineering report, it will be necessary to use different equipment to measure digital signal strength than the field strength meters used to measure NTSC signal intensity. The Commission defines DTV signals by their integrated average power in a 6 MHz bandwidth. Id. The instrument used to measure digital field strength must therefore be able to tune to the center of the DTV RF channel and measure this integrated power over 6 MHz. Analog field strength meters cannot do this. MSW Engineering Statement, 1 58. As explained by Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace, however, there are several types of equipment that can perform this function. Id., q[ 59. Need for antenna with substantial gain. Digital signal testing should be done not with a simple dipole but with a directional antenna with substantial gain, such as the Channel Master 4228. As Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, use of an antenna with gain helps to ensure that the measured power levels (after line loss) are high enough to permit accurate measurements at all channel ranges. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 60. Since the Commission has assumed that consumers will "exert similar efforts" to receive digital signals as they have always done for analog signals, tests should continue to be conducted at 30 feet (for two- story homes) and 20 feet (for one- story homes). For similar reasons, and as discussed in detail above, the Commission should not permit testing to be done of indoor antennas. See MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 61. B. As with Analog Testing, Signal Strength Tests are the Best Way to Determine whether ~k s e h o l d s ~ankeceive Diaital Signals over the Air Next, the Commission asks (NOI, 1 14) whether it should recommend use of objective signal strength -- or some other metric -- to determine whether a household can receive an over- 270 the- air digital signal. As it turns out, empirical data from thousands of site tests show that signal strength is a very good proxy for availability of digital service. (With new improvements in receivers, signal strength will be an even better proxy for digital service in the near future.) Notwithstanding the digital "cliff effect," a digital picture quality test would pose problems similar to those that led both Congress and the FCC consistently (since 1988) to reject a picture quality test for determining whether a household is "served by an over- the- air analog TV station. As Congress and the Commission have recognized, it is preferable to have a highly reliable -- although necessarily imperfect -- objective standard than a highly "political" and easy- to- abuse subjective standard. For analog television, it is well- established that Grade B intensity is an excellent proxy for the ability to achieve successful reception. More recently, the results of site tests in cities across the United States show that the FCC's minimum digital strength values (such as 41 dBu for Channel 38) are an excellent proxy for successful digital reception. As explained in the Engineering Statement of Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace, engineers have conducted thousands of field tests -- in 15 separate measurement programs across 12 different cities - to evaluate both (i) whether the ambientfield strength was above the FCC- specified minimums and (ii) if so, whether it was possible to achieve successful reception at that location. MSW Engineering Statement, 1 64. Engineers developed a statistic called the "System Performance Index": the percentage of sites with signal levels above the FCC- defined minimums that also successfully achieved DTV reception. In essence, this statistic measures how well digital signal strength functions as a proxy for the ability to receive a high- quality picture. 271 Importantly, the "System Performance Index" percentages achieved in the tests done from 1994 through 2001 are undoubtedly much lower than would be achieved if the same tests were done today. The reason is that the receivers used for the tests done from 1994- 2001 were much less sophisticated than later generations of receivers, and in particular than the much- improved fifth generation receivers, which do far better at resolving difficult multipath problems. See MSW Engineering Statement, ¶'l[ 65- 66. Since DIRECTV and EchoStar can easily incorporate higher- quality receiver chips into their set- top boxes going forward, the real- world System Performance Index figures will be even higher in the future. In any event, even with relatively low- quality, now- obsolete receivers, the average System Performance Index across the 15 digital testing programs was 90%. MSW Engineering Statement, 'l[ 68. In the small minority of instances in which ambient digital field strength was above threshold but successful reception was not achieved, the causes are usually. multipath or interference problems. Id. But since the latest generation of receivers do so much better at handling difficult reception environments, even this low rate of reception problems will decline substantially during the period (starting in May 2006) when digital testing is authorized for purposes of SHVAISHVERA. NAB anticipates that some commenters may urge use of a "picture quality" test instead of a signal strength test. While it is true that a small group of highly- trained and experienced engineers have both measured field strength and evaluated digital picture quality for purposes of evaluating competing digital television systems (such as 8- VSB vs. COFDM),~ evaluating - 17/ In the testing done in Charlotte for the Grand Alliance, engineers evaluated the picture quality achieved with analog signals. Nevertheless, the SHVA provides for a strictly objective signal strength test for over- the- air analog reception. The fact that picture quality tests are done 272 whether digital reception has been achieved by watching the picture on a screen nevertheless requires subjective judgments. As Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, while a DTV set often displays a blank (or blue) screen when there is a reception problem, at times a DTV picture may suffer from "blockine~ s'~ or sometimes a freeze frame. