The National Association of Broadcasters is hitting back at critics who oppose its proposal to phase out the current ATSC 1.0 DTV over-the-air standard and transition to ATSC 3.0 (aka NextGen TV).

In February, the NAB filed a petition with the FCC to phase out ATSC 1.0 in two phases: In 2028, the top 55 DMAs (designated market areas) would be allowed to shut down 1.0, with the rest of U.S. DMAs doing so by 2030. The association said the current transitory phase, in which one station in a market hosts other stations also broadcasting 3.0, is preventing TV stations from taking full advantage of 3.0, which combines traditional radio frequency broadcast with internet protocol, allowing broadcasters to transmit higher resolution video, multichannel audio, advanced alerting and interactive advertising and programming.

In a blog post, NAB Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President Rick Kaplan criticized comments made by representatives of the Consumer Technology Association and NCTA—The Internet & Television Association during a meeting with FCC officials last month. ACA Connects, the American Television Alliance (ATVA), and the LPTV Broadcasters Association also attended that meeting, but Kaplan’s remarks were aimed squarely at CTA and NCTA. A summary of the meeting was filed with the FCC.

'Another Day, Another Reflexing Innovation-Blocking FCC Filing'
During the meeting, the CTA reiterated its longstanding position that the transition to ATSC 3.0 should remain voluntary and “a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0 would harm consumers by imposing costs for consumers, stifle innovation, and levy unneeded regulations.”

Kaplan denigrated the group’s criticisms as “another day, another reflexive, innovation-blocking FCC filing from the usual suspects—cable lobbyists, legacy advocacy groups and industry players who oppose anything that might strengthen free, over-the-air broadcasting or challenge the dominance of their own outdated business models. Their latest attack on ATSC 3.0—the NextGen TV broadcast standard already delivering improved video, immersive audio, innovative interactive features and more—is as predictable as it is tired.”

“Let’s be clear,” Kaplan added, “these groups aren’t protecting the public, they’re protecting their turf.”

In response to the groups’ criticisms that phasing out 1.0 would be too costly for consumers, Kaplan noted that while broadcasters are working to strengthen free over-the-air TV, “our competitors are busy finding new ways to extract more money from viewers every month by diverting viewers to paid streaming services and apps they monetize.”

He accused CTA of using “faulty logic” when estimating the $80 price difference between TVs with NextGen TV capability and those without. Kaplan said such a claim ignores the fact “that those models often include other premium features that drive up the cost.

“For example, many of the TVs that include NextGen tuners also offer 8K video, higher-end display technologies, high refresh rates and upgraded speakers,” Kaplan said. “The manufacturers who are actively embracing ATSC 3.0—many of whom are ironically ‘represented’ by CTA—are delivering real value to consumers and helping to modernize free, over-the-air television. We should be celebrating this innovation—not undermining it.”

He also noted the irony in NCTA’s criticism that forcing consumers to adopt 3.0 would stifle innovation, adding that 3.0 allows broadcasters to innovate without the influence of “Big Tech.”

'What Are They Afraid Of?'
Kaplan also said cable TV shouldn’t be afraid that a mandated end to 1.0 would harm them and that they should support innovation that could help cable companies in turn, as long as they want to spend the money.

“Pay-TV providers built their empires reselling broadcast television,” he said. “Now they don’t want to invest in updates to stay current? Or are they afraid that a stronger over-the-air platform might allow more viewers to drop the costly monthly cable bill? As we know all too well, these companies simply do not want to pay for anything, whether its broadcasters’ signals, spectrum it uses to compete with licensed users or—as everyone knows—actual customer service.”

The broadcast industry is also among the most-efficient spectrum users, Kaplan said, adding that using spectrum for services other than traditional over-the-air TV should be welcomed.

He also addressed concerns from the LPTV Broadcasters Association, which also had representatives at the FCC meeting, noting that the NAB’s filing proposes that LPTV stations be exempted in the mandated transition. He also added that the NAB “has asked the FCC to allow non-commercial educational broadcasters more time to transition if needed. The answer isn’t to stall the entire industry. It’s to provide targeted support, not blanket inaction.”

He added: “It’s also rich for massive pay-TV companies to suddenly be advocating on behalf of small broadcasters. The irony here is not lost on anyone.”

Kaplan accused NCTA and CTA of being “yesterday’s gatekeepers” who are not working in the public interest. “Let’s stop pretending this ragtag opposition speaks for the public,” he concluded. “It’s not clear that NCTA or CTA know what the public interest is … the future is here.”

