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.”

PHOENIX—NextGen TV service is getting a boost in Phoenix, as the Phoenix Model Market has announced the installation of a Single Frequency Network with the goal of improving reception for viewers and broaden the reach of broadcasters transmitting to NextGen TV sets.

An SFN uses multiple transmitters placed on the air within the coverage area on the same channel and carrying the same services. This increases the signal level available for over-the-air viewing and decreases the viewer’s need for a complex receiver antenna, while also enabling future use of mobility services to NextGen TV-equipped devices, says Pearl TV engineer David Folsom, who worked on the Phoenix SFN.

E.W. Scripps-owned KASW, a CW affiliate, installed the SFN and is acting as the host station. Hitachi-Comark provided the transmission equipment required at both its South Mountain and Shawn Butte SFN node locations. The tower and transmission facilities were provided by American Tower Corporation. In addition, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and manufacturers Cleverlogic, Agos and KaiMedia have provided test equipment and technical support to calibrate the SFN.

KASW has sharing agreements to carry the simulcast of its sister station, KNXV (ABC), as well as KSAZ (Fox) and KUTP (Fox Xtra) as next-generation TV broadcasts. All of these services are carried within the same physical channel, but they will appear as their originally assigned channels on all NextGen TV receivers.

“The objective results of SFN performance will be shared with the broadcast industry, and this project will truly be an international effort,” said Folsom.

The Phoenix Model Market, which has been active for almost three years, is a test best for the development of next-generation TV service, including the ATSC 3.0 standard.

BOULDER, Colo.—Public Media Group (PMG) has formed an alliance with American Tower to accelerate deployment of turnkey Single Frequency Networks (SFNs) to support commercial and noncommercial broadcasters as they roll out ATSC 3.0 services. 

The companies will work together building out the SFNs. PMG will own, operate and manage the SFN infrastructure with the goal of enabling broadcasters to maximize NextGen TV revenue, deliver quality content and enhanced data services to consumers, PMG said.

The shared infrastructure SFN deployment model offers broadcasters economic benefits, including increased signal density and coverage and capacity improvements for their networks. Installation is more cost effective with shared infrastructure, and it can reduce ongoing operations and maintenance costs, PMG said.

PLUS: American Tower Completes Construction Of Dallas ATSC 3.0 SFN

“PMG is committed to designing and operating infrastructure that maximizes opportunities for all broadcasters, and through our alliance with American Tower, we will be better positioned to rapidly deliver the promise of ATSC 3.0 and Single Frequency Networks to communities across the country,” said PMG CEO Joe Chinnici. 

PMG will evaluate all relevant towers when deploying an SFN for a DMA-based or statewide network. The alliance will afford PMG greater access to American Tower’s best positioned tower sites for improved coverage and speed to market in large, mid-size and rural networks.

“We look forward to working with PMG to utilize our 40,000-plus tower sites for potential SFN deployments nationwide,” said Steve Vondran, President of U.S. Tower, a division of American Tower Corporation.

“With our experience working on commercial SFN deployments and test trials, our knowledge complements PMG’s mission to fully manage and operate the underlying infrastructure, so broadcasters have confidence in enhancing their signal coverage and capacity improvements to better reach their audience.”

American Tower will work with PMG to provide site development services, including network RF design support, program management, zoning, permitting and complete RF installation and construction services. American Tower will also engage its national operations and maintenance organization and leverage its national Backup Power program to harden the network on American Tower sites.

More information is available on the PMG website.

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—The Merrill Weiss Group in reply comments filed with the FCC this week sought to “set the record straight” regarding misunderstandings or mischaracterizations of proposed amendments to the FCC’s Distributed Transmission System rules (found in Section 73.626 of the Commission’s rules).

Penned by S. Merrill Weiss, the filing is presented to the agency as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document that discusses the proposed changes, parts of the rule where no suggestion of amendment has been made and how the changes would affect other spectrum users.

Weiss, who pioneered DTS (also known as single frequency networks) use for ATSC 1 systems, including development of a method to synchronize transmitters in an SFN, cautioned the agency not to delay acting on the proposed changes to DTS rules. Doing so could result in “missed opportunities” causing harm to the TV broadcasting business, the filing said.

“Deciding to wait until more is learned about the operation of DTS networks in an ATSC 3.0 environment will preclude the deployment in a manner permitting full service to broadcasters’ service areas from the start, when they perhaps can have the greatest impact,” it said.

“The time for enabling improved service to the public through improvements of the DTS rule is now,” the filing said, adding that the petition should become a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “without delay.”

A total of 21 questions are answered in the FAQs submitted as part of Weiss’ reply comments. Among the questions addressed are:

• Will the proposed rule modifications expand the defined service area beyond that defined under current rules in which a station can locate DTS transmitters? “No, they do not,” it said.
• Do the changes expand the defined service area beyond that defined in the current rules in which a station can expect interference protection? No, again is the answer, the filing said.
• Under the rule changes will stations be allowed to use a combination of antenna height and transmitted power greater than under the current rule? Once again, the answer is no.

The FAQs also spell out the main difference between the current DTS rule and the proposed rule. “The proposed rule changes the way in which the maximum field strength in certain directions from each transmitter in a DTS network is limited,” the filing said.

The questions and answers also address why the change in maximum field strength of DTS transmitters is needed, how the field strength is currently limited, how the field strength of DTS transmitters would be limited under the proposed rules and how the Interference Area Distance in the proposed Table of Distances would be determined.

The FAQs also explain how the changes would benefit full-service broadcasters as well as LPTV broadcasters, TV translators and Class A stations. Finally, the Q&As address whether the changes amount to “a ‘give away’ of large coverage areas to broadcasters” (no), and if the changes would make TV white spaces “all but unusable” (no, again).

The filing, which includes the FAQs, is available online.

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

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.

NEW YORK—The Phoenix Model Market, the collaborative effort between local broadcasters and Pearl TV to test the development of the NEXTGEN TV standard, has announced that it intends to launch a second transmission facility later this year that will power a single frequency network. The new transmission site is still awaiting approval on a transmission license from the FCC.

The new NEXTGEN TV facility will be built by E.W. Scripps with KASW Television serving as the host station and other local stations, like Scripps-owned KNXV Television, providing assistance, per Brian Lawlor, president of local media for E.W. Scripps.