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 70. While a small group of highly- trained engineers have counted such "impairments" in tests conducted during the digital planning process, determining whether a momentary event counts as an "impairment" is necessarily a subjective assessment, just as with analog television. Id. To complicate matters further, DTV receivers often use "error concealment" (such as repeating information from the previous frame) that can hide the errors on static portions of the picture -- so that the "lost packets" may or may not be visible on the screen. Id. For all of these reasons, assessing whether the picture is "flawed" at a given moment, and counting the total flaws, calls for subtle and complicated judgment calls. Id. Because the results of field testing by experienced engineers show that objective signal strength is an excellent proxy for the availability of a high- quality digital picture, there is no need for such subtle judgments to be made in field testing at individual households for purposes of SHVAISHVERA. And there is no way that such difficult subjective judgments could be made neutrally and accurately -- much less consistently -- by a wide variety of testing personnel around the country, with far less experience in making such judgments, and often with the homeowner standing nearby urging the tester to give the picture a "bad grade" so that the household will be deemed unserved. Since objective signal strength is such a good proxy for by engineers in evaluating a television delivery method therefore does not mean that a picture quality test should be done in the field for testing individual households. 273 successful reception -- even with early- generation receivers -- the Commission should continue to rely on objective signal strength as the legal standard. It should reject a subjective standard, which the DBS industry used in the 1990s to sign up millions of illegal subscribers for distant signals. While there exists an additional objective method (beyond signal strength) that could be used to evaluate picture quality, the Commission should not endorse it: as Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, this method is highly complex and requires specialized equipment. MSW Engineering Statement, 72- 73. C. The Longley- Rice Model Is Very Accurate At Predicting Whether Signal Strength At Particular Locations Is Above Or Below DTV Minimums, But There Are Practical Issues About Use Of A "Digital ILLR" Model For SHVERA Purposes In principle, the Longley- Rice model does an excellent job of predicting whether particular locations can receive a signal above the DTV minimums. And should it be necessary -- after the digital transition is complete -- to predict whether particular households can receive DTV signals, the Longley- Rice model is the best candidate for that task. (Of course, there may be no need to do that, because digital local- to- local may be universal at that point.) Despite Longley- Rice's demonstrated excellence as a predictive model, in the short run, there are serious concerns about allowing DBS companies to use Longley- Rice as a basis for delivering distant digital signals based on the claimed absence of a digital signal over the air. These concerns arise, for example, from the fact that very few translator stations have channel assignments, much less fully functioning facilities, and that many full- power stations will not be subject to digital testing until July 2007 or later. These concerns no doubt lie behind Congress' decision not to permit DBS companies to serve subscribers based on a prediction about the lack of an over- the- air digital signal. In the interim, however, satellite companies can rely on the 274 analog ILLR model to deliver distant digital signals to subscribers who are predicted to be unable to receive an analog station affiliated with the relevant network. 1. The Results of Thousands of Digital Signal Tests Show that Longlev- Rice is a Highly Accurate Model In its Notice of Inquiry, the Commission states that the Longley- Rice model is "an accurate, practical, and readily available model for determining signal intensity at individual locations when used with analog signals." (NOI, 'j 15). That conclusion is amply justified: as the data developed in the Commission's prior SHVA proceedings attests, Longley- Rice has an excellent track record of predicting whether particular locations receive a signal above Grade B intensity. As detailed in the Engineering Statement of Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace, a similar conclusion applies to use of Longley- Rice to predict digital signal strength. In recent years, engineers have performed thousands of digital signal intensity tests in 12 different U. S. cities. Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace have analyzed these digital data using the same principle the Commission applied in analyzing analog data in its 2000 ILLR Order: that is, they compared the Longley- Rice predictions for these locations with the actual measured signal strength for the same locations. In each case, the question was whether the prediction -- or the measurement -- was above or below the noise- limited contour values specified in the Commission's rules for DTV signals. These real- world empirical data show that the Longley- Rice model does very well when judged against actual measurements of digital signal strength. Across all channel bands, Longley- Rice correctly predicted 94.4% of the time that the signal would be above (or below) the DTV minimum. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 76. Indeed, the relevant percentage is even higher -- 96.9% -- if one includes instances of underprediction, where the Longley- Rice model 275 predicts that the location is below the minimum signal strength but it is measured to be above that level. (DBS companies and their customers, of course, benefit from this type of "error," while local TV stations are hurt by it.) 2. Although Longley- Rice Will Work Well Once the Digital Television System is Fully Operational, There Are Major Practical Concerns About Giving Legal Effect Now to Predictions of Digital Field Strength As discussed above, the Longley- Rice model does an excellent job of predicting whether a particular location can, or cannot, receive an over- the- air signal above the DTV minimums over the air. Because of the continuing rapid evolution of digital broadcasting, however, and in light of Congress' decision to exempt many transmitters from having their digital signal strength evaluated when they cannot be expected to broadcast in digital, there are serious concerns about whether a "digital ILLR" model makes sense in the near term. As Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, the next several years can be divided into two distinct periods: the long term, after the transition from analog to digital TV broadcasting is complete, and the short term, before that date. MSW Engineering Statement, 'l[ m81- 85. In the long term, when the transition to digital is complete, there may be a need for a digital Longley- Rice model to predict which households are "unserved" over the air. (There may not be any such need, because the DBS firms may have rolled out digital local- to- local service in all markets by then.) As discussed above, DIRECTV has already announced aggressive plans to deliver more than 1,500 local stations in high- definition by 2007, beginning with stations in 24 markets (covering 45% of U. S. television households) this year. As DIRECTV's digital local- to- local coverage increases, distant digital signals -- and the need to predict local digital signals -- will become irrelevant, given the "if local, no distant" rule adopted by SHVERA. 