Executive Summary
ATSC 3.0 represents a monumental leap in terrestrial broadcasting capabilities, establishing a flexible, IP-based foundation for next-generation media and data services. However, technical promise alone does not guarantee commercial success. Applying the Gartner Hype Cycle framework, this white paper evaluates the evolution of ATSC 3.0 from its initial technical validation through the complexities of market deployment.

The core premise is that capability defines potential, but end-to-end integration determines reality. Broadcasters will only cross the 'Trough of Disillusionment' and reach the 'Plateau of Productivity' when they manage the complete media chain as a unified system—aligning acquisition, production, transmission, and receiver compatibility to deliver sustainable, measurable value. Furthermore, ATSC 3.0 must be viewed not as a monolith, but as a diverse portfolio of services (premium video, interactive data, emergency communications, and sovereign PNT backups) that will mature at different rates.

STRATEGIC TAKEAWAY: Productivity must be demonstrated through tangible operational outcomes rather than assumed from theoretical technical capabilities.

1. Introduction: Beyond the Transmission Upgrade
ATSC 3.0 is a collection of interrelated standards defining a flexible terrestrial broadcasting platform. Its capabilities create significant technical opportunities. However, the availability of a feature in a standard does not guarantee its implementation in commercial receivers, its adoption by broadcasters, or its visibility to consumers.

A better transmission system does not, by itself, produce better pictures. IP-based delivery does not automatically create compelling interactive services. Greater flexibility does not ensure that every receiver supports every service profile. Likewise, the ability to distribute additional data does not establish a viable business model for doing so.

The distinction is fundamental: technical capability defines what a system can support, while end-to-end integration determines what the system can reliably deliver and what users ultimately experience.

The market-driven cycle, based on the Gartner Hype Cycle, offers a useful analytical framework for examining the relationship between technological expectations and consumer experiences. Its five stages describe a familiar pattern: an innovation attracts attention, expectations rise, implementation exposes limitations, operational expertise produces more realistic applications, and selected use cases eventually achieve sustainable value.

The framework provides a way to analyze the changing relationship between technical promise, industry expectations, deployment constraints, and deliverable results.

The central argument of this article is that ATSC 3.0 reaches the Slope of Enlightenment when broadcasters begin managing the entire media chain as an integrated system, and it reaches the Plateau of Productivity when that integration produces repeatable, measurable, and economically sustainable outcomes.

2. Innovation Trigger: A More Flexible Broadcast Foundation

2.1 From Digital Television to a Multi-Service Platform
ATSC 1.0 established terrestrial digital television as the successor to analog broadcasting in North America. Its architecture supported the transition to digital video and high-definition programming, but it was developed before broadband streaming fundamentally reshaped expectations for search, personalization, on-demand access, and cross-device continuity.

ATSC 3.0 responds to this changed environment by introducing a more flexible transmission and service architecture. It is designed to integrate conventional linear television with data-centric and hybrid services.

Its principal technical characteristics include:

• Configurable OFDM transmission: Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing provides flexibility in configuring transmission robustness and capacity.
• Advanced error correction: LDPC and BCH coding support improved transmission efficiency and reception performance.
• IP-based service delivery: IP transport enables integration with broadband networking technologies.
• Flexible service multiplexing: Channels can accommodate different combinations of video, audio, signaling, and data services.
• Emergency and data services: Opportunities for public warning and other data-oriented applications.
• Hybrid service potential: Broadcast and broadband combine one-to-many distribution with individualized return paths.

Transmission capacity must be allocated among competing requirements. More robust reception generally involves trade-offs with spectral efficiency. A service requiring broadband interaction depends on connectivity beyond the broadcast signal. A sophisticated signaling scheme creates value only when compatible receivers interpret and use it correctly.

The technology therefore establishes a flexible foundation rather than a turnkey service offering.

2.2 The Character of the Innovation Trigger
During the Innovation Trigger stage, attention naturally concentrates on technical possibilities. Technology specifications establish the boundaries of a medium. They define not only its technical ceiling—the upper limit of what it can deliver—but also, less obviously and perhaps more consequentially, a psychological floor for what viewers come to expect.

