RENNES, France—Enenysys Technologies has introduced ModulCast-ATSC, its new ATSC 3.0 OEM modulator for integration into digital TV transmitters. 

ModulCast-ATSC is an optimized and unique modulator board supporting the ATSC 3.0 standard. It meets with the requirements of transmitter manufacturers for rapid and straight-forward integration and delivers high-performance RF output to meet broadcasters’ quality requirements.

Focused on SFN low-power transmitter applications, ModulCast-ATSC is designed to offer high-quality RF performance combined with digital power amplifier precorrection. It is fully compliant with FCC standards without any channel filter, simplifying operation and reducing costs for LPTV stations across the USA.

“We have been involved in the US ATSC 3.0 market since its inception," said Christophe Trolet, Modem Marketing Director at Enensys Technologies. "Thanks to our Vortex ATSC 1.0/3.0 modulators, we have achieved significant successes—especially in the repack project with our high-power transmitter partners. 

"Now that NextGen TV is rolling-out commercially, ModulCast-ATSC complements our product range. We are ready to help our partners to prepare for the delivery of low-power transmitters operating in SFN,” he added. “The ability to broadcast ATSC 3.0 transmissions without a channel filter is a key advantage of ModulCast-ATSC.”

ALEXANDRIA, Va.—The concept of operating two or more transmitters on the same frequency in the same geographic region is not new, but there’s considerable talk within the industry about the role of similar technology in the widespread deployment of ATSC 3.0, particularly after the FCC’s January decision to ease rules on DTS “spillover” that the commission believes will help NextGen TV reach its full potential.

Such on-channel operation will be essential in rolling out NextGen TV, especially in terms of implementing the full feature set of 3.0, many believe. Bill Meintel, partner in the Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace (MSW) engineering firm, believes that broadcasters need to update their technology with SFNs.

“Broadcasters can’t keep doing what they’ve been doing. They’ve got to do something better,” he said. “You’ve got to have better coverage and you’ll need SFNs for that. You need to make up for antennas that are close to the ground and on moving vehicles. You won’t be able to do this with a single stick.”

Improved signals are essential if broadcasters are going to profit from NextGen TV, Meintel added.

“You need to have a fairly large signal over the area you want to serve in order to provide for indoor reception and/or reception by portable or mobile devices. We don’t have this today,” he said. “Some of this has been covered by translators, but this is getting difficult due to the repack. In addition, relying on translators that operate on a different channel than the main signal is not conducive to mobile and/or handheld reception; SFNs make a lot of sense in this regard.”

WHERE THE DEVICES ARE

Joe Chinnici, CEO of Public Media Group, a digital infrastructure company that focuses on SFN technology and the transition to 3.0, further amplified the need for SFN deployment.

“First and foremost is the population pickup available with the use of SFNs,” he said. “In our studies, we’re seeing pickups from 46–100%. In order to reach the maximum addressable market for our clients, we feel that an appropriately designed SFN is critical.”

He also stressed the importance of delivering adequate signals to antennas 1.5 meters above ground, rather than the FCC-assumed 10 meters.

“This is where the devices are,” he said.

Dave Folsom, CTO for Pearl TV, the station consortium involved in the Phoenix Model Market for testing NextGen TV, also views SFNs key piece for the standard’s success.

“You can increase the primary signal’s signal-to-noise ratio [within its designated coverage area] with the use of a well-designed and implemented SFN,” he said. “That will improve receivability and/or an increase in available transmission bandwidth. It also can play an important role in mobile/auto delivery, while filling in reception gaps in coverage within the station’s designated contours.”

John Hane, president of BitPath, which focuses on providing wide area wireless data networking by tapping the unused capacity in TV broadcasters’ signals, views SFNs as a means for broadcasters to enhance their ability to deliver both television and the ancillary services that occupy such a large part of NextGen TV’s feature set.

“The maximum capacity of the channel is limited by the lowest power level in any areas that must be served,” said Hane. “If we use SFNs to raise the power levels we can spend those gains on capacity, coverage or robustness.”

CURRENT SFN RESEARCH

While the pandemic has sidetracked many projects, including planned SFNs, progress is being made in some markets.

