**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 00-90          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Technical Standards for          | ) |                              |
| Determining Eligibility          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| For Satellite-Delivered Network  |   |                              |
| Signals Pursuant                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| To the Satellite Home Viewer     | ) |                              |
| Improvement Act                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT**

**Adopted: November 29, 2000 Released: November 29, 2000**

**By the Commission:**

1.  As required by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999
    (*SHVIA*),[^1] we are providing this Report to Congress on our
    evaluation of whether the signal intensity standard used to
    determine the eligibility of satellite television subscribers to
    receive retransmitted distant signals of network stations
    (hereinafter, "the distant network signal eligibility standard")
    should be modified or replaced. The Satellite Home Viewer Act
    (*SHVA*),[^2] enacted in 1988, provides that only those satellite
    subscribers who cannot receive an acceptable signal over-the-air
    from a local network affiliate may receive a "distant" network
    signal. The existing standard uses the Grade B signal intensity
    values that have long been used within the television broadcast
    service for determining station service area contours.[^3] In the
    Notice of Inquiry (*NOI*) in this proceeding, we sought information
    and comment on all technical parameters that scientifically could be
    considered to affect the quality of over-the-air reception of
    television pictures.[^4] We also sought information and comment on
    an appropriate eligibility standard for digital signals. We stressed
    that we were not considering alteration of the Grade B standard for
    any purpose other than determining eligibility to receive
    retransmitted distant network signals.[^5] In response to the *NOI,*
    eight comments and six reply comments were filed in the
    proceeding.[^6]

2.  Based on the record, we recommend to the Congress that the Grade B
    signal intensity standard and eight of the nine planning factors
    used in that model be retained as the basis for predicting whether a
    household is eligible to receive retransmitted distant TV network
    signals under *SHVIA*. We recommend modification of the remaining
    planning factor, *i.e.*, time fading, by replacing its existing
    fixed values with location-dependent values determined for the
    actual receiving locations using the Individual Location
    Longley-Rice prediction model. We also find that it would be
    premature to construct a distant network signal eligibility standard
    for DTV signals at this time. We therefore recommend that
    establishment of a distant network signal eligibility standard for
    DTV signals be deferred until such time as more substantial DTV
    penetration is achieved and more experience is gained with DTV
    operation.

**BACKGROUND**

3.  Broadcast television stations have rights, through the Copyright
    Act[^7] and private contracts, to control the distribution of the
    national and local programming that they transmit.[^8] In 1988,
    Congress adopted the Satellite Home Viewer Act (*SHVA*) as an
    amendment to the Copyright Act in order to protect the
    broadcasters\' interests in their programming while simultaneously
    enabling satellite carriers to provide broadcast programming to
    those satellite subscribers who are unable to obtain broadcast
    network programming over the air. Under the *SHVA*, these
    subscribers were generally considered to be \"unserved\" by their
    local stations. Pursuant to the requirements of this statute, which
    linked the definition of "unserved households" to a
    Commission-defined measure of television signal strength known as
    "Grade B intensity,"[^9] the Commission adopted rules for
    determining whether a household is able to receive a television
    signal of this strength.[^10] In particular, the Commission adopted
    rules establishing a standardized method for measuring the strength
    of television signals at individual locations and endorsing a method
    for predicting the strength of such signals that could be used in
    place of actually taking measurements.[^11] For Digital Television
    (DTV) stations, the counterpart to the Grade B signal intensities
    for analog television stations are the values in Section 73.622(e)
    of the Commission's Rules describing the DTV noise-limited service
    contour.[^12]

4.  *Grade B Contours and Signal Intensity*. The Grade B signal
    intensity standard, which is the key to the *SHVA\'s* definition of
    \"unserved households\" in Section 119(d)(10)(A), is a measure of
    the strength of a given television station\'s over-the-air
    signal.[^13] This standard was developed in the early days of
    television as a key component of the Commission\'s channel allotment
    protocol.[^14] Generally, if a household receives a television
    signal of Grade B intensity, it should receive an acceptable
    television picture at least 90% of the time.[^15] More specifically,
    Grade B represents a field strength that is strong enough, in the
    absence of man-made noise or interference from other stations, to
    provide at least 90% of the time a television picture that the
    median observer would classify as \"acceptable\" using a receiving
    installation (antenna, transmission line, and receiver) typical of
    outlying or near-fringe areas.[^16] The Grade B signal contour
    describes a boundary around a television station's transmitter.

5.  The Grade B contours (which represent the required field strength in
    dB above one micro-volt per meter, or dB/μv/m) are defined in
    Section 73.683 of the Commission's rules for each television
    channel, as follows:

Channels 2‑6 \...\...\...\...\.... 47 dB/µv/m

Channels 7‑13 \...\...\...\..... 56 dB/µv/m

Channels 14‑69 \...\...\...\... 64 dB/µv/m

Section 73.684 sets forth the Commission\'s methodology for predicting a
TV station's Grade B service area coverage.[^17] Section 73.686
describes a procedure for making field strength measurements.[^18]

6.  A signal of Grade B intensity is defined as a discrete value
    measured in units of dB/µv/m. However, the absolute intensity of
    broadcast signals at particular locations and at particular times
    cannot be precisely determined through predictive means, regardless
    of the predictive method used. Signal strength varies randomly over
    location and time, so signal propagation must be considered on a
    statistical basis. This is true regardless of whether the signal
    intensity is predicted at a fixed location (such as an individual
    household) or over an area. Some prediction methods, including the
    Commission's field strength charts (propagation curves), predict the
    occurrence of median signal strengths (*i.e.*, signal strengths
    predicted to be exceeded at 50% of the locations in a particular
    area at least 50% of the time).[^19] Under this approach, "location"
    and "time" variability factors are added to the signal level for an
    acceptable picture so that the desired statistical reliability is
    achieved. The values chosen for the Grade B signal intensity
    standards account for this variability and, therefore, as indicated
    above, predict that at least 50% of the locations along the Grade B
    contour will receive an acceptable picture 90% of the time.[^20]

7.  The "acceptable quality" contemplated when the Grade B standards
    were developed was based on picture quality levels used by the
    Television Allocation Study Organization ("TASO").[^21] TASO used
    data from actual viewers. These viewers were shown television
    pictures and were asked to rate them on a scale from 1 (excellent)
    to 6 (unusable). Level 3, on which the Grade B service level was
    based, was defined as "(Passable) - The picture is of acceptable
    quality. Interference is not objectionable."[^22] Based on the
    results of viewer ratings, a specific signal- (or carrier-) to-noise
    (S/N) ratio at the television receiver was found to correspond with
    the level 3 picture grade for each of the three television channel
    bands. That is, a specific level of signal corresponded to a picture
    quality that the median observer identified as acceptable. Given
    this correspondence, and with the primary goal of creating service
    areas with minimal interference and maximum coverage, the Commission
    developed certain assumptions, generally described as planning
    factors, regarding the environment in which "acceptable" viewing
    would take place.[^23]

8.  *Use of Grade B.* The Commission's rules use values for Grade B
    signal intensity in connection with the authorization of television
    stations and the determination of stations' service areas or
    "contours."[^24] This measure was not, however, created or intended
    for evaluating service quality in individual households. Rather, it
    was developed to address the problem of defining station service
    areas and to determine the proper allotments for television
    channels, especially in the early days of television. The Commission
    created two "grades of service."[^25] *Grade A* service connotes
    that "a quality \[of service\] acceptable to the median observer is
    expected to be available for at least 90 percent of the time at the
    best 70 percent of receiver locations at the outer limits of \[the
    service area\]."[^26] For *Grade B* service, acceptable service is
    expected 90 percent of the time at 50 percent of the locations.
    These service definitions were established to effectuate the
    Commission's stated twofold purpose "to provide television service,
    as far as possible, to all people of the United States and to
    provide a fair, efficient and equitable distribution of television
    broadcast stations to the several states and communities."[^27] The
    signal intensity values (also referred to as "field strengths") were
    determined based on specific assumptions for the planning factors
    that describe the receiving environment. These assumptions differ
    for the Grade A service area, typically urban and suburban, and the
    Grade B service area, which includes rural areas. For example, the
    type of receiving antenna assumed for Grade A service is smaller
    than the receiving antenna assumed for Grade B, and the definition
    of Grade A service takes into consideration man-made urban
    electrical noise.[^28]

9.  The recently enacted *SHVIA* revised and replaced the statutory
    provisions of the *SHVA*. With regard to the signal standard used
    for satellite carrier purposes, the *SHVIA* added a new Section
    339(c)(1) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^29]
    Pursuant to this section, we were directed to inquire into, and to
    evaluate, all possible standards and factors for determining
    eligibility for reception of retransmissions of network station
    signals. If appropriate, we are to recommend modification, or
    alternative standards or factors, to the Grade B intensity standard
    for analog television signals set forth in 47 CFR § 73.683(a), and
    to make a further recommendation relating to an appropriate standard
    for digital television signals. Thus, on May 22, 2000, the
    Commission adopted the *NOI* in this proceeding to obtain
    information for evaluating whether the signal intensity standard
    used to determine the eligibility of satellite television
    subscribers to receive retransmitted distant signals of network
    stations should be modified or replaced. The *NOI* sought
    information and comment on all technical parameters that
    scientifically could be considered to affect the quality of
    over-the-air reception of television pictures. It also sought
    information and comment on an appropriate eligibility standard for
    digital signals. Our goal in this inquiry is to identify more
    accurately, and consistent with the *SHVIA*, those consumers who can
    and cannot receive their local television network stations over the
    air.

**DISCUSSION**

10. In the *NOI,* we specifically requested commenters who support
    replacement or modification of the Grade B eligibility standard or
    adoption of an eligibility standard for DTV to substantiate their
    comments with an engineering study based on persuasive scientific
    data.[^30] In addition, we invited the submission of evidence
    documenting any significant changes in the TV reception environment
    that have not been documented in previous Commission proceedings. A
    clear consensus of comments proposed deferring adoption of an
    eligibility standard for DTV signals, because adoption of a standard
    at this time would be premature. Also, the comments generally did
    not propose or support outright replacement of the method used to
    develop the existing eligibility standard for analog television
    signals, which is based on the Grade B signal intensity standard.
    Instead, satellite industry commenters generally proposed
    modifications to the planning factors used to develop the Grade B
    signal intensity values, based on their claims that changes in
    technology, demographics, and viewer expectations of picture quality
    have rendered the existing values obsolete.[^31] Their proposed
    modifications would result in increases in the overall signal
    intensity values used to determine household eligibility for
    reception of distant network television signals so that more
    households would be deemed not to have an acceptable signal and thus
    be eligible to receive distant network service. On the other hand,
    broadcast industry commenters proposed retention of the signal
    intensity values currently used in the eligibility standard.[^32]
    They state that improvements in technology could support a decrease
    in the overall Grade B signal intensity values, but that it is
    preferable to retain the existing values, which will provide
    households with a "safety margin" providing greater assurance that
    they will receive pictures of acceptable quality. The Grade B
    planning factors are shown in the table below.

#### Table 1. Grade B Planning Factors

+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Factors                   | Units    | C       | C       | C       |
|                           |          | hannels | hannels | hannels |
|                           |          |         |         |         |
|                           |          | 2-6     | 7-13    | 14-69   |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 1\. Thermal Noise @ 300   | dB/1μv   | 7       | 7       | 7       |
| ohms                      |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2\. Receiver Noise Figure | dB       | 12      | 12      | 15      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 3\. Peak Visual Car./rms  | dB       | 30      | 30      | 30      |
| Noise                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 4\. Transmission line     | dB       | 1       | 2       | 5       |
| loss                      |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 5\. Receiving Ant. Gain   | dB       | 6       | 6       | 13      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 6\. Dipole Factor         | dB       | -3      | 6       | 16      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 7\. Local Field           | dB/1μv/m | 41      | 51      | 60      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 8\. Terrain Factor (50%)  | dB       | 0       | 0       | 0       |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 9\. Time Fading Factor    | dB       | 6       | 5       | 4       |
| (90%)                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 10\. Median Field         | dB/1μv/m | 47      | 56      | 64      |
| F(50,50)                  |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 11\. To overcome Urban    | dB       | 0       | 0       | 0       |
| Noise                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 12\. Required Median      | dB/1μv/m | 47      | 56      | 64      |
| Field                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+

We now turn to a discussion of each of these planning factors to which
commenters offered specific modifications.

11. *Receiver Noise Figure.* The receiver noise figure is a measure of
    the amount of electronic noise produced by the components in the
    television set. An appropriate allowance for this receiver noise, as
    well as an allowance for man-made noise, must be included in the
    planning factors shown in table 1. The choice of an adequate signal
    budget (planning factors) that accounts for the overall noise level
    that must be overcome is necessary in designing TV sets. In the
    *NOI*, we pointed out that, since the 1950s when low cost electronic
    technology for television frequencies was not commonly available, TV
    tuner technology has progressed dramatically and tuners now contain
    modern solid state components that produce lower set noise. We
    therefore asked for comment on whether the television receiver noise
    figures long used as a Grade B planning factor are still valid for
    the average television receiver employed in the home today.[^33]

12. EchoStar is the only commenter that claims that receiver noise
    figures have worsened since the 1950s.[^34] In support of its
    position, EchoStar cites a study by J.B. O'Neal, Jr. that was
    submitted to the Commission in 1980 as part of the UHF Comparability
    Task Force, as "suggesting that the typical VHF television receiver
    noise figures have actually degraded by over 4 dB."[^35] EchoStar
    argues that the receiver noise figures used as a Grade B planning
    factor, and currently set at 12 dB for VHF Channels 2-6 and 7-13,
    should be revised to 8 dB for Channels 2-6 and 13 dB for Channels
    7-13.[^36] SBCA, however, "recommends a reduction for the receiver
    noise figure, because improvements in receiver technology have
    reduced noise at the receiver inputs."[^37] Based on data taken from
    a 1979 Commission staff report on UHF comparability, SBCA's
    engineering statement indicates that the receiver noise figures
    should be revised to fall within the range of 6-12 dB for low VHF
    channels, 7-12 dB for high VHF channels, and 12-14 dB for UHF
    channels.[^38] SBCA recommends application of the "highest values"
    in revising the Grade B values to develop a modified eligibility
    standard.[^39] All other commenters that specifically addressed this
    planning factor indicated that receiver noise has improved and that,
    therefore, no increase in any of the receiver noise figures was
    warranted.[^40] These parties generally state that if any
    adjustments were to be made in the receiver noise figures, they
    should be in the downward direction.

13. We find that the record supports maintaining the existing receiver
    noise figures used as a planning factor for the Grade B standard. We
    find no merit in EchoStar's argument that the noise figures should
    be revised upward. The record is barren of new scientific data that
    the Commission has not considered in the past. For instance, the
    O'Neal study and the UHF Comparability Report, relied on by
    EchoStar, are twenty years old. Neither purported to be a
    comprehensive study of receiver noise figures across all TV bands
    and receiver models. As the Network Affiliates point out, the UHF
    Comparability Task Force considered UHF receiver noise bands for
    some 200 TV receiver models that met the Commission's 14 dB maximum
    receiver noise figure and determined, for this grouping of
    receivers, that the average UHF noise figure was about 9 dB.[^41]
    This result does not support EchoStar's claim that receiver noise
    has worsened. Again as the Network Affiliates observe, the O'Neal
    study of 32 receivers measured noise figures at UHF Channel 34, and
    therefore is plainly inapposite to any consideration of VHF receiver
    noise.[^42] Moreover, we cannot readily discern how EchoStar deduces
    its suggested revisions for the receiver noise figures from its
    assertion that "the typical VHF television receiver noise figures
    have actually degraded by over 4 dB."[^43] In any event, the SBCA
    concession that receiver noise figures have improved, which supports
    the claim of the adverse broadcast interests, appears more credible
    and is consistent with the Commission's past observations that
    improvements in tuner technology have resulted in the mass
    manufacture of receivers that produce less internal noise.[^44] As
    noted later in this Report, we believe that any investigation into
    changes in viewer picture quality acceptance should only be done in
    conjunction with a study of current television receiver noise
    figures. In any event, the current record does not contain any
    empirically developed data on contemporary television receivers from
    which we could recommend revision of the noise figures. In the
    absence of this data, we agree with the broadcast commenters that
    there is no reason to recommend any change in the existing receiver
    noise figures.

14. *Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Service Quality*. "Signal-to-Noise Ratio"
    is the ratio of the amplitude of the desired signal to the amplitude
    of the noise accompanying that signal. In an analog television
    receiver, a significant level of noise manifests itself in the
    viewed picture as what is commonly called "snow." The higher the
    signal-to-noise ratio, the less visible is snow. We recognize that,
    although the *NOI* in this proceeding stated that the
    signal-to-noise ratio was determined after detection inside the TV
    set, the TASO measurements most often cited as the source of the
    actual value were measured at the receiver terminals with a 6 MHz
    noise bandwidth. Therefore, hereafter in this Report, the
    signal-to-noise ratio will be deemed to be measured in the manner
    done by TASO. The existing planning factor for signal-to-noise ratio
    uses a value of 30 dB for all television bands.