3. Peak of Inflated Expectations: The Everything-Broadcast Narrative

3.1 When Capability Becomes a Promise
Once the underlying technology demonstrates its potential, expectations expand. The anticipated benefits may include widespread 4K and HDR programming, interactive advertising, personalized services, advanced emergency communications, large-scale data distribution, broadcast-assisted positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT), and a more direct competitive relationship with streaming platforms.

Some of these opportunities are technically plausible. The problem arises when the existence of a capability is treated as evidence that a complete, commercially viable service already exists.

The gap between a standard's technical potential and an operational commercial service becomes especially visible in four areas:

3.2 Premium Video Requires an Upstream Production Investment
High-quality output depends on the complete image-production chain: acquisition, lenses and sensors, camera configuration, post-production, color grading, mastering, encoding, distribution, decoding, and display rendering. The same principle applies to archival material. An older program cannot acquire genuine source detail merely because it is transmitted using a newer standard.

Consequently, broadcasters seeking to differentiate their services through premium image quality must evaluate the entire content pipeline rather than concentrating exclusively on the transmission system.

3.3 Interactivity Requires More Than a Broadcast Signal
Interactive and personalized services require capabilities that extend beyond one-way terrestrial transmission. Depending on the application, these may include a broadband return path, compatible receiver software, application interfaces, identity and consent management, measurement systems, and advertising integration.

A broadcast standard can facilitate a hybrid service architecture, but it cannot independently guarantee interoperability across every television, application, network, and advertising platform.

3.4 One Channel Cannot Maximize Every Objective
Transmission resources are finite. Coverage, reception robustness, throughput, latency, and the number of supported services must be balanced against one another. A configuration optimized for robust reception over a wide service area may offer less usable capacity than one optimized for higher throughput under favorable reception conditions.

3.5 Receiver Diversity Limits Uniformity
A standard defines supported technologies and interfaces, but actual performance depends on receiver implementation. Differences in chipsets, firmware, application environments, supported profiles, and software maintenance can produce different user experiences across devices.

The peak of inflated expectations emerges when these implementation dependencies are overlooked and the platform is marketed as though its full range of capabilities were uniformly available.

4. Trough of Disillusionment: The Gap Between Specifications and the Living Room

4.1 Deployment Exposes the Missing Links
As deployments move beyond demonstrations, the industry encounters the practical constraints that determine whether new capabilities can be delivered at scale. Receiver penetration grows gradually. Existing ATSC 1.0 televisions remain in service. Broadcasters must manage coexistence, infrastructure investment, and operational complexity while supporting an installed base that does not transition simultaneously.

If a station's ATSC 3.0 service carries essentially the same program, resolution, dynamic range, and presentation as its legacy service, many viewers may perceive little difference. The transmission system may have changed substantially without producing the expected visible result.

This is a central source of disillusionment: the magnitude of the engineering change can exceed the magnitude of the consumer-perceived improvement.

STRATEGIC TAKEAWAY: The trough of disillusionment is a necessary period where the industry discovers that system-level value requires system-level change and far greater multi-stakeholder coordination than the optimization of any single component.

5. Slope of Enlightenment: Integrating the Entire Media Chain

5.1 From Component Optimization to System Optimization
The Slope of Enlightenment begins when stakeholders stop evaluating ATSC 3.0 primarily through isolated technical features and begin designing complete services around measurable requirements.

This shift demands viewing the broadcast ecosystem through the complete service chain:

Acquisition → Production → Post-Production/Mastering → Encoding/Distribution → Transmission/Broadband → Receiver Processing → Rendering → Audience Experience

A weakness in one stage can limit the value of improvements elsewhere. Superior transmission performance cannot compensate for inadequate source material. Accurate mastering cannot guarantee correct presentation if receiver processing introduces artifacts.

5.2 The Emergence of End-to-End Media Productivity
When acquisition, production, mastering, distribution, and presentation are planned as parts of a unified architecture, broadcasters can make better decisions about where investment creates the greatest return.

The productivity gains do not necessarily come from increasing the number of technical features. They come from reducing waste, avoiding mismatched investments, improving interoperability, and aligning the complete chain with the intended outcome.

6. Plateau of Productivity: Sustainable Services and Measurable Value

6.1 From Integrated Workflows to Institutionalized Operations
At the Plateau of Productivity, ATSC 3.0 services have become reliable parts of the broadcasting ecosystem. The technology does not need to replace streaming, cable, or satellite. Its value may instead lie in providing complementary capabilities where terrestrial one-to-many distribution, wide-area coverage, or integration with existing broadcast infrastructure is advantageous.