The Phoenix Model Market NextGen TV project, in conjunction with an area E.W. Scripps station, now boasts an operational 3.0 SFN. Pearl’s Folsom said the SFN, located north of Phoenix, augments coverage of the main KASW NextGen TV host site, situated south of the city.

“It was placed on the air in September of 2020, and so far, has been working as expected,” he said.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group initiated some initial SFN field testing in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market in 2018, and is now preparing to move ahead with fully operational deployments.

“We’re looking at many markets,” said Mark Aitken, senior vice president of advanced technology at Sinclair. “This year, we are full out in the initial phase of the 3.0 deployment, which is conversion of facilities, getting partners engaged, and getting all the interconnects done between the stations to properly service markets without a loss of programming.

“All of that is a major chore by itself,” he added. “I think that then the rollout of SFNs on a broad basis will begin in 2022 and 2023. Part of this is making decisions on the business model you’re going to deploy.”

The Washington, D.C., market will likely be one of the first to see a Sinclair SFN buildout, according to Aitken. “We have a target ‘on air’ date, with our acquisition of a Class A there, WAIV, which should happen on March 2.” He added that the D.C. SFN will differ from previous deployments, more closely following 4G/5G architecture.

“A traditional SFN has taken the medium-tower/medium-power approach,” he said, “This [the D.C. SFN] is not some 60-kW solid-state amplifier on the ground. We’re talking about 40W radios tied to antennas with 10 dB or less gain spaced every couple of kilometers like you’d space an LTE radio system.”

Aitken said the planned Q4 2021 rollout will use 10 to 12 low-power combination transmitter/antennas that he referred to as “radio heads,” but the number could grow, as trying to model a “dense” SFN such as this one “is extremely difficult.”

In addition to these initiatives, Chinnici said PMG has conducted SFN advanced engineering studies for clients in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, New York City, Boston, Detroit and Seattle.

FCC ACTION’S IMPACT ON SFNS

Virtually all of those interviewed agreed that the FCC’s January actions concerning “signal spillover” will be helpful in increasing signal penetration via SFNs.

“The Report and Order eases somewhat, and quantifies, the amount of spill allowed outside the coverage area based on well-established contours, making SFN siting near the edge of the licensed coverage area less problematic,” said Folsom.

“This Report and Order was important,” said Aitken. “It’s a big step forward in being able to build a more practical SFN with certainty in the interference numbers allowed. There were a lot of grey areas and no antenna has zero dB output on the back side no matter how directional you make it. The R&O makes it easier to model and deploy a practical SFN.”

“The FCC rule changes will provide more flexibility,” said MSW’s Meintel. “We didn’t get everything we asked for, but we did get more flexibility. We’ve been trying to get a high level of service at the edge of the contour and that’s not been possible. The changes will definitely help with that.”

The Public Media Group (PMG) announced this week it had taken over WGBH’s ownership interest in Public Media Management (PMM), a cloud-based master control and content sharing platform.

The move, executed in late April, sets up PMM as a company jointly owned by PMG and Sony, which worked with WGBH to establish the platform in 2015.

Stacey Decker, former CTO of the Boston public broadcaster, moved to PMM to be its president and CTO of the Public Media Group. 

The corporate mission of Public Media Group is to enhance television broadcasting through deployment of ATSC 3.0 single frequency networks. Its new interest in PMM positions Public Media Group to not only provide SFN infrastructure as a service but also to drive content through the cloud-based PMM master control and playout platform to individual SFN sites, enabling over-the-air TV to geo-target viewers.

In this interview with Decker, the PMM president, discusses where the platform stands today, how it is being enhanced with machine learning and analytics and the way in which—together with PMG’s SFN-as-a-service offering—PMM will enable broadcasters to leverage ATSC 3.0 to unlock new revenue streams and remain competitive. 

(An edited transcript.)

TVTechnology: The Public Media Group works with public and commercial broadcasters to assist them in evolving to ATSC 3.0. How will its acquisition of WGBH’s interest in the Public Media Management cloud-based master control and content sharing platform further that goal?

Stacey Decker: I had intentions of working toward offering services associated with ATSC 3.0 from within the platform from the beginning.