15. In the *NOI*, we noted that comments submitted in the *SHVA
    Proceeding* had urged recognition that, for many people, the
    existing Grade B signal intensity values no longer equated to truly
    acceptable picture quality. In other words, the commenters had
    suggested that viewers\' expectations as to what level of signal
    quality is "acceptable" had increased over time. If this were the
    case and the issue were an inadequate signal-to-noise ratio, a
    stronger signal or a receiver with a lower noise figure would be
    needed to produce a picture that would now be regarded as
    acceptable. Although there was some speculation in the comments
    filed in the *SHVA Proceeding* that viewer expectations had indeed
    changed,[^45] we noted in the *NOI* that no current study documents
    this purported change or replicates the methodology of the initial
    TASO study that correlated viewer judgments of television picture
    quality with specific signal levels. We recognized that some
    research on subjective evaluations of television pictures might show
    that viewers have raised their level of expected performance, but
    stressed that the results of any subjective testing are dependent on
    the testing methodology and conditions. For example, we cited
    several recent tests that were conducted by cable television
    sponsors using as subjects viewers who may have expected to receive,
    and to pay for, higher quality pictures.[^46] We noted that those
    subjects, however, may not be representative of audiences relying on
    over-the-air reception for their television viewing. Thus, we
    explained, one of the specific purposes of this inquiry is to
    ascertain whether the signal intensity standard for *SHVIA* purposes
    needs to be updated to reflect consumers' current expectations of
    what is acceptable picture quality.[^47] We pointed out that the
    results from an updated study of viewer expectations based on
    scientifically valid methods, such as ITU Recommendation 500-4,[^48]
    could be valuable in this regard. Therefore, we requested
    information and comments on whether viewer expectations of
    acceptable television picture quality have changed and, if so, how
    any such changes should be accounted for in revising the Grade B
    standard for *SHVIA* purposes. For the purpose of developing a
    distant network signal eligibility standard, we asked for comment on
    whether we should expect television pictures received by
    over-the-air reception to be comparable to those received from
    satellite. We asked whether there have been any current studies made
    of today's home television viewer expectations of picture quality
    using scientifically valid subjective methods and, if so, for the
    results of these studies.

16. \(a\) *Signal-to-Noise Ratio*. EchoStar argues that consumers today
    demand a much higher quality picture than they did fifty years ago,
    and that consumers in the current television reception environment
    would view as "passable" only those TV signals having a much higher
    peak visual carrier-to-noise ratio than the 30 dB used as an
    existing Grade B planning factor.[^49] EchoStar did not submit any
    technical study supporting its arguments, but instead simply points
    to the increased penetration of cable TV, DBS, VCRs, and video game
    systems, all of which, it claims, produce substantially noise- and
    interference-free pictures.[^50] Nevertheless, the signal-to-noise
    ratio that EchoStar proposes, 30 dB for all TV channels, is
    identical to the ratio included as an existing Grade B planning
    factor.[^51] EchoStar also urges the Commission to "recommend to
    Congress new factors based on statistically significant samples of
    modern viewers to take account of their changing expectations."[^52]
    Another commenter, NRTC similarly avers that the television picture
    quality that today's viewers would grade as "acceptable" is superior
    to viewer expectations decades ago, when the TASO grading system was
    established. It attributes the success and growth of DBS and cable
    services in large part to the superior picture quality available
    from such non-broadcast distribution. NRTC states that picture
    quality is often cited as a very important factor in consumer
    decisions to subscribe to DBS services. NRTC acknowledges, however,
    that it is unaware of any current studies that indicate the precise
    degree to which viewer expectations have changed.[^53] NRTC adds in
    reply comments that, at minimum, the Commission should undertake a
    study to assess current viewer expectations.[^54] It states that the
    current lack of reliable studies will only perpetuate the status quo
    under which millions of rural viewers remain unserved and ineligible
    to receive distant network signals. It continues that it is
    unrealistic to expect either the satellite industry or broadcasters
    to conduct scientifically valid, neutral tests to determine viewer
    expectations on their own initiative, and that this task is more
    appropriately conducted under the Commission's auspices. SBCA
    appears to agree that viewer expectations of picture quality have
    increased dramatically since the Grade B standard was adopted. It
    acknowledges that, at present, no such study exists and suggests
    that an updated, scientifically valid study of viewer expectations
    might be warranted.[^55] SBCA states that, at this time, it "is not
    able to advise the Commission on how changes in viewer expectations
    should be accounted for in revising the Grade B signal standard or
    its underlying factors for purposes of *SHVIA*."[^56] Nonetheless,
    it proposes a substantial increase in the signal-to-noise ratio
    planning factor.[^57]

17. Fox states that there is no empirical evidence suggesting that
    viewer picture quality expectations have changed.[^58] Absent a
    scientifically valid study showing significant change in viewer
    expectations, Fox argues that the Grade B standard should not be
    changed.[^59] It opines that "continued satisfaction of viewers'
    expectations for picture quality is due in large part to
    technological advances in television receivers over the past
    decades," with receiver noise figures improving markedly.[^60] Jules
    Cohen, in an engineering statement in support of NAB's reply
    comments, indicates that the higher signal-to-noise ratio advocated
    by SBCA is based on values that the Commission considered in
    relation to cable television systems, which deliver programs to
    paying subscribers.[^61] In agreement, Network Affiliates comment
    that the Grade B planning factors are still accurate today.[^62]
    Network Affiliates add that, without a scientifically valid study
    correlating viewer judgments of picture quality with specific signal
    levels, "any argument that viewers are dissatisfied with the quality
    of the picture resulting from a signal of Grade B intensity is pure
    conjecture."[^63] In this regard, Network Affiliates stresses that
    the Bronwen Lindsay Jones study, cited by the *NOI*,[^64] is
    inapplicable because: (a) its subjects were cable subscribers only,
    who may have expected to receive and to pay for higher quality
    pictures; (b) its results are fatally skewed because it employed an
    entirely different scale than the TASO study, and scale bias
    resulted from the exclusion of all signal-to-noise ratios below 36
    dB; and (c) it employed only 33 subjects in comparison to the nearly
    200 subjects (and 38,000 individual assessments) used by TASO, used
    weighted noise compared to TASO's use of unweighted noise, and used
    viewing distances closer than the 10-foot viewing distance used in
    the TASO study.[^65]

18. SBCA claims that "a statistical factor for signal to noise ratio as
    it affects picture acceptability may be added to the FCC values,
    since the Commission assumed 30 dB, and the 90% acceptability value
    is known to be 34 dB."[^66] On the other hand, Network Affiliates
    point out that the 30 dB figure was originally found by the
    Commission to be necessary to provide an acceptable picture to the
    median observer. It adds that TASO subsequently determined that a
    signal-to-noise ratio of 27.5 dB would be sufficient for this
    purpose, and that a ratio of 30 dB would assure that 70% of viewers
    would find the picture to be acceptable.[^67] Network Affiliates
    therefore argue that the existing 30 dB figure already includes an
    extra margin of 2 dB and that no increase in this figure is
    warranted.[^68] In its comments, NAB agrees with this
    assessment.[^69]

19. We recognize that there is much confusion in the use of
    signal-to-noise ratio numbers when referring to the acceptability of
    video pictures. First of all, TASO in the 1950\'s measured signal to
    noise requirements for TV as the ratio of the root-mean-squared
    ("rms") RF signal during synchronizing peaks divided by the rms
    noise voltage over a 6 MHz channel. Part 76 of the rules (Cable
    Television) does not specifically set forth the noise bandwidth
    required in measuring the carrier-to-noise ratio ("C/N"). It is
    standard practice in the cable industry, however, to measure C/N
    with a signal analyzer using a noise power bandwidth of 4 MHz. A
    difference of approximately 2 dB between the two measurements
    results from the difference in noise power bandwidth (4 MHz versus 6
    MHz) employed in the corresponding measurement techniques.
    Therefore, these different measurement techniques quite often result
    in the expression of the signal-to-ratio as different values when
    referring to the same picture quality. Secondly, differences or
    similarities in testing methodology are an issue that affects the
    consistency of grading the acceptability of video pictures. For
    instance, differences in the type of instructions given to the
    observers during testing, the type of observers
    (experts/non-experts), viewing distances, size and quality of
    television receivers, and types of pictures (still or motion) used
    during testing, as well as the dynamic range of signal levels used
    during testing can each influence the results.[^70] In any
    reexamination of the signal-to-noise ratio values needed to
    represent the grade of over-the-air TV pictures that today's viewers
    would find "acceptable," these subjective testing parameters would
    have to be selected.[^71]

20. We disagree with EchoStar that it was over-the-air television
    picture quality as affected by signal to noise ratio that was the
    major contributor to the increased penetration of cable TV, DBS,
    VCRs, and video game systems. We recognize that these video
    alternatives offered many other incentives such as more channels of
    programming, interactivity, and programming venues aimed at smaller
    audiences. In addition, there are other television picture
    impairments beyond signal to noise ratio, such as multipath
    discussed later in this report, that we believe may have been a
    greater contributor to any viewer dissatisfaction with over-the-air
    television reception. Based on the evidence collected in this
    inquiry and without scientific evidence of a change in the value of
    signal to noise ratio as subjectively determined by the median of
    viewer observation, we agree with Network Affiliates that there is
    no reason to believe that viewer perception with regard to the
    acceptability of random noise impairment has significantly changed.

21. Nevertheless, based on the evidence collected in this inquiry, there
    is one change to the signal-to-noise ratio that could be considered.
    Specifically, in determining distant network signal eligibility, one
    could choose to employ as a criterion those pictures that are graded
    as "acceptable" by some percentile of viewers higher than the median
    (50%) applied in the Grade B planning factors. In this regard, we
    note that SBCA has suggested that the signal-to-noise planning
    factor should, uniquely for *SHVIA* purposes, be modified to include
    an additional "statistical acceptability" factor to assure that 90%
    of all observers would view the picture as acceptable. (SBCA states
    that the modified value would be 34 dB). On the other hand, we must
    recognize that the current value of 30 dB is already 2.5 dB higher
    than the value found by TASO to represent an acceptable picture to
    at least 50 percent of viewers. Thus, we agree with Network
    Affiliates[^72] that the current 30-dB value for the signal-to-noise
    ratio indicates statistically that the corresponding picture quality
    would be graded "acceptable" by at least 70 percent of the TASO
    viewers. We believe that in order to increase the percentile any
    further, it would be necessary to conduct a TASO-style study with a
    greater number of observers than the original TASO study employed,
    so that an appropriate statistical confidence level in the result
    would be retained.

22. Beyond the above possible adjustment to the signal-to-noise ratio
    based on picture acceptance by a higher percentage of viewers, we
    find no persuasive evidence in the record warranting any change in
    the existing signal-to-noise figure used as a Grade B planning
    factor. No new data has been presented that the Commission has not
    already considered in the past. The record does not contain any
    scientifically sound basis that infers that consumer expectations of
    picture quality have risen in a manner warranting any revision to
    the planning factors.[^73] Also, we are skeptical that a
    Commission-initiated study of viewer expectations, as recommended by
    NRTC, would prove cost effective or worthwhile.[^74] In fact, we
    trust that if viewer expectations were thought to have changed
    dramatically, marketplace forces would have led either the satellite
    industry or the broadcast industry to conduct its own extensive
    studies. As stated before, we believe that an exact replication of
    the TASO testing methodology and the use of the median of
    observations would not lead to the conclusion that the planning
    factor values should be raised significantly.[^75] Moreover, we
    believe the real answer is that, as the broadcaster comments
    indicate, it is highly likely that technological advances have
    increased the picture quality actually provided over-the-air to
    consumers, and these advances provide a "margin of error" that would
    compensate for any actual increase in consumer expectations.
    Therefore, any re-examination of viewer acceptance of picture
    quality would have to be done in conjunction with a new study of
    current receiver performance or noise figures.

23. *(b) Picture comparability between paid video service and free
    over-the-air television service.* NRTC urges the Commission to
    recommend to Congress the establishment of a new distant network
    signal eligibility standard that will provide television picture
    quality at least equal to that provided by satellite carriers, so
    that viewers will be able to receive the best available picture
    quality, either over the air from local network affiliates or
    satellite retransmissions of distant network signals from a DBS
    provider.[^76] On the other hand, Network Affiliates assert that the
    Commission should not conflate viewer expectations regarding the
    picture quality of a paid subscriber TV service, such as satellite
    or cable, with expectations regarding the quality from a free
    over-the-air signal. They argue that consumers who pay for service
    should expect to receive a picture quality that is better than what
    they receive for free.[^77] Network Affiliates assert that the
    distinction between free, analog, over-the-air broadcast television
    and pay, digital satellite service is critical and must not be
    obliterated.[^78] They submit that the viewer picture quality
    expectations for free and pay services are different and should
    remain so. Otherwise, Network Affiliates claim, the copyright
    protections that Congress wished local stations to maintain would
    effectively be eviscerated, the principle of localism imperiled, and
    the conversion to digital technology by terrestrial broadcasters
    severely set back.[^79]

24. We observe that NRTC's assertion that free, over-the-air picture
    quality should be required to meet or exceed that provided by paid
    DBS or cable service appears to conflict with the statutory purpose
    of *SHVIA*. In this respect, we agree with the observations of NAB
    that in enacting the statute, Congress intended to preserve the
    overarching broadcast television principles of localism and
    copyright protection and therefore created only a narrow exception
    to allow for a "life-line" service to those homes that cannot
    receive local network television stations off-the-air.[^80] In this
    regard, Congressman Howard Coble, an original sponsor of *SHVIA*,
    stressed:[^81]

> The existing provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act allow
> satellite carriers to retransmit copyrighted programming for a set fee
> to a narrowly defined category of customers. The Act thus represents
> an exception to the general principles of copyright -- that those who
> create works of authorship enjoy exclusive rights in them, and are
> entitled to bargain in the marketplace to sell those rights. In almost
> all other areas of the television industry, those bedrock principles
> work well. Indeed, virtually all of the programming that we enjoy on
> both broadcast and nonbroadcast stations is produced under that free
> market regime. Because exclusive rights and marketplace bargaining are
> so fundamental to copyright law, we should depart from those
> principles only when necessary and only to the most limited possible
> degree. Statutory licenses represent a departure from these bedrock
> principles, and should be construed as narrowly as possible.
>
> Reflecting the need to keep such departures narrow, the existing
> Satellite Home Viewer Act permits network station signals to be
> retransmitted only to a narrowly defined group of "unserved
> households," *i.e.*, those located in places, almost always remote
> rural areas, in which over-the-air signals are simply too weak to be
> picked up with a correctly oriented, properly functioning conventional
> rooftop antenna. The definition of an "unserved household" continues
> to be the same as it is in the current statute, *i.e.*, a household
> that cannot receive, through the use of a properly working, stationary
> outdoor rooftop antenna that is pointed toward the transmitter, a
> signal of at least Grade B intensity as defined in Section 73.683(a)
> of the FCC\'s rules. . . .

Further support for this view, as NAB points out,[^82] is provided by
the *SHVIA* Conference Report, which stated that the:[^83]

> Conference Committee is aware that in creating compulsory licenses . .
> . \[it\] 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. . . . \[A\]llowing
> the importation of distant or out-of-market network stations in
> derogation of the local stations' exclusive right -- bought and paid
> for in market-negotiated arrangements -- to show the works in question
> undermines those market arrangements.

The Conference Report also emphasized that "the specific goal of the
\[Section\] 119 license, which is to allow for a life-line network
television service to those homes beyond the reach of their local
television stations, must be met by only distant network 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."[^84]

25. Therefore, we find no evidence in the record that the intent of
    *SHVIA* is to promote or provide television picture quality
    comparability between paid video service and free over-the-air
    television service. We note that NRTC's recommendation for a study
    is predicated on its view that "viewer expectations have certainly
    changed . . . based on the unquestionable success and growth of DBS
    and cable services, which is due in large part to the superior
    picture quality available from such non-broadcast distribution. This
    higher picture quality has raised the bar for the entire broadcast,
    cable and satellite video delivery industry."[^85] As we have
    explained, we do not agree with NRTC's predicate that viewers expect
    the same picture quality from a free, over-the-air service as from a
    paid subscription service such as DBS or cable. Consequently, we do
    not recommend any changes to the eligibility standard to achieve
    comparability between paid video service and over-the-air free
    television.