6.2 The Characteristics of a Productive Ecosystem

Several characteristics indicate that ATSC 3.0 applications are approaching sustainable productivity:

• Predictable service reach: Understanding geographic coverage and receiver penetration.
• Interoperability and conformance: Testing procedures reducing avoidable device differences.
• Modular service design: Development without assuming every receiver supports every capability.
• Validated economics: Empirical evidence that revenues, avoided costs, or strategic value justify ongoing operation.
• Operational continuity: Established maintenance, security, and incident response.
• Measured performance: Decisions informed by delivery reliability and user experience.

6.3 Productivity Must Be Measured at the System Level
A central mistake in evaluating emerging media technology is to treat component performance as a sufficient proxy for total productivity.

A more efficient transmission configuration may reduce spectrum overhead, but the overall service can remain expensive if production workflows are fragmented or receiver compatibility requires extensive troubleshooting. Conversely, a relatively simple data service may deliver substantial value if it replaces repeated point-to-point transfers with reliable one-to-many distribution.

6.4 The Final Transition: Selling Services, Not Specifications
At maturity, the ecosystem's value proposition becomes concrete. Broadcasters no longer need to persuade consumers or partners that ATSC 3.0 is inherently superior simply because it is newer. Instead, they can demonstrate the benefits of specific services: reliable access to live programming, efficient distribution of common data assets, enhanced emergency communications, or carefully designed hybrid experiences.

7. Different Applications, Different Cycles
ATSC 3.0 as a whole supports multiple classes of service, each with different technical requirements, adoption barriers, and economic incentives. They progress at different rates:

• Emergency communications and data distribution are evaluated by reliability and resilience.
• Premium 4K and HDR broadcasting depends on source-content availability and production costs.
• Interactive services require extensive coordination across platforms and identities.
• Broadcast-assisted PNT applications follow a trajectory governed by precise synchronization and stringent geographic coverage.

STRATEGIC TAKEAWAY: ATSC 3.0 should be understood as a portfolio of potential services sharing a common broadcast infrastructure, not as a single product moving uniformly through the market-driven cycle.

8. Conclusion: Media Integrity and Resilient Sovereign Infrastructure

8.1 The Limits of Enhancement
As displays and processing systems become more capable, viewers may expect every program to reveal greater detail and realism. ATSC 3.0 can support the delivery of high-quality source material, but the quality of the result remains fundamentally dependent on the integrity of the complete production and presentation chain.

8.2 The Sovereign PNT Backbone and Broadcast Infrastructure
The potential role of terrestrial broadcasting in positioning, navigation, and timing illustrates an entirely different dimension of ATSC 3.0's utility. A data-capable terrestrial infrastructure also offers opportunities to distribute signals or information that support critical national and public infrastructure needs.

In an era of rising geopolitical tensions and cyber vulnerabilities, a broadcast-assisted PNT architecture offers a vital sovereign backup. Terrestrial ATSC 3.0 signals—exhibiting substantially higher signal power and resistance to jamming or spoofing compared to orbital GNSS/GPS signals—could complement satellite-based systems, ensuring resilience for the electrical grid, financial networks, and telecommunications towers if space-based signals are degraded or denied.

However, as the Market-Driven Innovation Cycle demonstrates, this opportunity requires a distinct, rigorously funded engineering and deployment program. The mere existence of a flexible broadcast standard does not mean these sovereign infrastructure requirements have been automatically fulfilled.

9. Strategic Implementation Recommendations

For Broadcast Executives and Network Planners:

1. Prioritize System Integration Over Feature Activation: Invest in end-to-end media chain alignment rather than chasing isolated capabilities. Ensure source material, production workflows, and receiver processing capabilities match transmission upgrades.
2. Develop Granular Business Models per Application: Treat premium video, hybrid interactivity, and specialized data delivery as separate business units. Each requires a tailored strategy for monetization, ecosystem partnerships, and performance measurement.
3. Champion Sovereign Infrastructure Use Cases: Proactively engage with public sector and telecommunications stakeholders to position ATSC 3.0 as a critical, resilient backbone for PNT and emergency communications—diversifying revenue streams beyond conventional advertising models.
4. Standardize Receiver Conformance: Collaborate rigorously with CE manufacturers to eliminate fragmentation in receiver implementations, ensuring consistent quality of experience for consumers.