Among the tools we think are going to be incredibly important, especially for commercial broadcasters, is for targeted advertising. 

The elements I have started to bring into the whiteboard sessions we have been having to roadmap the PMM business are associated with analytics and machine learning. 

We are looking at machine learning and analytics so our technology can make more informed decisions. But how do you incorporate what the user is doing so that the machines make decisions that accommodate the needs of the viewer and react fast to people’s needs?

The days of single source analytics are gone. You have to incorporate the analytics of digital platforms, social media platforms and broadcast platforms together so this system can make intelligent decisions.

TVT: How would that work?

SD: Imagine an environment in which 3.0 mobile delivery becomes a social experience that draws on social media. An environment in which you register your profile with a group, like a broadcast network, and that network knows based on your profile that you are interested in certain types of news elements.

I can now incorporate content delivery into buckets—obviously not targeted right to an individual, but to a smaller group that shares common interests.

It’s the closest opportunity we have to be more social and targeted, and I think broadcasters need a shot like this. It’s really important for broadcasters to take the leap and invest in ATSC 3.0 because there are so many opportunities there.

PLUS: Newly Formed Public Media Group Plans Nationwide ATSC 3.0 SFN Rollout

TVT: Someone once told me it would be impossible for 3.0 to enable personalization of content and advertising with a baseband infrastructure behind it. This could only happen with the help of the cloud. That observation seems consistent with what you are telling me about your plans for PMM, which is cloud based.

SD: The cloud changes everything. If you incorporate 3.0 into a cloud infrastructure in a smart way, all of a sudden you have a pretty powerful tool.

TVT: ATSC 3.0 supports both over-the-air and streaming delivery of content. How does PMM address this?

SD: The one thing I have taken very seriously—and this is more associated with public broadcasting but definitely resonates with commercial broadcasters—is that I have assisted broadcasters in becoming more efficient with their media management platforms.

I feel it is my duty to assist broadcasters in doing one-touch delivery to broadcast, digital platforms, digital publishing and social media so we can manage all media going to those locations from one location and at the same time deliver the analytics needed to understand how successful those pieces have been.

TVT: Some broadcasters looking at 3.0 are considering scenarios in which they can leverage SHVC (Scalable High Efficiency Video Coding) to reduce the number of bits sent over the air and supplement them in the home with bits sent via the internet. 

Those OTT bits would be combined with the OTA signal in the receiver to, for instance, enable 4K UHD viewing in the home while giving broadcasters a way to deliver a more robust 3.0 OTA signal to mobile devices. Can PMM manage where bits go in this type of scenario?

SD: Yes. You’ve actually hit the nail on the head. When I talk about the analytics and machine learning piece, having that intelligence built into the process of media delivery—specifically the encoding environment—to make the encoder dynamic so it can with incredibly intelligent metadata determine what the thresholds of what the broadcast spectrum are with relations to content.

Here’s another scenario where bandwidth devoted to specific content might change depending on its value. Maybe it’s 8 o’clock or 10 o’clock at night and a non-high-value content product is being delivered via broadcast. You can determine its value based on analytics and squeeze bandwidth a little bit, and dedicate that extra bandwidth to delivery of other data.

TVT: So what will a television station that’s your client look like? Does on-premise master control and playout go away?

SD: Right now, PMM drops a stack of technology at the facility that automates about 99% of what a station does, but it gives them a terminal to work from.

If they want to put it in auto-pilot, they can and then go home at night. If they want to put it in manual control, they can sit down and grab the stick and away they go. PMM is built like that today. 

Just recently one of our clients decided to move facilities, so we have been working on a cloud model with a partner for about the past 18 months.

The intent is to remove that hardware stack and virtualize the entire experience. You know, we are built with Sony. Sony owns Crispin automation. We are going to be one of the first cloud-native designed and built products. 

TVT: That’s quite a change from how most broadcasters work today.

SD: What I am suggesting is that broadcasters become media companies. That’s it. They’ll have a terminal or multiple terminals to work from. That terminal will give them the ability to ingest live content and file-based content into a cloud environment. 

The beauty of the cloud is there won’t be one seat of automation. There will be an infinite number of seats in one automation system.