26. *Transmission Line Loss and Antenna Gain.* In the *NOI,* we
    explained that the original analog TV planning factors were
    developed for 300-ohm impedance systems using open twin lead
    cabling. On the plus side, these early systems had low attenuation
    of signal due to the connecting cabling and impedance transfer at
    both the antenna and receiver. On the negative side, the open twin
    line cabling was prone to pick up electrical noise and RF
    interference. Today, most antenna systems use 75-ohm coaxial
    cabling. Although these 75-ohm systems are more immune to electrical
    noise and RF interference pickup, their signals are more highly
    attenuated due to the connecting cabling.[^86] We observed that an
    NTIA Report (81-68), published in 1981, evaluated a study of home TV
    UHF antenna installations located at 50 distinct sites between
    Chicago and Peoria, Illinois. The report concluded that the median
    antenna system gain for systems using a 75-ohm transmission line was
    lower than that for systems using a 300-ohm transmission line. In
    addition, the report found that, for the more modern 75-ohm
    transmission line installations, the median estimated antenna system
    gains, as classified by frequency and service area (Grade A or Grade
    B), were less than system gains that were applied as planning
    factors in defining required field strengths. Given the technical
    differences between the 300- and 75-ohm systems, we requested
    comment on whether the existing transmission line and antenna gain
    planning factors remain appropriate for today's analog television
    receivers. Because reception of satellite delivered television is
    generally based on the installation of a directional outdoor
    antenna, we also asked for comment on whether it is also appropriate
    to expect viewers to put forward a comparable effort to achieve
    adequate over-the-air terrestrial television reception. In
    particular, we requested comment on whether it is appropriate to
    assume that consumers would use an outdoor, directional gain antenna
    model for over-the-air reception of television when determining
    distant network signal eligibility. We also sought comment on
    whether there have been more current studies of typical home
    television receiving installations than the NTIA Report cited above
    and, if so, on their extensiveness and results. Finally, we pointed
    out that Section 1005(a) of *SHVIA* amended the Copyright Act to
    define a household as "unserved" with respect to a particular TV
    network if that household, *inter alia*, "cannot receive, through
    the use of a conventional***,** stationary**, ***outdoor rooftop
    receiving antenna, an over-the-air signal of a primary network
    station affiliated with that network of Grade B intensity."[^87] We
    therefore sought comment and information as to the methodology that
    could be used to incorporate a stationary antenna model into the
    modification of the Grade B field intensity standard. The current
    Grade B standard assumes that the antenna is pointing toward the
    desired station, and as such, the maximum gain of the antenna
    provides a signal level at the receiver that will produce an
    acceptable picture quality. For the purpose of determining distant
    network signal eligibility, we sought comment on whether and how to
    modify the antenna gain planning factor for those network stations
    not in the center of the main beam of a stationary directional
    antenna. We asked for comment on which station location should be
    considered the pointing direction of the antenna when making such
    determinations.[^88]

27. *(a) Transmission Line Loss: (i) Effect of System Impedance.*
    Satellite interests urge that the transmission line loss factor
    should be increased. The existing line loss factor is 1/2/5 dB for
    the low VHF / high VHF / UHF TV channels, respectively. EchoStar
    states that most modern TV receivers have an input impedance of 75
    ohms, and most antenna transmission cables also have 75-ohm
    impedance. EchoStar cites two studies that compared the average
    transmission line losses of the older 300-ohm twinlead cables
    against those of 75-ohm RG-59 coaxial cables: for the 300-ohm
    cables, a 1974 study that found average transmission line losses in
    the low VHF, high VHF, and UHF TV band, respectively, to be 0.9,
    1.5, and 2.3 dB; and a 1980 study that found these losses to be 0.8,
    1.5, and 3.1 dB.[^89] In comparison, the respective results from
    these studies for RG-59 cables were: 1.5, 2.4, and 4.6 dB; and 1.2,
    2.3, and 4.5 dB. EchoStar adds that aged, wet, or improperly
    installed cables may have greater losses than do new, dry ones, and
    argues that contemporary receive antenna feedlines would be expected
    to have losses greater than predicted by the planning factors.[^90]
    Ultimately, EchoStar recommends that the existing transmission line
    loss planning factor values of 1 and 2 dB, for the low- and high-
    VHF bands, remain unchanged, and that the respective value for the
    UHF band be increased by 1 dB (from the existing 5 dB to 6 dB).[^91]
    SBCA likewise asserts that the transmission line loss planning
    factor needs to be updated, and suggests that the respective values
    be increased to 2, 3, and 6 dB for the respective TV bands.[^92]
    Broadcast interests, by contrast, state that the line loss
    associated with 75-ohm cabling is the same or slightly better than
    that for 300-ohm twinleads, and that no change in the values for the
    transmission line loss planning factor is warranted. Network
    Affiliates, for example, note that twinlead cable is susceptible to
    degradation due to water, proximity to metal structures such as
    downspouts, and poor terminations, whereas currently available RG-6
    coaxial cable is shielded and much less susceptible to attenuation
    changes and the connectors used with it provide more consistent
    terminations.[^93] Network Affiliates state that the current
    specifications for attenuation of 50 feet of RG-6 cable are 0.8-0.94
    dB for low VHF, 1.3-1.4 dB for high VHF, and 2.2-2.9 dB for UHF,
    values which fall within the existing planning factor for Grade B.
    NAB agrees, pointing out that the specifications published by a
    leading manufacturer of antennas and cable (Winegard) for readily
    available RG-6 coaxial cable, the cable recommended by the UHF
    Comparability Report for use in downleads, are 0.7-0.95 dB (low
    VHF), 1.3-1.4 dB (high VHF), and 2.15-2.9 dB (UHF).[^94]

28. We find that no change in the existing transmission loss planning
    factor values for Grade B is warranted. None of the comments have
    identified any more current studies that suggest a need to change
    this planning factor. The broadcast and satellite commenters diverge
    on the need to change the values for 75-ohm cabling based largely on
    their different assumptions of which type of cabling would be
    employed by consumers, *i.e.,* RG-6 (suggested by the broadcasters)
    or RG-59 (chosen by satellite interests). We agree with Network
    Affiliates that 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, and that
    the transmission loss planning factor values for Grade B provide a
    conservative margin for this type of coaxial cable.[^95] As Network
    Affiliates point out, the UHF Comparability Final Report, prepared
    in 1980, recommends the use of RG-6 cable,[^96] a 1979 NTIA study
    found that, for the longer outdoor run (between the outdoor antenna
    and the wall outlet) RG-6 type coaxial cable would usually be used,
    whereas for the indoor short connection (between the wall outlet and
    the TV receiver) RG-59 coaxial cable is usually used,[^97]
    EchoStar's own self-installation kit for home satellite TV receivers
    specifies the use of, and supplies, RG-6 cable,[^98] and RG-6 coax
    cable is commonly available.[^99] Finally, Network Affiliates state
    that, in determining the DTV downlead line loss planning factor, the
    Commission has assumed transmission line loss values that are no
    greater than those set forth in the existing analog Grade B
    transmission line loss under consideration here.[^100] We agree with
    Network Affiliates' analysis of the transmission line loss planning
    factor and recommend that no changes be made to this factor.[^101]

29. *(ii) Splitter Loss.* In its comments, SBCA urges than an additional
    factor for splitter loss be included in a revised distant network
    signal eligibility standard.[^102] SBCA states that when the
    existing planning factors were developed the average household
    typically had only one television set, but now on average there are
    two television sets per household. SBCA then reasons that the
    average household would need to employ a "splitter" device that
    enables two TV sets to share a common antenna. It computes the loss
    in signal strength resulting from use of a splitter at 3 dB.
    Therefore, it recommends that a splitter loss factor of 3 dB be
    included in the revised eligibility standard.[^103] EchoStar
    supports this recommendation.[^104] NAB, however, insists that
    incorporation of splitter losses in planning factors is
    inappropriate.[^105] It explains that the question of whether
    households receive a Grade B field intensity in the air above their
    rooftop is not predicated on their choice to split, or not to split,
    the signal once it comes into the house.[^106] It explains that
    signal amplifiers that overcome the effect of splitter loss are
    readily and inexpensively available to consumers.[^107] Network
    Affiliates agree with NAB's analysis.[^108] MSTV points out that in
    our recent *SHVA Report and Order,* we rejected the argument that
    the Grade B standard should be modified to account for splitter
    loss.[^109]

30. We find it inappropriate to account for splitter loss in the
    eligibility standard planning factors. As the broadcast commenters
    correctly point out, the issue of whether a sufficient signal
    strength is present for over-the-air, rooftop reception is
    independent of a household's choice to use splitters to distribute
    the signal to multiple TV sets in the home. In any event, "no loss
    splitters" (*i.e.,* distribution splitters), whose use does not
    result in any splitter loss, are readily and inexpensively available
    to the consumer market. Therefore, we do not recommend any change to
    the transmission line loss factor based on "splitter loss."

31. *(b) Receiving Antenna Gain.* The existing values for the Grade B
    planning factor for TV receiving antenna gain are 6 dB for the low-
    and high-VHF bands and 13 dB for the UHF band. Satellite interests
    urge that these values should be decreased. They stress that the
    existing values for this planning factor were based on the
    assumption that viewers would install separate VHF-only and UHF-only
    antennas but, today, most consumers who install rooftop antennas
    choose an all-band (*i.e.,* combined VHF-UHF) antenna, which reduces
    the available gain.[^110] On the other hand, broadcast industry
    commenters state that the existing values are still appropriate.
    They state that standard practice is to use separate VHF and UHF
    antennas or better quality antennas for reception in outlying or
    fringe areas near the Grade B contour, and that antennas with gain
    meeting or exceeding the planning factor values are readily
    available to consumers.[^111]

32. We find that the record does not support modification of the
    receiving antenna gain planning factor for Grade B. As we pointed
    out in the *NOI,* unlike the Grade A service areas that typically
    are comprised of urban or suburban environments located more closely
    to TV station transmitters, Grade B service areas include rural
    areas and presuppose the use of larger, directional receiving
    antennas.[^112] The satellite industry comments and reply comments
    do not address this distinction, but without explanation appear to
    assume the use of antennas typically employed within the Grade A
    service areas.[^113] As Network Affiliates point out, we have 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 UHF/VHF antenna, at little or
    no additional cost.[^114] In addition, 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.[^115]

33. *(c) Use of Stationary Antenna.* As discussed above, we sought
    comment on the significance of Section 1005(a) of *SHVIA,* which
    amends the definition of an "unserved" household with respect to a
    particular TV network to mean that the household, *inter alia*,
    "cannot receive, through the use of a conventional***,**
    stationary**, ***outdoor rooftop receiving antenna, an over-the-air
    signal of a primary network station affiliated with that network of
    Grade B intensity." In many situations, where the network TV
    stations the consumer wishes to receive are all transmitting from a
    common direction, a stationary antenna properly oriented toward that
    common direction would provide the consumer with the best
    opportunity to receive each of those stations off-the-air. In other
    cases, where the stations are transmitting from different directions
    with respect to the consumer, a rotary antenna appears necessary for
    the consumer to receive each station's signal with maximum strength.
    In this context, we are concerned with the proper interpretation of
    the statute's reference to a "stationary" antenna.

34. In its comments, EchoStar points out that, in the *SHVA Report and
    Order,* the Commission determined that the measurement of the
    strength of each network signal required orienting the measurement
    antenna to the particular transmitter in question.[^116] EchoStar
    urges the Commission to "clarify" the measurement methodology so
    that the "\[signal\] intensity for all local stations would be
    measured with the consumer's antenna oriented towards the network
    station most frequently watched by that consumer. Only in this way
    could the signal intensity actually received by the consumer be
    reflected in the measurements as opposed to the theoretical case of
    a consumer using an expensive rotary antenna to constantly adjust
    his or her picture. Such a change would also be consistent with the
    SHVIA, which has added the specification of a 'stationary'
    antenna."[^117]

35. Network Affiliates, in their comments, assert that, by inserting the
    word "stationary," Congress intended only to specify that signal
    strength measurements should not be taken using the mobile run
    methodology.[^118] Mobile field strength runs are performed to gain
    information regarding the variability of signal strength in the
    vicinity of a particular measurement location. This variability of
    signal strength is caused by multipath reflections or
    shadowing/absorption due to terrain, vegetation, buildings or other
    man-made obstacles. Generally, mobile run measurements are made
    continuously over 100 linear feet in distance, are centered on the
    specific measurement location point, and provide information
    regarding maximum, average, median and standard deviation values of
    signal strength in the area. Thus, the measuring antenna is mobile,
    and not stationary, when mobile run methodology is used. Network
    Affiliates further state that Congress did not intend to alter the
    long-standing basis of signal strength measurement that the
    receiving antenna is properly oriented toward the desired station,
    so that the antenna is most likely able to measure the signal at its
    best available strength.[^119]

36. In our view, the statutory use of the term "stationary" has some
    ambiguity in the present context. It could be interpreted,
    consistent with existing practice, to mean that signal strength
    measurements are to be taken with the receiving antenna properly
    oriented to receive the best available signal from the desired
    station. In many cases, all the desired stations would be
    transmitting from a common direction in relation to the viewer. In
    these cases, a conventional, stationary, outdoor rooftop receiving
    antenna would be sufficient; no rotor would be necessary. Thus, the
    statutory amendment could simply be aimed at clarifying that
    consumers would not be expected to buy a rotary antenna if they
    indeed had no need of one. Another possible meaning of the
    amendment, as suggested by EchoStar, is that consumers should only
    be required for *SHVIA* purposes to employ a non-rotary antenna
    aimed at their favorite network station, even in cases where other
    network stations lie in different directions. A third possible
    meaning, as Network Affiliates suggest, is to specify that signal
    strength measurements for *SHVIA* purposes should not be taken using
    the mobile run methodology.[^120] Support for this interpretation is
    provided in the legislative history by the statement of Senator
    Leahy that the "new language says only that the antenna is to be
    'stationary'; it does not say that the antenna is to be improperly
    oriented, that is pointed in way that does not obtain the strongest
    signal. The word 'stationary' means, for example, that testing
    should be done using a stationary antenna, as the FCC has
    directed."[^121] We do not believe that the statutory amendment
    requires us to adopt EchoStar's interpretation, nor do we believe
    that Congress intended such a result. We agree with Network
    Affiliates, on the other hand, that *SHVIA's* legislative history
    indicates strong Congressional support, including the above comment
    of Senator Leahy, for maintaining the current requirement that
    signal strength measurements for *SHVIA* purposes be made with the
    receiving antenna properly directed to each of the desired local
    network stations' transmitters. Thus, on passing *SHVIA*, Senator
    Hatch, Chairman of the Conference Committee and the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, specifically stated:

> I would clarify one other point relating to a minor modification we
> made to the definition of "unserved household" in the distant signal
> satellite statutory license found in section 119 of Title 17 of the
> United States Code. The conferees decided to add the word "stationary"
> to the phrase "conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna" in
> Section 119(d)(10) of the Copyright Act. As the Chairman of the
> Conference Committee and of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has
> jurisdiction over copyright matters, I should make clear that this
> change should not require any alteration in the methods used by the
> courts to enforce the "unserved household" limitation of Section 119.
> *The new language states only that the antenna is to be "stationary";
> it does not state that the antenna is to be misoriented (i.e., pointed
> away from the station in question).* Any interpretation that assumed
> misorientation would be inconsistent with the basic premise of the
> definition of "unserved household," which defines that term in
> relation to an individual TV station rather than to all network
> affiliates in a market---and speaks to whether a household "cannot"
> receive a Grade B intensity signal from a particular station. If a
> household can receive a signal of Grade B intensity with a properly
> oriented stationary conventional antenna, it is not "unserved" within
> the meaning of Section 119. In addition, if station towers are located
> in different directions, conventional over-the-air antennas can be
> designed so as to point towards the different towers without requiring
> the antenna to be moved. And reading the definition of "unserved
> household" to assume misoriented antennas would mean that the
> "unserved household" limitation had no fixed meaning, since there are
> countless different ways in which an antenna can be misoriented, but
> only one way to be correctly oriented, as the Commission's rules make
> clear.[^122]

Similarly, Congressman Coble further clarified:

> I want to stress that this one-word change to the Copyright Act does
> not require (or even permit) any change in the methods used by the
> courts to enforce the "unserved household" limitation of Section 119.
> The new language says only that the test is whether a "stationary"
> antenna can pick up a Grade B intensity signal; although some may have
> wished otherwise, *it does not say that the antenna is to be
> improperly oriented (i.e., pointed away from the TV transmitter in
> question). To read the Act in that way would be extraordinarily
> hypocritical*, since "stationary" satellite antennas themselves must
> be perfectly oriented to get any reception at all."[^123]

There is no contrary legislative history indicating that *SHVIA*
requires anything less than use of an antenna properly oriented toward
the local network station(s) at issue. We therefore conclude that the
statutory use of the term "stationary" has no affect on the Grade B
planning factors used to determine distant network signal eligibility.