276 EchoStar has not yet announced its detailed plans for digital local- to- local service. But so long as the Commission does not create incentives for EchoStar to declare large numbers of urban and suburban subscribers to be "unserved" over the air -- as it unlawfully did with analog -- EchoStar is likely to be forced to match its cable and DBS competitors in ramping up digital local- to- local service. In short, this pro- consumer competition to offer local digital and HD signals will make both measurement and prediction of over- the- air signal strength irrelevant in a growing number of markets - and perhaps in all 210 markets by the time the transition is complete. And given Echostar's past abuse of analog predictive models -- including its manipulation of the analog ILLR model with three improper factors designed to treat additional customers as "unserved" -- there is special reason for caution in creating a predictive model that would, as a practical matter, ,, be used only by the company with the worst compliance record in the television industry. See CBS Broadcasting Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d at 1248- 50 (describing unlawful manipulations of analog ILLR model by EchoStar). In any event, here are some of the practical problems with applying the Longley- Rice model in the near future: a. Congress has postponed the date on which mans broadcast stations can have their digital signals evaluated. In the SHVERA, Congress recognized that it would be unfair to punish a station for failing to deliver a digital signal when it cannot reasonably be expected to do so. The SHVERA therefore includes an unavoidably complex system for deciding which stations are eligible to have their digital signals tested. 39 U. S. C. 5 339( a)( 2)( d)( vii) (" Trigger Dates for Testing"). The schedule includes the following timetable: 277 April 30,2006 trigper date for testing: stations in the top 100 markets that (i) have chosen a tentative digital television service channel designation that is the same as the station's current digital television service channel, and (ii) that have not been granted a testing waiver pursuant to 39 U. S. C. 8 339( a)( 2)( d)( vii); and stations in the top 100 markets that have been found by the Commission to have lost interference protection. Julv 15,2007 trigger date for testing: stations in the top 100 markets that (i) have chosen a tentative digital television service channel designation that is different from the station's current digital television service channel, and (ii) that have not been granted a testing waiver pursuant to 39 U. S. C. 8 339( a)( 2)( d)( vii); and stations below the top 100 markets that have not been granted a testing waiver pursuant to 39 U. S. C. 8 339( a)( 2)( d)( vii). Unknown future trigger dates for testing: translator stations will be subject to testing "one year after the date on which the Commission completes all actions necessary for the allocation and assignment of digital television licenses to television translator stations," except to the extent that the translator station has been granted a testing waiver pursuant to 39 U. S. C. 8 339( a)( 2)( d)( ix); full- power stations that have obtained testing waivers will continue to be exempt from testing for as long as the Commission continues to approve six- month extensions of an existing waiver. 278 MSW Engineering Statement, 1 85. ****************** To protect stations from a draconian loss of local viewers due to circumstances beyond their control, Congress has thus created a complex and -- necessarily -- somewhat unpredictable schedule for when particular stations can have their digital signal evaluated. (Since Congress barred site testing of certain station's digital signals, it would be equally improper to subject them to Longley- Rice predictions about those same signals.) There is serious reason to doubt whether a system so complex and rapidly- changing will lead to accurate results. b. Those stations exempt from having their digital signals evaluated would need analog predictions in the interim. Under the Satellite Home Viewer Act and its successors, a household is unserved if it cannot receive a signal from any tower transmitting a station affiliated with the relevant network (say, .ABC). Thus, if a household can receive a signal from a translator that retransmits the signal of an ABC station, the household is not eligible to receive a distant ABC station. See 17 U. S. C. 9 119( d)( 2)( A) (definition of "network station" includes "any translator station or terrestrial satellite station that rebroadcasts all or substantially all of the programming broadcast by a network station"). Similarly, if the household can receive a signal from a nearby ABC station in a different market, it is ineligible to receive a distant ABC station, whether or not the household can receive the station in its own DMA over the air. See CBS Broadcasting Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d at 1249 (describing improper exclusion by EchoStar of signals from stations in other DMAs). As described above, Congress has decreed that certain towers may not have their digital signal evaluated until some time in the future: stations in markets 101- 210 may not be evaluated before July 2007 at the earliest; translator stations may not be evaluated until a much later date; 279 and individual stations that receive temporary testing waivers from the Commission will have varying dates on which their digital signals are subject to evaluation. This schedule creates a practical conundrum: if a station cannot be tested -- and therefore could not have its digital signal evaluated in the Longley- Rice model -- how is the station to be treated in the testing or prediction process? Meintel Sgringnoli & Wallace give the example of household near the Shenandoah Mountains in Virginia that is predicted to (and does) receive an analog signal of a Washington, D. C. network affiliate from a translator station. Congress has directed that the digital signal of this translator station cannot be evaluated until some future date - which is only fair, since the translator does not even have a digital channel assignment as of now. How should this translator tower be treated for purposes of tests or predictions? What Congress must have had in mind is that, if a station is not yet eligible to have its digital coverage evaluated, one must look to the station's analog service. Thus, when a test is performed, the engineer must look both for the digital signal of any affiliate of the relevant network (say, ABC) and also for the analog signal of any tower in the area that is not yet subject to digital testing. This is the logical way to give stations "credit" for their coverage when they have been excused -- for the time being -- from digital testing. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 89. The need to conduct both digital and analog tests, and to determine which stations are and are not subject to digital testing, will add further complexity to the task of conducting tests starting in April 2006 pursuant to SHVERA. Adding these additional twists to a nationwide predictive model, however, may take matters over the edge. c. Station channel assignments are still in flux. The "repacking" process, designed to place all digital TV stations in Channels 2- 51, is ongoing. And under the 280 timetable announced last week in MM Docket No. 03- 15, not until August 2006 will the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a new DTV Table of Allotments, which will then be subject to comment by the public and potentially to significant revision by the Commission thereafter. The continuing movement by stations to different channels will add a further challenge to both the testing process and to application of the Longley- Rice model. D. Even If Congress Does Not Alter the Act to Make Subscribers Eligible Based on Predictions about Digital Service, the Law Already Authorizes Signups for Distant Digital Signals Based on the Analog ILLR Model The "three- dimensional chess" quality of a digital Longley- Rice model applied in the current transitional environment no doubt explains why Congress elected to rely on field measurements, rather than a predictive model, to decide whether individual subscribers can receive distant digital signals based on the claimed absence of an over- the- air digital signal. That is, when a test is conducted, knowledgeable people- on the ground (such as station personnel) can at least try to ensure that the tester knows the relevant facts. But when a satellite carrier runs a computerized predictive model at its headquarters, there is little a station can do to protect itself. At the same time, in an ideal world, it is desirable to be able to rely on a predictive model as well as measurements. Fortunately, the Act allows DBS companies to sign up subscribers for distant digital signals -- based on the well- defined analog TLLR model, with which both broadcasters and DBS companies have years of experience. That is, under pre- existing law, as extended by SHVERA, the DBS firms can retransmit a digital signal of (for example) an ABC station to a household that is predicted to be unable to receive an analog signal of an ABC station over the air. While imperfect, there is an undeniable logic to this interim rule, since the goal of the digital transition is, after all, to replicate TV stations' analog coverage areas. In any event, both DBS companies and their subscribers will continue to enjoy the convenience of relying on a predictive computer model to determine eligibility to receive distant digital signals. 281 E. "Fifth Generation" Receivers, Which The DBS Firms Can Build Into Their Set- Top Boxes, Do Much Better In Handling Difficult ~eception Environments Finally, the Commission asks (¶ 7) about the differences in reception ability between different types of digital TV sets and digital receivers. We provide the Commission in this section, and in the accompanying engineering report, with extensive data responsive to that question. Even though the tests were done with early- generation receivers, real- world field tests show that the availability of a signal above the DTV minimum signal strength is a very good proxy for ability to receive a high- quality DTV picture. See above. Conveniently, that already high success rate will shoot up still further in the near future: fifth generation DTV receivers achieve much better performance in the difficult reception environments (such as multipath) that contributed to the small number of reception failures in past tests. Since satellite subscribers regularly replace their set- top boxes for a wide variety of reasons, and since DirecTV and EchoStar firms are currently in the process of switching their customers to new set- top boxes to use MPEG- 4 compression, it will be a simple matter for most DBS customers to be able to take advantage of this advanced technology. We anticipate that some commenters may urge that the Commission must assume use of outdated receivers because some subscribers have such receivers. But as previously discussed, even with early- generation receivers, DTV signal intensity is a very good proxy for actual DTV reception -- making the "which generation of receivers" issue of little relevance. Moreover, while the DBS companies have tens of millions of subscribers, the number of DBS subscribers who have high- definition receivers is only a tiny fraction of the DBS companies' total subscriber base. And even among those households, only a few will be unable (even with an older receiver) to translate an above- minimum field strength into a digital picture. 282 In response to the Commission's questions, NAB'S outside engineers have provided a detailed description of advances in digital receiver technology. See MSW Engineering Statement, 93- 103. In brief, there have been several generations of 8- VSB receivers during the digital era, with the most important advances being realized in the fifth generation boxes. As a recent paper published in an IEEE journal discusses, the new generation of receivers conquers difficult reception problems -- such as multipath -- that confounded earlier generations of receivers. See T. Laud, M. Aitken, W, Bretl, & K. Kwak, Pei$ omzance of 5th Generation 8- VSB Receivers, 50 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, No. 4 (Nov. 2004) (Attachment 3 hereto). This remarkable improvement has been seen both in lab tests (against so- called "ensembles" of heavily- multipathed signals) and in field tests, in which engineers have returned to extremely difficult environments (such as Rosslyn; Virginia) that were part of the small minority of locations that, using previous generations of receivers, had adequate signal strength but nevertheless had reception problems. The improvements have been so dramatic that previous critics of the 8- VSB system, such as Sinclair Broadcasting, now strongly endorse that system based on the results of testing of fifth- generation receivers. MSW Engineering Statement, 1 114 (quoting Sinclair representatives). 