Humboldt HDTV Digital Television Information

FCC rules discourage local television broadcasters from providing quality TV signal reception, forcing most to use expensive cable & satellite TV providers.

Eureka, CA, February 24, 2009 - I was perusing KIEM-TV’s website earlier tonight when I ran across an interesting link to their policy on granting waivers to satellite television viewers (specifically DirecTV viewers) for reception of network programming at http://kiem-tv.com/waiver.html.

Basically, their policy is the same as the other local commercial television broadcasters in the area. If you need a waiver… you’re screwed. None of the local TV broadcasters will sign waivers for anyone, regardless of how bad their TV reception is.

KIEM specifically cites the FCC’s regulations about not needing to grant waivers in what are defined in Predicted Grade B Contour Areas. These are areas where anyone should supposedly be able to receive a TV signal, granted that they use an outdoor antenna placed 30′ above the ground. On it’s face, this rule actually sounds quite reasonable. Neither the FCC nor TV stations ever intended that viewers ever be able to view television programming from local broadcasters by using something as simple as a pair of “rabbit ears”, sitting on top of a television set.

Indeed, when early TV first began, there was a booming business in (outdoor) TV antenna installation. Over the years, the public has come to expect TV reception to be easy and hassle-free though. They don’t want unsightly antennas, ugly cables or silly wires cluttering their homes. This points to more of a need for a national attitude adjustment than it does a technical solution. If reception this simple is what Americans are waiting for, they are going to be sorely disappointed. It just isn’t going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, anyway. Those who want to receive a good over-the-air TV signal should be prepared to install a good antenna! It’s not politics; it’s simple physics, so get over it.

Back to the whole “Predicted Grade B Contour Area” issue though. As I stated, on it’s face, this policy seems like a logical and reasonable one. Unfortunately, the sad fact is, the technology used to create maps that show areas which fall into these contours is woefully inadequate. The standards that engineers use to create these maps has not really changed much in the past 100 years. Although computers are now used for map creation, they simply speed-up the same process that would normally take an engineer much longer to accomplish by hand.

With the exception of some very basic terrain calculations, very little real-world data is taken into consideration with these charts. Calculations are measured as if the earth existed inside a vacuum where no atmosphere, weather, earth curvature, man-made obstructions, vegetation, RF interference, multipath, solar flares or other factors ever enter into reality. To add insult to injury, these maps only show where it is allegedly technically possible to obtain “a signal”. This does NOT mean a watchable picture, or any type of signal that could reliably be used for the viewing of television pictures. It just requires that “a signal” of extremely minimal quality exists.

In fact, the FCC specifically defines the type of quality expected in a Predicted Grade B Contour Area. In one of its notices, it states: “…the values chosen for Grade B signal intensity account for location and time variability factors and predict that at least 50 percent of the locations along the Grade B contour will receive an acceptable picture 90 percent of the time. In this case, acceptable picture was considered to be TASO Level 3, defined as (passable) – The picture is of acceptable quality. Interference is not objectionable.”

Human Translation: In most areas, at best, your odds of receiving a “passable” signal by FCC standards (which most of us would probably define as a “really crappy picture”) – using an outdoor antenna placed on a 30′ mast, are 50/50… 90% of the time. Of course, these are only predictions, based upon completely inadequate data that is rarely accurate in real-world situations. Such an antenna set-up will likely set you back over $100, should probably be professionally installed and should have NO objects of ANY kind between itself and the broadcast station’s transmitting antenna. In other words, line-of-sight. Depending upon where you live, installation of a mast that extends 30′ from the top of your roof (which, for a two-story house, would be about 50′ off the ground) may also require you to obtain a building permit from your city or county, which could take months and cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars in building permits and increased property taxes. How many people can really afford that?

