[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36639-36641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[ET Docket No. 00-11; FCC 00-185]
Establishment of an Improved Model for Predicting the Broadcast
Television Field Strength Received at Individual Locations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document prescribes an improved point-to-point predictive
model for determining the ability of individual locations to receive an
over-the-air television broadcast signal of a specific intensity
through the use of a conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna.
This document also provides for the model's continued refinement by the
use of additional data as they become available. In the absence of on-
site measurements of signal intensity, the model will be used to
establish whether individual households are eligible to receive certain
satellite home viewing services. The Commission is complying with new
statutory requirements set forth in the Satellite Home Viewer
Improvement Act of 1999.
DATES: Effective June 26, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Eckert (202-418-2433), Office
of Engineering and Technology.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First
Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-11, FCC 00-185, adopted May 22,
2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800,
1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Summary of the First Report and Order
1. In this First Report and Order (Report and Order), the
Commission prescribes an improved point-to-point predictive model for
determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over-the-
air television broadcast signal of a specific intensity through the use
of a conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna. The Report and
Order also provides for the model's continued refinement by the use of
additional data as they become available. Under the provisions of the
1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), a household that cannot receive
the over-the-air signal of a local network affiliate is eligible to
receive the distant network signal through satellite carriers. In the
absence of on-site measurements of signal intensity, the predictive
model will provide a reliable and presumptive means for determining
whether the over-the-air signal of a network affiliated television
station can be received at an individual location.
2. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) issued on January 20,
2000, 65 FR 4923 (February 2, 2000) addressed the SHVIA statutory
requirement for prescribing the Individual Location Longley-Rice model,
a version of Longley-Rice 1.2.2. At issue is how the basic Longley-Rice
radio propagation prediction model should be refined so that it will
accurately take land cover variations into account as required by the
SHVIA. The Notice proposed a specific computational procedure based on
a certain database of land cover variations published by the United
States Geological Survey. According to this procedure, individual
locations are to be identified as lying in one of 10 land use and land
cover (LULC) categories ranging from open land to urban environments.
The computational procedure then finds a clutter loss value (a
reduction in available signal intensity) associated with this
environmental class for the TV channel of interest, and subtracts that
clutter loss from the signal intensity predicted by the Longley-Rice
model. The Notice proposed a specific set of clutter loss values based
on the results published in a recent engineering journal by Thomas N.
Rubinstein.
3. There are three major issues to be resolved in this matter.
These are first, whether it would improve the accuracy of the ILLR
model to assign clutter loss values as a function of the LULC category
of the receiving location, as proposed in the Notice. Second, whether
there are specific clutter loss values that would have the desired
effect of improving prediction accuracy. Third, the provisions to be
made for the introduction of further improvements in prediction
accuracy as additional data become available. The Report and Order also
addresses certain matters of technical detail raised by the comments
having to do with error flags and the surface refractivity parameter of
the ILLR model. In a separate but related matter, an independent and
neutral entity is designated that will in turn designate who shall
conduct the objective test of received signal intensity for
verification purposes in case a satellite provider and network station
cannot agree on a person to conduct such a test.
4. Clutter Loss Assignment by LULC Category. The proposal to assign
clutter loss values according to LULC category was supported by the
major providers of direct-to-home satellite services, DIRECTV, Inc.
(DIRECTV) and EchoStar Satellite Corporation (EchoStar). These
organizations stated that the LULC database is a source of credible and
verifiable information regarding vegetation, water and other features
on the land surface, and that it is widely relied upon by the
scientific and technical communities for a variety of applications.
Engineering firms generally agreed that this approach has merit, at
least until a more up-to-date source of land use and land clutter
information with finer resolution, such as Landsat, becomes available.
Commenters representing terrestrial broadcasting interests, however,
argued
[[Page 36640]]
that increased prediction accuracy will not be obtained by the approach
proposed in the Notice because there are serious deficiencies with the
LULC database for purposes of modifying the ILLR model. Based on
analysis of these comments, the Commission finds that the assignment of
clutter loss values based on LULC categories would enhance the accuracy
of predictions made with the ILLR model. Therefore, although they are
not ideal, the LULC categories proposed in the Notice are adopted as an
integral part of the ILLR. The addition of these LULC categories will
provide the ILLR with an approximate means for accounting for the
reception environment of individual locations, as those environments
are affected by vegetation and building structures as well as the
specific terrain elevation features already accounted for by the basic
Longley-Rice model. The effect of each reception environment on signal
reception is dependent on the clutter loss value assigned to each of
the LULC categories.