283 F. The Addition of an Extra Clutter Factor for DTV Would Make the Longley- Rice Model Less Accurate in Predicting Whether Households Can Receive the Minimum DTV Field Strength The Commission also asks (NOI, ¶ 7) whether it should add an extra "clutter" factor to the standard digital Longley- Rice model. As Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace explain, the Longley- Rice model is partially based on actual field measurements, and thus already takes clutter into account to a significant degree, because clutter affects real- world field measurements. MSW Engineering Statement, ¶ 77. In any event, as the Commission found in 2000, whether a special "clutter factor" will improve the accuracy of the Longley- Rice model is a question that can and should be addressed by empirical data. In Re Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations, First Report and Order, FCC 00- 185 (May 26,2000). Since no predictive model can achieve 100% accuracy, see NO1 1 15 n. 14, the criteria for evaluating whether a predictive model is functioning well are (1) whether it achieves a high level of accurate predictions and (2) whether its errors are roughly balanced between overpredictions and underpredictions. In evaluating the analog ILLR model in 2000, the Commission found that adding a clutter factor for analog UHF channels was desirable, because the model was otherwise somewhat tilted towards overpredictions. On the other hand, the Commission found that adding a clutter favor for analog VHF channels would make it less accurate by tilting it towards underpredictions. In Re Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations, First Report and Order, FCC 00- 185 (May 26,2000). Meintel Sgrignoli & Wallace have performed a similar analysis of the Longley- Rice model for digital signals, looking at the small percentage of predictive errors to determine how they split between over- and underpredictions. MSW Engineering Report, 78- 79. The 284 analysis shows that the model is already in balance without the addition of any additional clutter factor. A special clutter factor would put a thumb on one side of the scale and therefore reduce, not enhance, the accuracy of the Longley- Rice model for digital signals. Conclusion For these reasons, the Commission should make recommendations concerning testing and prediction of over- the- air digital signals in accordance with the suggestions discussed above. Respectfully submitted, Marsha J. MacBride Benjamin F. P. Ivins Kelly Williams NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 1771 N Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 June 17,2005 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 Paul Robinson bove all else ... We shall go on ..." From the Desk of: =... And continue!" To the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission: Enclosed are 5 copies of my reply to the Commission's inquiry in docket 05- 182, "Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act." Sincerely Yours, Paul Robinson "A computer prognunrner and Notvy Public m and for the Commonwealth of Virgin&, at large" General Manager Robinson Telephone Company No. of Copies rec'd a List ABCDE 4300 S . 35'h Street #A- 2 0 Arlington, VA 22206- 1834 703 93 1 1147 351 \ MAY 2 5 Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of 1 ) Technical Standards for Detmining Eligibility ) ) ET DWketNo. 05- 182 For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and \ Reauthorization Act ) Response by May 18,2005 Paul Robinson General Manager Robinson Telephone Company of the National Capital Area 4300 35* Street South #A- 2 Arlington, VA 22206- 1834 Telephone 703- 931- 1 147 In the Commission's request for comments, it raises a number of issues which are significant to the carriage of digital signals from a distant market into an area which may or may not be served with a satisfactory quality signal even within the grade- b contour of a local station. Among the issues the commission has raised, or apparently has raised, is whether a statistical estimate or computer- based analysis system is adequate for determining signal strength for grade- b coverage or whether other methods are necessary. In this respondent's opinion, more needs to be taken into account than the theoretical or expected reception level which general engineering estimates would apparently indicate is adequate to supply a level of signal adequate for reception. While the Commission has provided that for certain classes of communications, local authorities (including land owners and condominium associations as well as cities and states, by statute) may not prohibit or restrict the use of certain devices (such as small satellite dishes), or require use of someone else's facilities (such as in the case of use of unlicenced wireless spectrum for construction of computer networks), there are permissible restrictions such as not permitting device installation in areas the party wishing to install the device does not have ownership or control over (such as making it permissible to prohibit installing a satellite dish in a common area of a condominium complex.) The issue of where a digital antenna may be installed as well as the type of antenna which may be installed is relevant. Antennas do not always vary in quality simply on the basis of price; sometimes inexpensive antennas from one manufacturer may do a better job at providing an adequate quality signals over antennas from other manufacturers which are more expensive. Also, while engineering analysis may dictate that signal quality is adequate in a specific area, a 352 Response of Paul Robinson - Docket No. 05- 182 Page 2 of 4 pure engineering analysis may miss real world conditions that dictate otherwise. It is one thing to determine that by engineering analysis that an area is reasonably within a satisfactory quality grade- b signal, it’s another to discover the engineering analysis is flawed because it presumes customers can install outdoor antennas, a practice which may not be available. Measurements may, and in fact should, take into account differences between densely populated urban areas, and lightly populated rural areas. The Commission should take into account the classification of the general environment of a particular class of coverage, in that, for example, in a dense urban area, most people may be living in multi- story apartment buildings or in condominium complexes and may be unable to install an external antenna, either because they have no access right to any outdoor space (as in the case of someone living in a condominium that has no private yard) or because they have no outdoor space at all (someone living in a multistory apartment building without a balcony.). Where engineering estimates would probably show that yes, a satisfactory quality signal is available within the grade- b contour, such estimates must take into account that for a particular area, most if not all antennas may be indoor only. If a person lives in a multi- story building and their