37. *Dipole Factor.* Another Grade B planning factor is the mathematical
    relationship between the signal strength output of the receiving
    antenna and the strength of the electromagnetic field in which the
    antenna is located. This relationship is known as the dipole factor.
    The existing values for the Grade B dipole planning factor are --3
    dB, 6 dB, and 16 dB for the low VHF, high VHF, and UHF television
    band, respectively. In the *NOI,* we explained that the current
    Grade B planning factors are based on dipole factors determined at
    the geometric mean frequency of each of the three television
    bands.[^124] That is, for the entire Low VHF band, a single dipole
    factor was computed based solely on the mid band frequency of 69
    MHz. Similarly, the High VHF band dipole factor was based on the
    frequency of 194 MHz; and the UHF band dipole factor was based on
    the frequency of 645 MHz. In MM Docket No. 87-268, which dealt with
    planning factors for DTV, however, the Commission used the *precise
    value* of the dipole factor for each UHF DTV channel. Had the
    previous methodology been used for DTV, a single dipole factor would
    have been computed based solely on the allotment for the DTV
    mid-band channel 38 frequency of 617 MHz for all UHF DTV channels.
    The computation of distinct DTV dipole factors, however, reveals
    that reception on DTV channel 14 needs 2.3 dB less field strength,
    and DTV channel 69 needs 2.3 dB more, than the field strength value
    for the DTV mid-band channel.[^125] For the purpose of achieving
    consistent service replication data for DTV, this same methodology
    was used to modify the Grade B field strength values (set forth in
    47 CFR § 73.683) applicable to existing analog UHF stations.[^126]
    Because the VHF television band covers a much smaller range of
    frequencies, this methodology does not produce significant
    differences in the dipole factor for VHF television reception. In
    light of this information, we sought comment on whether the
    modifications to the dipole factor applied to the DTV planning
    factors should be extended to also apply to modification of the
    analog television Grade B standard for the purposes of
    *SHVIA*.[^127] We also asked whether these theoretical calculations
    of the dipole factor and the resulting system gains used in the
    Grade B planning factor are reflective of the actual energy
    transference of today's home receiving antennas.

38. EchoStar comments that, in order to account for the change in system
    impedance from 300 ohms to 75 ohms, and to reflect the removal of
    channels 70-83 from the television UHF band, the dipole factors must
    be adjusted upward.[^128] EchoStar further asserts that the Grade B
    planning factors include an impedance transformation term that
    should be removed inasmuch as the intrinsic impedance of a dipole is
    approximately the 75-ohm impedance of the modern receiving
    system.[^129] Removal of channels 70-83 from the television UHF
    band, EchoStar states, changes the geometric mean frequency for all
    remaining UHF channels to 615 MHz. EchoStar concludes that the
    dipole factors should be changed to 3, 12, and 22 dB, respectively,
    for the low VHF, high VHF, and UHF television bands. Network
    Affiliates and NAB state the existing values for the dipole factor
    are accurate but, because they are based on the geometric mean
    frequency of each of three bands, they do allow for a range of
    variability of approximately +/- 2.3 dB from the top to the bottom
    of the UHF band.[^130] They add that if the Commission wished to
    define the dipole factor more accurately to account for this
    variability, it could slightly modify the UHF value by creating five
    sub-bands and making the following adjustments to the existing value
    of 16 dB: Channels 14-23 (-2 dB adjustment); Channels 24-33 (-1
    adj.); Channels 34-46 (no change); Channels 47-59 (+1 dB adj.); and
    Channels 60-69 (+2 adj.). No change is needed for the VHF bands,
    they state, because there is little variability in those bands.

39. We see no reason to recommend changing either the dipole factor or
    the thermal noise factor based on the system impedance. As Network
    Affiliates accurately elaborate in their reply comments, a change
    from 300-ohm to 75-ohm impedance systems has equal but inverse
    effects upon the dipole and thermal noise factors.[^131]
    Specifically, because 75-ohm systems would have 6 dB less thermal
    noise than 300-ohm systems but would have a 6 dB greater dipole
    factor, these changes would have no net effect on the resultant
    required median field.[^132] Also, we do not recommend the
    suggestion of Network Affiliates and NAB to reduce UHF dipole value
    variability by adjusting that value slightly, from a range of --2 to
    +2 dB over five sub-bands, because the proposed adjustments would be
    minor in effect, would add complexity to the planning factors, and
    would only be transitional and short-lived. The range of variability
    for the UHF band will decrease as the upper portion of that band is
    reallocated for other services.[^133]

40. *Field Strength Variability.* As we explained in the *NOI,* VHF and
    UHF field intensities vary not only with time, but also with
    location.[^134] By virtue of the relatively short wavelengths
    involved, it is common for field strength levels to vary several dB
    over relatively short distances of a few yards for VHF frequencies
    and a few feet for UHF frequencies. Variations of this kind are a
    function of frequency and terrain. The location variability factor
    is expressed in dB and represents the difference between the median
    field that is exceeded at 50 percent of the locations and the field
    exceeded for some other percent of the locations. One way to account
    for these variability factors is to build them directly into signal
    strength values. The Grade B intensity levels are actually median
    signal strengths \-- *i.e.*, 50% of locations in a particular area
    should receive a Grade B signal or higher at least 50% of the time.
    However, this does not mean that 50% of the locations will receive
    an *acceptable picture* only 50% of the time. As discussed above the
    Grade B values have a built-in time factor so that an acceptable
    picture is predicted at least 90% of the time. For example, a signal
    strength of 41 dB/μv/m provides an acceptable picture for channels
    2-6. To ensure that a location receives such a signal 90% of the
    time, the Grade B value for those channels, 47dB/μv/m, includes an
    added time factor of 6 dB.[^135] Thus, although a location receiving
    a Grade B signal of 47 dB/μv/m will only get that signal 50% of the
    time, that same location will receive a 41 dB/μv/m signal 90% of the
    time. Two of the existing Grade B planning factors take into account
    field strength variability: the time fading factor and the terrain
    factor. The time fading factor, as indicated above, was chosen to
    assure that a viewer who receives a signal of at least Grade B
    signal strength will receive an acceptable picture at least *90%* of
    the time. The existing time fading factor values are 6 dB for low
    VHF, 5 dB for high VHF, and 4 dB for UHF channels. The terrain
    location factor was chosen to assure that, along the Grade B signal
    strength contour, at least *50%* of all locations along the contour
    will receive a signal of at least Grade B strength. The existing
    terrain factor values are 0 dB for each of the three TV frequency
    bands. In light of these facts, we asked for comment on the
    appropriateness of the field strength variability factors used in
    the Grade B field intensity standard when determining distant
    network signal eligibility. We sought comment on the appropriateness
    of the field strength time variability factor used in the Grade B
    standard when determining distant network signal eligibility. In
    other words, we asked whether the prediction of an acceptable
    picture at least 90% of the time is an inadequate standard for the
    average television viewer. Further, we asked for information
    regarding the results of any technical studies and analysis of those
    studies that would clearly support a different value for the time
    variability factor for the purposes of determining distant network
    signal eligibility. Finally, in those cases where comments support a
    time variability factor for signal levels greater than the 90^th^
    percentile, we sought information regarding the availability of
    propagation data that clearly supports the proposed value of time
    variability.

41. In its comments, SBCA urges that the time fading factor values
    should be increased to 9 dB for each of the three TV bands. SBCA
    reasons that the planning factors were never adjusted to conform to
    new propagation curves that the Commission adopted in the 1970s, and
    that application of the original calculation method to the newer
    propagation curves results in the 9 dB value.[^136] Broadcast
    industry commenters, on the other hand, support the existing time
    fading factor values.[^137] NAB adds that "the time fading factor is
    a function of distance, so when field strength is being predicted at
    something less than the extreme distance, appropriate factors would
    be less than those in the table. Leaving the time fading factors as
    at present introduces an element of conservatism in predicting field
    strength at the lesser distances."[^138] As to location variability
    (*i.e.,* the terrain factor, which, for Grade B, currently has a 0
    dB value), MSTV comments that this planning factor should remain
    unchanged because the ILLR measurement methodology appropriately
    accounts for location.[^139] NAB agrees.[^140] EchoStar also
    proposes no change to this factor.[^141]

42. In reply comments, NAB and Network Affiliates state the change to
    the time fading factor proposed by SBCA is not necessary, because it
    is premised on reception distances (approximately 60 miles or more
    from the transmitter) that are well beyond those at which the bulk
    of households that might seek to view distant signals are located
    (50 miles or less).[^142] At these closer distances which are more
    likely to be in issue for purposes of determining distant network
    signal eligibility, Network Affiliates adds, the new propagation
    curves support corrected time fading factors of 5 dB or less in the
    VHF band.[^143] NAB adds that "even if the time fading factor were
    revised upwards by a few dB, that change would be much more than
    offset by improvements in receiver noise and other factors."[^144]

43. *(a) Time Fading.* As noted by SBCA, the time fading planning factor
    was never adjusted to conform to the new propagation curves that the
    Commission adopted in the 1970s. Conformance with the newer
    propagation curves would result in time fading values different from
    those currently applied as a Grade B planning factor. We also
    observe, however, that the original calculation of the Grade B
    signal intensity considered values of time fading at the most
    distant household reachable by TV stations operating at maximum
    power and antenna height licensable under FCC rules. Time fading
    generally increases with distance from the transmitter. We therefore
    find that it is appropriate to consider the effects of modifying the
    method for determining distant network signal eligibility to account
    for the newer propagation curves and the distance-sensitive nature
    of time fading.[^145] In lieu of the existing fixed values of the
    time fading factor, we believe an appropriate modification would be
    to substitute time fading values determined for the actual receiving
    location by the Individual Location Longley-Rice prediction
    model.[^146]  The use the Individual Location Longley-Rice
    prediction model would provide a simple, cost-effective method to
    adjust the time fading planning factors to conform to the new
    propagation curves. The value of the Grade B signal intensity would
    then depend on the actual location of the household of interest and
    as such would more accurately describe a minimum signal level that
    is necessary to provide an acceptable picture quality. This
    modification of the method for determining the Grade B intensity
    would tend to increase the number of unserved households in the
    outer 2 to 3 miles of the traditional Grade B coverage area of VHF
    stations with maximum facilities. Up to about 7 miles of traditional
    coverage might be affected in the case of maximum facility UHF
    stations. This is the result expected by SBCA in urging readjustment
    of the time fading factors. The tendency would be opposite for these
    same stations at some receiving locations within the first 40 miles
    of the transmitting antenna of UHF stations and the first 50 miles
    of the transmitting antenna of VHF stations. These would be
    close-in, difficult receiving locations where under the current
    rules the predictive signal intensity is determined to be less than
    4 to 6 dB above the minimum values of the Grade B standard due to
    terrain shielding or other difficult propagation conditions. At
    these locations the predicted number of unserved households could
    decrease under this modification.

44. Under the *SHVIA*, individual testing is provided as a key safety
    net mechanism for proving that a specific household is unserved and
    thus eligible under the law to receive satellite delivery of distant
    network signals. This testing is based on the premise that it is to
    be a relatively low cost, accurate, and reproducible methodology for
    measuring the presence of the signal intensity at an individual
    location. Section 73.686(d) of our rules sets forth this testing
    methodology that provides for a limited number of measurements made
    in a one-time measurement program. Because of the limitations on the
    length of testing and the number of measurements made, only median
    values of signal intensity can be accurately determined. Therefore,
    when determining the value of signal intensity to be measured at a
    household, the time fading factor determined for the individual
    location by the ILLR model would have to be added to the median
    value of signal intensity as determined by the planning factors.
    This would effectively yield the value of the signal intensity
    necessary to provide an acceptable picture 90 percent of the time.

45. In sum, the modification of the Grade B signal intensity time fading
    planning factor as described above and the resultant changes in the
    minimum signal intensity values could have two opposing effects on
    the total number of households deemed unserved. On the one hand, it
    might increase the number of households located within the outer
    portions of coverage areas of maximum facility stations which are
    deemed unserved. On the other hand, it might decrease the number of
    households located within close-in, difficult reception areas which
    are deemed unserved. However, we believe that the number of newly
    predicted served locations in close-in, difficult reception areas
    will be very small compared to the number of newly predicted
    unserved locations in the outer edges of station coverage. In
    addition, the use of actual, location-dependent, time fading values,
    as determined for each receiving location examined, would improve
    the Grade B signal intensity standard to more accurately describe a
    minimum signal level that would be necessary to provide an
    acceptable picture quality 90 percent of the time. Therefore for the
    purpose of determining distant network signal eligibility, we are
    recommending that the Grade B signal intensity standard be modified
    to incorporate this new time fading factor which uses the actual,
    location-dependent, time fading values at individual households as
    determined by the use of the ILLR.

46. *(b) Terrain Variability.* We do not recommend any change to the
    terrain planning factor, and no commenter has proposed any change to
    it. As we previously explained in the *SHVA Report and Order*:[^147]

> In the ILLR, location variability becomes effectively irrelevant
> because only one location (*e.g.*, a single household) is considered.
> The individual mode merges location variability (the measurable
> observable differences between dissimilar locations) and so-called
> situational variability (the small, often hidden, differences between
> similar or identical locations) into the statistical confidence
> factor.

Therefore, there is no justification for changing the Grade B location
variability planning factor.

47. *Environmental Noise.* Environmental noise is generated by noise
    sources that are external to the receiver and that are generally
    located in the area around the receiver location. Unlike internal
    noise discussed above, in relation to the receiver noise factor,
    external noise is generally highly non-Gaussian and tends to be
    impulsive in nature. As we explained in the *NOI,* external noise
    can be divided into several categories.[^148] Usually, external
    noise is categorized according to whether it is of atmospheric,
    galactic, or man-made origin. Since atmospheric noise usually
    predominates at frequencies below 30 MHz, it generally disturbs only
    the reception of channels within the low VHF band, but even that
    disturbance is only sporadic in nature. The major source of
    atmospheric noise is lightning. For instance, low VHF band
    disturbances, particularly on channel 2, can be noted during strong
    local thunderstorms. Generally, galactic noise levels exceed
    atmospheric noise levels in the overall low VHF band. Nevertheless,
    with the rapid growth of man-made noise sources (*e.g.,* emissions
    from automobile ignitions, electric motors, electric power
    transmissions, fluorescent lights, computers and other electronic
    equipment), man-made noise levels generally exceed both atmospheric
    and galactic at all television frequencies. In light of the above
    facts, the *NOI* sought comment on whether the planning factor
    values currently used to account for environmental noise levels
    values (*i.e.,* planning factor 11 in the Grade B Planning Factors
    Table) are appropriate for a standard to determine distant network
    signal eligibility.[^149] We asked, for example, whether
    environmental noise levels have increased (or decreased) and, if so,
    how should this affect any distant network signal eligibility
    standard. We also sought information regarding the results of any
    technical studies that might indicate that there is need for a Grade
    B environmental noise factor, *i.e.*, a counterpart to the urban
    noise factor value used in determining the Grade A field intensity
    levels, for the purposes of determining distant network signal
    eligibility.

48. In its comments, EchoStar states that "naturally-occurring noise,
    apart from lightning, which is usually sporadic, is not generally
    believed to be a significant factor in television broadcasting, but
    man-made noise often is a nearly continuous ambient factor that
    degrades the displayed picture."[^150] EchoStar points out that
    demographic patterns have changed significantly over the decades,
    resulting in today's "urban sprawl" that surrounds many of the
    larger cities in the nation. Many of the areas near the outer edges
    of TV Grade B service areas, EchoStar indicates, were once rural
    areas but are now suburban. EchoStar claims that increased signal
    intensity is necessary in those areas to overcome the accumulation
    of effects of various man-made noise sources such as automobile
    ignition, discharge lighting, and electric hair dryers. These noise
    sources, EchoStar states, become increasingly important in direct
    proportion to population density. EchoStar urges that, while the
    planning factor "to overcome urban noise" was set at 0 dB in the
    1950s, the long-term demographic trend toward "suburbanization"
    requires that a "man-made" noise factor now be included in the Grade
    B planning factors. EchoStar states the Commission has previously
    observed that "large population shifts from cities to suburban areas
    . . . cause the Grade B contours in these areas to no longer lie in
    'rural' areas. The assumption of 0 dB to overcome rural noise in
    these 'rural areas' is probably no longer valid. . . ."[^151]
    EchoStar posits that "to account for the effects of increased
    population density in areas that were rural 40 years ago, it is
    appropriate and necessary to apply \[as a Grade B planning factor\]
    the urban noise factors currently used for establishing the Grade A
    required field strengths. These values are 14, 7, and 0 dB, for the
    VHF-low, VHF-high, and UHF bands, respectively."[^152] SBCA agrees
    that the existing 0 dB Grade B urban noise factor is insufficient,
    but does not propose any specific replacement values.[^153]

49. In his comments, Biby opines that the "definitive source" on the
    subject of radio noise is a book by Edward N. Skomal.[^154]
    According to Biby, "Skomal provides graphical representations of the
    measured noise across the radio frequency spectrum in business,
    residential and rural areas. (He defines residential areas as those
    locations of single- or multiple-family dwellings with densities of
    two families or more per acre, while rural areas are those having a
    dwelling density of one or fewer per 5 acres with an associated land
    use that is dominantly agricultural.) According to Skomal, typical
    median man-made noise levels are: \[for Channel 2, 20 dB in rural
    areas, 25 dB in residential areas, and 30 dB in business areas; and
    for Channel 13, 3 dB (rural), 8 dB (residential), and 13 dB
    (business)\]."[^155] Biby concludes that man-made noise should be
    included in the Commission's predictive model and, until a
    sufficient body of observational data can be collected and built
    into the Commission's model, he suggests that Skomal's values be
    used.[^156]