Zixi, Grass Valley, Uplynk and Broadview Software have jointly published a white paper setting out a model for moving broadcast distribution from satellite to IP and the cloud.

Based on a real-world deployment for a broadcaster with a global footprint, The IP convergence framework for distribution sets out a practical, repeatable model for the transition, demonstrating how cloud master control, IP transport, orchestration and streaming work together. The release comes ahead of the US FCC’s upper C-band auction to reclaim 100-180 MHz of spectrum used by broadcasters to deliver content across the United States.

The framework combines four core layers, with each delivered by one of the partners in a unified operating model. Grass Valley provides broadcast operations and playout, with master control and playout running in the cloud. Broadcast-grade delivery of live video over IP is enabled by Zixi, with redundancy built into every path. BroadView Software ensures orchestration and delivery with control of the full workflow via BroadView Nexus, while Uplynk distributes to streaming, FAST and affiliate endpoints from the same chain.

Each of the layers can be independently swapped or scaled, allowing users to adopt in stages rather than a single rebuild. TAG and Zixi Zen Master ensure the same visibility across the chain provided by a traditional master control room.

The model follows the entire workflow, from ingest to cloud master control and distribution, said the partners. Moving master control to the cloud enables teams to retain precision and control while gaining IP flexibility.

Three outcomes are identified: flexibility from swappable layers and the ability to change without infrastructure redesign; reliability from continuous monitoring and redundant workflows; and efficiency through lower storage and transport costs with reduced dependency on fixed hardware.

Eric Black, CEO/CTO, Uplynk, commented, “The C-band transition is forcing a real question for broadcasters – what replaces satellite without sacrificing the reliability they’re used to. We built this framework to answer that question, and we proved it first by moving a broadcaster’s entire satellite operation onto IP and the cloud in production. That combination of broadcast-grade reliability and cloud flexibility is what the industry needs right now, and we’re excited to share how we got there.”

SMPTE has joined forces with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) to publish an updated report on AI and its impact on media.

The document is the result of a task force on AI standards in media that began in 2020 and is an updated version of the Engineering Report released in 2023.

It aims to provide media professionals with a background of both AI and Machine Learning (ML), said the organisations.

The report includes a technical understanding of the two technologies, as well as the impact they are likely to have on the media landscape. It also explores AI ethics and discusses the role that standards can play in AI/ML’s future.

“The AI in Media landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace, and the SMPTE AI Taskforce remains committed to keeping up with this transformation,” said SMPTE standards director Thomas Bause Mason.

“The revision to the Engineering Report reflects new developments such as the Model Context Protocol (MCP), enhanced security considerations, open source in AI, and emerging frameworks like ISO/IEC 42001 among others. By incorporating these updates, we aim to provide the industry with clear guidance on AI/ML as well as interoperable AI practices for media workflows.”

The report is open to all and can be found here.

There’s little doubt IP-based production and contribution continue on a rapid upward trajectory in the Media & Entertainment Industry.

Offering clear advantages like flexibility, cost-efficiency and scalability, IP transport of media essences and metadata throughout studios and in other production settings has become the go-to technology for many media organizations looking for an effective alternative to SDI or a way to augment their existing baseband infrastructure.

However, choosing which IP transport makes the most sense as well as the IP contribution link solution best suited to a given application can be complicated. From a technology point of view alone, literally hundreds of data points must be compared to arrive at a solid decision. And that’s only part of the story.

The other part –and some might say an even more fundamental aspect—is consideration of the non-technical factors that go into selecting the right IP transport and contribution link technology. Things as seemingly unrelated as the revenue potential of a given production or ideal deployment of production personnel can play significant roles in making the right decision about what IP alternatives are best.

Non-Technical Factors While anticipated revenue establishes financial guardrails for all other considerations that factor into decision making, the financial equation actually starts with the size of the event in the case of remote mobile production or live studio shows to be produced in a brick-and-mortar facility.

