CTA is “excited about the upcoming transition to Next-Generation television and the ATSC 3.0 standard,” said President Gary Shapiro in a statement Friday when asked for reaction to FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel calling the transition to 3.0 a “tax” on TV homes because it will require consumers to buy new 3.0-capable sets (see 1710120057). ATSC 3.0 “will bring a variety of benefits to Americans who receive television programming over-the-air, including the ability to receive for free 4K Ultra High Definition programming, live television on any mobile device and advanced emergency alerts that include video and more geo-targeted information,” said Shapiro. “For the foreseeable future, broadcasters will transmit in both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0, and consumers can continue to receive OTA programming on their legacy TVs. Television viewers also will have access to converter devices that will enable them to obtain Next-Gen TV signals for viewing on their legacy displays.” The ATSC 3.0 NPRM that the FCC released in February asked whether the commission should consider requiring HDMI ports on future TVs to accommodate devices for upgrading ATSC 1.0 TVs for 3.0 reception (see 1702270059). In the NPRM, the FCC “tentatively” concluded an HDMI port requirement won’t be needed for now because the 3.0 transition will be voluntary and market-driven. By all current indications, requiring HDMI ports on future TVs appears a moot point anyway because virtually all new flat-panel TVs shipped today have HDMI ports and have had them for more than a decade. The "time is right" for the FCC to approve an order authorizing 3.0 broadcasts, NAB President Gordon Smith told Rosenworcel in meetings last week (see 1710130042).

The FCC should require broadcasters transitioning to ATSC 3.0 to simulcast 1.0 to a similar coverage area and community of license as before the transition, said NCTA in Oct. 4 visits with aides to Commissioners Brendan Carr and Mike O’Rielly, said an ex parte filing posted Tuesday in docket 16-142. NCTA met with FCC staff on a similar matter last week (see 1710020044).

The FCC needs to be sure broadcasters’ ATSC 3.0 deployment won't "disrupt consumers or impose costs and burdens on cable operators,” NCTA told commission staff in Thursday meetings, said an ex parte filing posted Friday in docket 16-142. NCTA wants the FCC to require broadcasters “to continue to transmit a robust ATSC 1.0 signal" during the transition. “Rather than end certain key transition requirements after an arbitrary three-year period,” as NAB's Sept. 8 filing proposed, the commission “must continue to require simulcasting until it determines that conditions warrant allowing a broadcaster to no longer provide an ATSC 1.0 signal,” it said. During the move, NCTA thinks the 1.0 “simulcast stream must continue to serve the same coverage area and community of license from a ‘host’ station as it did prior to the launch of the ATSC 3.0 signal on its regularly assigned channel,” it said. “The ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal should be required to transmit the same format as before the transmission of the companion ATSC 3.0 signal, with the same programming except where technically infeasible due to the nature of ATSC 3.0.” If 3.0 signal transmissions are to be “completely voluntary,” as broadcasters have proposed, “there is no basis for allowing broadcasters to use access to an ATSC 1.0 signal to secure new carriage rights for ATSC 3.0 signals in a manner that imposes costs and hardships on MVPDs and their customers,” said the cable group. NAB didn’t comment.

Broadcasters relocating ATSC 1.0 signals during the move to ATSC 3.0 should be required to give MVPDs 90 days' notice, AT&T said Friday in FCC docket 16-142. Stations should have to provide an additional 30 days' notice if the shift happens during the repacking, AT&T said. “Relocation of broadcast stations’ ATSC 1.0 signals will result in significant and costly burdens for nationwide satellite distributors such as AT&T.” A broadcaster relocating its signal requires engineers to make physical changes to AT&T’s equipment, which is often in remote locations, it said. Difficulty is exacerbated during the incentive auction repack “given the potential need to coordinate among repacking stations, channel sharing stations, and ATSC 3.0 transition stations simultaneously and across the nation,” AT&T said. Broadcasters haven’t shown why the notice requirements requested by MVPDs are a burden, it said.

T-Mobile “has no issue with voluntary adoption of ATSC 3.0 technology," but is “concerned” about calls for an FCC mandate to “force inclusion of the technology” in smartphones, it told Media Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology staff in Tuesday meetings, said a filing Wednesday in commission docket 16-142. “Counter to the assertions of NAB” that it and its fellow 3.0 petitioners never called for tuner mandates (see 1709250053), “several parties, including NAB members, have argued for Commission action to mandate ATSC 3.0 reception in mobile devices,” said T-Mobile. Its PowerPoint presentation to FCC staff listed the Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance of low-power TV interests as calling for a tuner mandate in smartphones when 3.0 broadcasts are available to 25 percent of the U.S. population and noted that NAB TV board members Sinclair and Gray have seats on the alliance board. Other 3.0 “mandate proponents” include Free Access & Broadcast Telemedia and Sinclair’s One Media subsidiary and Mark Aitken, Sinclair’s vice president-advanced technology, T-Mobile said. The carrier referenced One Media's May 9 comments in the FCC's 3.0 rulemaking in which it appeared to dip a toe in the water of backing future tuner mandates, though it actually stopped well short of asking the commission to impose them now (see 1705110053).The PowerPoint also referenced an Aitken quote from our Sept. 13 report (see 1709120020) in which he said that “our concern, be it demonstrated by T-Mobile and others, is that, in fact, the free market is not functioning the way that regulators believe it can or should.” That report also quoted Aitken as saying: “To be clear, we’ve not asked for a mandate. We believe in the free market. We hope that the free market can prevail.” The PowerPoint said T-Mobile was the "largest winner of 600 MHz band spectrum" in the incentive auction, and is "working to rapidly deploy competitive wireless services" in that band.