50. The other broadcast industry commenters, to the contrary, suggest
    that the Grade B planning factors do not need to be adjusted to
    account for environmental noise. NAB states that it is not aware of
    any reliable studies showing or quantifying an increased level of
    man-made noise in the Grade B area.[^157] NAB adds that "as America
    has made the transition from a smokestack economy to a high-tech
    economy, many noise sources may actually have been reduced since the
    1950s. In any event, only in the low-VHF band is environmental noise
    a consideration at all."[^158] Network Affiliates agree,
    acknowledging that "while, in some areas, there has been further
    urban development since the original noise levels were determined,
    there is no current measured data to show that the levels have in
    fact increased and, even if so, by how much."[^159] They also state
    that "the Commission has examined the issue of urban noise and
    determined that the effects are significant only for low VHF
    frequencies."[^160] Additionally, Network Affiliates state that
    "although it could be assumed that noise levels have increased based
    on the extent of urban development, there has also been an increased
    awareness of electrical and radio noise and its impact on consumer
    electronic devices and, with this awareness, a concomitant increase
    in attempts to shield noise generators."[^161] Finally, Network
    Affiliates advise that the Commission's "Technical Advisory
    Committee is currently engaged in examining man-made noise and its
    potential impact on wireless devices. This effort is currently
    on-going and no results are available yet. Until measured results of
    a study on urban noise are available, it cannot be assumed that the
    urban noise factor should be changed in the Grade B planning
    factors."[^162] MSTV adds that the existing planning factor values
    represent the best figures currently available and should not be
    changed without a scientific study based on comprehensive
    measurements of environmental noise.[^163]

51. In its reply, NAB states that there is no basis for adding an urban
    noise factor to the Grade B planning factors, because urban noise is
    only significant in the more industrialized portions of a city and
    has little effect in the outlying residential areas.[^164] It
    reiterates that no comprehensive study of man-made noise exists, and
    there is substantial reason to expect industry efforts (such as
    those by automobile manufacturers) to succeed at controlling and
    reducing noise sources.[^165] Network Affiliates agree.[^166] They
    add that the Commission's *A Review of the Technical Planning
    Factors for VHF Television Service,* relied upon by EchoStar,[^167]
    ultimately concluded that the rural noise factor should be 0
    dB.[^168] Network Affiliates additionally state that "the UHF
    Comparability Task Force, in 1980, which was also engaged in
    deriving modified Grade B values, also ultimately concluded that no
    account need be taken of rural noise for Grade B purposes."[^169] In
    general agreement with NAB and Network Affiliates, MSTV adds that
    EchoStar's proposal is based on speculation and vague assertions
    about demographic changes, which the Commission recently rejected in
    the *SHVA Report and Order*.[^170] In particular, MSTV states, the
    Commission concluded that no change to the urban noise factor was
    warranted, finding that "the technology of receivers and antennas
    has kept pace with changing consumer expectations and increased
    noise."[^171]

52. We find that the record does not contain any current and substantial
    studies of man-made noise that could provide the basis for new
    values of environmental noise for television planning factors. There
    is a general suggestion in the record that demographic changes would
    likely have increased the environmental noise in the vicinity of TV
    station Grade B signal strength contours. This is, in turn,
    countered by the suggestion that changes in the nature of industry
    and its awareness of environmental concerns has led to decreases in
    environmental noise. We observe that Skomal's study, upon which Biby
    relies, was conducted in the 1970s and is not current, especially in
    view of the improvements in automobile noise emissions that we
    believe have occurred since then. This potential improvement in the
    reduction of emissions from motor vehicles was first noted by the
    Commission in 1983 and was prompted by the phenomenal growth of
    on-board electronics in motor vehicles, both in operational and
    entertainment equipment.[^172] The temporal variation of Skomal's
    data appears to indicate a significant automotive contribution. In
    addition, Skomal's findings were based on a limited study involving
    only 300 hours of recorded data accumulated from observations in
    five different cities. Therefore, we conclude that insufficient data
    has been submitted to support any recommendation for an addition or
    modification to the existing planning factors based on environmental
    noise at this time. We recommend that no revisions be made to the
    planning factors based on environmental noise.

53. *Multipath Interference.* The *NOI* observed that, although not
    considered in the original service planning factors, multipath
    distortion, or ghosting, has been a pernicious problem since the
    beginning of television broadcast service.[^173] Ghosting is the
    reception of at least two recognizable images of the desired
    picture, with each succeeding image displaced horizontally by an
    amount corresponding to the echo delay. An echo is usually caused by
    the existence of another transmission path that parallels the main
    path. Ghosting can consist of multiple echoes, and individual echoes
    may be leading or lagging the main signal image received. The range
    of possible echoes is large, but when the delay is close to zero,
    the echo image cannot be resolved, and the effect is to impair the
    picture definition (*i.e*., blurring). Echoes with delays up to tens
    of microseconds occur in television broadcasting, because of its
    vulnerability to reflections from buildings and other structures
    away from the direct path between the transmitter and receiver.
    Included in this problem are "moving ghosts" or "picture flutter,"
    which is caused by reflections from passing airplanes. In recent
    years much concern has been raised regarding television signal
    intensity levels and their affect on receiver picture quality. This
    has been true even though multipath impairments are generally
    independent of field strength levels at the receiver. However, until
    recent works on ghost canceling technology, models for predicting
    over-the-air received television picture quality have generally
    ignored the impact of ghosting on television reception. While many
    improvements to the television broadcasting system have been
    implemented over the years, degraded images associated with
    multipath ghosting have not diminished, and ghosting continues to
    reign as the most annoying impairment of the over-the-air television
    service. The viewer, nonetheless, can take certain actions, such as
    turning or moving the antenna, to minimize ghosting.

54. It has been suggested that, in analog television, a
    desired-to-undesired signal ratio of at least 32 dB must be
    maintained between the direct and reflected television signal to
    reduce "ghost images" to less than a perceptible impairment. This
    value applies where the time separation is at least 2 μs, but may be
    less for smaller time separations.[^174] Although ghosting is one of
    the most serious causes of poor picture quality or loss of service
    in television reception, no significant studies of television
    picture impairment by ghosting have been made, except in the case of
    relatively simple, single ghost images.[^175] However, in most
    cases, ghost images are multiple and complex. Simply expressing the
    desired-to-undesired signal ratio, as is done in most interference
    analyses, is insufficient to quantify the impact of ghosting because
    the number of echoes, their phase relationships, and resultant delay
    are also important physical characteristics of ghosting. To
    completely analyze the impact of ghosting, these quantitative
    measures of multiple ghosts must be correlated with a subjective
    evaluation of the resultant impairment. To make things even more
    difficult, in order to use any quantitative value of ghosting for
    the purpose of developing a distant network signal eligibility
    standard, a method of predicting these values at a specific location
    must be available. However, we are not aware of any methodology for
    predicting the specifics of ghosting at a given location.

55. In light of the above considerations, the *NOI* sought comment on
    whether the eligibility standard should account for ghosting and, if
    so, what methods and values should be used.[^176] We asked for
    comment on whether there are scientifically accepted models for
    predicting ghosting that should be used in determining an
    eligibility standard. We also sought comment on whether the effects
    of multipath interference should be included in the eligibility
    standard and, if so, how to account for them. In addition, we asked
    for comment on whether the eligibility standard should presume that
    the viewer will act to minimize ghosting and, if so, which viewer
    actions should be presumed, and how to account for those
    presumptions in the standards. We also sought information regarding
    the results of any technical studies of television picture
    impairment by ghosting. We indicated that such studies should
    include quantitative measures of multiple ghosts correlated with a
    subjective evaluation of the resultant impairment.

56. In its comments, EchoStar proposes a method of evaluating ghosting
    impairment and developing an "equivalence" rule to express
    ghosting-related impairment in terms of signal strength loss.[^177]
    EchoStar's method relies on work published by several authors and an
    ITU recommendation expressing the relationship between picture
    quality and the objective value of specific distortions assuming
    only one of them is present at any one time. EchoStar's proposal for
    evaluating ghosting requires a technical measurement or calculation
    of the magnitude and delay of each ghost at each receiving location
    examined for distant network signal eligibility. SBCA endorses this
    approach.[^178] On the other hand, Network Affiliates state that
    there is no need to modify the Grade B planning factors to account
    for ghosting.[^179] In support, they explain that ghosting at a
    particular location is dependent on numerous variables including
    weather, time of year for areas with deciduous trees, wind, and
    moving vehicles and aircraft, so its presence cannot be predicted
    with accuracy at any particular location. In addition, they state,
    technical solutions already exist to eliminate the impact of
    ghosting.[^180] NAB agrees and adds that the problem of ghosting is
    not subject to any scientific method of prediction.[^181] It states
    that use of a properly oriented directional antenna will eliminate
    or reduce ghosting, and that consumers should be expected to make
    all reasonable efforts to receive strong off-the-air signals and
    minimize ghosting. NAB further states that ghosting can be almost
    completely eliminated through already-proven, off-the-shelf,
    ghost-cancellation technology. Finally, NAB states that to the
    extent that ghosting may be caused by tall buildings in "urban
    canyons" such as Manhattan, that problem has already been solved by
    the introduction of local-to-local satellite service in the major
    urban areas. This service, according to NAB, provides satellite
    subscribers with an effortless way to obtain ghost-free signals from
    their local network affiliates. In its comments, MSTV states that
    ghosting cannot be incorporated into the Grade B signal intensity
    standard and should not be considered in determining distant network
    signal eligibility because there is no scientifically accepted model
    for predicting ghosting.[^182] MSTV points out that, in the *SHVA
    Report and Order,* the Commission explained that increasing signal
    strength also increases the severity of ghosting and noted that a
    consulting engineer for one of the satellite industry commenters had
    "acknowledge\[d\] that his proposed \[increased Grade B\] values
    d\[id\] not deal with the problem of 'multipathing' . . . and . . .
    that the stronger signal intensity he propose\[d\] 'may make the
    effect of multipathing more pronounced.'"[^183]

57. In his comments, Biby states that ghosting is "possibly an even more
    prevalent cause of poor television reception than is man-made
    noise."[^184] Biby proposes the following approach for predicting
    the potential for multipath reception at a given household:[^185]

-   Based on the terrain around the house and the characteristics of the
    local clutter, estimate the area within which ghost generation is
    likely to be a problem.

-   Then examine that area for possible troublesome objects, using the
    available tower, terrain and land-use databases. For example,
    business/commercial land-use typically includes structures that are
    tall enough to cause ghosts at nearby households.

Biby appears to suggest a method of measuring ghosting by capturing
digital picture frames using computer circuit boards that can function
as TV receivers and then applying digital signal processing techniques
to separate multipath signals from random noise.[^186] As an alternative
measurement methodology, Biby appears to suggest the use of
ghost-cancellation technology.[^187]

58. In reply, NAB's consulting engineer states that EchoStar's proposal
    to account for "ghosting" is impractical, because it would require a
    visit to each receiving location by an expert in the measurement of
    multipath phenomena, and the use of expensive equipment, in order to
    evaluate the magnitude of, and delay caused by, ghosts.[^188] He
    notes that only after obtaining this information about the multipath
    environment could EchoStar's proposal assign a metric for each echo
    that would then be correlated to the TASO or CCIR grading scale. He
    adds that ghosting can, in most cases, be controlled by using an
    antenna with suitable reception pattern and rotating it for optimum
    reception. In addition, he points out that sophisticated
    ghost-cancellation technology already exists, and that technology
    could readily be deployed if the problem of ghosting were considered
    significant. He therefore urges that the multipath phenomenon should
    not be considered within the context of the Grade B planning
    factors. Agreeing with NAB, Network Affiliates add that EchoStar's
    proposal is unworkable, because it requires objective knowledge at
    each location of the displacement, phase, and magnitude of each
    ghost.[^189] Network Affiliates stress that the *SHVIA* does not
    contemplate that such measurements will be made by an expert capable
    of properly obtaining the requisite data at each and every
    household, but instead relies on an accurate predictive model for
    signal strength, the Individual Location Longley-Rice ("ILLR")
    model. They observe that in the *NOI* we stated that "in order to
    use any quantitative value of ghosting for the purpose of developing
    a signal standard for *SHVIA*, *a method of predicting these values
    at a specific location must be available*."[^190] Further, Network
    Affiliates stress that "it is essentially impossible to model and
    predict all these ghosts in a *dynamic* environment of individual
    receivers," in which there are many variables that in turn may vary
    with small changes in time, location, or pointing angle.[^191] Also,
    Network Affiliates observe that SBCA expressed concern that failure
    to reflect ghosting in the planning factors would "fail to do
    justice to the *millions of mainly urban consumers* counted as
    'served' because they are predicted to receive a strong signal," but
    that the Section 119 license was enacted for the benefit of *rural*
    subscribers, not urban viewers.[^192] Finally, Network Affiliates
    identify several readily available antennas for the consumer market
    that are designed to ameliorate multipath interference, and identify
    a manufacturer that offers ghost canceling integrated circuits
    specifically designed to reduce NTSC multipath signal echoes.[^193]
    MSTV adds that EchoStar's proposal is illusory in that it does not
    provide any means for predicting the existence or severity of
    ghosting.[^194] MSTV notes that EchoStar has admitted that
    "additional research is underway ... to determine whether any
    generalizations can be made concerning the impairments caused by
    ghosting in specific classes of receiving situations (*e.g.*, LU/LC
    types)."[^195] By contrast, EchoStar reasserts that its proposal is
    practical and feasible, and notes that Biby, a broadcast engineer,
    appears to agree with it that ghosting is a problem that should be
    addressed.[^196]

59. We find that the record developed in this proceeding lacks any
    supportable methodology for including within the distant network
    signal eligibility standard a method for predicting or otherwise
    economically evaluating the impact of multipath interference on
    local television service. As we stated in the *NOI*, although
    ghosting is one of the most serious causes of poor picture quality
    or loss of service within television coverage areas, no significant
    studies of television picture impairment by ghosting have been made,
    except in the case of relatively simple, single ghost images.
    However, at most receiving locations that experience ghosting, the
    ghost images are multiple and complex. EchoStar's proposed method to
    account for ghosting would be cumbersome and costly to implement, in
    that it appears to involve case-by-case visits by experts to
    households, and it does not appear to include a method of predicting
    multipath interference at specific locations. Moreover, we observe
    that EchoStar appears to concede that its proposal is incomplete,
    admitting "additional research is underway ... to determine whether
    any generalizations can be made concerning the impairments caused by
    ghosting in specific classes of receiving situations....
    *Preliminary results* suggest that objectionable ghosting is very
    common...."[^197] Biby's proposal also appears, at least in part, to
    involve visits to individual households by experts or technicians,
    and the use of technical equipment and analysis that does appear to
    fit the simple-test premise of the *SHVIA* measurement requirement.
    Thus, we continue to find that there still is no clear
    scientifically valid method of predicting ghosting at a given
    location. The existence of such a valid predictive method is
    paramount in revising our standard for determining distant network
    signal eligibility. In enacting *SHVIA,* Congress intended that any
    modifications we may recommend be consistent with the goal that the
    eligibility standard should remain a relatively inexpensive and
    simple test.[^198] We conclude that ghosting effects cannot be
    accurately included in a revised predictive, distant network signal
    eligibility standard at this time and that the suggested on-site
    multipath measurements cannot be made in an inexpensive and simple
    manner. Nonetheless, we point out that our ILLR measurement
    methodology, which is the subject of another proceeding,[^199] does
    account for land use and land cover, which are physical aspects that
    do relate to the extent of multipath interference at particular
    locations.[^200] Finally, we stress that efforts taken by consumers
    to use and properly orient antennas designed to ameliorate multipath
    interference will go a long way to minimize the ghosting phenomenon.
    Therefore, we conclude that insufficient information has been
    submitted to support any recommendation for an addition to or
    modification of the existing planning factors to account for
    multipath interference.

60. *Replacement of Grade B Standard.* The *NOI* recognized that it is
    possible that adoption of an alternative standard, rather than a
    modification of the current Grade B field intensity standard, may be
    the more appropriate way of determining satellite TV subscriber
    eligibility for reception of distant network signals.[^201]
    Therefore, we sought comment on alternative analog TV standards for
    purposes of determining distant network signal eligibility. We asked
    commenters who recommend alternative ways of determining satellite
    TV subscriber eligibility for reception of distant network signals
    to explain the technical justification for their proposal and
    include a methodology of predicting eligibility and verification of
    such predictions. We emphasized that all comments should be
    substantiated with a technical showing and should explain why any
    recommended alternative standard is superior to the current Grade B
    approach. No comments suggested the outright replacement of the
    Grade B planning methodology. Thus, we find that the record does not
    support, for the purpose of determining distant network signal
    eligibility, the replacement of the current methodology used to
    construct the Grade B signal intensity standard with an alternative
    methodology.