“The KASW TV facility will provide one node (of a total of four total transmission locations) that will cover the Phoenix market with a very robust over-the-air signal using a single frequency network,” said Dave Folsom, Pearl TV lead technical engineer. “This new technology provides a means by which NEXTGEN TV can be transmitted on the same frequency at different locations throughout a local coverage area, thus increasing the signal strength to the viewer.”

More information on the new transmission site will be available during the NAB Show New York, taking place from Oct. 16-17.

Other NEXTGEN TV related technology that will be demonstrated during the NAB conference will include a public showing of a common “application framework,” with prototype TV receivers demonstrating how user experience will look on various brands of consumer NEXTGEN TV sets. The framework is meant to give broadcasters the ability to differentiate the viewing experience with their own branding and interactive features; the initial launch will feature an interactive menu for viewing live over-the-air TV, weather updates and locally generated video on-demand functionality. Pearl TV will demonstrate the application framework at the ATSC booth, N1055, on the NAB Show New York exhibit floor.

In addition, a nearly 100-page “Host Station Manual” that was created by engineers who have been working in the Phoenix Model Market is now available for free download on either www.PhoenixNextGenTV.com or www.PearlTV.com. The manual is designed to help the NEXTGEN TV host stations that will launch in top 40 markets across the country.

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

WASHINGTON—After receiving a petition from the National Association of Broadcasters and America’s Public Television Stations on Oct. 3 asking for updates to the rules surrounding single frequency networks as broadcasters attempt to build out ATSC 3.0, the FCC has officially filed a public notice seeking comments on the petition.

Single frequency networks, also known as distributed transmission systems (DTS), allow broadcasters to extend RF coverage by building transmission systems that fill gaps and improve reliability and reception quality.

With the rollout of ATSC 3.0, otherwise known as NEXTGEN TV, expected to begin within the next year, the petition states that “many broadcasters are interested in exploring the advance capabilities of ATSC 3.0 to facilitate the use of DTS.” The petition specifically asks for more flexibility in the current rules so broadcasters can deploy more transmitters at the edge of their coverage areas, which they believe would allow them to improve their service, mobile reception and spectrum efficiency.

The full petition is available on the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System.

The public notice is calling for any comments regarding the petition to be filed through the ECFS by Nov. 12. The reply comment deadline will be Nov. 27.

The complete FCC public notice is available here.

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

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.

WASHINGTON—For the past several years, the ATSC’s annual meeting has provided a forum for broadcasters and broadcast-aligned entities alike to make offers they hope will advance deployment of Next Gen TV.

A few years ago, it was Mark Aitken of the Sinclair Broadcast Group and ONE Media, offering 1 million ATSC 3.0 receiver chips at no charge to cell phone manufacturers and other wireless device makers that promised to build them into their commercial products.

At this year’s gathering, which wrapped up Thursday, May 30, Public Media Group (PMG) announced its plan to transform the television industry with ATSC 3.0. Working with public and commercial TV broadcasters alike, PMG plans to roll out a nationwide network of 3.0 single frequency networks (SFNs) for reliable wireless delivery of data and mobile TV.

PMG, a partnership with the Public Media Venture Group’s public TV stations and Osborn Engineering, will design, engineer and build SFN sites for its client broadcasters, which in turn will lease that infrastructure from PMG on a long-term basis.

Besides building the SFN network, PMG will build datacenters and create software platforms in support of the deployment. There are even plans for renewable energy to power the SFN network. At its June launch, PMG will begin with its 31 public broadcasting entities, which represent nearly 120 stations that reach about 250 million Americans.

PMG’s management includes Erik Langner, former president of Public Media Company; Eric Dausman, former CTO of Osborn Infrastructure and COO of Sutro Tower, as SVP, RF Technology; and Joe Chinnici, former president and COO of BioStar Infrastructure, as CEO.

In this interview, Chinnici discusses PMG’s plans, its offering to broadcasters, its willingness to collaborate with a diverse set of clients and the opportunity SFNs transmitting data and television with 3.0 offers broadcasters.

(An edited transcript.)

TVTechnology:What is your offer and how will it impact the decisions of broadcasters as they weigh their alternatives for 3.0 rollout?

Joe Chinnici: There are four questions I get asked, really almost every single time, whether it’s a public sector client or a commercial client in regards to why us, why 3.0 as well as SFNs—let alone next-gen broadcast and datacenters.

Those four questions are: No. 1, do we have the engineering capabilities to develop a nationwide, market-neutral single frequency network platform?

The answer is yes. We’ve got sufficient RF engineering and technology capabilities to lead the industry, whether it is public or private [broadcasting]. One of our founding members is Osborn Engineering. They’ve been a market leader in RF engineering for several years.

No. 2, do we have the financial resources to pay for this? It is a pretty significant pro forma as you start to layer on multiple layers of infrastructure assets, and we have a very significant global equity infrastructure fund that is supporting us to the tune of several billion dollars.

We have two global financial institutions for project level as well as lease financing capability. So, we're well-capitalized to support our plan, so we can take that contingency off the table for our clients.

No. 3, arguably one of the more prominent questions is can we assist our clients with new revenue opportunities? Clearly that's top of mind for everybody as they consider entering into operating and lease expenses with us in return for us building out that infrastructure.

We're happy to say that we've made several introductions between non-traditional users of spectrum that would like to potentially sublease and utilize some of that data [capacity] with our broadcast clients. We don't get in the middle of that; it's not our job to do that. But it is our job to support our clients when they're considering evaluating and proceeding with new revenue opportunities.

And then fourth, are we neutral? I mentioned in the engineering comment we approach each market from an agnostic basis, and we design to the optimal deployment for all of our clients, whether they're public or private. We have no bias.

We don't have existing infrastructure assets that we try and position in that solution to the potential detriment of our clients. But more importantly, are we Switzerland between the clients?

TVT:It looks like you're proposing a competitive alternative to what Spectrum Co. has been working on. Is that correct?

JC: I think that's a fair statement. However, I'd reposition it this way. We're approaching the market on a fully collaborative basis with a neutral party to bring different clients within each segment together.

I applaud, certainly, other participants in the industry trying to advance 3.0 adoption, but they're doing it through a more limited or narrow approach.

