Don’t ‘Deviate’ From 'Voluntary' ATSC 3.0 by Mandating Tuners, CTA Urges FCC

The FCC’s ATSC 3.0 rulemaking gives the commission “an important opportunity to unleash innovation, not by requiring a particular type of equipment, but by facilitating voluntary industry adoption of a new technology in response to consumer demand,” CTA said Thursday in reply comments in docket 16-142. It was the first time in the 14-month-long proceeding that CTA filed comments on its own rather than jointly with NAB and the other groups that petitioned the FCC last April to authorize ATSC 3.0 as a voluntary, market-driven service (see 1604130065). CTA said it did so to independently stress to the commission the importance of not imposing tuner mandates.

The rulemaking record shows “broad support for the joint industry proposal to transition to the ATSC 3.0 standard on a voluntary basis,” CTA told the FCC. CTA “continues to fully support the joint petition for rulemaking and the coalition’s initial comments,” it said in a footnote. “Given the critical importance of preserving flexibility to innovate in the design and production of consumer technology products, including those with TV tuners, CTA writes separately to urge the Commission not to deviate from the voluntary nature of the ATSC 3.0 transition with respect to tuners.”

The record also “clearly demonstrates the position of all industry sectors and advocacy groups that the Commission need not and should not adopt any mandatory tuner requirement with respect to ATSC 3.0,” CTA said. NAB in its own reply comments Thursday emphasized again that it “does not seek tuner mandates for home or mobile receivers.” The Advanced TV Broadcasting Alliance, representing low-power TV interests, was among the few in the first round of comments asking the FCC to require ATSC 3.0 reception in large-screen TVs within a year after authorizing next-generation broadcasts (see 1705100003). First-round comments from One Media also suggested the Sinclair subsidiary would be open to backing tuner mandates down the road if ATSC 3.0's market-driven approach failed to yield sufficient consumer adoption of next-gen TVs (see 1705110053).

CTA member companies are “successfully bringing new video products to market, rapidly developing and deploying new hardware and software to anticipate and meet consumers’ desires for consuming video programming on all kinds of screens,” said the trade group. “Hardware mandates such as a tuner requirement risk diverting resources by artificially directing investment,” it said. “Such mandates also could cause companies to either refrain from launching new technologies or to be forced to return to the FCC to seek waivers at the next wave of a technology transition.”

Voluntary standards processes like those related to ATSC 3.0 “will better calibrate end-user expectations and lead to more useful, less expensive technologies than any government mandate could effect,” CTA said. For example, a CTA video systems working group is developing a series of recommended practices “that mirror the suite of ATSC 3.0 standards,” it said. A CTA subcommittee also recently authorized a new project “related to receiving the next-generation closed captioning delivered by the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard,” it said.

Any ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate, “either now or at any time in the future, would be counterproductive,” CTA said. “Setting aside the larger question of whether a technology mandate is ever necessary, it certainly is not necessary here, where all relevant sectors are properly incentivized to transition and have a proven history of meeting consumer demand.” A tuner requirement for TV makers “would undermine the inter-industry cooperation that has characterized the development of ATSC 3.0, subjecting equipment manufacturers to a disproportionate burden and threat of enforcement not borne by other sectors,” CTA said.

CTA wants the FCC in its ATSC 3.0 rules to “encourage” adoption of the A/322 document on physical-layer protocol, it said. But in keeping with the voluntary, market-driven nature of the ATSC 3.0 migration, “CTA does not seek a requirement to implement A/322,” it said. LG Electronics champions putting A/322 in the rules as a critical component of ATSC 3.0 transmission and reception. But One Media and PBS oppose doing so -- PBS expressing fears it would unnecessarily impede broadcaster innovation in the years to come, One Media arguing it would be redundant with existing FCC rules on station coverage and interference (see 1706080054).

