Pai to Move ATSC 3.0 Forward, Increase Flexibility for FM Translators

Broadcasters and pay-TV providers are divided on aspects of the next-generation TV standard, but NPRMs generally are approved by the commission, attorneys told us. The order on the 40-mile rule also isn't expected to face much opposition, a broadcast attorney said. The two items are “designed to help broadcasters provide better service,” Pai said in a post on medium.com. “I hope that we can issue a final approval of the standard later this year.”

ATSC 3.0 “offers significant potential to carry broadcasting into the internet protocol age in a way that I think most consumers would find tremendously beneficial,” Pai said in a news conference Thursday. ATSC 3.0 allows higher quality broadcasting but also will be a boon to public safety, he said. “For example, allowing more localized information that would allow broadcasters to target emergency information to people based on, more closely on, where they live,” Pai said Thursday. “There are many benefits of ATSC 3.0 that hopefully my colleagues will see fit to authorize in the coming weeks.”

The draft ATSC 3.0 NPRM seeks comment on allowing broadcasters to voluntarily transition their stations to 3.0 while they simulcast their stations on the existing 1.0 standard, the same transition plan that was offered in a petition by NAB, CTA and the Advanced Warning and Response Network Alliance and put out for comment by the FCC in 2016. The NPRM would ask if a local simulcast should be a condition of allowing a broadcaster to offer ATSC 3.0, how simulcast channels should be licensed, and whether they should be subject to coverage or quality requirements. The rulemaking also would seek comment on whether simulcast channels should be licensed separately as second channels of the originating stations or treated as multicast streams of the host stations, and seek comment on whether the commission should adopt signal coverage or quality requirements for local simulcasts.

The commission said it will seek comment on whether a tuner mandate or a market-driven approach to receivers would make better ATSC 3.0 policy.

MVPDs

The intersection of the new ATSC 3.0 signals and carriage by multichannel video programming distributors has been an area of disagreement in filings on the broadcast proposal.

The NPRM would propose MVPDs need to continue carrying broadcasters' 1.0 signals under the normal must-carry rules but won't be required to carry ATSC 3.0 signals “during the period when broadcasters are voluntarily implementing ATSC 3.0 service.” Broadcasters said MVPDs shouldn't be forced to carry the next-generation standard, but pay-TV associations and companies worried broadcasters might compel pay-TV companies to carry ATSC 3.0 through the retransmission consent process. Converting their equipment to be able to carry 3.0 would be extremely expensive and burdensome, the MVPDs have said. The NPRM would elicit comment on how good-faith rules would apply to such negotiations, and on whether such negotiation tactics should be temporarily banned. ”Should we consider prohibiting MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals through retransmission consent negotiations until the ATSC's Specialist Group on Conversion and Redistribution of ATSC 3.0 Service produces its initial report, which is expected later this year?” the draft asks.

The inclusion of questions about the new standard's effect on MVPDs is a good sign for pay-TV companies, said American Cable Association Senior Vice President Ross Lieberman in an interview Thursday. “We are especially pleased to see questions about how the new standard could impact retransmission consent negotiations and the potentially significant costs associated with the transition,” said an American TV Alliance spokesman in a statement. “Consumers cannot fully benefit from next generation TV if it increases their costs and worsens the already broken retrans system.”

The NPRM also would request comment on possible interference issues associated with the new standard. “We propose to treat ATSC 3.0 signals as though they were DTV signals with identical technical parameters, largely consistent with the Petitioners’ request,” the draft said. The item also seeks information on how to educate customers about the ATSC 3.0 switch and how the transition affects the incentive auction. “We seek comment on whether broadcasters should be required to provide on-air notifications to educate consumers about their transition to Next Gen TV service and on how to ensure that deployment of Next Gen TV-based transmissions will not negatively impact the post-incentive auction transition process,” the would NPRM say.

3.0 Pluses

“Core elements of the ATSC 3.0 standard already are approved and proven, which we hope will give the FCC and broadcasters confidence for voluntary implementation of ATSC 3.0,” said ATSC President Mark Richer in a statement. “We’ll look forward to seeing how various stakeholders respond to the Commission’s Notice, and we’re hopeful that the NPRM process will be completed in a timely manner.” The move to an IP-based system “will deliver more content to viewers from more sources and ensure that over-the-air broadcasting remains the primary resource for breaking news, emergency alerts, and a TV experience tailored to the desires of the viewer,” said Pearl TV Managing Director Anne Schelle.

“Next-gen TV will shift the paradigm of mobile data distribution and will be especially impactful in the area of public safety, “ said Sinclair Vice President-Strategy and Policy Rebecca Hanson. “Recent failures of wireless emergency alerting practices make it clear that a more reliable system is necessary, and next-gen TV will be a part of that solution for our viewers and first responders.” Both the ATSC and AM items “will foster technological innovation, increase opportunities for minority and female owners, and create new and unique services for consumers,” NAB said.

The FCC “tentatively” agrees with the argument that an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate isn't needed, said the draft NPRM. But the commission nevertheless would want comment “on whether such a market-based approach will ensure that television receivers capable of receiving ATSC 3.0 signals are available to consumers,” it said. “It may be possible to upgrade most, if not all, receivers currently being manufactured to allow them to receive ATSC 3.0 signals.”

In the NPRM, the FCC would seek comment on whether it would help the transition to require broadcasters to air “notifications to educate consumers” about the move to ATSC 3.0: “It could be useful for broadcasters to inform consumers that the stations they view will be changing channels, to encourage consumers to rescan their receivers for new channel assignments, and to educate them on steps they should take to resolve any potential reception issues.”

AM Draft

The second draft broadcast item would eliminate the 40-mile limit on where AM broadcasters can locate FM translators, a change that would allow broadcasters more leeway to benefit from previous AM revitalization efforts, Pai said. “We have heard from broadcasters that the FCC’s rules make finding a location for these translators unnecessarily challenging.”

The current rule allows translators to be sited either within 25 miles of the AM transmitter site, or within the 2 millivolts per meter (mV/m) daytime contour of the AM station, as long as that site is within 40 miles of the transmitter. The draft order would remove the 40-mile limit, allowing much more flexibility in translator placement, said Womble Carlyle broadcast attorney John Garziglia.

The change is likely to make the most difference for AM stations with smaller contours and those with highly directional antennas, said radio lawyer Garziglia. It could open up more translator options for more stations during the upcoming 2017 translator application window, he said. Patrick Communications media broker Gregory Guy said the change would make a big difference for some stations, but won't have “a dramatic effect” nationwide. “It’s a simple step," Pai said.