5. Clutter Loss Values. Commenters expressed strongly opposing
views on the specific clutter loss values to use for improving ILLR
predictions. While DIRECTV and EchoStar recommended specific values for
clutter loss, namely those proposed in the Notice, parties representing
the interests of the network affiliates believe that the predictions of
the ILLR model in its present form already include the effects of
clutter so that no prescription of additional losses is appropriate.
Middle ground was found in the comments of engineering firms. These
generally favored assignment of clutter loss values to be determined by
further study of existing measurement data or data acquired by further
measurement programs. The Commission believes that the values assigned
as clutter losses should be determined by statistical study of actual
measurements in the specific LULC environments to which they are to be
applied. The results of a study of this type were reported in the
comments of the National Association of Broadcasters and the
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (NAB/AMSTV). The NAB/
AMSTV study compared predictions of all the various proposed models
with measured data to determine the relative accuracy of the models.
The prediction at each of approximately 1000 locations was classified
as correct, an under-prediction, or an over-prediction. A model was
deemed to have made an under-prediction if it predicted that a location
could not receive a signal of at least Grade B strength, when the
location in fact did receive a Grade B signal; it was charged with an
over-prediction if it predicted that a location could receive a signal
of at least Grade B when the household in fact was measured not to
receive a Grade B signal.
6. For VHF channels, the comparisons indicate that a prescription
of additional losses would make the ILLR model less accurate because it
already produces more under-predictions than over-predictions (a
condition that favors the interests of satellite service providers).
For both VHF and UHF, the ILLR model without clutter corrections proves
superior to other models by making the correct prediction more often.
For UHF, however, even though more correct than the competing models,
the ILLR model tends to over-predict the field intensity substantially
more often than it under-predicts. This is a condition that could be
restored to approximate balance by assigning clutter losses. Based on
the available measured data of television signals, the Commission
reduced the clutter loss values from those proposed in the Notice in
order to make the ILLR model more accurate. The clutter loss values for
VHF channels are set to zero because the measurement data indicate that
larger values produce fewer correct predictions. Thus the ILLR model is
not changed for VHF. For UHF channels, small clutter loss values are
set in order to obtain a better balance between under-predictions and
over-predictions. Specifically, the clutter loss values are reduced to
one-third of those proposed in the Notice because the Commission's
assessment of the data indicates that this will produce a better
balance between under-predictions and over-predictions without
adversely affecting the overall percentage of correct predictions.
7. Error Flags. In the Notice it was proposed to presume lack of
service in the rare instances where the output of the Longley-Rice
computational procedure includes an error flag along with the predicted
field strength to indicate a possible error in the prediction. No
argument can be made for the accuracy of either convention, since the
error flag simply indicates uncertainty in the predicted value of field
strength due to the fact that the parameters presented to the ILLR are
somewhat outside their proper limits. The Commission believes that the
best approach is to ignore the error flag and simply accept the
predicted value for comparison with the signal intensity standard.
Thus, in uncertain cases the improved ILLR model will prefer neither
under-prediction nor over-prediction errors.
8. Surface Refractivity. Commenters stated that it could improve
the accuracy of the ILLR model to use the actual surface refractivity
in the geographical region between the transmitter and individual
reception point in place of the fixed median value proposed in the
Notice. However, commenters did not propose a precise algorithm or
particular database for determining the refractivity value to be used
for individual radio paths. While it would be desirable to include
surface refractivity in the ILLR model as a geographic variable, the
Commission believes that the effects on the precise signal strength
predictions made by the ILLR model would be too small to make a
difference, as a practical matter, in the determination of served/
unserved status of individual locations. Therefore, due to the lack a
precise procedure and database for this proposed ILLR refinement, the
fixed median value of surface refractivity is retained in the ILLR
model as proposed in the Notice.
9. Provisions for Further Improvements in Prediction Accuracy. The
comments indicate that improvements in the accuracy of the ILLR model
beyond those specifically proposed may be possible either by obtaining
additional measurement data or through further analysis of existing
data. In the Report and Order the Commission declared that it will
initiate a further rule making, i.e., a standard notice-and-comment
procedure, to improve the accuracy of the ILLR model upon the filing of
a petition for such rule making that is supported by high quality
engineering studies containing conclusions based on reliable and
publicly available measurement data. Changes to the ILLR model based on
such additional data may be proposed by referencing the present Docket,
which will be held open for this purpose.
