Broadcasters Divided Over Significantly-Viewed Proposals

“The current moribund process has real world consequences that harm local broadcast stations -- especially struggling stations in small markets,” said Gray in comments posted Friday in docket 20-73 endorsing the Longley-Rice signal strength measurement as an alternative to viewer data. Such "theoretical" coverage methodologies “don’t take into account actual viewers,” wrote broadcasters including Jonesboro TV and Star City Broadcasting.

Nielsen 2018 changes in collecting viewer data make it extremely difficult for outlets in less populated areas to demonstrate they are significantly viewed in a market, said Gray. Stations that can show they are significantly viewed in a market outside their own can be carried by MVPDs in those markets even if they air the same network as an in-market one. Without “adequate Nielsen data ... a broadcaster often has no other practical option,” Gray said: Paying for independent studies is “impractical from both a cost and timing perspective.” Rules for that determination haven’t changed since 1972, despite many industry changes, the company said.

Gray wants the FCC to allow broadcasters to use Longley-Rice study data to show their signal reaches 25% of an area’s population or area. Parties could rebut Longley-Rice data by providing viewership data the current rules rely on. “It is patently unfair to require stations to pay for third-party data from an independent organization,” said broadcaster One Ministries. “This is equivalent to a tax on TV station owners.”

Nielsen says there's no problem. The NPRM “seeks comment on solutions to a problem that does not exist in practice,” Nielsen said. It said the 2018 move away from diaries to meters improved its data in most of the country. “It is only in the smallest counties in the smallest markets that the recent changes could make over-the-air surveys more difficult -- but Nielsen will be able to address these difficulties if and when needed."

Nielsen and others questioned use of signal strength data instead of viewership numbers. “Viewership depends on what people actually watch. We do not see how the Commission can reasonably use signal strength as a proxy,” Nielsen said. Pursuing “unnecessary alternatives” would divert FCC resources and “needlessly disrupt a well-functioning private sector marketplace,” said the Information Technology Industry Council.

Hubbard Broadcasting and NCTA said Gray’s proposal would unnecessarily disrupt existing stations and a system that works. “Television stations and their over-the-air viewers depend on the current arrangements for local television broadcast service,” said Hubbard: Different service areas “could upend viewer expectations and needs.” There's “no compelling factual or policy reason” to change the rules “particularly when doing so would unnecessarily risk the disruption of settled industry and consumer expectations,” NCTA said.

Signal coverage can be “reasonably found to function as a reliable proxy for viewership in the absence of contrary evidence,” Gray said. Longley-Rice data is a “well-accepted currency” to determine a station’s value, Gray said.

Hubbard and NCTA questioned authority to make such changes. Congress linked the significantly viewed rules to cable copyright and compulsory license rules, NCTA said. That “raises difficult questions concerning the Commission’s statutory authority to change those rules.” Longley-Rice “would be irrational and contrary to the will of Congress,” Hubbard said.

Update the rules, not replace the current system, said Sagamore Hill Broadcasting. It said the agency should protect low-power TV stations that carry big four networks under syndicated exclusivity and network nonduplication rules as it does full-powers.

Media consultant Sequent said the agency should explore​​​​​​​ “alternative measurement methods.” Longley-Rice “disrupts individual choice,” said Digital Liberty, affiliated with Americans for Tax Reform. “It can only determine whether or not the station is available to watch. It is therefore an incapable measure of viewership.”