apartment does not have a balcony, an external antenna clearly is impossible and this should be taken into account. In allowing a station to exclude distant signals the onus should be on the local station to show that it is able to supply adequate signal quality within the grade- b contour on the basis of actual measurements that realistically match real- world conditions of a majority of persons who would allegedly receive their signal. In determining signal measurement, an equivalent number of actual measurement points should be required relative to some percentage figure relative to the general population of the area which it is claimed by the station to be able to receive its signal, and the reception points should be such that they are in multiple areas of the grade- b contour region, such that whatever measurement is made is a fair representation of what generally should be expected of persons using receiving equipment in the grade- b region. For example, if an estimate of 1% of the population of the grade- b contour is considered what is necessary to be selected, and the estimated population of that particular region, based on engineering estimates of signal strength, indicates that 150,000 people live in that region, then the station should be required to collect 1500 measurements. Such measurements, ideally, would be from the fringe points of what is claimed to be the edge of the grade- b contour, as well as measurements within the contour. Quite possibly, a random selection of points may be more appropriate. Such measurements, where made, should be as close to real- world conditions as would be 353 Response of Paul Robinson - Docket No. 05- 1 82 Page 3 of 4 expected, presumably, by asking residents who live at the selected or computed points, to allow the party performing the measurements to do so from within their home. It is quite likely that people will be delighted to participate, as most people would prefer to have someone see if they are not receiving adequate reception. As such testing probably would run no more than 5 minutes or so, the request would not be overly burdensome for the home’s resident. In the conducting of such tests, a range of antennas should be required. The Commission should survey electronics, home repair and television stores, either by visit, by examining regular advertising materials, or by telephone call, the range and price of available antennas suitable for this purpose. The Commission should probably perform an engineering analysis of several brands and types of antennas, with a view in most cases to using the least expensive model of antennas that are generally available for commercial purchase, as well as the antennas that tend to be of less quality over higher quality. The Commission should then show which brands of antennas it used and recommend these. for testing purposes. The reason for this rationale is that most people purchasing electronic equipment are not technically sophisticated. They will probably presume all antennas are the same and purchase either the least expensive or that are the least intrusive looking in terms of appearance. Also, if testing is done with inexpensive and low quality antennas, and the quality of reception levels are still adequate, then anyone using more expensive or higher quality antennas could reasonably be expected to have equal or better results. Stations may also be permitted to use more expensive and/ or better quality antennas in addition to the above testing factors to show that their signal is reasonably accessible, as long as the price of the antenna is within a reasonable range of typical prices for retail purchase of antennas. The same provisions should apply to digital receivers and digital television sets. The commission should also examine issues of the difference between reception using a digital to analog adapter, and an actual television set capable of digital reception, as there may be differences between reception in both cases even where the two devices come from the same manufacturer. Also, it should be noted most people are unlikely to be willing to discard perfectly satisfactory analog television sets in order to purchase expensive digital televisions that cmntly do not really provide any significant improvement in picture quality at this time. The Commission should also provide for the invalidation of a station’s claim of adequate reception based on some criteria showing the data provided to have too much error. For 354 Response of Paul Robinson - Docket No. 05- 1 82 Page 4 of 4 example, if a third party takes similar measurements at identical or near- identical points as the station did, and frnds that over some number of measurements provide lower quality or unsatisfactory quality signal (for example, let’s use 5%, meaning that of the 1500 measurement points given in the above example, if more than 5% are incorrect, or 75 do not provide the same reading) then the station’s measurement claiming satisfactory quality signal levels are being received in the grade- b contour should be considered invalid and a privilege to exclude distant signals be revoked for some period, until new measurements which correct these errors has been made and recertified by the station or the company that performed the tests for the station. The period could be some factor such as six months from when a new measurement causes decertification of a station’s test results, or until new results are certified, whichever is later. This would give an incentive for stations to make sure the evidence they provide is correct, as if it is found to have errors, they lose the privilege of mandating exclusivity from distant signals for at least six months. A third party should be permitted to present the evidence to the Commission which will then allow the television station to rebut such evidence provided to show otherwise. In the event the station does not satisfactorily rebut the evidence, the original test shall be considered invalid and distant stations may be received by persons in the area where the failed test occurred. The Commission may set range limits for invalidating test results, such that where a test is made it may simply invalidate those areas of grade b coverage and points beyond them until 6 months later or a recertified test result is made, whichever is later, or it may invalidate the entire test, or whatever it determines is the best choice under the circumstances. Also, the results of such tests and any potential defeating claims should be considered part of the material made available by a station as part of its license and other records that are subject to public inspection in order that other parties have access to the data the station is using in the event they wish to confirm whether the test results available are or are not valid.. Resuectfullv