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters continued its push to get the FCC to regulate vMVPDs like YouTube TV as traditional pay TV operators during in a recent visit with commissioner Anna Gomez, her chief of staff, Deena Shetler and her policy advisor, Harsha Mudaliar.

The issue is important to station groups, which believe they can increase their retransmission consent revenue if they are able to negotiate directly with YouTube TV, Fubo, Hulu and other vMVPDs.

Currently, station groups handle retrans negotiations with traditional multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) like Charter Communications and Comcast. But broadcast networks and major programmers like The Walt Disney Co. and Paramount Global handle retrans deals with virtual MVPDs because the streaming services are not classified as traditional pay TV operators (or MVPDs) under FCC rules.

Some members of Congress have supported the change, but FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has argued the agency may not have the power to change those rules without Congressional action.

The discussion has also divided the broadcast industry between station owners, who want the vMVPDs reclassified, and broadcast networks owned by major media companies, which want to continue to handle deals with online providers as part of much larger distribution pacts.

The meeting with Gomez and her staff was attended by Curtis LeGeyt, NAB president and CEO, and Rick Kaplan, its chief legal officer and executive vice president.

During the conversation, the NAB emphasized the critical need for the FCC to study how streaming has affected local broadcasting. “It is impossible to understand the demands local stations face without coming to grips with the sea change wrought by streaming,” Kaplan said in a letter to the FCC following the Oct. 3 meeting. “The Commission’s rules were designed for a different world, and if the agency is truly committed to ensuring local service to communities across the nation, then it must examine the interplay between local broadcasting, the dramatic rise of streaming and the unregulated Big Tech behemoths that have shattered the economics underpinning local journalism.”

The NAB representaties at the meeting also expressed their surprise that the commission has not demonstrated greater curiosity about the impact of streaming, Kaplan added.

“While broadcasters have filed comments in docket after docket on issues such as foreign government sponsorship identification, cyber security plans, disaster reporting, proposed rules on generative AI disclosures in political ads, public reporting of station-by-station workforce demographics, retransmission consent impasse reporting, and more, we are left waiting for the Commission to address the one issue that is so forcefully impacting the ability of broadcasters to serve their local communities,” Kaplan wrote. “How is it that the Commission has not examined this issue in earnest since 2014, when it first proposed, for example, to modernize the definition of multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) to include virtual MVPDs? Why, with all of the obvious shifts in the marketplace, has the Commission refrained from considering how these changes are impacting service to local communities?”

The NAB letter also noted that “many Members of Congress agree that this is exactly what the Commission should be examining” and said the FCC should be exploring the issue even if it is unsure of its authority to change the rules. “Why not still inquire about the marketplace even to report its findings to Congress?” Kaplan’s letter asked.

“As we explained, NAB is ready to work with the Commission to help it gain a better understanding of the current marketplace,” Kaplan wrote. “That will require the FCC to seek additional comment from parties in light of the intervening decade since it last sought public input on the issue of virtual MVPDs. The Commission should not fear information and differing viewpoints; rather, it should welcome them.”

The full letter is available here.

In response to the NAB's comments, a spokesperson for the Preserve Viewer Choice Coalition, which is backed by vMVPDs and such major programmers as Disney, Fox and Paramount, said: "Despite assertions by some to the contrary, the FCC has consistently reinforced their lack of authority to upend the streaming marketplace in the way that the big affiliate groups seek – a fact that bipartisan members of Congress have echoed. The reality is, local news is widely available on streaming, providing consumers with a variety of ways to watch. Further, polling shows that few Americans support more streaming regulations. We commend the FCC for their fact-based assessment of the streaming marketplace."

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a new blog post, Rick Kaplan, NAB chief legal officer and executive vice president, Legal and Regulatory Affairs contends that the FCC’s proposed rules for disclosing AI content in advertising are misguided and risk “doing more harm than good." 

In July the FCC moved forward with a proposal to implement new requirements to disclose AI-created content in TV and radio ads. The plan drew immediate opposition from both Republican-appointed commissioners, commissioner Nathan Simington and commissioner Brendan Carr. 

In August, the NAB and the Motion Picture Association asked the FCC to extend the time for comments for the proposal, which the FCC partially granted by extending the deadlines to September 19 for comments and October 11 for replies. Those dates make it unlikely that the FCC could enforce the rules prior to the Nov. election. 

In a new Sept. 20 blog post, Kaplan admitted that “artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the entire political landscape, influencing not only how campaigns are conducted but also how voters access and process information about them. Its rise brings serious risks, including the spread of deepfakes – AI generated images, audio or video that distort reality. These deceptive tactics threaten to undermine public trust in elections and NAB supports government efforts to curtail them.”

