“LPTV has discovered a path for the future; it is time for full power to find a path of its own. Then again, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —‘SuperFrank” Copsidas, Chairman and Founder, LPTV Broadcasters Association
To the editor of TV Tech:
This is in response to Mark Aitken’s op-ed posted on May 14, Op-Ed: Stop the False Choice—5G Broadcast Can Ride Inside ATSC 3.0, and We Can Deploy Now.
There is no false choice. Mark Aitken’s public acknowledgment of 5G Broadcast’s real strengths—its native alignment with mobile ecosystems, familiar tooling, and clear potential for reaching everyday phones—is refreshing. Still, the situation for Mark and the dedicated team at Sinclair/ONE Media is understandable.
They have invested years of sincere engineering effort into ATSC 3.0, and watching it struggle for relevance in a mobile-first world must be exhausting. The Op-Ed reads less like a confident vision and more like a heartfelt plea to keep the dream alive through increasingly complex workarounds. When so much has been invested, letting go is painful. But good intentions do not make the hybrid proposal practical.
The Time-Slicing Compromise Is a Sad Technical Patch
It is unfortunate to see talented engineers spotlighting three delicate scheduling “knobs”—CAS muting cycles, 5 ms frame alignments, and bootstrap timing promises—as if they represent breakthrough innovation. In reality, this is a fragile hack: two mismatched waveforms awkwardly sharing spectrum, complete with guard times, drift compensation, and coordination overhead that reduce efficiency and introduce real operational risks.
The small-scale Castanet pilots are admirable as lab efforts, but the use of ATSC 3.0 in Castanet is essentially a bandaid solution until 5G Broadcast is fully licensed and available. Presenting this as ready for broad deployment feels like wishful thinking born from necessity rather than strength. Much creativity is being spent gluing incompatible systems together instead of pursuing cleaner solutions.
The “Chips in Phones” Claim Deserves Gentle Honesty
The repeated emphasis that ATSC 3.0 mobile receivers are ready today comes across as more hopeful than realistic. Saankhya/Tejas demodulators exist in niche Indian reference designs, yet mainstream consumer smartphones remain untouched. Full receiver integration—antennas, RF front-ends, power management, and usable software—stays confined to controlled demos, not products people actually buy and carry.
The small-scale Castanet pilots are admirable as lab efforts, but the use of ATSC 3.0 in Castanet is essentially a bandaid solution until 5G Broadcast is fully licensed and available.
Meanwhile, 5G Broadcast benefits from riding inside the cellular modems already present in billions of phones. The community continues to hold onto “we built some tablets” stories while the broader ecosystem has moved on.
The India D2M Hope Feels Like a Distant Lifeline
Reliance on India’s government-backed trials to generate global momentum and open the stubborn U.S. market for ATSC 3.0 is understandable. India’s unique policy environment and genuine need for low-cost solutions are real. What the Op-Ed does not mention, however, is that India’s largest wireless carrier, Jio, is actively involved in 5G Broadcast trials nationwide together with Prasar Bharati, India’s public broadcaster. Jio’s 5G Broadcast trial in Delhi, for example, is testing delivery to smartphones for both broadcast TV and public warning notifications.
Expecting India’s ATSC 3.0 efforts to magically overcome America’s carrier-controlled ecosystem, regulatory gridlock, and consumer apathy toward broadcast tuners is more poignant than persuasive. It reads like a last best hope rather than a credible strategy and does not fully reflect what is actually happening in India or Brazil.
The Phased Plan Reflects Deep Investment, Not Momentum
The three-phase roadmap—scale today’s limited ATSC 3.0 datacasting, publish yet another coexistence profile, then hope India delivers devices—feels less like bold progress and more like a holding pattern to protect existing infrastructure. After all these years, broadcasters are still being asked to wait for meaningful mobile datacasting wins.
In the end, Mark’s sincerity and the solid technical merits ATSC 3.0 offers for home and portable reception are not in doubt. But it is unfortunate to watch talented people defend such convoluted hybrids and optimistic projections when the mobile world has already chosen its direction.
True progress in broadcast datacasting will come from technologies that meet consumers where they are—inside their everyday phones—rather than asking them to embrace yesterday’s compromises. The ATSC community deserves better than fighting these rearguard actions. They deserve a graceful evolution.