61. *Eligibility Standard for DTV Signals.* As explained in the *NOI,*
    Section 73.622(e) of our Rules defines the Digital Television (DTV)
    service area as the geographic area within which the predicted
    F(50,90) field strength of the station's signal exceeds: 28 dB/μv/m
    for low VHF channels; 36 dB/μv/m for high VHF channels; and 41
    dB/μv/m for UHF channels.[^202] These values are the levels at which
    reception of DTV service is limited only by receiver and channel
    noise. Within the contours established by these values, service is
    considered available at locations where the station's signal
    strength, as predicted using the terrain dependent Longley-Rice
    point-to-point propagation model, exceeds these values.[^203] These
    values, in turn, are based on the DTV planning factors shown in the
    table below.

**DTV Planning Factors**

+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| Factors                   | Units    | C       | C       | C       |
|                           |          | hannels | hannels | hannels |
|                           |          |         |         |         |
|                           |          | 2-6     | 7-13    | 14-69   |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 1\. Thermal Noise @ 75    | dB/1μv   | 1.75    | 1.75    | 1.75    |
| ohms                      |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2\. Receiver Noise Figure | dB       | 10      | 10      | 7       |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 3\. Signal to Random      | dB       | 16      | 16      | 16      |
| Noise Ratio               |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 4\. Transmission line     | dB       | 1       | 2       | 4       |
| loss                      |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 5\. Receiving Ant. Gain   | dB       | 4       | 6       | 10      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 6\. Dipole Factor         | dB       | 3       | 12      | 22      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 7\. Local Field           | dB/1μv/m | 28      | 36      | 41      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 8\. Terrain Factor (50%)  | dB       | 0       | 0       | 0       |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 9\. Time Fading Factor    | dB       | 0       | 0       | 0       |
| (90%)                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 10\. Median Field         | dB/1μv/m | 28      | 36      | 41      |
| F(50,50)                  |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 11\. To overcome Urban    | dB       | 0       | 0       | 0       |
| Noise                     |          |         |         |         |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+
| 12\. Required Field       | dB/1μv/m | 28      | 36      | 41      |
+---------------------------+----------+---------+---------+---------+

It should be noted that the time fading factors for DTV are not included
in the determination of the DTV minimum field intensities. Therefore,
time fading factors must be added to the minimum required field
intensities to obtain values for median field intensities when making
field strength measurements. The accountability for time fading should
also be included in the field strength prediction methodology.

62. We also pointed out in the *NOI* that the planning factors for
    digital television are the same physical factors which to date have
    been generally considered to influence the quality of reception of
    over-the-air transmissions of analog television pictures by home
    audiences, *e.g.,* thermal and receiver noise, signal-to-noise
    ratio, transmission line loss, antenna gain/dipole factor, and
    propagation variability factors.[^204] Therefore, we sought comment
    on whether the existing DTV noise-limited service contour values are
    also valid for the purpose of determining whether a DTV viewer is
    eligible to receive satellite transmissions of distant network
    signals under the *SHVIA*. If not, we asked for comment on which
    specific modifications to this standard should be made. We
    emphasized that comments should be supported with a sound technical
    justification. Additionally, we sought comment on an alternative DTV
    standard for purposes of determining distant network signal
    eligibility.

63. The clear consensus of commenters is that it would be premature for
    the Commission to recommend any particular eligibility standard for
    distant network DTV signals.[^205] We agree. At this point in time,
    there is an insufficient body of evidence to indicate whether the
    current DTV planning factors, upon which the DTV service areas are
    based, are appropriate for the purpose of *SHVIA*. Additionally,
    there is not a compelling need to set a standard at this time. We
    conclude that the wisest course is to defer suggesting a particular
    distant network signal eligibility standard for DTV until such time
    as it becomes clear that such a standard is actually needed and what
    the appropriate *SHVIA* standard should be.

64. *Conclusion and Recommendation to Congress.* Based on the record
    developed through our inquiry process, we recommend to the Congress
    that the Grade B signal intensity standard be retained for
    determining whether a household is eligible to receive retransmitted
    distant TV network signals. However we are recommending a change in
    the values of the Grade B signal intensity standard, solely for the
    purpose of determining distant network signal eligibility, to
    reflect a change in the method of determining the values of the time
    fading planning factor. We also recommend that the construction of a
    distant network signal eligibility standard for DTV be deferred
    until such time as it becomes clear that such a standard is actually
    needed and what the appropriate standard should be.

65. As to the nine basic Grade B planning factors used to construct the
    existing distant network signal eligibility standard for analog TV,
    we find that the current values of six of these factors to be
    specifically appropriate: thermal noise; transmission line loss;
    receiving antenna gain; dipole factor; terrain factor; and urban
    noise. With regard to the three remaining factors, signal-to-noise
    ratio, time fading, and receiver noise figure, there is some
    potential for improvement which could increase the "accuracy" of
    these predictive factors. However, we also believe that while the
    changes to the signal-to-noise ratio factor based on picture
    acceptability by 90 percent of observers would tend to increase the
    required signal intensity for reception, the changes to the receiver
    noise figure based on the expected improvements in modern television
    receivers would tend to lower the required signal intensity by a
    roughly equivalent degree. Studies necessary to arrive at new values
    for signal to noise ratio and receive noise figures would be very
    costly and would take considerable time to complete. In as much as
    the results of these studies would almost surely be offsetting, we
    therefore do not recommend any changes to the signal-to-noise ratio
    and receiver noise figure planning factors.

66. Finally, with regard to the time fading factor, we believe that the
    time fading values determined for the actual receiving location by
    the Individual Location Longley-Rice prediction model should be
    substituted for the existing values. This modification to the time
    fading factor could have two opposing effects on the total number of
    households deemed by *SHVIA* to be unserved. On the one hand, it
    might increase the number of households located within the outer
    portion of coverage areas of maximum facility stations who are
    deemed unserved. For maximum facility VHF stations, the predicted
    number of unserved households in the outer 2 to 3 miles of the
    traditional Grade B coverage area would tend to increase. For
    maximum facility UHF stations, up to about the outer 7 miles of the
    traditional coverage area might be similarly affected. On the other
    hand, the tendency would be opposite for the stations' close-in,
    difficult reception areas. At these locations the predicted number
    of unserved households could decrease under this modification.
    However, we believe that the number of newly predicted served
    locations in close-in, difficult reception areas will be very small
    compared to the number of newly predicted unserved locations in the
    outer edges of station coverage. In any event, the modification
    would improve the accuracy of the Grade B standard for *SHVIA*
    purposes. Therefore, we recommend that the time fading planning
    factor be modified to replace the existing fixed values with the
    distance-sensitive values determined for the actual receiving
    locations using the Individual Location Longley-Rice prediction
    model.

67. We also have considered an additional planning factor for multipath
    interference that was suggested by commenters, and do not recommend
    including such factor in the distant network signal eligibility
    standard. We found that the effects of ghosting cannot be
    effectively included in a revised distant network signal eligibility
    standard at this time, because we have been unable to identify a
    reliable methodology for predicting multipath at an individual
    location. In addition, on-site measurements that are capable of
    incorporating multipath interference, as proposed by one of the
    commenters, cannot be made in an inexpensive and simple
    manner.[^206] A predictive methodology is necessary to keep costs
    low when determining the eligibility of satellite television
    subscribers to receive retransmitted distant signals of network
    stations under *SHVIA*. We continue to believe that consumer efforts
    to use and properly orient antennas designed to ameliorate multipath
    interference is an excellent way to minimize the ghosting
    phenomenon. In view of the absence of any technical solutions for
    the inclusion of this impairment, we do not recommend modification
    of the Grade B signal intensity standard to include multipath
    interference.

68. Overall, we point out that no new studies that could serve as a
    scientifically sound basis to revise the distant network signal
    eligibility standard beyond the above recommendation were offered by
    the commenters or available from other sources. Much of the material
    relied upon by the commenters was a resubmission of material that we
    have previously considered in other proceedings. We also believe
    that technological developments over the years have led to an
    increased "safety margin" in television receivers so that the actual
    quality of reception is probably somewhat better than predicted by
    the methodology and assumptions underlying the creation of the Grade
    B signal intensity values. These positive developments have not been
    studied in sufficient depth or scale as to warrant any decrease in
    the values of the Grade B signal intensity standard, but they do
    weigh against increasing those values for any but scientifically
    supported reasons.

**ORDERING CLAUSE**

69. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 339(c)(1) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer
    Improvement Act of 1999, this Report IS ADOPTED. In fulfillment of
    the provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999,
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report is to be presented to the
    Congress.

70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Request for Extension of Comment and
    Reply Comment Dates" filed on July 17, 2000 by J.E. Schmidt IS
    DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

Appendix A

List of Commenters

1.  Richard L. Biby, P.E. ("Biby"), filed June 26, 2000

2.  Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association ("SBCA"),
    filed June 27, 2000

3.  National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), filed June 27, 2000

4.  EchoStar Satellite Corporation ("EchoStar"), filed June 27, 2000

5.  Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. ("MSTV"), filed
    June 27, 2000

6.  ABC Television Affiliate Associations *et al.*("Network
    Affiliates")*,* filed June 27, 2000

7.  Fox Television Stations, Inc. *et al.* ("Fox"), filed June 27, 2000

8.  National Rural Telephone Cooperatives ("NRTC"), filed June 27, 2000

Reply Commenters

1.  NAB, filed July 12, 2000

2.  EchoStar, filed July 12, 2000

3.  Network Affiliates, filed July 12, 2000

4.  MSTV, filed July 12, 2000

5.  Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("Capitol"), filed July 12, 2000

6.  NRTC, filed July 12, 2000

Other

1.  J.E. Schmidt filed a request for extension of time to file comments
    and reply comments, on July 17, 2000

[^1]: Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, Pub.L. No. 106-113,
    113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-526 to 1501A-545 (Nov. 29, 1999). Section
    1008(a) of *SHVIA* added, *inter alia,* new Section 339 ("Carriage
    of Distant Television Stations by Satellite Carriers") to the
    Commission's statutory charter, the Communications Act of 1934, 47
    U.S.C. § 151 *et seq*.

[^2]: The *SHVA* is part of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 119. The
    *SHVIA* amended and replaced the *SHVA.*

[^3]: *See* Section 73.683 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR § 73.683.

[^4]: *See Notice of Inquiry,* ET Docket No. 00-90, FCC 00-184, released
    May 26, 2000 ("*NOI*").

[^5]: *NOI* at ¶ 1.

[^6]: See Appendix A for a list of commenters and reply commenters.
    Also, on July 17, 2000, J.E. Schmidt filed a request for extension
    of time to file comments and reply comments. Schmidt's request was
    filed five days after the reply period ended but he did not
    subsequently file any comments in this proceeding; therefore his
    extension request is hereby dismissed.

[^7]: 17 U.S.C. § 119. The Satellite Home Viewer Act is part of this
    copyright statute.

[^8]: *Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for
    Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act*, CS Docket No. 98-201,
    *Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 2654 at ¶ 2 (1999) ("*SHVA Report and
    Order*").

[^9]: *See* 17 U.S.C. § 119(d)(10)(A); 47 CFR § 73.683(a).

[^10]: *SHVA Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 2654 at ¶ 4.

[^11]: *Id.* at ¶ 8.

[^12]: 47 CFR § 73.622(e). *See also* 47 CFR § 73.625(b) (determining
    coverage).

[^13]: 17 U.S.C. § 119(d)(10)(A); 47 CFR § 76.683.

[^14]: *See* Television Broadcast Service, *Third Notice of Further
    Proposed Rule Making*, Appendix B, 16 Fed. Reg. 3072, 3080 (April 7,
    1951) (\"TV Allocations *Third Notice*\"), *adopted by* Amendment of
    Section 3.606 of the Commission\'s Rules and Regulations, Amendment
    of the Commission\'s Rule, Regulations and Engineering Standards
    Concerning the Television Broadcast Service, Utilization of
    Frequencies in the Band 470 to 890 mcs for Television Broadcasting,
    *Sixth Report and Order*, 41 FCC 148, FCC 52‑294 (1952) (\"TV
    Allocations *Sixth Report and Order*\").

[^15]: *See* O\'Connor, Robert A., \"Understanding Television\'s Grade A
    and Grade B Service Contours,\" IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting at
    139 (December 1968) (\"O\'Connor, *Understanding Television\'s Grade
    A and Grade B Service Contours*\").

[^16]: The \"median observer\" is not the \"average\" observer; rather,
    it is the observer who provides the middle value of data when all
    values of data from all observers are ranked in order. In other
    words, 50% of the observers recorded values equal to or higher in
    value and 50% of the observers recorded values equal to or lower in
    value than the median observer. *See* TV Allocations *Third Notice*,
    16 Fed. Reg. 3072, 3080 and TV *Allocations Sixth Report and Order*,
    41 FCC 148.

[^17]: 47 CFR § 73.684.

[^18]: 47 CFR § 73.686.

[^19]: The Commission's field strength charts are set forth in Section
    73.699 of the Rules, 47 CFR § 73.699.

[^20]: The \"time variability\" planning factor used in the
    determination of the Grade B standard may be a source of some
    confusion. In the TV Allocations *Sixth Report and Order,* 41 FCC at
    177, the Commission adopted the initial television station
    allocation rules and stated, \"in the case of Grade B service the
    figures are 90 percent of the time and 50 percent of the
    locations.\" *See also* TV Allocations *Third Notice,* 16 Fed. Reg.
    3072, Appendices A and B. In CS Docket No. 98-201, *supra* note 8,
    both the broadcast and satellite parties stated the time variability
    factor differently than above. They described the field strength at
    the Grade B contour as being available to at least 50% of the
    locations at least 50% of the time. This apparent inconsistency
    arises from an adjustment the Commission adopted for the Grade B
    signal strength values when it originally established them. This
    adjustment results in a Grade B value that predicts reception of an
    acceptable picture 90% of the time. For example, on channels 2-6, a
    signal strength of 41 dB/μv/m is needed for an acceptable picture.
    In order for this signal strength to be available 90% of the time,
    the median or F(50,50) field strength is set at 47 dB/μv/m, which
    includes the addition of a time variability planning factor of 6 dB.

[^21]: See Engineering Aspects of Television Allocation, Report of the
    Television Allocations Study Organization, March 16, 1959.

[^22]: See O\'Connor, *supra* note 15. The interference referred to here
    was from random noise.

[^23]: Assumptions were made as to the quality of the television
    receiver used; the signal losses that take place in the wire
    connection from the receiver to the antenna; the gain of the antenna
    to be used; the amount of electrical noise in the environment that
    the signal would have to overcome to be viewable; and the
    variability of radio signal propagation.

[^24]: *See* Section 73.683(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR §
    73.683(a).

[^25]: TV Allocations *Third Notice,* *supra* note 14, 16 Fed. Reg. at
    3075.

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *Id.* *See* Section 307(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    307(b).

[^28]: 16 Fed. Reg. at 3080. The receiving antenna assumed in the
    planning factors for Grade A is a half-wave dipole antenna for VHF
    and a 8 dB gain antenna for UHF, but for Grade B it is a directional
    antenna with 6 dB gain for VHF and 13 dB gain for UHF.

[^29]: Section 339(c) addresses the standards for DBS subscribers to be
    eligible to receive retransmission of distant TV station signals. Of
    particular note, Section 339(c)(1) requires the Commission to
    conduct "an inquiry to evaluate all possible standards and factors
    for determining eligibility for \[satellite\] retransmissions of the
    signals of network stations." This section further provides that the
    Commission is to "if appropriate \-- (A) recommend modifications to
    the Grade B intensity standard for analog signals set forth in \[47
    CFR § 73.683(a)\], or recommend alternative standards or factors for
    purposes of determining such eligibility; and (B) make a further
    recommendation relating to an appropriate standard for digital
    signals."

[^30]: *See NOI* at ¶¶ 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 30.

[^31]: EchoStar Comments at 2 (urging Commission to recommend "several
    necessary modifications to the Grade B signal intensity standard") &
    *passim*; SBCA Comments at 2-7 & 9 (Commission should recommend
    updated Grade B signal strength values for *SHVIA* purposes).
    *Compare* NRTC Comments at 2 & 4-7 (Commission should recommend new
    standard to replace outdated and inadequate Grade B standard) *with*
    NRTC Reply Comments at 5 (Commission should recommend a revised
    Grade B standard sufficient to ensure that over-the-air TV picture
    quality is at least equal to that provided by satellite carriers).

[^32]: Joint Comments of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC Television Network
    Affiliate Associations ("Network Affiliate Joint Comments") at 20
    (existing Grade B planning factors are still accurate today; if the
    Grade B eligibility standard is to be revised at all, it should be
    adjusted downward); NAB Comments at 58 ("\[T\]here is no basis . . .
    to revise the definition of 'Grade B intensity' based on
    technological or environmental changes since the 1950s. If anything,
    those changes . . . would warrant a decrease, not an increase, in
    the dBu's defined as 'Grade B.'"); Fox TV Comments at 3-4 (despite
    dramatic improvements, "Fox maintains that the Commission should not
    recommend any change to the current standard, but should allow
    consumers to continue to benefit from equipment refinements"); and
    MSTV Comments at 13-15 (existing planning factors continue to
    reflect quality service for the average TV receiver and should be
    retained; to the extent viewer expectations may have increased,
    resulting in demand for higher quality pictures, the noise levels of
    TV receivers have dramatically fallen well below the levels assumed
    by TASO in the 1950s and, thus, the existing Grade B eligibility
    standard remains appropriate). *See also* Biby Comments at 2 (Grade
    B remains a good predictor of gross signal strength; it is other
    factors, such as multi-path reception, urban noise, and interference
    that are the dominant reasons for unacceptable picture quality).