For the last seven weeks, all of the operators using PMM have been working from home. So we’re managing 18 TV stations—together serving many entire states—for the past seven weeks because of COVID-19.

TVT: Some broadcasters have consolidated master control and production control used for newscasts to find greater efficiencies. Are there any plans for PMM to drive newscasts?

SD: It’s interesting. COVID has really pushed the envelope with regard to technical capabilities. One of our PMM clients happens to be the public broadcasting station in San Diego.

They act almost like a commercial news network. They do a nightly news program. It’s really interesting how they’re relying on PMM to help them with the process with people working from home.

We didn’t predict COVID by any means, but I am proud to say that the technology we’ve assembled has responded to the new hurdles that have been put in front of broadcasters. Absolutely with the cloud technology, I think using the virtualized stack that we are building, you could do away with production control.

TVT: Let’s shift gears a bit. Before Public Media Group acquired WGBH’s interest in PMM, it was a big proponent of ATSC 3.0 single frequency networks (SFNs), right?

SD: Yes. The initial interest of PMG was ATSC 3.0 SFNs. We are a public benefit corporation. We have a mission. That mission is to enhance the broadcast industry through SFNs.

TVT: So was the plan to set up SFN sites for broadcasters and sell broadcasters an SFN-as-a-service package?

SD: That’s exactly it. We’ve gone out and raised a substantial amount of money. There’s been a big effort made with private equity firms to raise some capital to invest in infrastructure as a service.

We feel like there are a lot of broadcast licensees out there and having them work together technically really opens up a lot of opportunities for broadcasters long term.

TVT: I’ve heard 3.0 SFN advocates say competing broadcasters in a market should cooperate when it comes to individual SFN sites, for instance sharing the expense of the real estate for sites. Are broadcasters ready to work together on that level?

SD: I really think it’s time for broadcasters to think about continuing to compete in front of the lens, but behind the lens, they need to collaborate—whether public or private—to become a big juggernaut in regard to technology and capability.

It’s interesting to see the more progressive organizations. They see the opportunity in 3.0, and they see the leverage it gives them with regard to their business model.

Others are probably just waiting and seeing. I would encourage them to get onboard because I think it is really a good opportunity for stations.

I was a skeptic in the beginning about 3.0, and I’ve transitioned my thought process significantly because of what I see in markets. We see an SFN in San Francisco increasing the POP count by 40%. That’s a huge number for a broadcast station. POP count is a big deal.

TVT: Have you heard from any broadcasters that they are interested in using the LDM feature of ATSC 3.0 to offer hyperlocal content over the air in their markets?

SD: We are big believers in LDM. We’ve hired a gentleman, Eric Dausman, who was the chief engineer and CTO at Sutro Tower in San Francisco. He is a very sophisticated RF engineer, and he believes heavily in LDM. It’s something that’s been done in Korea. 

We think that the geo-zoning capability LDM enables so that broadcasters can offer hyperlocal content is a secret sauce with regard to ATSC 3.0. We see about 10Mbits of additional bandwidth that can be used for that type of experience.

TVT: Is the plan to enable hyperlocal, geo-zoned playback with the scheduling, playout and master control functionality of PMM by making sure the right content gets to the right SFN site in markets?

SD: Yes. You know for PMM to be intelligent, we need access to data. I am having conversations with a number of data platforms to make us more intelligent. 

The more intelligent we get and the more access we get to these analytics, the better I can make PMM make decisions on behalf of stations to make them more profitable. So data is a big piece of this.

We also see the edge datacenter deployment in the broadcast environment becoming more realistic and a bigger component in becoming more intelligent closer to the audience. The more intelligent you can be closer to the audience, the faster and more intelligent I can make the digital infrastructure to make decisions to create the hyperlocal experiences you mentioned.

More information is available on the Public Media Group website. 

WASHINGTON—Broadcasters want to take a closer look at the FCC’s rules when it comes to Distributed Transmission Systems, aka single frequency networks, and its service limits.

This is the early take away from comments filed in regards to a joint petition from APTS and the NAB that specifically asks the FCC to amend its rules regarding DTS for the ATSC 3.0 rollout. Nearly all of the comments submitted to the commission’s ECFS are in support of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject, the only dissension thus far comes from Microsoft.