Again, we approach it completely the opposite way. We engage all the market participants, whether it be a city DMA or a state-wide DMA and invite them into our process. That’s No. 1.

No. 2 is we have a full infrastructure development plan. Phase one is around ATSC 3.0 upgrades, as well as the single frequency network development. Phase two, next generation broadcast datacenter development. And then phase three, once we understand the critical load needs of phase one and phase two, we'll develop and deploy renewable energy. So we have a full lifecycle value proposal to our clients that has been well received.

Third, we're taking the financing off the table. Again subject to market lease, of course, and investment committee and underwriting, we remove that contingency. And then we also engage in new business opportunities.

TVT:Broadcasters are going to need to collaborate on channel sharing to get from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0. Are you going to be involved in that part of the process?

JC: Absolutely. We’ve started at ground zero, or even minus zero. So, by the end of this month we will have at least mapped out support for all of our initial 31 broadcast partner markets.

And those range from the largest—New York, Chicago, San Francisco—to the smallest—one is 80 miles outside Nashville—to statewide networks. It's not quite roughly a third, a third and a third, but you know, directionally, that's fair enough for this conversation. So we'll have that fully mapped out, and that represents 118 different stations.

That’s on the public side. We are doing that because that community represents a significant, albeit a minority, shareholder in our company. So we have an anchor client from a capital market’s perspective.

At the same time, we’ve engaged with seven different commercial clients, and they range from the networks to the group station owners in the markets where they overlap with the community I just mentioned, as well as some markets that are outside of that—although those are few and far between.

So, yes, we have been conducting and rolling out on a progressive basis. So by the end of June, we will have our initial core clients mapped out. We even have had channel swapping conversations going on.

TVT:What does having public broadcasters as minority shareholders bring to PMG?

JC: To be candid, I wish I could tell you that I came up with all of this, but I did not. We are extremely fortunate to have those 31 PBS stations as members in the minority ownership of our company.

There is a tremendous amount of goodwill there. When the hurricanes hit Houston within the past couple of years, virtually all of the commercial stations where knocked off the air. But the one that remained was the PBS station.

Overnight, they offered to and did host all of those other commercial stations, including one they hosted for about 18 months. This was done through generosity and goodwill in the industry.

So, there is this huge reservoir of political capital, if that’s what you want to call it, that we are able to leverage. So we’ve had a tremendous level of support as well from the commercial side.

TVT:So, the plan is to leverage the advantages SFNs bring, such as a higher, more consistent signal level throughout a market to deliver mobile or wireless data, and to roll this out nationwide, right?

JC: That is absolutely correct. Our ultimate plan is a nationwide rollout, and that will take us five, 10 or 15 years. What we have now is a starting point with that anchor set of clients on the public side—at least 118 different stations that reach 240 million to 250 million eyeballs already. So we already have a very large client segment to support. Creating a nationwide platform is going to take time, but ultimately that is our goal.

TVT:What is the deal you are offering broadcasters? You are going to pay for the capital expense of the SFN network deployments in exchange for what? Time on the network? A certain number of bits—a percentage of data throughput? Or something else?

JC: At the end of the day, it is a very pedestrian story. We receive a lease payment from our clients for access to this infrastructure we are building for phase one, phase two and phase three. It’s pretty simple.

With respect to getting involved with the spectrum or the data capacity and potential new revenue opportunities, we are certainly active and exploring new revenue opportunities for our clients.

But we do not participate in that. We do not manage their spectrum. We can certainly advise, introduce and even assist in executing a bilateral agreement between non-traditional users of that spectrum and the holders of that. But that’s not our business model.

However, related to that, we absolutely are involved in discussions around new revenue opportunities.

TVT:In announcing your plans this week, you identified the automotive and agricultural industries as possible clients for broadcasters with new PMG-built SFNs offering 3.0 service. Do you have real clients for broadcasters that you can bring to the table who want to use these SFNs to deliver data?

JC: The short answer is yes. We have a couple of other segments to fall in line with that. In no particular order, we have significant reverse inquiry around the educational aspects of this. It could be distance learning; it could be workforce retraining—in markets or even areas adjacent to metropolitan areas that can benefit from the connectivity and some entity providing that information flow.

We are seeing a significant amount of interest in the emergency management space from statewide networks to more localized. The wildfires in California, for example. The one thing everybody heard was that Verizon and AT&T powered down certain communications portals, and when you are in the emergency management business you can’t do that.

So we are in extremely active conversations involving new revenue opportunities in those spaces. And then technology clients, absolutely. And on the agricultural side the same.

TVT:Related to possible commercial broadcast clients, you mentioned PMG is engaged with seven networks and broadcast groups. Do those include member of the Pearl TV coalition?

JC: We are currently getting through our legal documentation, so we won’t be able to release the names until the end of June.

We would love to collaborate with Pearl. We don’t want to give the impression that we are competitive. We would be more than happy to collaborate with Anne Schelle and her team at Pearl as well as other industry participants.

TVT:Is there any reason why this has to be a competitive offering versus Spectrum Co.? In other words, why wouldn’t collaboration be possible?

JC: There is no reason. You are absolutely correct. Again we feel we bring a different approach—a broader approach and a more inclusive approach to this. The firm that you just mentioned, there are some competitive issues that are challenging. However we are able to bridge that divide.

We have been specifically asked by their executive management team to consider collaborating. I’ve said unequivocally, I am open to that. 

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

PHOENIX—The collaborative effort among broadcasters to test Next Gen TV transmission in Phoenix will soon be expanding its purview, announcing the creation of a second station with a signal that will utilize a Single Frequency Network. NAB will assist with the planning and design of the new station, which will specifically explore the benefits of SFN.

SFN transmissions are meant to allow broadcasters to improve signal power and reach while offering signals that can be viewed in a moving vehicle or made more robust for reception inside buildings. Multiple transmitters throughout the market are used for an SFN to improve signal levels, it is also expected to fill in areas in the Phoenix market that have been hard to reach with over-the-air signals. SFN is enabled with the ATSC 3.0 broadcasting standard being tested in Phoenix.

As part of that test, the Phoenix Model Market has had a Next Gen TV station operating for the past year, owned by Univision and carrying six separate Next Gen TV broadcast streams over-the-air to Pearl TV member stations, NBC Universal, Fox TV stations and Univision to test many ATSC 3.0 features and capabilities.

