Broadcasters Want Flexibility for New Standard; MVPDs, Others Seek Protections
TV broadcasters want the FCC to handle ATSC 3.0 with a “light regulatory touch.” MVPDs, wireless entities, consumer groups and NPR urged the agency to protect retransmission negotiations, unlicensed spectrum, radio and the post-incentive auction repacking from the transition to the new television standard, in comments filed Tuesday in docket 16-142 (see 1705090053). The FCC should “expeditiously adopt only those minimal regulations necessary to permit broadcasters to voluntarily implement ATSC 3.0 transmissions,” said Nexstar. The transition to the new standard “threatens to compound disruption in the industry and to the public,” said NCTA.
Many broadcasters and associations touted the benefits of the new standard, including Ion, Tegna, PBS, Univision and Entravision. The new standard will be great boon to public safety communications, and “will permit broadcasters to provide ultra-high definition video and immersive audio, reliable mobile broadcasting and data services, and consumer interactivity,” and “offer broadcasters the tools to remain competitive in the ever-expanding wireless distribution demand world,” Nexstar said. Entravision and Univision said the new standard would offer new opportunities to their largely Hispanic TV audiences, since Hispanics are large consumers of over-the-air TV.
MVPDs, associations and the American Television Alliance challenged the description of transition plan for the new standard as “voluntary,” arguing that retrans negotiations inevitably would be used to pressure MVPDs to take up ATSC 3.0 signals. Dish Network “has been party to a number of negotiations during which broadcasters have, in fact, sought to tie carriage of their ATSC 1.0 signal with a yet-to-be authorized 3.0 signal,” Dish said.
AT&T and Dish were among those saying the FCC should rule that retransmission of an ATSC 3.0 signal can't be tied to carriage of a 1.0 signal. AT&T proposed a further limitation that 3.0 negotiations could occur with only MVPDs that have “a minimum of one year remaining on the retransmission consent agreement covering the station’s ATSC 1.0 signal.” The FCC should subpoena retrans contracts upon receiving MVPD complaints about 3.0 negotiations, set up a “rocket docket” for violations of the good-faith rules, and put the burden on broadcasters that include 3.0 carriage in retrans agreements to prove they're negotiating in good faith, said ITTA. Without such action, “smaller and new-entrant MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals threatens to become a de facto requirement,” ITTA said.
“Without exception, the concerns raised by the MVPDs are red herrings,” said One Media, partly owned by Sinclair. “The Commission should not take the bait to use this proceeding, which is focused on adopting a new technical standard to foster innovation, to re-open settled questions involving consent carriage negotiations.” The FCC should “avoid being distracted by competitive issues that are outside the proper scope of this proceeding,” said pro-ATSC 3.0 broadcaster group Pearl TV.
MVPDs Seek Protections
Virtually every MVPD said the FCC should take steps to prevent the transition to the new standard from costing them.
The FCC “must adopt rules to protect against broadcasters attempting to use ATSC 3.0 to impose costly burdens on cable operators and their customers,” NCTA said. “Transmission of these signals will consume more network capacity than ATSC 1.0 transmissions, potentially forcing removal of other programming and services,” said Verizon. Broadcasters should have to reimburse smaller cable providers for such costs, the American Cable Association said. “It would be entirely appropriate for the Commission to mandate that broadcasters bear those costs given the fact that the ATSC 3.0 transition is a broadcaster-sponsored initiative,” Mediacom said.
The Advanced TV Broadcasting Alliance wants the FCC to require ATSC 3.0 reception in large-screen TVs within a year after authorizing the first next-gen broadcasts, it commented. The FCC should impose a tuner requirement on smartphones and other devices when 3.0 broadcasts become available to at least 25 percent of the U.S. population, said the alliance. The 1963 All-Channel Receiver Act includes smartphones, as they have "an RF front end receiver, hardware and software to decode and process audiovisual programming, and high resolution screens and audio outputs,” the low-power TV group said. It differed from CTA, NAB and others against tuner mandates (see 1705090056).
The AWARN Alliance “does not seek a tuner mandate” for reception of Advanced Warning and Response Network (AWARN) emergency alerts or any other ATSC 3.0 services, it said. Such a “regulatory mandate ... could stifle the innovation that is driving continued development and eventual deployment of AWARN,” it said. “Why saddle manufacturers and consumers with extra costs when broadcasters are under no obligation to affirmatively build out a 3.0 broadcast capability?” asked Consumers Union, Public Knowledge and New America’s Open Technology jointly opposing a tuner mandate. The groups also don’t think an HDMI port mandate is necessary, they said. "The FCC need not consider an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate or HDMI port mandate so long as consumers have access to an ATSC 1.0 signal.” LG Electronics agrees the NPRM correctly said tuner mandate isn’t necessary, the company commented: That's “in keeping with the voluntary nature” of ATSC 3.0.
Public interest commenters were more concerned about the burden of the transition on consumers. Consumers Union, Public Knowledge and New America’s Open Technology Institute said they're declining to pick a side between MVPDs and broadcasters on ATSC 3.0. “Consumers should not be worse off or involuntarily bear additional costs as a result of the transition,” the groups said. The transition shouldn’t degrade broadcaster coverage area or signal quality, and ATSC 1.0 signals should be available as long as there's demand for them, they said.
The transition must not complicate or threaten the repacking, said wireless commenters. “The Commission should ensure that the ATSC 3.0 transition, which appears to be in its early stages, is not used to delay the 39-month transition governing the 600 MHz incentive auction repacking process,” said CTIA. The FCC shouldn’t allow broadcasters to begin broadcasting 3.0 until they have completed their repacking efforts, T-Mobile said. The agency “should therefore only grant authority for a broadcaster to implement ATSC 3.0 if it has already satisfied, or is on track to satisfy, its post-incentive auction repacking requirements,” said T-Mobile. NAB, CTA, AWARN and the America's Public Television Stations (APTS) in a joint filing denied the possibility the new standard would affect the repacking. “The deployment of Next Gen TV will not affect the post-auction transition of repacked television stations to new channels,” the filing said. “Much current-generation equipment that will be deployed during repacking is already Next Gen compatible,” the filing said.
Tech Interests at Play
Tech issues came up, too. Several broadcasters, including Pearl TV and the joint filing from the original petitioners, said stations should be allowed to broadcast in the vacant TV bands in the transition to the new standard. The FCC should allow broadcasters to expand the areas in which they're able to provide reliable service within their interference footprints “and, in some cases, beyond its interference footprint,” One Media said.
Microsoft and other commenters said ATSC 3.0 should get no special interference protection. “The ATSC 3.0 transmission standard must accept interference it receives from and bear the responsibility for remedying the interference it causes to existing adjacent NCE FM stations,” said NPR. The FCC must prevent the new standard from affecting unlicensed uses, the Wi-Fi Alliance said. The commission must “remain committed to preserving its decisions that spectrum be available for unlicensed devices in the television broadcast band,” the group said.
Nearly every broadcast commenter asked the commission not to mandate a specific simulcast transition, since simulcast may not work for all broadcasters. “Public television stations ... will, by their very nature and mission, continue to broadcast what is in the best interests of their local community,” said a joint filing from PBS, APTS and CPB. If such a mandate is adopted, it should include a waiver standard, said the groups.