A/322 defines the “RF/Transmission” parameters of ATSC 3.0's physical-layer “waveform” and will allow simultaneous mobile, handheld and indoor reception “in a single RF channel,” CTA said. “We recommend that the Commission recognize that A/322 is an important aspect of ATSC 3.0 that will further facilitate the transition to Next Generation broadcasting.” The FCC “should encourage this advanced modulation method for television services to be displayed on mobile, portable, and fixed devices,” CTA said. “Such recognition will give device manufacturers more certainty and instill consumer confidence in new ATSC 3.0-enabled television receivers, thus further supporting the voluntary transition.”

The broadcast push to use vacant bands for the ATSC 3.0 transition is a spectrum rights grab, said Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, Microsoft and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute in other reply comments filed Thursday in docket 16-142. Broadcasters “must not be allowed to use ATSC 3.0 as the pretext for a spectrum windfall at public expense that also undermines the long-promised nationwide availability of TV White Spaces,” said CU, PK and New America in a joint filing. In their own reply comments, broadcast entities including OneMedia and NAB said the vacant bands would minimize the disruption to consumers (see 1706080067). “Some parties are now seeking to take advantage of this proceeding to expand their spectrum rights unjustifiably, despite that NAB assured the FCC that “no additional spectrum is required or requested,” said Microsoft.

Non-broadcast commenters criticized the push to use the unlicensed spectrum as part of broadcaster efforts to avoid FCC oversight of the move to the new standard. “Consumers are being asked to take a leap of faith without the benefit of a regulatory safety net,” said the joint filing. “TV One has grave concerns about the consequences that will flow from the proposed ATSC 3.0 transition rules unless adequate safeguards are included,” said cable network TV One. Broadcast commenters doubled down on calls for minimal regulation, with Ion saying the move to ATSC 3.0 won’t be a transition at all. “What the FCC is approving is for broadcasters to have the option to begin implementing ATSC 3.0, not for the broadcast industry to 'transition' to ATSC 3.0,” Ion said. “ATSC 3.0 should be an option for broadcasters, not a government mandate, and this proceeding should do no more than establish ATSC 3.0 as an alternative for serving the public.”

Though broadcasters don’t want specific FCC rules around simulcasting during the transition, support for the “origination” method of handling simulcasting authorization seems to have coalesced, with groups such as NAB, Pearl TV and PBS supporting it. Rather than licensing or multicasting arrangements, the origination “would establish a regulatory framework whereby, after receiving notice of a simulcasting agreement between two licensees, the Commission would ascribe each broadcast feed to the originating licensee rather than to the transmitting licensee,” said PBS, CPB and America’s Public Television Stations. “This approach enjoys the support of the broader broadcasting community,” said Pearl.

MVPD-side entities urged the FCC to erect safeguards to protect them from costs or other burdens from the switchover. “Burdens and costs to cable operators and to consumers could be significant if the introduction of ATSC 3.0 is not accompanied by appropriate rules of the road,” said NCTA. “Coverage area for an ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream transmitting from a 'host' station must remain the same as the licensee’s station currently provides, and the format and content of any ATSC 1.0 transmission must not be degraded in the process.”

“Rules must either ensure small MVPDs do not lose access to current signals, or include provisions for small MVPDs to be compensated for any expenses needed to maintain their current level of service to customers,” said NTCA. Some broadcasters disagree. The FCC “should reject calls to upend the long-established principle" that MVPDs' "are responsible for their own costs in receiving and retransmitting 'good quality' broadcast television signals,” said the joint public TV filing. Consumer groups joined with MVPDs in urging the FCC to prevent ATSC 3.0 carriage from being part of retransmission consent negotiations. “If the Commission authorizes ATSC 3.0, it should in tandem update its good faith rules to provide it is a per se violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith to tie or condition carriage of a broadcast licensee’s ATSC 1.0 signal with all or part of its ATSC 3.0 signal,” said CU, New America and PK.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International endorsed 3.0 public safety applications. NCMEC backs "improvements that could assist with better geo-targeting and customization (including language and other forms of accessibility) of AMBER Alert broadcasts.” APCO said that "effective geo-targeting of EAS messages would promote greater trust of emergency alerts, reduce alert fatigue, avoid unnecessary concern to unaffected parties, and lessen inquiries to [public safety answering points] from members of the public who are located outside of the impacted area yet receive the alert.”