[fredfa]

From Broadcasting & Cable:


Longley-Rice Stays on FCC Menu


By Bill McConnell -- Broadcasting & Cable, 5/25/2004 4:59:00 PM


When it comes to deciding when satellite providers may import out-of-market network-affiliate stations into local markets, broadcasters and satellite carriers disagree completely -- except on one thing.


Nearly every player in the long running dispute hates the way the FCC tweaked its most cost-effective option for figuring out which homes qualify for imported network programming.


Tuesday, the FCC said "too bad."


The commission upheld changes to the “Individual Location Longley-Rice†model, a mathematical calculation that allows engineers to predict when a home is getting an acceptable signal over the air from their local ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox affiliate.


If the calculation indicates a too-weak signal, then Echostar or DirecTV is allowed to sell the household a feed from a network affiliate hundreds of miles away. If the number-crunching shows a quality signal, then the local affiliate can claim to be those viewers' exclusive source of the network’s programming.


In 2000, the FCC reworked the Longley-Rice model to better account for obstructions caused by buildings and terrain. Echostar complained that the changes were based on incomplete data. Broadcasters complained that the model assumes a household is receiving over-the-air TV via a rooftop antenna, even though few of the people who get their TV over-the-air today use them.


The FCC stood by its methodology on both counts.


The Longley-Rice model is considered an affordable way to decided which customers may subscribe to imported channels. The alternative is sending expensively outfitted signal-measurement trucks to actually measure picture strength in a subscriber’s home.


Broadcasters and Echostar have been fighting for years over the satellite company’s offering of distant network signals. Broadcasters say Echostar has intentionally served thousands of ineligible subscribers, thus stealing audience for local stations. Broadcasters have recently used that as one argument against allowing satellite companies to start delivering DTV signals to homes that can't receive a TV station's digital signal.

 

[blitzen102]

Quote:

Originally posted by vurbano Have they ever addressed the issue of an affialiate not broadcasting its material in HD? IMO if its impossible to recieve because an affiliate wont upgrade their station facilities then why are consumers held hostage?

Huh? There's no requirement at all about HD - it's only about DTV.


Whether a network wants to do HD or not is completely up to them.

 

[Alan Dail]

is there somewhere online to see where you fall on this model?

 

[Chezbrgr2]

Quote:

Originally posted by blitzen102 Whether a network wants to do HD or not is completely up to them.

The networks have already decided to to HD, Vurbano is right it's the little affiliates who have decided what is acceptable to pass on to you.


I say if a show on a major network is in HD, and my local affiliate refuses to upgrade to HD, then I should have the right to get it elsewhere.

 

[D-rock0030]

I totally agree. If an affiliate refuses to pass on the HD signal from their network and at a high bitrate then you should be allowed to go somewhere else and get the HD signal. I realize all the FCC cares about is if you can get any signal at your residence but it'd be nice if there were some kind of HDTV rule too.

 

[foxeng]

People still keep thinking the government cares whether you get HD or not. Well they don't. All they care about is reclaiming the spectrum and auctioning it off for billions of dollars. That is why there is NO mention of HD except for technical standards to be used when a station elects to send an HD signal. That is why there are 18 DIFFERENT LEGAL digital TV formats, including about 8 for HD. The government's motto, "Let the marketplace decide."

 

[fredfa]

re vurbano:

"...Have they ever addressed the issue of an affialiate not broadcasting its material in HD? IMO if its impossible to receive because an affiliate wont upgrade their station facilities then why are consumers held hostage?"


Charlie Ergen of E* is asking Congress to allow DBS companies to provide network HD feeds to any viewer unable to get HD from a local station.

The ability to provide HD would expire whenever the local station began to broadcast in HD.

The NAB is adamantly against the proposal.

It's position is that once people start getting HD nets from the satellite they won't ever want to give them up. And besides, the NAB says, every station will be broadcasting in HD soon.

 

[Malachy]

Pleased to learn that Charlie Ergen has begun to lobby on this issue. What about DirecTV? Those who live in areas where they can't get HD service either because of geography or non transmission by a local station ought to be able to get distant HD network feeds. It is simply NUTS that anyone living in Canada can get all the American HD network feeds and millions of Americans are barred from receiving them. That has to be changed. Does anyone know whether a piece of legislation or a regulatory rule has been proposed that we can lobby for?


On a related issue--does anyone here know whether an E* or D* customer receiving local stations via satellite but who lives more than 70 miles away from that city can request to receive distant network feeds? Some of us would MUCH prefer to get New York feeds (perhaps with HD) rather than the feed from a city 100 miles away to which we never have occasion to go. The regulations currently seem to allow you to get distant networks if you live more than 70 miles from the transmission tower or have no ability to get over the air signal because of geography. When E* or D* start feeding you "locals" which really are not local to you, can you opt out for a distant network feed?

 

[George Thompson]

Oh yes, the old Longley-Rice calculations. Consulting engineers have to develop coverage maps for CP and STA applications. It takes into consideration power, antenna gain, height and terrain to come up with a relative field polar plot. The plot shows city grade, grade B and fringe coverage areas. These are then used by the FCC in application requests.

Here is a site that you can go to to look for a stations coverage area.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html

Enter the call letters, choose search results, then check out antenna data. Click on Relative Field Polar plot for antenna pattern. You have to superimpose the pattern over a map for exact results. I have software that does this, but I charge extra....lol.

GT

 

[Chezbrgr2]

Quote:

Originally posted by foxeng The government's motto, "Let the marketplace decide."

How can I decide if I'm not given the choice, I am part of the marketplace!