With the addition of the SFN-enabled station, the Phoenix Model Market will have multiple testing facilities, opening the door for additional testing.

The SFN tower site is being provided by American Tower, with ATSC 3.0 broadcasts enacted by Comark and GatesAir SFN transmitters, according to Anne Schelle, managing director of Pearl TV. Pearl and other Phoenix Model Market broadcasters will build out the new SFN system.

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

We’ve been hearing a lot about single-frequency networking lately, especially in connection with the rollout of ATSC 3.0. However, the technology has been around for a long, long time, with the first implementation taking place in the mid-1920s, and involving operation of radio stations fairly close to each other and sharing a common frequency.

This “synchronized broadcasting” technology involved the locking of transmitter carrier frequencies together (via a wired connection) to avoid unpleasant beat notes generated by the transmitter oscillators as they drifted slightly in frequency. (It helped if the two stations were broadcasting a common show [network-supplied, for instance] and weren’t geographically too far apart so that the slight delay due to audio delivery via telephone line wasn’t sufficient to cause an audible echo or “flanging” effect on consumer radio sets located midway between the common-frequency signals.)

During the 1950s and beyond, this sort of “on-channel” operation extended to television with the implementation of unlicensed “boosters” that retransmitted an off-air television station to small communities, or perhaps an individual, located in a valley area below the reach of the main TV signal. (These devices were typically located on mountain ridges with a receiving antenna directed at the desired station, followed by an RF amplifier feeding a transmitting antenna directed down into the valley without TV service.) These “boosters” could — and sometimes did — cause interference to television reception and other communications, and as such were a source of aggravation to the FCC. However, they did prove that on-channel operation of two or more transmitters was possible, if there was sufficient shielding from natural terrain to prevent multiple signals from reaching receivers.

[Read: Dallas ATSC 3.0 SFN Buildout Nears Completion]

Somewhat later, in the evolution of broadcast television, legal operation of such signal boosters or “gap-fillers” was permitted — but with care given to prevent interference to consumers in a station’s main service area through the use of terrain shielding and/or highly directional antennas.

Fast forward to the advent of digital television, and SFN technology took a giant leap forward due to the nature of the transmitted signal and the ability of receivers to reject unwanted signals (analogous to “ghosts” in analog television produced by reflections that create multiple signal paths). No longer did SFN implementers have to rely strictly on blocking of unwanted signals by terrain. According to ONE Media’s Fred Baumgartner, the very flat terrain in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area was one of the factors in locating the initial ATSC 3.0 SFN trial in that market, as it provides a “worst case” scenario in terms of terrain shielding.

Television industry consultant S. Merrill Weiss recognized early on, and engineered the world’s first ATSC 1.0 SFN in the State College, Penn., area to provide better coverage for the city’s WPSX-TV (now WPSU-TV). The use of DTV SFN technology has since spread to a number of other areas.

“There were 29 [SFN] applications filed before the repack,” said Weiss. “Of those 19 were approved before the freeze, and I believe all were built.”

Even though the technology has proven successful with ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0 should make television SFNs easier to implement.

“ATSC 1.0 is dependent on the design of the adaptive equalizer which can be quite different in its performance from receiver to receiver,” said Weiss. “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.”

Yiyan Wu, a scientist at Canada’s Communications Research Centre who has been heavily involved in the development of ATSC 3.0, added another factor in the signal’s potential versatility “ATSC 3.0’s OFDM modulation has a longer guard interval [than 1.0’s] and this provides more protection,” said Wu. “ATSC 1.0 uses variable equalization, and the longest echo that it can handle is about 64 microseconds. ATSC 3.0 can handle 150 microseconds. Longer echo means that your power can push out further. The longer the guard interval, the less transmission power you need.”

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

GARLAND, TEXAS AND HUNT VALLEY, MD.—Earlier this year, TV Technology first reported on the combined effort of several broadcast related organizations, including Sinclair Broadcast Group, its ONE Media innovations division, and American Tower, in building the world’s first single frequency network (SFN) using ATSC 3.0 technology in the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) television market. The plan—which was devised last fall—is to deploy the new transmission technology initially on an experimental basis, and when the last bit of data has been gleaned and reports prepared, to move forward on finalizing the SFN as a permanent component of the television delivery infrastructure for viewers in that market.

The original projection was to have the entire system operational by NAB Show, but as this is a “first initiative” there were the and “lessons learned” associated with such a pioneering venture.

However, the project continues to roll out, and a visit to one of the SFN sites in late April revealed that the physical infrastructure is almost completely in place and ready to take to the air.

Peter Starke, American Tower’s vice president of broadcast, and Jerry Folk, the company’s broadcast construction manager, hosted the tour of the Garland, Texas SFN facility and offered insight about the project.

VERY DIVERSE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

“American Tower and Sinclair feel like this site is probably going to be typical of installations for wireless sites where you have a shelter with limited space and power,” said Folk. “We purposely picked three different types of existing tower sites for this trial installation. The tower in Garland is a small guyed tower with a 40-inch face [and home to cellular service and a low-power FM station]. There is also a 1,000-foot high 11-foot face guyed tower, [a former TV broadcast tower] in Ft. Worth, and an old 200-foot self-supporter in Denton that was originally an AT&T wireline site, built in the 1950’s [and] capable of withstanding an atomic blast.”

Folk further explained that the trial sites were also selected on the basis of electrical power available, as each has a different source, ranging from single-phase 240V to three-phase 208/120 and 480/277V supplies.

“This was a factor, as we wanted to see what might work best for the ATSC 3.0 equipment and Comark transmitters chosen for the trial, although we expect that single-phase 240V power will be the most commonly available service for SFN sites,” said Folk.

The test sites also reflect a full range of equipment containment structures.

“There’s [this pre-fab] shelter here in Garland, an existing TV transmitter building in Ft. Worth, and an old AT&T ‘bomb shelter’ with nine-inch concrete walls in Denton [Texas]. With the tower, shelter and electrical service differences, this adds up to three totally different scenarios,” said Folk. “An important element of this project [is] to define the many variables and resulting requirements to be able to anticipate needs across a wide variety of sites.”

Starke noted that all three facilities were under American Tower ownership or jurisdiction.