KIEM’s Grade B Contour Area is similar to that of other, local TV broadcasters (although, I believe that it might actually be outdated, and only show coverage areas for their older, and stronger, analog signal). Basically, if you live ANYWHERE in Humboldt, Del Norte or most of Trinity County, you are in a Grade B Contour area, according to the map. Those of us who have actually tried obtaining over-the-air TV reception in places like Trinity County will find maps such as those provided by KIEM-TV to be laughable, at best. With the new transition to DTV, the odds of obtaining a digital signal that could result in the reception of ANY type of TV picture AT ALL is diminished for the vast majority of viewers in outlying areas.

WHO’S TO BLAME FOR BAD RECEPTION?

It seems that everyone wants to point fingers in the broadcast industry. For it’s part, KIEM-TV seems to blame DirecTV for everything (strangely, they make no mention of DISH Network by name). Their position seems to be that since DirecTV promised their customers at one time that they would add local TV stations in every single U.S. market to their programming line-up, that they should be held to their word. Sounds fair enough, as DirecTV did, indeed backpedal on their promises. However, while KIEM makes it sound as if it they are blaming DirecTV out of their concern for viewers, that is almost certainly not the real reason for the finger pointing.

In reality, the main motivation behind KIEM’s attack of DirecTV is most likely due to the fact that without DirecTV footing the bill to uplink KIEM’s TV signal to their satellite, the station is not only losing potential viewers (which equals ratings, which equals money) but much more importantly, not receiving a monthly royalty check from the satellite TV provider in exchange for rebroadcast rights. KIEM gets a fat check from Suddenlink for rebroadcast rights to their subscribers each month, but not from DirecTV or DISH. Unfortunately, current FCC rules actually encourage local TV broadcasters to limit the availability of their over-the-air signals, since those receiving their programming via TV antennas pay broadcasters nothing. Those who receive their network programming via satellite, Suddenlink or other cable television companies end up having to pay broadcasters for their programming (albeit, indirectly) through increased subscription rates.

For it’s part, DirecTV aand DISH don’t seem to have anyone to blame, at least officially. DirecTV in particular, just blows-off it’s own customers by suggesting that local TV stations in Humboldt County will be included in the programming lineup “some day”. Whether they are just playing stupid, or there are employees at the company dumb enough to actually believe this, is questionable. Call a DirecTV customer service rep, and it’s quite possible that they will make local TV broadcasters out to be the bad guys, saying that their refusal to grant local waivers is unfair to TV viewers (which it certainly is). They will not acknowledge the fact that their own motivation NOT to carry these stations is due to the fact that it costs them more money to set-up and maintain the equipment alone than they could ever hope to recoup through subscription fees to the limited number of homes here.

So, who’s to REALLY blame? In my opinion, the real blame rests with the Federal Communications Commission. If it were not for the FCC’s ridiculous rules requiring local TV broadcasters to only provide a “Predicted Grade B Contour Area” (B should stand for Barely any signal at all) quality signal to local viewers without fearing competition from out-of-market TV stations carried by satellite TV providers, we simply would not be in this mess. If local TV broadcasters were held to a standard that made them provide an actual WATCHABLE TV signal in these areas, it would encourage them to provide their viewers with reliable access to programming, out of fear that they would be able to get it from elsewhere. This could be achieved through several means, most notably being the increased use of translators or requests to broadcast using increased power levels with radiation patterns that optimize reception in rural areas. Although the FCC has examined these issues in recent years, nothing positive has come out of it thus far. As it is, the transition to DTV has led to over-the-air TV signals being available to far fewer Americans than before, which is forcing more and more people to switch to cable or satellite TV just to receive programming from their local TV stations.

Just count the number of houses on your block with outdoor, over-the-air TV antennas as opposed to dishes or drops from the local cable company to confirm this fact. Even in areas that SHOULD have good local TV reception, most are forced to turn to cable or satellite for local or broadcast network programming.

ALL CABLE CUSTOMERS PAY EXTRA FEES FOR “FREE” LOCAL CHANNELS

This also applies to anyone who is able to receive local, commercial TV broadcasts on satellite services such as DirecTV or DISH Network in areas where local stations are available.