 

[RonAuger]

Quote:

Originally posted by blitzen102 Huh? There's no requirement at all about HD - it's only about DTV.

Huh? it's only about analog TV.


AFAIK LR-based polar plots for DTV broadcasts either don't yet exist (many stations DTV signal is still at much lower power than their analog signal) and/or are not used in the consideration of importing distant networks by DBS companies. The distant network being imported is the analog signal of the NY or LA network (except for CBS Digital E/W which has different import stipulations on E* and D*)

 

[George Thompson]

Ron, DTV plots must exist for cp's or STA's. If it is not part of the package, the Video Division will kick back the application. Hossein has done a good job of keeping up the database lately. (BTW an old college roomate and fellow ham works in the Media Bureau whom I bug occasionally.)

As far as analog or DTV plots being used for distant networks, I cant tell you.

GT

 

[GreyGhost00]

Quote:

Originally posted by fredfa Charlie Ergen of E* is asking Congress to allow DBS companies to provide network HD feeds to any viewer unable to get HD from a local station.

I'm all for this, but don't misinterpret Charlie's motivation here. He's not doing this for the benefit of the people. He could care less. He's doing it so he can put money in his and the shareholders pockets. Period.

 

[blitzen102]

Quote:

Originally posted by RonAuger Huh? it's only about analog TV. AFAIK LR-based polar plots for DTV broadcasts either don't yet exist (many stations DTV signal is still at much lower power than their analog signal) and/or are not used in the consideration of importing distant networks by DBS companies. The distant network being imported is the analog signal of the NY or LA network (except for CBS Digital E/W which has different import stipulations on E* and D*)

I was referring to the FCC's mandate about the analog to digital transition (which does not mandate HD) - not the distant networks qualification.

 

[CPanther95]

Quote:

Originally posted by GreyGhost00 I'm all for this, but don't misinterpret Charlie's motivation here. He's not doing this for the benefit of the people. He could care less. He's doing it so he can put money in his and the shareholders pockets. Period.

Who cares about the motivation. It's mutually beneficial - it puts money in his pocket BECAUSE it benefits the people and has value to those people. To me, THAT is letting the marketplace decide.

 

[blitzen102]

Quote:

If a network has HD programming and a local affiliate choses not to air it or cannot air it should the consumer have a right to a distant feed?

So you are saying if station "KXYZ" doesn't pass the HD feed of network "XYZ" in a city - let's say Springfield, everybody should be able to get the HD network feed of "XYZ" either through satellite or cable??


Yeah - that'll fly.

 

[CPanther95]

I don't understand why the Networks don't take it upon themselves to exploit the marketplace by offering a "Super Affiliate" feed for each timezone. If they took the tactic that ESPN takes and offer their network programming at market value they could make a fortune and easily offset the carriage and advertising fees that a local affiliate could lose.


There are many who would pay premium movie channel package price for a package of HD network feeds. They may even get a larger than 50% share form DBS companies who would benefit tremendously from the availability of such a package. Charge $10 for the package, offer $3 to the DBS companies. Split the $7 between the 6 networks based on overall viewership numbers. Networks pocket 30% of the fee and 70% goes directly into the pocket of the local affiliate that "lost" the sub.


The local sub gets how much from DBS LIL Carriage fees now? $0.30?? Maybe less? This setup would have to more than compensate the local affiliate for a comparable carriage fee and lost ad revenue. If not, increase the price - but at least make it an option.

 

[sregener]

Quote:

Originally posted by George Thompson Oh yes, the old Longley-Rice calculations. Consulting engineers have to develop coverage maps for CP and STA applications. It takes into consideration power, antenna gain, height and terrain to come up with a relative field polar plot. The plot shows city grade, grade B and fringe coverage areas. These are then used by the FCC in application requests. Here is a site that you can go to to look for a stations coverage area. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html Enter the call letters, choose search results, then check out antenna data. Click on Relative Field Polar plot for antenna pattern. You have to superimpose the pattern over a map for exact results.

This doesn't make sense to me, and I've worked through the FCC site's data for quite some time.


The Relative Field Polar plot seems to show the power of the antenna in various directions. It does absolutely nothing to consider anything other than the antenna itself. Surely this can't be the Longley-Rice calculation?


Even if it were, you'd need to know what scale it was drawn at to be able to superimpose it on a map.


TVDBCGI, which used to be free, showed grade B contours for stations, but if that's what they're using to predict coverage, I'd be up in arms myself. Those plots are nowhere near reality.

 

[DrDon]

Quote:

Originally posted by CPanther95 This setup would have to more than compensate the local affiliate for a comparable carriage fee and lost ad revenue. If not, increase the price - but at least make it an option.

If you divide the number of viewers in a particular market by the annual advertising revenue, you'll get what stations will consider revenue per viewer. It's not just the spots that air during network programming a local station would lose out on. Network programming is there to bring eyes to promos for other local programming for which the station makes more money. People don't see the promos don't tune to the local programming and THOSE ad dollars are also lost. And the more viewers lost, the less the station gets to charge for subsequent advertising. It's the way TV advertising is sold.


I put this to one of the local executives I regularly break bread with and he put the lost revenue at $100 per viewer per month. So, that would be your fee. Not ten dollars a month. $100. And, since it's the local stations who negotiate carriage deals - not the networks - that's probably closer to the price they'd ask. Not saying it's a fair or particularly realistic price. But that's THEIR side of the argument.


Doc

 

[Snoopy4]

If the FCC thinks for half a second that I'm putting a Large Directional (and I mean really large - Some towers are 3 miles away so I can't use an amp, the others are 30) antenna on the roof of my $700K home, they can kiss my f-ing a....