“We own two of them and have management rights for the third—the former WBAP-TV transmission site in Ft. Worth,” he said.

READY BY THE FOURTH

When asked about the project’s progress, Fred Baumgartner, Sinclair Broadcast Group’s director of next-generation implementation, observed that while the “brick and mortar” elements had come together nicely and on schedule, clearing regulatory hurdles and making sure all the necessary paperwork reached the right people took time.

“The transmission gear is pretty well in place,” he said, noting the Garland facility was ready for turn-on. “The Ft. Worth site installation was also just finished and that only leaves Denton.”

Baumgartner noted that of the three sites, Denton had been the most challenging.

“We encountered a zoning issue there,” he said. “We wanted to put the antenna on top of the old AT&T microwave tower, but local ordinances wouldn’t allow us to go far enough above the top deck to place an antenna there. Also, we found we’d have to run reduced power at this site to stay within the primary station’s signal contour. It even required a last-minute change in antennas.”

In commenting on the non-physical aspects of the project, Baumgartner observed that this is where “The long pole in the tent is getting the various transmission agreements in place with the stations involved and in getting notifications out to the various Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) involved. We have to get the message to the front line technicians, and that means we have to call these folks and speak directly to the engineering departments, as the notification that says they need to retune and make service changes goes to the front office, but usually doesn’t reach the engineers who have to make the system changes.”

Baumgartner observed that the final transmission gear should be in place in Denton by the end of June and ready to go. “Everything seems on track, and we expect to light the SFN up on the Fourth of July when we have the connectivity.”

And out of all the technical challenges encountered, lack of connectivity to the transmission sites appears to be the largest one. “We don’t have all of the fiber that’s needed in place yet,” said Baumgartner. “And that’s something you really can’t do yourself. We are putting an interim microwave system online to ensure timely connectivity.”

In elaborating on the requirement for backbone connectivity, American Tower’s Starke stressed its importance in setting up a realistic test of ATSC 3.0’s capabilities. 

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY ON ALL FRONTS

And while this unanticipated difficulty in obtaining site connectivity seems at first to be a big hurdle, it’s almost fortuitous that it did occur, as that’s what this first implementation of a real-world ATSC 3.0 SFN is all about—a learning laboratory for determining where the hurdles are and how to head them off in other such rollouts of this technology.

American Tower’s Starke elaborated on some of the other information to be gleaned in this trial installation.

“The trial test has different facets to it; it’s not all about driving the van around and figuring out what the signal strength increase and signal strength density is, it’s also about site construction—what’s it going to cost for broadcasters to go out and build SFN sites. We’re looking at efficiencies of scale, because it’s going to be difficult and costly, especially at the beginning of the 3.0 rollout, for stations to build out SFN sites on their own. We’re looking at how you can convert existing towers—wireless towers—into broadcast towers, and a lot of wireless sites have a limited amount of land. A wireless site typically has a 100 by 100-foot compound and that’s it. Most of the wireless carriers drop in their own shelters and mechanicals, So, there’s really no infrastructure to support broadcast and we know broadcast transmission is a lot different in terms of what’s needed. That’s the other trial here—you can’t go out and build new towers all over the place. The regulatory cost on the wireless side of the business has created a lot of regulations in a lot of municipalities. One of the things that municipalities look for before they approve a new tower is whether you can collocate on an existing tower, so we have to look at that too.”

Starke also noted that such technical items as determination of optimum SFN operating power was also a checklist item.

“Sinclair and Univision haven’t filed for final ERPs yet, but there is a consulting engineer working to determine what power levels are needed,” he said. “Part of a trial is the ability to turn up and turn down ERPs. The licenses that Sinclair is filing for will improve coverage within the licensed contour as provided for by current DTS regulations. The concept here is to figure out what the optimal ERPis for each of the SFN areas to achieve a proper contribution for the individual SFNs.”

He said a preliminary determination of operational ERP has indicated it would fall in the neighborhood of 100 kW Horizontal, with approximately 30 kW additional delivered in the vertical plane.

So, what happens when all the operating points have been optimized, data collected and the final reports issued? Will the sites be dismantled and written off as just another page in TV history?

“Not so” say both Starke and Baumgartner, pointing to the very considerable amount of money and time being invested in the project. When the repack phase hits the DFW market, these sites will simply be returned for their final channel. All the SFN site components have been constructed as “All UHF Band”, and can be easily optimized for final channel assignments.

READY FOR COMPANY

As constructed, in addition to a transmitter and ATSC 3.0 encoder/exciter, there’s also a large combiner/filter network to allow multiple TV carriers to share the broadband antenna.

“We keep talking about these sites as a trial test, but we’re actually building them out to go commercial,” said Starke. “It isn’t going to be build, test, and then tear down. They will eventually go commercial. Depending on ERP or antenna input power, each could handle up to possibly 10 to 12 stations.”

He observed the initial DFW SFN trial calls for the airing of programming from Cunningham Communication’s KTXD-TV outlet (RF Ch. 46) and UniMás’s KSTR-DT (RF Ch. 48). (Sinclair has no broadcast properties in the DFW market). Starke noted that since both stations fall above the latest TV broadcast spectrum upper bound, they will be moving to lower channels (RF Ch. 34 & 23) as the nationwide repack initiative reaches the DFW market. (Interestingly, there’s another television operation mixed into the broadband antenna shared by the KTXD-TV and KSTR-DT SFN transmitters, and this one—Ch. 56 (722-728 MHz)—will not be moving as it’s owned by Dish Network, which secured this slot in the earlier 700 MHz spectrum auction.)

“These will be the stations converting to 3.0, and we’ll have a hosting station down in Cedar Hill [the principle DFW TV transmitter location] to keep their 1.0 signals on the air,” said Starke.

THE CHANGING TV BROADCAST LANDSCAPE

So, what will be the future of over-the-air television? Will the tall stick and high-power model established some 80-years ago prevail, or will broadcasting move to a low-power distributed transmission platform?

Starke thinks it will be combined set of existing tall towers augmented by smaller sites for the near future; and as American Tower now owns and maintains a large number of U.S. cellular and broadcast tower sites, one of the reasons for partnering with broadcasters in this seminal ATSC 3.0 SFN Pilot.