If you think that getting local channels on your cable system is free, you’re just kidding yourself. All cable TV providers such as Suddenlink have to pay commercial broadcasters to carry their signal under federal law. Of course, these added costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. You don’t think that the cable company is going to pay these extra fees out of their own pockets, do you?

The FCC states as much in their FCC Cable Television Fact Sheet. Just to make it as clear as possible, here is a direct quote from the FCC’s own literature:

Q: Will my cable bill increase as a result of retransmission consent agreements?

A: In return for allowing a cable system to carry its signal, a television station may require the payment of a fee or other consideration (for instance, carriage of another programming service or advertising time). Any new or additional costs incurred as a result of retransmission consent agreements may be passed through to cable subscribers.

The FCC needs to reconsider the current scheme in place that allows local TV stations to charge cable and satellite TV providers for rebroadcast rights to their “free” signals. After all, in theory, all that the cable and satellite broadcasters are doing is extending the reach of a TV station’s broadcast area and potential viewership, which should bring in more viewers, which should make them more money from advertisements. At least, that’s how it SHOULD work.

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that TV broadcasters see cable and satellite providers as alternative streams of income, and are positioning themselves to be more like pay cable channels than over-the-air broadcasters. Local TV stations used to rely upon the popularity of their programming in order to attract more viewers, which would generate better ratings, which would lead to increased profits. Under the current scheme, broadcasters don’t need ANYONE watching their programming in order to make money from cable and satellite TV providers. Rather than the public deciding through ratings what programming should stay on the air, this scheme encourages broadcasters to provide viewers with the least expensive programming they can find. Perhaps that’s why we only have a single local TV station in Humboldt County that bothers to broadcast local news (which is very expensive to produce) anymore.

The bottom line is, letting TV broadcasters charge rebroadcast fees to cable and satellite providers for their “free” signals only encourages these broadcasters to limit the quality and availability of local broadcast signals, hopefully forcing most viewers to resort to subscribing to cable or satellite, where they make much more money. This obviously runs contrary to their responsibility to serve the public interest, which they are obligated to do under federal law. This obligation results from the fact that they are using segments of the frequency spectrum, which are a limited, public resource.

Unfortunately, the FCC has all but forgotten that broadcasters are supposed to serve the public interest. Successive presidential administrations have made the Federal Communications Commission much more of a political policy tool than the enforcement and regulation entity they once used to be. Most major decisions at the agency these days are politically motivated, rather than being made on technical or legal grounds. United States courts have increasingly had to step-in in recent years to curb abuses of power at the FCC and force them to vacate their own rules, finding them to be unconstitutional. When it comes to the point where private citizens have to take federal agencies to court in order to prove that they are knowingly operating in direct violation of the United States Constitution, you really have to question their ability to act as an unbiased government regulatory agency.

WHY YOUR TV RECEPTION SUCKS… CONCLUSION

What it all boils down to is the fact that “free TV” isn’t really free for most of us anymore, especially for those caught in the middle of a pissing contest between the satellite and broadcast television industries. Unless Congress decides to step-in and force satellite TV providers like DirecTV to rebroadcast ALL local TV stations in the United States (which would result in skyrocketing satellite TV subscription prices, no pun intended), you can bet that those who live in areas with fringe reception will continue to be treated as second class citizens by both local broadcasters as well as satellite TV providers, and that the quality of television programming itself will continue to decline.

Topics: 2009, analog, antenna, broadcast, broadcaster, cable, channel, Congress, county, Del Norte, digital, DirecTV, dish, Dish Network, DTV, Eureka, FCC, fined, Fortuna, Free, humboldt, Humboldt County, KIEM, law, local, local tv stations, NAL, nation, new, NTIA, OTA, over-the-air, PBS, program, programming, rabbit ears, reception, rural, satellite, signal, spectrum, station, SuddenLink, television, transition, translator, Trinity, tv, tv broadcasters, TV Signal, tv stations, U.S.