10. Designation of Neutral and Independent Entity for Signal Tests
Purposes. The SHVIA relies on the ILLR model to determine presumptively
whether a subscriber is served or unserved for purposes of eligibility
to receive satellite retransmission of distant network signals. The
SHVIA further provides that subscribers who are denied retransmission
of distant signals may request that the satellite carrier seek a waiver
of the denial from the network station that is asserting that
retransmission is prohibited. If the network station rejects the waiver
request, the subscriber may request an on-site test. To address those
circumstances in which the satellite provider and network station
cannot agree on a person to conduct the test,
[[Page 36641]]
the SHVIA requires that the Commission designate by rule an independent
and neutral entity that shall in turn designate the person to conduct
the test. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is particularly
appropriate in this role since it has no commercial connection with
delivery of television services, its field offices cover the United
States, and its members are actively engaged in activities related to
the measurement of radio field intensity. Accordingly, the Report and
Order provides that the ARRL shall serve as the independent and neutral
entity that shall designate the person to conduct the test.
11. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) \1\ requires that a regulatory flexibility
analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency
certifies that ``the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ The RFA generally
defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' \3\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act.\4\ A small business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq., has been amended by
the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\3\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\4\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small business concern'' in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of
a small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriarte to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\5\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In this Report and Order, the Commission prescribes a
prediction technique for determining the ability of individual
households to receive television signals broadcast over-the air by
local stations. The prediction technique applies exclusively to the
sources of data for certain engineering calculations and to the manner
in which these calculations are made. Television station licensees,
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators, and other Direct to Home
(DTH) Satellite operators may use the technique to establish the
eligibility or non-eligibility of individual households for satellite
delivery of distant television programming. These determinations will
usually be made at the point of sale of satellite receiving equipment
for homes and will tend to increase the number of eligible customers.
As noted in paragraph 3 of the Report and Order, the statute requires
that we increase the accuracy of the prediction model based on
technical data regarding terrain and land cover variations. Thus, the
prescribed prediction technique is of a purely electrical engineering,
scientific nature, and the Commission's aim is to improve its
scientific accuracy. Moreover, the changes prescribed in the technique
are small and will have only a minor effect on the proportion of
households that are eligible to receive distant network signals. The
number of viewers served by network affiliate stations will not be
significantly reduced, and hence the economic effect on network
affiliates and satellite carriers will not be significant. Therefore,
the Commission certifies that the requirements of this First Report and
Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the First
Report and Order including a copy of this final certification, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In
addition, the First Report and Order and this certification will be
sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
13. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 154(j); Section 1008 of
the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of
1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix I; and Section
119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(a), the rule
changes set forth shall be effective June 26, 2000.
14. That the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of the First Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, part 73 of title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2. In Sec. 73.683, the section heading is revised and paragraphs
(d) and (e) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 73.683 Field strength contours and presumptive determination of
field strength at individual locations.
* * * * *
(d) For purposes of determining the eligibility of individual
households for satellite retransmission of distant network signals
under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(A), field
strength shall be determined by the Individual Location Longley-Rice
(ILLR) propagation prediction model. Guidance for use of the ILLR model
for these purposes is provided in OET Bulletin No. 72. This document is
available through the Internet on the FCC Home Page at http://www.fcc.gov.
(e) In the case of measurements to determine the eligibility of
individual households to receive satellite retransmission of distant
network signals under the copyright law provisions of 17 U.S.C.
119(d)(10), if a satellite carrier and the network station or stations
asserting that the retransmission of a signal of a distant network
station is prohibited are unable to agree on a person to conduct the
test, the American Radio Relay League, Inc., 225 Main Street,
Newington, CT 06111-1494, shall designate the person or organization to
conduct measurements based on the technical qualifications and
independence of proposed testers. The satellite carrier and network
station shall propose testers and provide their qualifications in
writing to the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). Individuals may also
volunteer themselves as testers by submitting their qualifications to
the ARRL. The ARRL can be reached by telephone at 860-594-0200, or
email at [email protected].
[FR Doc. 00-14536 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U