“People [describe] towers as wireless towers and broadcast towers, but at the end of the day, it’s what’s being operated there,” said Starke. “Here we are taking this wireless site and turning it into a broadcast tower. Part of this trial involves how you can convert existing towers—wireless sites—into broadcast towers. So that’s the other trial here—you can’t just go out and build new towers all over the place [to accommodate new broadcast operations].”

“Another thing is that back in the day, TV stations used to brag about who had the tallest tower, the highest ERP, and the largest coverage. You really don’t see that anymore. Now [with cable and satellite distribution], it’s all about distribution of content. In the future, with ATSC 3.0 it will be all about high QoS service area and advanced services.”

Starke noted another factor that may drive the future chapters in the over-the-air television operations guide.

“If you think about the industry and the role of RF engineers in this industry, we all know it’s an industry where graduates coming out of college today aren’t saying ‘hey, I want to be an RF engineer,’” said Starke. “It’s been a challenge for the last 10 years or so to find qualified staff to run transmitters. Previously, RF engineers may have been running only one transmitter in a market and now, all of a sudden, RF engineers have many transmitter sites to operate. American Tower sees this as something we may want to investigate down the road—actually providing a complete transmission service.”

Even though the current repack is playing heavy on the minds of TV station engineering and management personnel right now, a lot of industry eyes and ears will be glued on this DFW ATSC 3.0 SFN deployment project as it continues to roll out.

“We are very open to working with just about anyone and sharing what we know and learn,” remarks Baumgartner in closing. “As much as our schedules will allow, we would be happy to show broadcasters what we are doing here and at the ONE Media NextGen labs outside Baltimore.”

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

DALLAS—DISH announced that it has successfully trialed the transmission and reception of the new broadcast ATSC 3.0 standard as part of the Spectrum Consortium, LLC's "Next Gen" deployment project in Dallas. Using its 700 MHz E Block spectrum (former broadcast TV channel 56), DISH deployed on Spectrum Co.'s Garland, Texas, Single Frequency Network site, as part of the country's first major market conversion to the Next Gen broadcast standard. Spectrum Co. is a consortium of broadcasters leading the transition to ATSC 3.0.

"We're seeking innovative ways of bringing next generation technologies and services, like ATSC 3.0, to American consumers," said Tom Cullen, DISH executive vice president of Corporate Development. "This trial helps us not only pursue opportunities with 'Next Gen' TV technology, but also identify synergies with our IoT and future 5G plans, for example broadcasting data to connected cars."

[Read: Q&A: Mark Aitken On Dallas Next-Gen SFN Trial]

DISH's 700 MHz E Block is uniquely positioned to provide coverage to 95 percent of the license areas in the U.S. Additionally, DISH's uplink spectrum assets could be used to provide a unique, dedicated reverse link channel for broadcast data applications.

John Hane, Spectrum Co. President, said, "We are thrilled that one of the most innovative companies in telecom and media has joined Nexstar, Sinclair, Univision and American Tower in our Dallas SFN project. DISH's involvement underscores that ATSC 3.0 is much more than the most transformational upgrade of broadcast television technology in history. It's the foundation of a robust new ecosystem of advanced services. The wireless economy is quickly outgrowing one-size-fits-all solutions. We look forward to working with DISH, broadcasters and others to bring exciting new capabilities online."

[Read: John Hane Joins Spectrum Co As President]

Spectrum Co. is defining the requirements of the Dallas SFN deployment project. Sinclair Broadcast Group and American Tower Corporation, working within a memorandum of understanding that will help shape future joint activity, have deployed and are commissioning multiple sites that will support multiple channels as part of this SFN network. Two 6 MHz channels have been committed by market broadcasters (Univision and Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation) to Next Gen service transmission infrastructure that will also accommodate DISH's licensed E-Block spectrum. By participating in the Spectrum Co. project, DISH will be able to share in and benefit from the understanding that evolves during the operation of this pilot deployment.

Vendor partners in the Dallas "Next Gen" rollout include: Hitachi COMARK (transmitters), ATEME (encoders), Enesys (gateway resource scheduler), Digicap (ESG and signaling), Dielectric (band-pass-filters, transmission line and antennae), Monroe Electronics (EAS Digital Alert Systems), TestTree (monitoring and control), Acrodyne Services (integration), ONE Media (configuration and design) and Progira (SFN coverage modeling).

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

PARIS, DENVER & SINGAPORE–ATEME has announced that it is supplying Sinclair Broadcast Group with live video encoding technology for Sinclair’s Dallas experimental ATSC 3.0 test for single frequency networks.

ATEME is providing its TITAN encoding platform for ATSC 1.0 (MPEG-2) “Host Station” encoding and “NextGen” 3.0 (HEVC) encoding, providing efficient, Live/Mux statistical multiplexing enabled VBR encoding across both transmission platforms. Two years ago, ATEME introduced HE-MPEG2, a high-efficiency MPEG-2 codec, which is compatible with MPEG-2 compliant decoders, including legacy set-top boxes, digital televisions and digital to analog MPEG-2 converters.

[Read: Q&A: Mark Aitken On Dallas Next-Gen SFN Trial]

Based on the bandwidth efficiency of HE-MPEG2 in conjunction with ATEME’s TITAN Live/Mux statistical multiplexing, the ATSC stations have increased mux density by 30 percent without compromising video quality, according to ATEME. TITAN is a pure software encoder-transcoder that can provide a migration path to ATSC 3.0, HEVC or SHVC (scalable HEVC) and runs on any private/public and on/off-premises cloud infrastructure.

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

BALTIMORE—Two months ago, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar Media Group, Univision and American Tower announced they would work together to setup an ATSC 3.0-based single frequency network in the Dallas market. Work is progressing on the SFN, which with a bit of regulatory help from the FCC should be partially lit up before next month’s NAB Show in Las Vegas.

The SFN effort is more than simply a trial of Next-Gen television, however. It is also a test of a proposed ATSC 1-to-ATSC 3.0 transition that relies on spectrum clearing, channel sharing and what may be an unprecedented level of cooperation among competing broadcasters.

Mark Aitken, vice president of Advanced Technology at Sinclair Broadcast Group, has been at the center of the rollout of this Next-Gen SFN trial. In this interview, he discusses how work on the single frequency network is progressing and how the trial will provide Sinclair with critical data that will help it achieve its goal of deploying SFNs nationwide to usher in a new era of television.