[^33]: *NOI* at ¶¶ 13-14.

[^34]: EchoStar Comments at 7-8.

[^35]: EchoStar Comments at 8 & n.15, citing O'Neal Jr., J.B.,
    "Television Receiver Noise Figure Study," March 1980.

[^36]: EchoStar Comments at 17 (table). EchoStar proposes that the
    existing 15 dB UHF receiver noise figure remain unchanged. We
    observe that, though EchoStar's suggested 13 dB figure for receiver
    noise in VHF Channels 7-13 represents a 1 dB degradation from the
    existing 12 dB figure, its suggested 8 dB receiver noise figure for
    VHF Channels 2-6 represents a 4 dB *improvement* from the existing
    12 dB figure for those channels.

[^37]: SBCA Comments at 6.

[^38]: SBCA Comments at 6 & n.16 and Engineering Statement at Appendix
    2, citing UHF Comparability Task Force, Office of Plans and Policy,
    Federal Communications Commission, *Staff Report on Comparability
    for UHF Television, A Preliminary Analysis,* at Tables B-1 and B-2
    (Sept. 1979) ("UHF Comparability Report").

[^39]: SBCA Comments at 3. We observe that the net effect of SBCA's
    recommendation would be to leave unchanged the existing 12 dB
    receiver noise figure for all VHF channels and to improve the
    existing 15 dB figure for UHF channels by 1 dB, resulting in a 14 dB
    figure.

[^40]: Joint Comments of ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC Television Network
    Affiliate Associations ("Network Affiliate Joint Comments"),
    Attached Engineering Statement at 7 ("\[t\]he noise figures of
    modern receivers are several dB less than the receiver noise figures
    used for the current planning factors"); NAB Comments at 43 (actual
    receiver noise figures are no greater than the 6/7/12 dB figures for
    low VHF / high VHF / UHF channels, respectively) and at 58
    ("\[T\]here is no basis . . . to revise the definition of 'Grade B
    intensity' based on technological or environmental changes since the
    1950s. If anything, those changes -- including the great reduction
    in receiver noise -- would warrant a decrease, not an increase, in
    the dBu's defined as 'Grade B.'"); Fox TV Comments at 3-4 (despite
    dramatic improvements in receiver noise figures over the years, "Fox
    maintains that the Commission should not recommend any change to the
    current standard, but should allow consumers to continue to benefit
    from equipment refinements"); and MSTV Comments at 13-15 (existing
    planning factors continue to reflect quality service for the average
    TV receiver and should be retained; to the extent viewer
    expectations may have increased, resulting in demand for higher
    quality pictures, the noise levels of TV receivers have dramatically
    fallen well below the levels assumed by TASO in the 1950s and, thus,
    the existing Grade B eligibility standard remains appropriate). *See
    also* Biby Comments at 2 (Grade B remains a good predictor of gross
    signal strength; it is other factors, such as multi-path reception,
    urban noise, and interference that are the dominant reasons for
    unacceptable picture quality).

[^41]: Joint Reply Comments of Network Affiliates ("Network Affiliates
    Joint Reply") at 5. *See also* MSTV Reply Comments at 4; and NAB
    Reply Comments at 6.

[^42]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 7.

[^43]: *See supra* ¶ 12 & n.35.

[^44]: *See NOI* at ¶ 12.

[^45]: PrimeTime 24\'s consulting engineer, William Hassinger, pointed
    to two viewer studies, one by Neil Smith in 1971 and another
    conducted in Charlotte in 1996. See CS Docket No. 98-201, PrimeTime
    24 Comments, Declaration of William Hassinger, Neil Smith Study
    ("Neil Smith Study"), and *ex parte* presentation of January 14,
    1999. Neither study was conducted in accordance with the accepted
    standard for viewer studies, ITU Recommendation 500-4, *Methods for
    Subjective Assessment of Quality of Television Pictures,*
    Recommendations and Reports of the CCIR, Vol. XI, Part 1, Dubrovnik,
    1986. Neil Smith acknowledged that his sample was too small to be
    sufficient for any generalizations. See Neil Smith Study at 18-19.
    The Charlotte study did not use study subjects from the general
    public, and its viewing conditions were not appropriate for a
    scientific study.

[^46]: See Charlotte study, *supra* note 45, and *Subjective Assessment
    of Cable Impairments on Television Picture Quality,* Bronwen Lindsay
    Jones, 1992 NCTA Technical Papers.

[^47]: *NOI* at ¶ 14 & n.29, citing Letter to Chairman, FCC from Senator
    McCain and Representatives Bliley, Oxley, and Markey, dated December
    8, 1999.

[^48]: *See* Recommendation 500-4, *supra* note 45.

[^49]: EchoStar Comments at 8-9. Among other factors, EchoStar cites
    evolutionary shifts in consumer expectations as warranting a
    revision to the Grade B planning factors. EchoStar Reply at 7.

[^50]: *Id.* This statement was also submitted by EchoStar without any
    substantiating evidence.

[^51]: EchoStar Comments at 17 (table).

[^52]: EchoStar Comments at 4-5.

[^53]: NRTC Comments at 6.

[^54]: NRTC Reply at 4.

[^55]: SBCA Comments at 9.

[^56]: *Id.*

[^57]: SBCA Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at Appendix 2
    (table).

[^58]: Fox Comments at 3.

[^59]: Fox Comments at 3-4.

[^60]: Fox Comments at 4.

[^61]: NAB Reply, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 9 ("that level was
    acknowledged by the Commission as being higher than the
    \"acceptable\" level applicable to free, over-the-air signal
    delivery. Although the 30 dB signal-to-noise standard was adopted in
    1952, it is supported by later studies and no comprehensive study to
    date concludes that a different standard is required.").

[^62]: Network Affiliates Comments at 20.

[^63]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments at 14-15.

[^64]: *NOI* at ¶ 14 & n.28, citing Bronwen Lindsay Jones, *Subjective
    Assessment of Cable Impairments on Television Picture Quality*, 1992
    NCTA Technical Papers, *supra* note 46.

[^65]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments at 15-17. *See also* NAB
    Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 4.

[^66]: SBCA Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at 3. SBCA also
    proposes a 3-dB adjustment to account for splitter noise and another
    adjustment to account for increased man-made noise. We find,
    however, that it is more appropriate to address splitter noise as
    part of the "Transmission Line Loss" issue and to address man-made
    noise as part of the "Environmental Noise" issue, below.

[^67]: Network Affiliates Comments, Appended Engineering Comments at 6.

[^68]: *Id.* at 7 & 10-11.

[^69]: NAB Comments at 44 n.37. Though NAB states that the margin is 3
    dB as compared to the 2 dB claimed by Network Affiliates, this
    inconsequential 1 dB difference is explained by a difference in
    rounding TASO's 27.5 dB figure (NAB rounds this figure to 27 dB,
    whereas Network Affiliates rounds up to 28 dB).

[^70]: This issue is noted by Network Affiliates in their Joint Comments
    at 16-17.

[^71]: Most of these parameters for subjective testing are specified in
    the ITU-R, Recommendation BT.500-10 titled Methodology For The
    Subjective Assessment of The Quality of Television Pictures.

[^72]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments, Appended Engineering Statement
    at 6, Joint Reply at 9-10 & Exh. 1 (Further Engineering Statement)
    at 11.

[^73]: We note that Capitol has included the results from testing in
    1990 of the signal strength of Station WDRB-TV, Louisville,
    Kentucky, and states the tests confirm the viability of the Grade B
    signal of that station in real-world conditions. Capitol Reply at 4
    & Exh. 1.

[^74]: *See* NAB Comments at 5-26, Reply at 15 ("55% of U.S. television
    viewers already can watch their local network stations by satellite
    . . . and that number is constantly growing"); Network Affiliates
    Joint Comments at 12-13; Capitol Reply at 5-6 (increase of local
    signal carriage by satellites means fewer member of public, rather
    than greater number, are unable to receive their local TV station
    signals).

[^75]: See ¶ 19, *supra.*

[^76]: NRTC Comments at 6-7. *See also* NRTC Reply at 2, 3-4.

[^77]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments at 15 & Appended Engineering
    Comments at 8. *See also* MSTV Comments at 15 & n.41.

[^78]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 43 & Exh. 1 (Further
    Engineering Statement) at 2, 14. *See also* NAB Reply at 3.

[^79]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 43-45.

[^80]: *See* NAB Comments at 6-24.

[^81]: 145 Cong. Rec. H12813 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 1999) (statement of
    Rep. Coble).

[^82]: NAB Comments at 16-17.

[^83]: 145 Cong. Rec. H11792 (daily ed. Nov. 9, 1999).

[^84]: *Id.*

[^85]: NRTC Reply at 4 (emphases added).

[^86]: *NOI* at ¶ 16.

[^87]: 17 U.S.C. § 119(d)(10)(A) as amended by *SHVIA* § 1005(a)
    (emphasis added).

[^88]: We note that the *SHVIA* requires a determination of household
    eligibility for each network station considered individually. For
    example, a household could be served with respect to a NBC affiliate
    if the household could receive the NBC signal from any NBC affiliate
    at Grade B intensity with a stationary outdoor antenna. But the same
    household could be considered unserved with respect to the Fox
    network because it cannot receive any Fox affiliate\'s signal at
    Grade B intensity with a stationary outdoor antenna. Each network
    station\'s signal intensity must be independently considered.

[^89]: EchoStar Comments at 9-10, citing Rubin, Kessler, and Wilhelm, *A
    Quantitative Comparison of the Relative Performance of VHF and UHF
    Broadcast Systems,* CPB Technical Monograph No. 1, June 1974, at 27,
    and Free, Woody, and Daher, *Program to Improve UHF Television
    Reception,* prepared for the UHF Comparability Task Force by Georgia
    Institute of Technology, Project No. A-2475, September 1980, at 4-16
    (reporting only data for TV channels up to 69). Also, citing
    FitzGerrel, Jennings, and Juroshek, *Television Receiving Antenna
    System Component Measurements,* NTIA Report 79-22, June 1979, at 33
    & 36, EchoStar states that these data were similar to the results of
    testing new lines, that is, losses of 1.0, 1.8, and 3.2 dB,
    respectively. We observe that all of these results fall within the
    existing transmission line loss planning factor values for Grade B.

[^90]: EchoStar Comments at 11.

[^91]: EchoStar Comments at 17 (table).

[^92]: SBCA Comments at 4-5 & Appendix 2. We note that SBCA has not
    specified the type of 75-ohm cabling upon which its data and
    recommendation is based. SBCA also recommends a further 3 dB
    increase across all bands to account for splitter loss.

[^93]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments, Appended Engineering Comments
    at 6.

[^94]: NAB Comments at 50, citing www.winegard.com/cable.html.

[^95]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 15-18.

[^96]: *Id.* at 15 & nn. 54-55, citing Philip B. Geiseler *et al.,*
    Comparability for UHF Television: Final Report (Office of Plans and
    Policy Sept. 1980) ("UHF Comparability Final Report"), at 59-60
    (RG-6 coax offers very good performance; an RG-6 system is a good
    value because the coaxial systems offer even less performance
    variability than shielded twin-lead; coax is much easier to
    manipulate than shielded twin-lead and presents fewer installation
    problems; and RG-6 is a good quality cable).

[^97]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 16 & 58, citing R.G. FitzGerrel
    *et al.,* Television Receiving Antenna System Component
    Measurements, NTIA Report 79-22 (June 1979), at 37. EchoStar also
    relied upon this NTIA report, *see supra* n.62. Network Affiliates
    also point out that the use of RG-59 cable for the indoor short
    connection (typically, 3 feet in length) would have only negligible
    impact on the overall attenuation of 50 feet of transmission line.

[^98]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 16 & nn. 59-60, citing Dish
    Network, *The Self Installation Kit from DISH Network* (visited July
    11, 2000)
    [http://www.dishnetwork.com/customer_service/third_level_content/installation/
    self_install/index.asp](http://www.dishnetwork.com/customer_service/third_level_content/installation/ self_install/index.asp)
    (EchoStar's installation kit supplies one 85-foot length of RG-6
    coaxial cable and a second 2- to 15-foot length of RG-6 coaxial
    cable).

[^99]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 16-17 & n.61, citing Winegard
    Amp & Accessories Catalog, *Cable* (visited June 26, 2000)
    <http://www.winegard.com/cable.html>.

[^100]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 17 & n.62, citing
    *Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and
    Interference,* OET Bulletin No. 69 (July 2, 1997), at 4 (Table 3).
    Network Affiliates state that the line loss in the planning factors
    for DTV reception is assumed to be 1 dB for low VHF, 2 dB for high
    VHF, and 4 dB for UHF. They observe that the values for VHF are the
    same as for the existing Grade B transmission line loss planning
    factor, but for UHF the 4 dB value is 1 dB less (*i.e.,* better)
    than the 5 dB value used in the Grade B planning factor.

[^101]: We note that though the satellite industry comments posit the
    use of RG-59 cable, they have not explained why they chose to rely
    on that type of cable as opposed to the more appropriate choice of
    RG-6 cable.

[^102]: SBCA Comments at 5, Attached Engineering Statement at 3 &
    Appendix 2 (table).

[^103]: *Id.* (SBCA includes splitter loss in its proposed revision to
    the transmission line loss planning factor).

[^104]: EchoStar Reply at 4.

[^105]: NAB Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 7.

[^106]: NAB Comments at 51.

[^107]: NAB Comments at 51, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 7; NAB
    Reply at 8, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 7.

[^108]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 17-18 ("Section 119 compulsory
    copyright license has absolutely nothing to do with the number of
    television sets a household owns and operates"; cites examples of
    specific amplifiers available to consumers), Exh. 1 (Further
    Engineering Statement) at 6.

[^109]: MSTV Reply at 5 & n.22, citing *SHVA Report and Order,* 14 FCC
    Rcd at 2673-74.

[^110]: EchoStar Comments at 11-13; and SBCA Comments at 4.

[^111]: Network Affiliates Comments at 20 & Appended Engineering
    Comments at 5-6; NAB Comments at 45-50 & Attached Engineering
    Statement at 4; and MSTV Comments at 16-18.

[^112]: *NOI* at ¶ 10.

[^113]: See NAB Reply Comments at 8 (the lower average gain figures
    cited by EchoStar are based on mixing antennas appropriate for
    city-grade and Grade A areas with those for areas of weaker signal
    strength).

[^114]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 19 & n.69, citing
    *Improvements to UHF Television Reception,* GEN Docket No. 78-391,
    *Report and Order,* FCC 82-333, 90 FCC 2d 1121 (1982), at ¶ 50.
    Network Affiliates also point to comments submitted by the
    Electronics Technicians Association (whose members install antennas)
    in the recently completed *SHVA Proceeding,* CS Docket No. 98-201,
    that eight-bay and four-bay bowtie-with-screen antennas are the
    conventional UHF antennas for fringe rural areas. Network Affiliates
    Joint Reply at 19-20 & n.73, citing ETA Comments, CS Docket No.
    98-201 (filed December 11, 1998), at 23. The average gain for such
    an eight-bay antenna was found to be 13.4 dB. Network Affiliates
    Joint Reply at 19 & n.72, citing *Improvements to UHF Television
    Reception,* 90 FCC 2d 1121 at Appendix B. Finally, we note that
    Network Affiliates (Joint Reply at 20-23 & Exh. 2) identify various
    outdoor receiving antennas, made for the consumer market by Channel
    Master and Winegard, whose gains exceed the existing planning factor
    values for Grade B.

[^115]: An example of this application is the addition of a 10-dB gain
    preamplifier at the antenna terminals of a 3-dB gain antenna to
    produce an effective gain of 13 dB. Using the UHF Grade B receiver
    noise figure planning factor of 15 dB and 5 dB line loss the
    expression (1) below yields a system noise figure which is 2.1 dB
    less than the planning factor value for the receiver noise figure.
    That is, NF = 10 log~10~ \[10 + (100-1)\]/10 = 12.9 dB.

    Noise figures of various parts of a receiving system all contribute
    to the overall system noise figure. The amount they contribute
    depends largely on the gain of the preceding stages in the system.
    The mathematical expression from which the noise figure of a system
    is calculated is as follows:

    \(1\) NF ~system~ = 10 log~10~ f~1~ + (f~2~ -- 1)/g~1~ + (f~3~ --
    1)/g~1~g~2~

    Where f~1~, f~2~ refers to the noise factor for of each stage and
    g~1~, g~2~ refers to the gain of the stage.