The bigger the event and corresponding audience size, the greater the budget ad agencies and brands will spend on commercial placement. For example, the average price of a 30-second spot during the most recent Super Bowl—watched by a global audience—averaged $8 million. In contrast, a 30-second commercial during a local University football game could cost around a thousand dollars.

While a rather extreme example, the difference clearly illustrates how size and audience dictate revenue potential, which determines production budget and ultimately the technology—including IP transport and contribution technology—from which to choose.

Many other non-technical considerations factor into selecting the appropriate IP transport and contribution technology for a given project or facility. For instance, how personnel are deployed to support a preferred workflow plays a role as well.

Will everyone be on site for a remote live production, or will only select personnel, such as camera operators and an engineer in charge, be remote while others work from a brick-and-mortar production control room (PCR)? Or will even those PCR personnel work remotely from their homes or offices via their laptops, an internet connection and a cloud instance with virtual production tools?

Ross Video has recently published a new white paper, “How to Select the Right IP Transport,” which examines these and other important considerations that go into selecting the right IP transport and contribution alternative.

A perfect companion for “The Future of Signal Transport in Media" white paper that Ross Video published last year, the latest work offers guidance on what to consider in addition to the technical characteristics of various alternatives when selecting the IP transport and contribution solution that makes the most sense for any given media organization.

To read the new white paper, click here.

With so many alternatives available when it comes to leveraging IP production transport and contribution, deciding on which path to take can feel a bit overwhelming.

Not only are there numerous technical and video quality issues to keep in mind but non-technical factors that in most situations will play an even greater role in which way a media organization ultimately chooses to go.

Money, Money, Money

If money were no object, making decisions about the best IP transport around which to build a video production network would be rather simple. With unlimited funds, bandwidth isn’t really an issue, so why even compress video? Ditto for network management. If money were not an issue, organizations could simply throw more IT personnel at network hiccups, Precision Time Protocol (PTP) clock setup and synchronization maintenance, orchestration and the like.

But for most media organizations most of the time, money is a major factor—whether it’s the revenue-generating potential of the event covered or the production budget associated with those potential earnings.

That’s why those producing the few events at the pinnacle of live television production with massive advertising revenue to support the biggest production budgets, like the Olympics or World Cup, may choose to move uncompressed 1080p HD or even 4K UHD across their SMPTE ST 2110-based production network while a small- to medium-sized TV station with limited financial resources may decide on an NDI network moving an AVC or HEVC compressed video.

As the term implies, “uncompressed” in effect means “untouched.” No effort has been made to reduce the amount of data required. AVC or HEVC on the other hand apply a good deal of compression to reduce the amount of data that must move across the network. So, how much data?

By way of comparison, an uncompressed 1080p 60 HD signal translates into 3000 Megabits per second (or 3Gigabits per second). The same signal compressed using the HEVC codec ranges from 3.5 to 15Mbps, but a nice midpoint is about 10Mbps. Clearly, the bandwidth needed for the latter is far less.

Between these two extremes there are a number of other alternatives, such as IPMX and Dante AV when it comes to IP transport protocols, and JPEG XS and JPEG 2000 when it comes to codecs. Each changes the equation, not simply in terms of how much network bandwidth is necessary but also when it comes to many other technical and non-technical factors, such as latency, workflow, network management and where production personnel will be located.

On top of these decisions, it’s necessary to take on a similar balancing act to select the IP contribution link that best meets a media organization’s needs.

Ross Video has published a new white paper, “How to Select the Right IP Transport,” which examines these and other considerations Media & Entertainment Industry organizations should think about before making a decision about which alternatives best suit their individual needs.

This examination does not seek to recommend one alternative over another but rather to equip readers with the knowledge and background they will need to assess their organization’s requirements and evaluate various options.

Click here to read this new white paper.

It really doesn’t matter whether it’s a brick-and-mortar studio, an Outside Broadcast (OB) truck or trailer, a virtualized production workflow running in the cloud or some combination of these.

When it comes to producing video, signal processing is central to the task. Simply stated, modern day signal processing encompasses the multitude of signal manipulations and modifications required to produce a show—everything from timing, synchronization, routing and distribution to production switching, character generation, audio mixing and even loudness monitoring.

Three fundamental approaches are available to meet these video production processing demands, including modular, integrated and virtualized. A fourth is a derivative of these in which two or more are combined. There are pros and cons to each.