The computer company is the only commenter as of yet to outright oppose the joint petition. Even so, its comments explain that it supports the idea of using SFNs to better utilize the ATSC 3.0 standard, it just does not feel new rules are needed.

“[W]e believe the commission was fundamentally correct in its Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard Report and Order when it concluded that ‘the rules the commission already has established to authorize a DTS station generally are adequate to authorize an ATSC 3.0 SFN station.’ Thus, while we support the use of DTS, we do not support the rule changes proposed in the petition, which appear to go well beyond what is needed to fill coverage gaps within broadcasters’ service areas,” Microsoft wrote. It was the only submitted comments to outright oppose the joint petition.

Ark Multicasting Inc., while ultimately supporting the petition, also warned against “unintended consequences that could freeze technology and markets.”

Most of the comments support the concept that SFNs will be better suited to provide better reception for ATSC 3.0.

“The NEXTGEN TV rules adopted by the FCC build upon an existing license framework that, while perhaps reasonable for ATSC 1.0 transmissions, needlessly limits the ability of broadcasters to take full advantage of the next-generation standard,” Nexstar’s comments read. “The Commission should take this opportunity to remove that limitation and provide broadcasters with the flexibility to fully embrace single frequency networks to expand the delivery of local content and maximize the efficiency of their assigned spectrum.”

All of the filed comments can be read on the FCC’s ECFS page.

WASHINGTON—Broadcasters are asking the FCC to relax its rules to allow them to deploy more transmitters at the edge of their service areas as they build out for ATSC 3.0 (aka “Next Gen TV”).

In a petition filed with the FCC last week, the National Association of Broadcasters and America’s Public Television Stations (APTV) told the commission that it needs to update decade-old rules governing the use of distributed transmission systems (aka “single frequency networks”) that were introduced during the deployment of ATSC 1.0. Such systems allow broadcasters to extend RF coverage by building transmission systems that fill gaps and improve reliability and reception quality. The organizations said that building SFNs for ATSC 1.0 was impractical but are more feasible with ATSC 3.0.

“The limitations of the ATSC 1.0 transmission standard made it largely impractical due to design difficulty and costs,” the organizations said in their petition. “The transmission system employed by ATSC 3.0, however, solves this challenge by permitting a simplified signal frequency network design that can finally make these operations cost-effective.”

When the FCC devised its rules for SFNs in 2008, it chose to limit their use so that broadcasters couldn’t use them to expand their reception beyond their primary coverage area. This effort to prevent “dramatically expanded primary coverage rights” to “foster localism” with the technology advances of SFNs in the ATSC 3.0 era can be balanced, the organizations said.

“We believe the Commission can balance the goals of preserving localism while allowing stations to provide superior service by modifying its rules,” they told the FCC, proposing that a station be allowed to deploy an SFN as long as it avoided interference with co-channel Class A and LPTV operations.

“This change would significantly enhance the utility of single frequency networks without undermining localism,” NAB and APTV said. “Stations could enhance service to viewers by improving coverage throughout their service areas and offering improved mobile coverage without the risk of encroaching on the service of stations in adjacent markets. In addition, the rule change would promote the efficient use of spectrum by, in some cases, obviating the need for separate channels for television translators used to fill in service gaps.”

Tests on the use of SFNs for ATSC 3.0 have been ongoing in various test areas, including Pearl TV in Phoenix and Sinclair in Baltimore-Washington, D.C.

In a TV Technology article on SFNs in 2018, television industry consultant S. Merrill Weiss, who engineered the world’s first ATSC 1.0 SFN in the State College, Penn., discussed the differences between SFNs in ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 environments.

“ATSC 1.0 is dependent on the design of the adaptive equalizer, which can be quite different in its performance from receiver to receiver,” he said. “ATSC 3.0 is dependent on the modulation that’s used, and all receivers will respond to it identically. And on top of that having multiple carriers (inherent in the 3.0 OFDM [orthogonal frequency division multiplex] signal) makes things a lot easier.”

For a comprehensive source of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see ourATSC3 silo.