[^116]: EchoStar Comments at 17-18 & n.37, citing *SHVA Report and
    Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 2654 ¶ 59.

[^117]: EchoStar Comments at 18.

[^118]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments at 18.

[^119]: *Id.,* citing *Jay Lubliner and Deborah Galvin, Potomac,
    Maryland,* *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* FCC 98-201, released
    August 21, 1998, at ¶ 16.

[^120]: We have previously stated that use of the mobile run method is
    inadequate for the purposes of *SHVA.* *SHVA Report and Order,* 14
    FCC Rcd 2654 at ¶ 48.

[^121]: 145 Cong. Rec. S15020 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999) (statement of
    Sen. Leahy).

[^122]: 145 Cong. Rec. S14991 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999) (statement of
    Sen. Hatch) (emphasis added).

[^123]: 145 Cong. Rec. H12814 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 1999) (statement of
    Rep. Coble).

[^124]: *NOI* at ¶ 19.

[^125]: In particular, the dipole factor modification used for the DTV
    Table of Allotments equaled 20 times log~10~ of the ratio of the
    center frequency of the UHF channel of interest to the center
    frequency of channel 38.

[^126]: Since this modification to the planning factors does not produce
    significant differences in the VHF television bands, DTV allotment
    planning used this modification only for the UHF band.

[^127]: *NOI* at ¶ 20.

[^128]: EchoStar Comments at 13-14.

[^129]: *Id.* at 13 n.31. Likewise concerning the effect of the change
    from 300-ohm to 75-ohm impedance receiver systems, EchoStar states
    that the planning factor for thermal noise should be "reduced
    somewhat." *Id.* at 6-7.

[^130]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments, Appended Engineering Comments
    at 5; NAB Comments at 51-52.

[^131]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 3-5 & Attached Further
    Engineering Statement at 6-9. *See* NAB Reply at 10.

[^132]: *See* ¶ 10 (Grade B Planning Factors Table), *supra.*

[^133]: Channels 60-69 have already been reallocated for wireless
    communications services. *Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69,
    the 746-806 MHz Band*, ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report and Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd 22953 (1998). The 24 megahertz of spectrum at 764-776 MHz
    and 794-806 MHz were allocated to the fixed and mobile services, and
    designated for public safety use. The remaining 36 megahertz of
    spectrum were allocated to the fixed, mobile, and new broadcasting
    services. The guard bands (746-747, 762-764, 776-777, and 792-794
    MHz) have recently been auctioned to band managers, whose business
    is to subdivide and lease their spectrum to third parties for both
    commercial and private wireless services. This auction closed on
    September 21, 2000. *See*
    <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/2000/nrwl0035.html>.
    The remaining spectrum at 747-762 and 777-792 MHz is scheduled to be
    auctioned beginning March 6, 2001. *See Public Notice*, WT Docket
    No. 99-168, FCC 00-282, released July 31, 2000. *See generally Rules
    for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz Bands*, WT Docket No. 99-168,
    *First Report and Order*, FCC 00-5, released January 7, 2000.
    Channels 52-59 are to be reallocated at a later time. *See Advanced
    Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television
    Broadcast Service*, MM Docket No. 87-268, *Sixth Report and Order*,
    FCC 97-115, released April 21, 1997, at ¶¶ 76-84.

    We also believe that technological developments over the decades
    have created a safety margin providing consumers greater assurance
    of adequate reception than the Grade B planning factors predict,
    including the upper UHF channels. Finally, we note that Fox has
    warned that the creation of inconsistent measures of adequate signal
    intensity for determining TV station service areas could lead to
    undesirable "collateral consequences." Fox Comments at 7-8.

[^134]: *NOI* at ¶¶ 21-22.

[^135]: See discussion at ¶ 6 n.20, *supra.*

[^136]: SBCA Comments at 2, 5-6 & Attached Engineering Statement at 3-4
    & Appendix 2, citing G.S. Kalagian, *A Review of the Technical
    Planning Factors for VHF Television Service,* Research and Standards
    Division, Office of Chief Engineer, FCC/OCE RS 77-01, March 1, 1977,
    and *UHF Comparability Report* at Table B-2.

[^137]: MSTV Comments at 18-21; NAB Comments at 52 & Attached
    Engineering Statement at 7-8; Network Affiliates Joint Comments at
    20 & Appended Engineering Comments at 4. We also note that EchoStar
    appears to support retention of the existing time fading factor
    values. *See* EchoStar Comments at 17 (table). Additionally, in
    response to the *NOI* question concerning time variability factors
    exceeding 90%, Network Affiliates and NAB point out that time fading
    follows a log-normal statistical distribution with a symmetrical
    variation about the median. They indicate that if the time fading
    factor were increased beyond the "90% of the time" confidence level,
    the result would be modified Grade B intensity values that are not
    log normal and time fading factor values that are unreliable.
    Network Affiliates Joint Comments, Appended Engineering Comments at
    4; NAB Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at 7 ("extending the
    log normal assumption of variability beyond the ninety percent level
    is not appropriate because measurement data do not support the log
    normal distribution much beyond the range of ten to ninety
    percent"). No comments propose a time variability factor beyond 90%,
    and we are not recommending any change in the use of the 90^th^
    percentile in determining the values for this factor.

[^138]: NAB Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at 8.

[^139]: MSTV Comments at 20-21, citing *SHVA Report and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 2691.

[^140]: NAB Comments, Attached Engineering Statement at 7 ¶ 9 (use of
    ILLR "removes any need to consider location variability. Making that
    statement does not mean that field strength cannot vary within a few
    meters or tens of centimeters, depending on the wavelength. Of
    course it can, but ILLR at least provides for a much narrower range
    of probable signal variability than, for instance, might be
    predicted by application of the FCC prediction method. Furthermore,
    since the change can be either to increase or decrease the signal,
    use of the present 0 dB location variability planning factor is
    appropriate.")

[^141]: EchoStar Comments at 17 (table).

[^142]: NAB Reply at 8-9 & Attached Engineering Statement at ¶¶ 2-3;
    Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 24-25.

[^143]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 25. Also, Network Affiliates
    states the 9 dB value proposed by SBCA is very conservative, because
    it ignores the fact in Zone I time fading is slightly less severe
    than in Zones II and III. It cites a 1977 report from the Office of
    Chief Engineer indicating that: in Zone I, the values should be 8
    and 7 dB for low- and high-VHF band, respectively; and, in Zone II,
    9 dB in both VHF bands. Also, it indicates that the source of the 9
    dB value for the UHF band was an unpublished draft by Commission
    staff that did not differentiate among the Zones. *Id.* at 24-25,
    citing G.S. Kalagian, *A Review of the Technical Planning Factors
    for VHF Television Service,* Research and Standards Division, Office
    of Chief Engineer, FCC/OCE RS 77-01, March 1, 1977, at 9 (Table 4B,
    line 16); *UHF Comparability Final Report* at 252 (Table B-2); and
    *UHF Comparability Preliminary Analysis* at 183 n.4 (citing G.S.
    Kalagian, *UHF Television Planning Factors,* unpublished draft
    (1979)).

[^144]: NAB Reply Comments at 9.

[^145]: The modification we consider would also assure consistency with
    the television coverage calculations that have been used for several
    years since the establishment of the digital television service.
    *See* \"Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage and
    Interference,\" OET Bulletin 69, Federal Communications Commission
    (July 2, 1997)
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#69\>. *See also*
    47 CFR §73.622(e).

[^146]: *See Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the
    Broadcast Television Field Strength at Individual Locations,* ET
    Docket No. 00-11, *First Report and Order*, FCC 00-185, released May
    26, 2000.

[^147]: 14 FCC Rcd at 2691.

[^148]: *NOI* at ¶ 23.

[^149]: *NOI* at ¶ 24.

[^150]: EchoStar Comments at 14.

[^151]: EchoStar Comments at 15, citing G.S. Kalagian, *A Review of the
    Technical Planning Factors for VHF Television Service,* Research and
    Standards Division, Office of Chief Engineer, FCC/OCE RS 77-01,
    March 1, 1977, at 11.

[^152]: EchoStar Comments at 16.

[^153]: SBCA Comments at 2-3 (urging overall revised Grade B required
    median field values of 70.75 dBμ for low-band VHF, 76.5 dBμ for
    high-band VHF, and 92.75 dBμ for UHF band, and claiming these values
    are conservative because they have not been adjusted to account for
    man-made noise, ghosting and continually increasing consumer
    expectations concerning acceptable picture quality).

[^154]: Biby Comments at 3, citing Edward N. Skomal, *Man-Made Radio
    Noise* (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York).

[^155]: Biby Comments at 3.

[^156]: Biby Comments at 3 & Appendix A (computer program listing that,
    Biby asserts, calculates man-made noise based on Skomal's research).

[^157]: NAB Comments at 52 & Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 11.
    *See also* Fox Comments at 5 (Fox unaware of any evidence that
    environmental noise has changed demonstrably).

[^158]: NAB Comments at 52-53 & Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 11.

[^159]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments, Appended Engineering Comments
    at 3.

[^160]: *Id.* at 3-4, citing *Television and FM Field Strength Curves,*
    Docket Nos. 16004 and 18052, *Report and Order,* FCC 75-636, 34 RR
    2d 361 (1975), at ¶ 46.

[^161]: *Id.* at 4.

[^162]: *Id.*

[^163]: MSTV Comments at 21.

[^164]: NAB Reply at 9-10, citing Neil M. Smith, *Relationship of
    Television Picture Quality to Field Intensity* (March 20, 1971)
    (attached to Comments of PrimeTime 24, CS Docket No. 98-201 (filed
    December 11, 1998)). NAB also points out that, consistent with its
    position that the 0 dB urban noise values should be maintained for
    Grade B, the Commission has more recently set the values for the DTV
    urban noise factor at 0 dB for each band.

[^165]: NAB Reply at 9-10 & Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 4
    ("Better suppression of ignition noise to avoid interference with
    the extensive use of electronic devices in modern cars, a decline in
    the prevalence of heavy industry, and the increasing use of buried
    power distribution systems would tend to reduce man-made noise in
    cities and their suburbs.").

[^166]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 25-28 & Exh. 1 (Further
    Engineering Statement) at 9-10.

[^167]: *See* note 151, *supra*.

[^168]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 27, citing G.S. Kalagian, *A
    Review of the Technical Planning Factors for VHF Television
    Service,* Research and Standards Division, Office of Chief Engineer,
    FCC/OCE RS 77-01, March 1, 1977, at 9 (Table 4B, line 19).

[^169]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 27-28, citing *UHF
    Comparability Final Report* at 252 (Table B-2).

[^170]: MSTV Reply at 6-7, citing *SHVA Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    2673-2674.

[^171]: MSTV Reply at 6, citing *SHVA Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    2674.

[^172]: *See Interference from Spark-type Ignition Systems in Motor
    Vehicles*, Docket 20654, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* FCC 83-1,
    released January 4, 1983, at ¶ 6.

[^173]: *NOI* at ¶¶ 25-26.

[^174]: CCIR, 1990, Annex to Volume XI- Part 1, Report 478-2.

[^175]: See Recommendation 654, \"Subjective Quality of Television
    Pictures in Relation to the Main Impairments of Analogue Composite
    Television Signal,\" ITU, CCIR XI-1, Broadcasting Service
    (Television), Dubrovnik, 1986; Report 478, \"Ghost Images in
    Television,\" Questions 6/11 Study Programme 6A/11, ITU, CCIR XI-1,
    Broadcasting Service (Television), Dubrovnik, 1986.

[^176]: *NOI* at ¶¶ 26-27.

[^177]: EchoStar Comments at 18-26 & Attachments A-D (graphs).

[^178]: SBCA Comments at 7. *But see id.,* Attached Engineering
    Statement, Appendix 4 ("Substantial progress has been made in the
    characterization of multipath propagation especially at VHF
    frequencies, as a result of the implementation of digital PCS and
    cellular telephone systems. There have also been discussions of the
    use of "3D" propagation path modeling software for characterization
    of multipath effects on the digital television signal.
    Unfortunately, as outlined in TIA TSB-88A, there has not been
    adequate information to establish numerical methods for such
    computations, although such an effort should be made as a part of
    further studies to establish realistic modern NTSC (and digital
    television) planning factors.").

[^179]: Network Affiliates Joint Comments at 20.

[^180]: *Id.* Network Affiliates opine that the fact that
    ghost-cancellation technology is not currently used in the industry
    may indicate that consumers do not view ghosting as a major problem.

[^181]: NAB Comments at 53-54 & Attached Engineering Statement at ¶¶
    12-14. NAB opines that the phenomenon of ghosting is extremely
    complex.

[^182]: MSTV Comments at 22. *See also* Fox Comments at 5 (no practical
    methodology exists to measure multiple ghosts, and no data has been
    gathered measuring the subjective effects of multiple ghosts).

[^183]: *Id.,* citing *SHVA Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 2671. MSTV
    also quotes the Commission as stating that "as the signal strength
    increases, the 'noise' in the picture is reduced. Unfortunately,
    noise . . . masks ghosting. Thus, as the noise is reduced, which is
    a benefit to picture quality in the absence of multipath problems,
    the ghosting disturbance becomes more noticeable." 14 FCC Rcd at
    2671 n.101.

[^184]: Biby Comments at 3.

[^185]: Biby Comments at 4.

[^186]: Biby Comments at 4-5. Biby appears to include the effects of
    man-made noise, multipath reception, and co-channel interference
    from other television stations in his methodology. He states that,
    since interference has already been carefully considered in the
    Commission's TV channel allotment process, it is likely "to be the
    least pervasive of the three identified contributors to poor picture
    quality." *Id.* at 4.

[^187]: Biby Comments at 5-6. Biby also suggests that the Commission
    conduct a study to acquire data on which to base further
    improvements in its predictive model and "require signal strength
    and quality measurements be performed at some percentage of those
    households that claim inability to receive an acceptable network
    signal, regardless of the signal strength predicted by the
    Commission's 'new and improved' ILLR model." *Id.* at 6-7. This
    suggestion is not relevant to this proceeding, which is focused on
    developing a recommendation for a predictive, distant network signal
    eligibility standard. Instead, Biby's suggestion relates to the
    *SHVIA* measurement methodology, which is the subject of a different
    proceeding. *See Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting
    the Broadcast Television Field Strength at Individual Locations,* ET
    Docket No. 00-11, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* FCC 00-17,
    released January 20, 2000, *First Report and Order*, FCC 00-185,
    released May 26, 2000.

[^188]: NAB Reply, Attached Engineering Statement at ¶ 12.

[^189]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 41 & Exh. 1 (Further
    Engineering Statement) at 12-13.

[^190]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 41, citing *NOI* at ¶ 26
    (emphasis added).

[^191]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 41 (emphasis added) & Exh. 1
    (Further Engineering Statement) at 13.

[^192]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 39-40, citing SBCA Comments at
    6 (emphasis added).

[^193]: Network Affiliates Joint Reply at 42 (citing antennas made by
    Channel Master and Winegard, and circuits made by Oren
    Semiconductor).

[^194]: MSTV Reply at 7-10.

[^195]: MSTV Reply at 7, citing EchoStar Comments at 25. *See also*
    Network Affiliates Joint Reply, Exh. 1 (Further Engineering
    Statement) at 13 ("EchoStar mentioned LULC classifications in its
    comments, but this data is far too coarse to model these
    \[multipath\] variables.").

[^196]: EchoStar Reply at 6-7.

[^197]: EchoStar Comments at 26 (emphasis added).

[^198]: *See* 145 Cong. Rec. H12813 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 1999) (statement
    of Rep. Coble); 145 Cong. Rec. S15020 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999)
    (statement of Sen. Leahy).

[^199]: *See Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the
    Broadcast Television Field Strength at Individual Locations,* ET
    Docket No. 00-11, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* FCC 00-17,
    released January 20, 2000, *First Report and Order*, FCC 00-185,
    released May 26, 2000.

[^200]: *See SHVA Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 2654 at ¶ 83.

[^201]: *NOI* at ¶ 28.

[^202]: *NOI* at ¶ 29.

[^203]: 47 CFR §73.622(e)(2).

[^204]: *NOI* at ¶ 30.

[^205]: See MSTV Comments at 24-25; NAB Comments at 56-57 & Reply at
    14-15; Network Affiliates Comments at 21-22; SBCA Comments at 8; and
    EchoStar Reply at 3-4 & n.6.

[^206]: As we stated in the *SHVA Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 2654 at
    ¶ 45:

    > For the SHVA to function properly, a relatively low cost,
    > accurate, and reproducible methodology for measuring the presence
    > of a Grade B intensity signal in a household is of particular
    > importance. Although, because of the costs and delays involved, it
    > would be desirable to minimize the need for individual testing to
    > the extent possible, individual testing is the key safety net
    > mechanism under the SHVA for proving that a specific household is
    > unserved and thus eligible under the law to receive satellite
    > delivery of network affiliated television stations. We therefore
    > propose to explore a method of measuring signal intensity at
    > individual households that is accurate, easier, and less expensive
    > than the current method.