For instance, modular processing offers extensive functionality through a broad selection of modules and extremely low latency performance—major pluses in its favor. Being hardware-based, processing modules are exposed to p obsolescence if there is a major shift in technology or what producers need. That can be particularly painful if an organization’s investment in modular processing isn’t fully amortized.

While the specifics may differ, integrated and virtualized signal processing also have their own sets of pluses and minuses. Needless to say, a hybrid of these approaches will reflect the advantages and disadvantages of its constituent parts.

Selecting the right option can be tough given the sheer number of factors that go into making an informed decision. Beyond having a clear understanding of the basic differences in processing and the strengths and weaknesses of each, a series of other factors must be considered.

For example, is the signal processing approach under consideration going to be deployed at a green field site, or will it augment an existing production workflow? Will the signal processing solution be installed in a studio where space, power and cooling requirements are relatively easy to accommodate, especially when compared to an OB unit? Does the media organization favor an OPEX or CAPEX spending model? How comfortable is the staff with the cloud?

The questions go on and on, and as each is answered a clearer picture emerges of the right direction to go.

Of course, there’s more to setting coarse than that. Each signal processing strategy must be evaluated in the context of what is happening in a rapidly evolving industry where one resolution gives way to the next, where standard dynamic range and high dynamic range must coexist to serve the widest possible audience and stereo and 5.1 surround are the warmup act for an immersive audio future.

Ross Video and TV Tech have produced a new white paper to help readers navigate the modern day signal processing landscape. In it, readers will find an examination of available signal processing alternatives with an eye towards assisting them in determining which best meets their needs today and positions their organizations for the long run.

While Ross is well-known throughout the video production industry for its wide array of signal processing technology, every effort has been made to examine the subject of modern signal processing in an objective manner. Readers not only will walk away with a clearer understanding of signal processing in modern video production workflows but also valuable guidance on selecting which approach is best for their individual circumstances.

Whether it’s modular, integrated or virtualized—or even some combination of those options— modern signal processing will play a central role in video production for the long haul. Our new white paper, “Navigating Modern Day Signal Processing,” will give readers the background they need to proceed with confidence in charting their organization’s way forward.

Click here to download the white paper.

Broadcast and media workflows are going through an accelerated period of change in large part as a response to the pandemic. 

Where in-studio workflows were the rule for decades, remote methods of working have emerged. Broadcasters and other M&E Industry professionals have learned firsthand over the past couple of years that it is possible to maintain –and even enhance—productivity when critical members of their production teams work from home or elsewhere.

This situation raises important questions for the media: Where do we go from here? If working remotely offers media enterprises and their workers flexibility and other numerous benefits and doesn’t impinge on productivity, what’s the best strategy for moving forward.

Many are considering a full-on transition to the public cloud and virtualized workflows as the smartest direction. But before making that choice, it’s important to do so only after being fully informed about both its strengths and weaknesses.

A new white paper from Dell and TV Tech examines some of the myths and misunderstandings that have grown up around the public cloud. While a full-on transition may benefit some organizations, others can derive the same types of benefits from on-prem and co-lo alternatives. Click the link to download your copy of this informative white paper.

Media content in broadcast and streaming environments is extremely valuable. This is  particularly true for first-run broadcast shows and recently released movies. Content and its  associated metadata are intellectual property (IP) and create great value for many  companies. 

In the past, content has been stolen and publicly released and content has been  locked from use by ransomware attacks. Unsecured communication links can also allow  passwords to fall into unauthorized hands and disrupt control channels that move and playout  the media content. Security should be integrated into each part of the system and should not  be an afterthought. It is an easy step to bypass in the design and implementation stages  which will save time and money but the potential ramifications on future losses are  significant.  

This paper is not a “how to” guide for implementing the security methods but will provide an  overview of the important considerations and the tools available to provide secure access  within the Zero Trust model. This includes access and communications within and outside of  the secure system. 

System designers, developers and integrators and especially management  need to be aware of the consequences of not deploying the necessary security. Broadcast  systems can no longer be treated as trusted closed systems as every communication must be  secured.

Click here to download the white paper. 

PHOENIX—Even while content providers, pay-TV operators and telcos grapple daily with the consequences of COVID-19, they must find a way to build responses that address staffing, call center management, customers with overdue bills and a host of other critical issues—all while flying blind because of the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, according to a white paper released today by NAGRA Kudelski.