Submitted, Paul Rob& on “A computer programmer and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large.” General Manager Robinson Telephone Company May 18,2005 355 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act ) ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 05- 182 June 17, 2005 Response by: Viamorph, Inc. 200 Innovation Blvd. Ste. 211 State College, PA 16803 Telephone 814- 689- 1729 Peter Bradshaw, Director of Business Development John Ross, Vice- President for Research and Development David Koller, Senior Systems Engineer Viamorph, Inc. submits these comments in reply to the Notice of Inquiry ET Docket No. 05- 182, In the Matter of Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility For Satellite- Delivered Network Signals Pursuant To the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act. About Viamorph Viamorph Inc. is a manufacturer and licensor of antenna technologies with applications in digital television. Viamorph is introducing to the consumer marketplace a new class of antennas that automatically adjusts their electrical shapes in response to changes in environment and signal conditions so as to maintain optimal performance at all times. This new technology, which we call DiSA™ (Digital Smart Antenna), is embodied in an antenna that can change virtually all of its electrical characteristics including gain, pattern and beamwidth. DiSA™ antennas operate in conjunction with receiver resident software which performs the signal analysis and controls the antenna configuration. Introductory Comments In order to assess the DTV experience from the consumer viewpoint, Viamorph conducted an extensive review of the comments available at numerous internet fora such as www. avsforum. com and product reviews at sites like www. circuitcity. com. As it is rare for reviewers to state all the particulars of their equipment and location etc., our methodology was necessarily simple - we assigned comments and reviews into broad subjective categories. Nonetheless, we believe that those sources are a wealth of 356 2 valuable qualitative information regarding the DTV experience. In addition, we distributed a more structured questionnaire via a few of the fora. Our comments are based in part on the conclusions derived from all of those activities. Some results of our research: · For any particular antenna, customer reviews ran the gamut from very negative to very positive. A negative review is one in which the reviewer makes an explicit recommendation against the product and/ or reports less than complete ability to receive all the local stations. While reviewers rarely indicated whether they were in urban, suburban or exurban environments we note that many reviewers indicated an ability to receive all the analog signals available to them but not all the digital signals. · Many reviewers reported complete satisfaction with their antennas, stating they were able to receive all the available digital signals with minimum effort. · Reviewers frequently report the need to make nearly continuous adjustments to their antennas, especially (but not only) when changing channels. · Many reviewers have tried at least two antennas, some going through three or more, and still had varying degrees of success. · Conflicting reviews were prevalent. For every antenna recommendation other reviewers reported that it didn’t work for them. We are also pleased to provide the Commission with comments due to a study conducted by Viamorph’s Vice- President of Research and Development, John Ross, Ph. D., PE. Dr. Ross is an expert in applied electromagnetics and specializes in computer analysis, and design of vehicular antennas, wideband, and re- configurable antennas. While Dr. Ross was able, eventually, to receive most of the available DTV channels in Salt Lake City, Utah, it is clear that the level of expertise and effort required to do so is beyond the vast majority of consumers. We also recommend Dr. O. Bendov’s 1999 paper “On the Validity of the Longley- Rice (50, 90/ 10) Propagation Model For HDTV Coverage and Interference Analysis” which documents the numerous shortcomings of the ILLR and the 50/ 90/ 10 methods. The paper is available at http:// www. dielectric. com/ broadcast/ longley- rice. asp. His conclusion: “Analysis of the available field test results coupled with key theoretical considerations shows that a modification of the LR model will be required before it could be effectively used for HDTV coverage and interference prediction.” The consumer experience has shown that this conclusion may be an understatement. Among our conclusions based on the above, we believe that any predictive model must include methods to account for the wide and frequently unpredictable performance of the antennas available to consumers. Comments to the specific items of the Notice The Commission states in item 6 of the Notice, “These criteria presume that households will exert similar efforts to receive DTV broadcast stations as they have always been expected to exert to receive NTSC analog TV signals.” Our research indicates the level of effort (and not incidentally, expense) required for consumers to receive DTV signals OTA is often considerably greater than that required for analog signals. In our comments below we supply considerable justification for this conclusion. With regard to item 7 of the Notice, Dr. Ross supplies the following comment: This seems to be a significant issue based on my experience here in downtown Salt Lake City. My existing analog television service is very good. These signals are received via a directional outdoor antenna (with rotator). Despite the fact that the system performs very well for analog television, it did not perform well with a DTV receiver. Specifically, I found 357 3 that the first time I connected the receiver to this antenna system the DTV receiver did not find a single one of the 10 available stations during the channel scan process. With regard to item 9 of the Notice , our research indicates that aiming and antenna directivity issues are critical for many, if not most, consumers. Consider this typical comment at www. avsforum. com: Some around here (No Va) can use the wider beam to get Balt and Wash without a rotator. Others will suffer multipath from that. Bite the bullet and call in the pros. Respondents to our questionnaire also typically indicated the need to reorient their antenna in order to receive various channels and even then, respondents were frequently unable to receive all the DTV channels in their area. Consider too, the article by Philip Yam in the June 2005 issue of Scientific American magazine, subtitled ‘Receiving HDTV over the air takes luck and lots of patience’. The article opens Keep the antenna level. Rotate it 90 degrees. Move it a few inches to the left. Stand to the right. Hold