Broadcasters Want FCC Action on ATSC 3.0 Multicast Petition

FCC inaction on an NAB petition for clarification of ATSC 3.0 rules is making the transition to the new standard more difficult, broadcasters said. The petition was filed in November and has been a focus of NAB lobbying in recent months and was again Friday (see 2011100067).

The petition seeks clarification of requirements broadcasters offer substantially similar programming on their 1.0 and 3.0 streams, and how those rules interact with multicast subchannels. Broadcasters said uncertainty about the requirements makes it difficult to negotiate the marketwide sharing needed for the 3.0 move. They told us they don’t believe the petition is an agency priority.

“The Media Bureau continues to process ATSC 3.0 requests before it, and is working closely with industry to answer questions as they arise,” emailed an FCC spokesperson Friday. “This experience is helping to inform any future rulemaking.”

“We have developed some clunky work-arounds, but they necessitate renewable" special temporary authorities "and other administrative juggling,” emailed One Media Executive Vice President-Strategic and Legal Affairs Jerald Fritz. “We are eager to see the Commission move this process forward so broadcasters can continue to innovate,” emailed Pearl TV Managing Director Anne Schelle.

NAB wants to clarify rules for 3.0 simulcasting allow arrangements where a single broadcaster’s multicast, secondary programming streams are divided among multiple hosting stations, and requirements the hosted 1.0 signal cover the entire community of license of the guest station should apply only to a station’s primary video stream, not its subchannels. That's what it told an aide to acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, per a filing in docket 16-142. The intent is to make it easier for stations to negotiate hosting deals and ensure coverage during the transition, a broadcaster told us. Some broadcasters believe the current rules already allow what NAB is requesting, but more “risk adverse” industry officials aren’t as sure, a broadcaster said.

The issue stems from the limits on a station’s capacity to be both a 3.0 “lighthouse” and offer multicast programming, said Brooks Pierce's Coe Ramsey in an interview. Current rules are clear about the requirement to air a station’s primary programming stream in both standards but vaguer on the subject of multicast streams, Ramsey said. Stations need clarity on how those multicast streams can be hosted and which station the FCC will hold responsible for violations of rules on those streams. The Media Bureau worked with broadcasters to create a system involving STA requests to allow for the hosting of the multicast streams, but the STAs must be periodically renewed, Ramsey said: “The STA system is working, but the rules still need clarification.”

The industry needs “clarification on simulcasting arrangements as applied to multicast streams,” said Mark Aitken, One Media president and senior vice president-advanced technology for parent company Sinclair. Scripps, Tegna and many other broadcasters supported the request.

The request in the most recent ex parte filings appears to be modified from the language in the original NAB petition, which MVPD groups argued was an attempt to get around FCC limitations on 3.0. “NAB’s Petition appears to raise complicated issues related to the Commission’s ownership rules, attribution standards, and the ultimate uses of ATSC 3.0,” said the American Television Alliance in a response filing. The FCC “should not act on a declaratory ruling or otherwise without seeking further comment to ensure that the issues are adequately examined,” said NCTA.

NAB said the requested changes are “ministerial,” and in more recent ex parte filings, it suggests language that appears to be a response to MVPD concerns. “In arranging for the hosting of its programming, no individual broadcaster shall partner with other stations to host, in the aggregate, more programming than such station could broadcast on its own facilities,” said an April filing. As to who should be responsible for rule violations, “situating regulatory responsibility with the originating party for a program stream makes the most sense, and assures all parties the ability to foster dynamic joint projects looking the future,” said the National Translator Association. NTA suggested language includes “these multicast programming streams will be licensed to the originating stations.”

The hope "is to have a more streamlined regulatory structure that will help speed deployment,” said One Media's Fritz. The commission "has been very helpful in its consideration of the petition," emailed America’s Public Television Stations General Counsel Lonna Thompson. "APTS hopes that they will move forward expeditiously with a rulemaking to help more public television stations participating in NextGen TV market transitions and offering enhanced NextGen TV services.”