The paper, “Shaping Post-COVID Resilience for the Premium Content, Pay-TV and Telco Businesses,” draws on information gleaned from customers of NAGRA Insight, the company’s software-as-a-service platform leveraging big data and AI to identify the individual behavior of TV viewers.   

Decision-making in this environment is difficult because the COVID pandemic has “no previous reference” with which to compare and make decisions against, says the white paper.

“The only solution is to build a new reference on the fly and extrapolate from it, or move forward by trial and error, and adapt strategies along the way,” it says.

The 14-page document advises readers to “go back to basics” by following three rules when staging a recovery for the business consequences of the virus, including using “up-to-date, real-time data,”  “adopting an industry-specific response” and updating and adapting more frequently.

It counsels businesses to identify which of three phases—stabilize, back to work or grow—they are in and use the correct response for each. It chronicles the four main challenges businesses must address during each phase, including how decisions are made, how businesses work, how they engage customers and how they drive and accelerate transformation.

The paper also offers a discussion of how NAGRA Insight can help businesses overcome these challenges by assisting them in building decision-making scenarios, acquiring personalized recommendations on a per-subscriber basis, accessing relevant data and monitoring the effect of initiatives.

It concludes with examples of how major operators around the world have benefited by using the NAGRA Insight solution.

To download a copy of the white paper, visit the company’s website. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on once sacrosanct broadcast workflows. Nowhere is this more evident than in the newsroom.

Morning editorial meetings have become virtual. Reporters, MMJs and photographers are working nearly exclusively in the field, cutting back station visits to a minimum, and many anchors, meteorologists and others are presenting from ad hoc, at-home sets. Even when the pandemic finally passes, many of these workflow changes will remain.

TVTechnology magazine in partnership with Avid Technology has produced an informative new eBook, “The Newsroom of the Future: Leading TV News Voices Discuss What’s to Come for Local Broadcasters,” examining these and other changes. Written by TVTechnology contributing editor Phil Kurz, the eBook offers:

•  “Newsrooms Chart a Path to the Future,” an article looking at how and why local newsrooms are evolving as seen through the eyes of three leading industry news executives.
• A Q&A with Sinclair SVP of News Scott Livingston on what the newsroom on the future will look like and how it’s taking shape today.
• “The Incredible Shrinking Newsroom,” an article examining the evolving technology needs of TV news departments.
• An interview with ITV’s David Woolston on the largest U.K. commercial broadcaster’s desire to be “cloud-first and cloud native.”

Click here to get your FREE copy of this highly informative eBook.

MILAN—With ATSC 3.0 preparing to launch in the U.S. in the next year, Fincons Group, an IT business consultancy based in Italy, has published a white paper that highlights some of the Next Gen TV features and what lessons European broadcasters could take from them in the eventual updating of the existing Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV (HbbTV) and future marketplace demands.

While Fincons notes that the U.S. had used HbbTV as a model for the development of ATSC 3.0, it now says that things have flipped as a number of systems in Europe have become outdated and are in need of an overhaul to keep pace with evolving technologies and to support innovation.

Topics covered in Fincons white paper include the importance of user experience and keeping up with consumer expectations; how to unlock the addressable advertising potential of Hybrid TV; AI powered OTT advertising; the impact of second screen advertising; and how to balance content and advertising.

“It is clear that next generation connected TV technology has come full circle and Europe needs to tackle new developments,” said Oliver Botti, head of international business development and innovations at Fincons Group. “European broadcasters can’t risk falling behind their U.S. competitors, meaning the time is now for savvy broadcasters to invest in developing their platforms and improving user experience to stay ahead of the curve in the European marketplace.”

The whitepaper, titled “After Laying the Foundations for Hybrid TV in the USA, European Broadcasters Can Now Benefit From Further Impulse Coming From USA ATSC 3.0.,” can be downloaded here.

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

While advanced graphics, like 3D and hybrid virtual/hard studio sets, have the power to enhance studio productions and impact ratings, the technology truly driving benefits for broadcasters are those workflow tools behind the graphics. Learn how embedding graphics into live programming powerfully, efficiently, and cost effectively, helps broadcasters steal the show.

 Click here to download