(The following is an edited transcript.)

TVTechnology:Sinclair, Nexstar and Univision, along with American Tower Corp., announced in January the joint construction and operation of an ATSC 3.0 single frequency network in Dallas. Can you bring me up to date on where the project stands?

Mark Aitken: There are three new SFN sites that will host the Next-Gen service of five local Dallas stations. We refer to this as a multi-channel, multi-tenant SFN—obviously Next-Gen-related.

We are in the process of providing a network infrastructure that ties to all of those facilities so that we have what we refer to as a Next-Gen Broadcast Operations Center. That will be a local presence that also is capable of being run from Baltimore [the home of Sinclair’s headquarters].

On a local level, we have the issue of getting the SFN up and running. First off is the main transmission site with Next-Gen, tying that into multiple SFN sites and all of the work that goes along with that, including timing and determining the proper power overlaps.

Once that is working, we must address how to operate that as a remote site. Eventually, that operation will go back to a regional center because it is envisioned that Dallas is just one of a number of DMAs that get serviced from a regional hub.

[Dallas Getting Single Frequency Network for ATSC 3.0 Deployment]

TVT:What stations will participate?

MA: The target stations—and I say target stations because all of this is subject to FCC approval—are KSTR, a UniMas station; KTSD, an independent owned by Cunningham Broadcasting; KUVN, the Univision affiliate; KDAF, the Tribune Broadcasting CW affiliate; and a fifth station, which I cannot divulge at the moment.

Two of those stations—KSTR and KTXD—will relieve themselves from their ATSC 1 activity and be hosted by the others in a channel-sharing arrangement. This is important: this channel sharing means there will be no channels lost to over-the-air viewers. None of the core channels nor the Diginets will be lost.

All five will also broadcast all of their channels—core and Diginet—as Next-Gen service on the SFN. I think that is a total of 20 channels.

TVT:That setup must put big demands on MPEG-2 encoders for the ATSC 1 side of the operation.

MA: This is a crowded field, and we need capacity for additional channels on the 1.0 stick. What that encompasses is bringing in new software-based encoders that are being optimized for a new and different level of service.

In that regard, we have a vendor with encoders that will do one HD and depending on program content five, six or seven SDs at the same time. Or, they are capable of supporting three HDs at the same time, or supporting a whole host of combinations in between.

TVT:I’ve often heard it said that getting a group of broadcasters to agree to anything is like herding cats. This Dallas arrangement seems to fly in the face of that.

MA: My emphasis in Dallas is on learning how to get along. None of this happens without participation and cooperation.

It’s about keeping that 1.0 piece whole, not impacting the consumer. Not impacting the revenue of stations and making way to fully impact the unleashing of new, future services. Those things equate to keeping the industry alive.

TVT:What is the target launch date?

MA: We are hoping to have part of the system up and running prior to NAB. I say trying to because once you figure out who your partners are for the sharing on the 1.0 side, you’ve got notification requirements and FCC filing requirements for post licensing through the commission.

If you look at what came out of the rulemaking, a secondary license gets issued for the purposes of being allowed to carry your content on another channel [channel sharing to continue 1.0 service]. And that’s further made difficult if you have a PBS non-com in that mix because of the nature of non-com rules. On top of that, the FCC form called out [in the ATSC 3.0 rulemaking that details the 1.0 hosted environment] doesn’t even exist at the moment. So, we’re working very closely with the FCC.

TVT:You’ve mentioned in the past that Sinclair wants to rollout a nationwide network of 3.0 SFNs. Will this SFN trial help you achieve that goal, and if so, how?

MA: What Dallas allows us to do is check off the list, “OK, here’s the equipment, here are the available vendors, here is the project timeline and here is the sequence of events.”

It’s a project in its own right, and it has its own timeline impacted by deliveries and acceptance and commissioning and all of those things. When you are talking about multi-channel, multi-tenant sites for SFNs, you’re building new transmission facilities.

It is really understanding what resources are available, what capitalization is required, what the interrelated services are and how they get sequenced. It is really a soup-to-nuts approach to a somewhat complicated puzzle.

By the way, what’s gone on in front of that is the actual engineering and planning of what is the nature of a properly designed single frequency network.

How do you get the coverages lined up, how do you coordinate coverage in an SFN environment versus interference? It’s all those engineering studies. It’s all those—in our case—the use of Progira software as the planning tool for understanding the nature of what the end result is going to be.

TVT:You’ve had an ongoing SFN trial in the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore corridor. What takeaways from that trial will be helpful in Dallas?

MA: What’s helpful is we understand how to synchronize and balance the propagation characteristics in that SFN, the nature of performance we need in the network. We know the nature of the components that go into that. However, we need more than a single market to understand propagation. We do propagation studies. But do they match in the real world what we have synthesized in the environment in a software program?

TVT:How will you be conducting field strength tests and other needed tests in Dallas?

MA: ONE Media will deploy its mobile lab, which is a completely outfitted van that will do every level of testing on the move, not just from fixed sites—so automated data collection on the move in a real mobile environment.

[Putting Next Gen TV to the [Full] Test]

We have to take that data and compare that against the projected data coming out of Progira and ensure that what we think we’ll get is what we’re getting. We started that process in Baltimore, but that’s just one market.

TVT:Why Dallas? Was it the fairly flat terrain?

MA: Look, it would be foolish to start with the most difficult cases and there are plenty of those. Top of mind, you have Seattle, Pittsburgh and lots of other markets. But it wasn’t chosen specifically because it is flat. There were a whole number of considerations.

We’re looking at how we would do a connected, regional service. The plans that we have made in terms of the SFN aren’t just about the Dallas-Ft. Worth market. They extend down a whole corridor and the next in line is Waco.

It also was chosen because of the availability of partners. It was chosen because Dallas is a bit of a high–tech center. It was chosen, by the way, [because] Nexstar’s home office is in Dallas.

It was chosen for a whole number of reasons, but clearly because it is reasonably tame geographically, first things first. The mantra here is crawl, walk, run.

TVT:One theoretical SFN deployment scenario that is often described is ringing the perimeter of a market with several—maybe four—SFN sites with directional antennas pointed inwards toward the big stick. I know you’ve said there will be three SFN sites, but is this the type of approach that will be taken in Dallas?