But Kaplan noted that those problems are best addressed by Congress, not the FCC. “Unfortunately, due to the FCC’s limited regulatory authority, this rule risks doing more harm than good,” he said. “While the intent of the rule is to improve transparency, it instead risks confusing audiences while driving political ads away from trusted local stations and onto social media and other digital platforms, where misinformation runs rampant.”

Kaplan also contended that “deepfakes and AI generated misleading ads are not prevalent on broadcast TV or radio. These deceptive practices thrive on digital platforms, however, where content can be shared quickly with little recourse. The FCC’s proposal places unnecessary burdens on broadcasters while the government ignores the platforms posing the most acute threat. This approach leaves much to be desired.” 

Kaplan added that the FCC’s proposed disclaimer in broadcast ads is too generic to do much good. “This generic disclaimer doesn’t provide meaningful insight for audiences,” he said. “AI is often used for routine tasks like improving sound or video quality, which has nothing to do with deception. By requiring this blanket disclaimer for all uses of AI, the public would likely be misled into thinking every ad is suspicious, making it harder to identify genuinely misleading content.”

The new rules might also prompt a shift of ads from broadcast to digital media, where the rules don’t exist. AdImpact is projecting that broadcasters will get $5.4 billion in political ads in 2024 out of the total 10.7 billion in political advertising.  

“To truly tackle the issue of deepfakes and AI-driven misinformation, we need a solution that addresses all platforms, not just broadcast TV and radio,” Kaplan concluded. “Congress is the right body to create consistent rules that hold those who create and share misleading content accountable across both digital and broadcast platforms. Instead of the FCC attempting to shoehorn new rules that burden only broadcasters into a legal framework that doesn’t support the effort, Congress can develop fair and effective standards that apply to everyone and benefit the American public.”

WASHINGTON—How people watch TV has dramatically changed in recent years, but in the view of some broadcasters, their means of utilizing the evolving marketplace hasn’t kept up with the times, specifically when it comes to advertising. This was a point of topic during the Competition in Television and Digital Advertising Workshop that was hosted by the Department of Justice on May 2 and 3.

“DOJ has the same view of the broadcast TV marketplace today as it did in the 1970s, 80s and 90s,” said Rick Kaplan, NAB executive vice president of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, in his testimony. “Never mind that cable and satellite providers now offer hundreds of channels of high-quality content. Never mind that the internet has thoroughly upended the way consumers access and engage with video offerings.”

Broadcast company TEGNA’s CEO Dave Lougee echoed these thoughts in his own testimony. Referencing how his 19-year-old son watches most of his content through his mobile device, he points out that viewing style is gaining in popularity with not just people of his son’s age, but all ages as it becomes more readily available.

“Advertisers over digital platforms now show ads that look exactly like traditional TV ads, over platforms that are growing viewership rapidly and enjoy extremely broad reach, along with the ability to focus on particular locations or other characteristics,” said Lougee. “These ads are powerfully competitive with over-the-air broadcast ads in the local ad market. And this competition will only grow.”

Kaplan argues that the DOJ’s reasoning for not updating the reach that broadcasters have is no longer adequate. Elements of what gives broadcast advertising an advantage—a combination of sight, sound and motion; a greater reach; and the value of brand awareness—are not unique to broadcast anymore. When it comes specifically to digital, DOJ has made the argument that digital ads are different from broadcast because they can be skipped, minimized or blocked.

“I will let you in on a little secret: you can also do those things with broadcast TV,” Kaplan explained. “It’s called grabbing a snack from the fridge, disappearing to the bathroom, or even just hitting ‘fast forward’ on your DVR remote. In fact, in most cases, it is harder to do an end-around a digital ad, because often you can’t even get to the highly-desired content without first playing one or more advertisements.”

Ultimately, Kaplan states, broadcasters need to be able to have access to this wider world of advertising revenues so they “can meet their obligations and commitments to cities and towns across the nation.”

NEW YORK—Four of the most well-known incentive auction authorities will join the editorial teams of B&C and TV Techology on July 23, 2:30 p.m. ET, for a Webinar on how to prepare for the event. Mark Aitken, vice president of Advanced Technology for Sinclair Broadcast Group, Howard Symons, vice chair of the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force, Rick Kaplan executive vice president and general counsel for the NAB, as well as Preston Padden, executive director of the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcaster’s Coalition, will participate.

This online event Webinar series will begin with an in-depth look at the upcoming auction and help those considering participation navigate the rhetoric and develop a plan of action. For more information on the event and to register, click here.