it a bit higher & there-- nope. Try again. We conclude that a fixed antenna is not a viable DTV antenna solution for many consumers. We further note that aiming is more difficult for DTV than for NTSC. According to the FCC’s definitions, the difference in Signal- to- Interference ratio (SIR) between an unusable and a (merely) passable NTSC picture is approximately 20 dB. This allows a consumer to see gradual improvement or reduction in picture quality as he makes antenna adjustments, and makes it easy for him to optimize antenna orientation. In ATSC, the difference in SIR between an unusable and an excellent picture is less than 5dB, which makes it difficult for the consumer to see the effect of his antenna adjustments. As the consumer adjusts his antenna to receive a signal, he will often see no picture until he happens to orient the antenna in a direction in which the SIR exceeds Threshold of Visibility (TOV), and once this happens he may have no way of maximizing the SIR above TOV. As a result, the antenna may be oriented in a direction where the SIR is marginally above that required for TOV, and any reduction in signal strength due to the motion of people or vehicles, or changes in atmospherics will cause a loss of picture. And, of course, this adjustment procedure must be repeated for ATSC channels received from different directions. Frequently, the aiming operation must occur every time the viewer changes the channel. With regard to items 10 and 11 of the Notice, we believe that the assumptions regarding the receiving system are unrealistic. We are unaware of any antenna available to consumers to date, at any price, which is optimized on a channel by channel basis as is the test antenna. Additionally, assuming optimal antenna orientation necessarily implies a rotor or other consumer controlled pointing mechanism. We have commented elsewhere that antenna aiming is considerably more important and difficult for DTV than for NTSC. The assumption that a receiving antenna may be optimally oriented is therefore unrealistic. We also note that the gain of an antenna is additionally dependent on the intended frequency and bandwidth of operation. The Commission is aware that reception of distant signals usually calls for an antenna system with multiple elements, each designed for use at certain frequencies. For example, many, if not most, outdoor antenna installations incorporate separate elements for UHF and VHF reception. While those antennas are designed to provide the best gain performance in the intended band of operation, their gain performance at any particular frequency is lower than an optimal antenna for that particular frequency. The assumption that the receiving antenna is optimally chosen for frequency is therefore also unrealistic. With regard to item 11 of the notice, Viamorph is introducing to the consumer marketplace a new class of antennas that automatically adjusts their electrical shapes in response to changes in environment and signal conditions so as to maintain optimal performance at all times. This new technology, which we call 358 4 DiSA™ (Digital Smart Antenna) is embodied in an antenna that can change virtually all of its electrical characteristics including gain, orientation and pattern as required. DiSA™ antennas operate in conjunction with receiver resident software which performs the signal analysis and controls the antenna configuration. The DiSA™ antenna solves most of the other thorny problems inherent in making a predictive model which must of necessity include consideration of antenna characteristics. The Commission is aware of the fact that currently available antennas are designed for optimal operation at certain frequencies and bandwidths. An antenna designed for distant reception of low VHF signals will most likely not have sufficient gain to receive distant UHF signals. This fact explains the widespread usage of multiple element antenna systems with, for example, both log- periodic and bow- tie elements. Due to its unique properties, the DiSA™ antenna operates efficiently across a wide frequency band. We are currently using prototype models which demonstrate wide tunable bandwidth. One typical example proved usable from 50 MHz to over 800 MHz. Thus the consumer will need only one DiSA™ antenna regardless of ultimate broadcaster channel elections. The DiSA™ antenna can be “pointed” to virtually any azimuth entirely by controlling internal switches – the antenna does not physically move. This azimuthal selection can be accomplished in milliseconds. This feature re- enables the viewer to channel surf as he no longer needs to get up to adjust the antenna each time he hits a button on the remote. In essence, the DiSA™ finally brings the convenience of the remote control to OTA DTV. The DiSA™ antenna thus avoids both the added expense of a rotor mechanism and the consumer effort of manual pointing. The DiSA™ antenna form factor is amenable to indoor or outdoor mounting. The “standard model” today is a flat, rectangular package about 60 cm by 40 cm (approximately 23 inches by 16 inches) on a side and only 10 cm (less than two inches) thick. The DiSA™ antenna technology can be even be non-planar. We ask the Commission to note that indoor mounting necessarily implies lower gain and also entails yet another level of variability due to the various construction materials that might be encountered such as the wire plaster backer used in many older, exurban homes. Viamorph believes that the term ‘performance’ should not be limited to strictly technical characteristics but should also include considerations of price, convenience, range of applicability and so on. Concluding Comments We believe that any predictive model must include methods to account for the wide and frequently unpredictable performance of the antennas available to consumers. It is our opinion that an accurate model would have to encompass extremely detailed geographical, botanical, atmospheric and other data. Due to the complexity and the lack of data such an effort seems impracticable. If such a model could be created, we estimate the uncertainty would be on the order of 10 dB or more. We are convinced that no model which does not account for, in some way, the receiving antenna characteristics, is doomed to make grossly inaccurate predictions. Supposing a model were to be created as in the above paragraph, coupling its uncertainty with the wide range of antenna operation and placement factors produces a model with such a great degree of uncertainty as to be essentially useless. We are pleased to bring the fact of an entirely new antenna technology to the Commission’s awareness. Viamorph will be happy to provide additional information at the Commission’s request. Respectfully submitted, Peter Bradshaw 359 5 Viamorph, Inc. Submitted June 17, 2005 360