MA: Actually, it is substantially of that nature. They are not directional antennas, but they have a degree of directionality. They’re cardioids.

If you looked at the plan, you would see there is a fourth site, but it actually overlaps into the Waco market, and that’s best suited to be served by the channel structure in Waco as opposed to Dallas.

So, we know we need that in the lower side of Dallas. We’ve focused on the high population densities—the northern sort of growth patterns of that market—to light that up first.

TVT:What transmitters will be used at the SFN site and what will the ERP be?

MA: We will be using 5kW Comark solid state transmitters. The ERP will be 100kW.

TVT:Is there a target average signal strength you are trying to achieve for the market?

MA: The target signal strength is 60µv/square meter at 1.5 meters off the ground, or the typical distance off the ground a person would be holding a portable device. That’s based on a 95 percent probability service factor.

TVT:What are your plans for synchronizing the transmitters on the network?

MA: It is a matter of going out in the field, looking at the impulse response of merged transmission systems. We’ll be flexing some of the tools like TxID [ATSC 3.0’s transmitter identification signal] that allow us to identify the nature of the multiple signals being received.

We know on a map where the mating point is, if you will, of converging emissions from towers. We will go out in the field and set those up. And we’ve got GPS lock and distribution of common timing across the network. It’s actually a pretty easy process.

  [WRAL-TV Showcases Next Gen TV's Potential]  

TVT:If the GPS satellite signal were lost, is there a backup?

MA: The GPS assumes we have a running Rubidium-based clock synced. That way, you can lose satellite coverage and still have a stable clock.

It really is the case that GPS is bigger than a single SFN. You need a stable clock source that ties all of these entities together. But there are multiple ways of doing that and we will be testing other methods as well.

All the other industries that surround us do this on a day-in-day-out basis, whether it’s LTE Broadcast, DVB-T2, DTMB, go down the alphabet soup list. That’s not the difficult piece of the equation.

TVT:What about STLs? Microwave or fiber?

MA: While we have fiber to all sites, we are purposely dropping microwave into the middle of that to dissuade any concerns people may have about a mixed environment.

TVT:How important is sharing to the success of your SFN strategy?

MA: It is really important, because it is a cost share. It is also about efficiency of resource use.

The fact of the matter is I want to build an SFN and you want to build an SFN. Well, does it really make sense to deploy two different tower crews and do it sequentially? So, there are cost savings and resource savings and I would say that in the planning of that there is a level of redundancy and resiliency that gets built in by the nature of the quality of service desired.

TVT:You said ONE Media will be in the market with a specially built van taking measurements. Are there other plans for reception besides the engineering side of things—perhaps seeding the market with ATSC 3.0 receivers?

MA: Absolutely. We’ve got a number of parallel paths underway to bring to market the devices that are going to ultimately support the business. So, gateway type devices. We’ve got activities underway with a couple of proposals. A couple of the participants are actually building prototype receivers and prototype gateway devices.

We are in the process of lining up the type of launch services, but a lot of that is in the hands of Spectrum Co and John Hane [newly named president of Spectrum Co].

TVT:How much will this SFN deployment cost —or is that proprietary information?

MA: We will make public the cost when we tally it up. There won’t be any secrets here. What I will say is it is running substantially below the budget we projected. That budget was in line with projections many people have made over the last couple of years with respect to the cost of building out shared SFN sites.

TVT:Dallas is the model. But each market where you ultimately will deploy SFNs will be different. The big sticks in one case might be co-located on an antenna farm and in others they will be spread out throughout the market. So how much can you walk away with from this SFN trial that will be applicable to other markets as you deploy a nationwide network?

MA: I think the framework is 100 percent applicable. The variables inside that framework may be different. Is it three, four, five or a half dozen transmitters? That changes it. The nature of the work that has to be done on site is another variable. Is the existing tower fine, or does it need to be reinforced?

But we know these variables because all of these variables are in play in Dallas. While the specifics won’t be exactly the same, we are defining a framework of decisions that will have to be made. So, we will have a well-defined decision engine that we hope will help us deploy in virtually any market.

TVT:Is there anything else?

MA: I think the industry wishes us success and we wish great success to others in the industry that are doing their own Next-Gen implementations.

For a comprehensive list of TV Technology’s ATSC 3.0 coverage, see our ATSC3 silo.

The days of summer are almost over and many college students are on their way back to their respective halls of learning, ready to crack open the books and study up – eventually anyway. You don’t have to be a student though to take a few refresher courses. As the TV landscape seems to be in a constant state of motion, it certainly wouldn’t hurt broadcasters and engineers to be up to date on some of the industry’s biggest topics. Here are some subjects that TV professionals might want to study up on.

4. FCC Rules

Like history, the FCC never stops. All broadcast professionals must always keep a keen eye on the latest amendments to regulations, or whole new legislature. For example, the FCC recently announced an amendment repurposing broadcast television band spectrum for new wireless services that will alter the regulatory landscape for unlicensed white space devices and wireless microphones operating in the bands currently allocated for television broadcasting. Just when you think you have things down, the FCC offers something new for you to learn.

3. Single Frequency Networks

With the Television Spectrum Incentive auction currently slated for March 29, 2016, there’s a good amount of time to prepare for all the possible elements of the auction’s aftermath. One side of it that would be good to look into is Single Frequency Networks. With the amount of spectrum already shrinking, and even less likely to be available after the auction, SFN’s can potentially help broadcasters tailor coverage to a given market and minimize spill-over.

2. Cyber Security

Over the last year there have been a number of high-profile cyber-attacks against high-profile companies, and even our own government. As a result, the need for cyber-security has become a priority for many. But, as Forbes points out in a recent article, there are still many elements of cyber security that people need to become more familiar with. With the industry constantly moving toward more digital and IT technologies, people need to be sure they are on top of this potential threat.

1. ATSC 3.0

We’ve talked a lot about ATSC 3.0 already on both print and online, but it’s worth it. The next-generation broadcast standard is still in development, but it will have the biggest impact on the industry by far. In addition to covering many of the recent broadcast developments like interactivity, mobile devices and higher-resolution images, ATSC 3.0 also plans to be able to adapt to new technologies as they emerge. The suspected impact that ATSC 3.0 will have will force engineers and broadcasters to adapt too, and quickly, so better get a head-start now.