Excluding A/322 From ATSC 3.0 Rules Risks ‘Disenfranchising’ Public, LG Tells FCC

LG Electronics used its reply comments Thursday in FCC ATSC 3.0 rulemaking docket 16-142 to press its case again that the commission needs to incorporate into rules the A/322 and A/321 physical-layer documents within ATSC 3.0 standards (see 1706070058). But Sinclair's One Media subsidiary said A/321 is ATSC 3.0's only needed physical-layer ingredient because A/322's functions already are written into existing FCC "parameters." Meanwhile, MVPDs and broadcasters in their reply comments debated over whether the migration to ATSC 3.0 will amount to a mandate.

Contrary to PBS earlier urging that the FCC adopt only the A/321 document on system discovery and signaling because it’s the only portion of ATSC 3.0 that needs commission approval for a stable and predictable RF operating environment, it’s actually the A/322 document on physical-layer protocol, not A/321, that achieves that objective, LG said. A/321 allows for a receiver to find an ATSC 3.0 signal and “latch on to it,” but A/322 “defines what it takes to receive and demodulate the ATSC 3.0 signal as well as the waveform that could impact potential interference characteristics,” LG said.

A/322 is the critical component of ATSC 3.0 that ensures that receivers “are able to demodulate an ATSC 3.0 signal,” LG said. “Adopting A/322 will guarantee that equipment manufacturers develop receiving equipment able to decode an ATSC 3.0 signal properly, which in turn benefits consumers. Once ATSC 3.0 gains popularity in the market, consumers will buy televisions and other devices, at no small expense, with the good faith expectation that those devices will be able to properly receive and decode an ATSC 3.0 signal.”

If the FCC opts to exclude A/322 from its rules, it “risks disenfranchising consumers,” LG said. “Without a set modulation standard, device manufacturers will not know what demodulation technology to incorporate into devices. The consequence is consumer harm.” For example, if a broadcaster were to use a “waveform” such as 5G that’s not incorporated by manufacturers into standard TV sets, “consumers will lose access to that broadcaster's signal on their TVs,” LG said.

Coming down on the side of PBS, One Media argued in its reply comments Thursday that it opposes bundling A/322 with A/321 into the FCC’s final rules. One Media thinks doing so would be an “unnecessary” measure, it said. It also fears it would "limit the usefulness of the transmission standard and hamper broadcasters’ ability to exploit the standard’s potential fully without adding anything not already protected by the rules currently in force,” said One Media.

The “essence” of LG’s argument is that without A/322 incorporated into the rules, “there will be no interference guidelines as reference points,” One Media said. But the FCC’s “existing interference parameters already specify the emission envelop,” it said. “A/322 is not required to support these parameters.” Existing rules "define the emission mask and the ratios of desired to undesired signals," it said. "A/322 provides no needed enhancements to this interference criteria." Stacking A/322 on top of the existing rules would be "regulatory redundancy," it said.

A/321 is “one of two major components,” along with A/322, that make up the physical layer of the new ATSC 3.0 transmission system, ATSC replied. The comments appeared to stop short of echoing LG's advocacy for including both documents in the ATSC 3.0 rules, only that both are now “finalized,” as are most of the other standards and recommended practices that make up the ATSC 3.0 standards suite, ATSC said. “There is no reason to delay its adoption,” ATSC said of that suite.

The “process” of framing the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards “has been lengthy and careful,” dating back to the first “planning and analysis work” that began seven years ago, ATSC said. “In the ensuing six years, more than 30 specialist groups, subcommittees, and ad hoc groups actively engaged in development and testing each and every standard. Along the way, we have worked to ensure that the standards are as future-proof as possible. While work is still required to finalize several remaining standards, all core elements have been defined and completed.” ATSC expects all remaining ATSC 3.0 components will be approved “by the end of the summer,” it said.

Broadcaster calls for the FCC not to mandate simulcasting in both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 are a reversal of earlier assurances, MVPD-side entities replied. “This change of heart greatly increases the risk of harm to over-the-air and MVPD viewers alike,” said the American Television Alliance. “It should also erase any doubts about the necessity for Commission oversight of the proposed transition." The commission "should reject out-of-hand broadcasters’ attempted retreat from their commitment to simulcast in ATSC 1.0 throughout the transition, and instead mandate such a requirement,” said AT&T.

Virtually all broadcast reply commenters said the FCC should avoid specific simulcast requirements. Rather than raise “regulatory hurdles” to the new standard, “the Commission’s goal should be to lower them,” said NAB, in comments that were echoed by the network affiliate groups and other broadcast entities. The FCC “should provide broadcasters with the ability to enter into arrangements with simulcasting partners quickly and smoothly, without the need for time-consuming approvals or review,” NAB said.

Broadcast entities were nearly united in support of the FCC allowing broadcasters to use vacant channels temporarily during the transition, an idea that was strongly opposed by groups focused on unlicensed spectrum protections. “The single most important step the Commission could take to benefit consumers in this proceeding would be to allow broadcasters to use vacant, in-band channels to deploy Next Gen facilities,” NAB said. The FCC should give broadcasters seeking a vacant channel for 3.0 deployment “priority over applicants for new television stations and acknowledge that such stations retain priority over displacement applications of LPTV and translator stations,” said One Media. The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition took the opposite view. “If the FCC attempts to approve what One Media is suggesting, it would slow down the implementation of the Next Gen service because of the legal cases which would be brought against the rulemaking,” the coalition said. “The FCC simply can not interject into the incentive auction repacking process a new type of displacement channel prioritization!”

Sinclair, NAB and other broadcasters disputed that the ATSC 3.0 standard would slow or interfere with the repacking. Broadcast entities also attacked MVPDs over retransmission consent, which Sinclair said was being injected into the proceeding to rehash old arguments. The FCC doesn’t have the authority to prevent clauses on ATSC 3.0 from being included in retransmission consent contracts, Sinclair said. ”Which streams are to be carried is a substantive term, and the Commission lacks authority to impose substantive terms.”