Though NAB and “fellow” ATSC 3.0 petitioners (see 1604130065) “consistently made plain” they aren’t seeking a tuner mandate for fixed or mobile devices, “six different parties representing wireless interests have felt compelled to publicly oppose such a mandate,” said an NAB letter posted Monday in FCC docket 16-142. “It is curious that some key players in the wireless industry display such great fear over the potential of increased competition for mobile video delivery,” said NAB, referring to letters filed in the past two weeks by Ethertronics, Ericsson, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm and T-Mobile. All opposed 3.0 reception in smartphones as impractical and said a mandate requiring it would be a bad idea (see 1709200016). “Why else would this list of companies fear a ghost?” asked NAB. “If anything, the Commission should recognize that this advocacy demonstrates the potential of Next Gen TV to create real competition in the marketplace. Indeed, it may be one of the strongest arguments for moving forward to approve the use of Next Gen TV as quickly as possible.”

NAB’s language for a possible ATSC 3.0 simulcasting requirement would “permit widespread service loss,” said the American Cable Association, AT&T, Charter Communications, Dish Network and Verizon in a meeting for the American Television Alliance with Chief Michelle Carey and others in the Media Bureau Tuesday, said a filing posted Friday in docket 16-142. Though ATVA said it’s pleased broadcasters now seem willing to accept a simulcasting requirement (see 1709110032), the pay-TV ally said there’s no evidence to back an NAB proposal that the requirement sunset in three years, and the agency should require the simulcasts to be “the same” instead of “substantially similar” as NAB proposed. ATVA said NAB-proposed exceptions to the sameness requirement, such as for locally targeted commercials, were largely reasonable. The FCC should also block broadcasters from simulcasting only the least popular content, ATVA said. “If a station transmits a FOX affiliate and a home shopping channel on ATSC 3.0, nobody will be happy if the station simulcasts only the home shopping channel on ATSC 1.0.” The FCC should require simulcast broadcasts be of a certain quality level, that broadcasters give notice of the transition to viewers and MVPDs, and require that the simulcast broadcasts reach a specific percentage of the station’s coverage area, ATVA said. It’s pleased NAB proposed broadcasters rely on A/321 and A/322 and opposed an NAB proposal to allow low-power TV stations to flash cut. “We are cautiously optimistic to see what appears to be an emerging consensus on issues related to simulcasting,” ATVA said.

NAB isn't asking the FCC to alter the 39-month repacking timeline, but wants Commissioner Brendan Carr to “ensure” broadcasters aren’t penalized for missing deadlines “due to circumstances beyond their control,” CEO Gordon Smith said in a meeting Tuesday, recounted a filing posted Friday in docket 12-268. “Ironically, T-Mobile’s constant concern about maintaining the current 39-month timeframe demonstrates that T-Mobile has little or no confidence that the deadline will be met,” it said. NAB also said the FCC should look closely at how T-Mobile’s possible merger with Sprint "may impact how the Commission approaches repacking" (see 1709220056). The meeting also touched on Microsoft’s proposals for reserving channels for white space use in the TV band, the filing said. “It makes no sense to inject a new complexity -- especially for an unproven and thus far failed technology” into the already complicated repacking and ATSC 3.0 transition processes, the group said. It urged the FCC to take up the petitions for reconsideration of the 2010 and 2014 quadrennial ownership reviews: “The prior review was a ‘review’ in name only; it did not take seriously the Commission’s job to determine whether the existing broadcast ownership rules are in the public interest.”

T-Mobile Chief Technology Officer Neville Ray met with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, Mike O’Rielly and Brendan Carr on the big issues now before the agency of most concern to the company, said a filing in dockets including 12-268. Efforts to deploy incentive auction spectrum and concerns about ATSC 3.0 were among the topics covered. It's important to have "sufficient spectrum in the low, mid, and high bands to support competitive 5G deployments,” T-Mobile said. “The existing 3.5 GHz framework should be revised because the current structure will not drive investment and does not align with international use of the band for 5G. ... [T]he 3.5 GHz spectrum is a core band for 5G deployment around the world and ... the U.S. will miss a huge opportunity if it does not create a structure aligned with global 5G requirements.”

The FCC Media Bureau wants more information from Sinclair and Tribune on how their proposed deal would be brought into compliance with ownership rules and specifics on the deal’s effects on news coverage at Tribune’s stations, Media Bureau Chief Michelle Carey told the companies in a letter last week. The broadcasters need to describe what “specific steps” the companies will take to comply with the national ownership cap and duopoly rules, she said. As filed, the deal would be 6.5 percent over the cap, and would include overlaps in several markets that wouldn’t be in compliance with ownership rules. Opponents asked the FCC to require more information of Sinclair/Tribune when the transaction was first filed, but the agency denied those requests (see 1708040002). Since then, a perceived lack of specifics about divestitures and the public interest benefits of the deal have been targets of foes (see 1708080067). Many of the public interest benefits listed by Sinclair were based on expanded news coverage, and the information request seeks more precise information about the new company’s plans for local news. The bureau wants information on plans to add local programming and local newscasts to Tribune stations, increase coverage of local government, and to “increase or decrease” the number of journalists and investigative reporters at Tribune stations. Carey also asked for details on how the deal would increase the efficiency of implementing ATSC 3.0, and the impact of the new company’s greater audience reach. The Coalition to Save Local Media praised “scrutiny” of the deal, saying the FCC request would help answer “questions raised by interested parties as well as Members of Congress that have gone unanswered.” The group, which includes Public Knowledge, Dish Network, the Competitive Carriers Association and the Blaze, said that “the FCC and Department of Justice should closely scrutinize this merger and deny it.” Sinclair didn’t comment. After a speech Friday to the Center for Democracy & Technology (see 1709150062), Chairman Ajit Pai declined to comment on the letter, other than to say it "speaks for itself."