Fred Baumgartner’s op-ed ("ATSC 3.0: 'I Can't Imagine Anyone Defending Our Current Adoption Strategy") on the broadcast industry’s transition to ATSC 3.0 drew several responses, which we’re publishing here:
Thank you!!!! The article by Fred Baumgartner was 100% right on. I've been bracing to watch/experience OTA go the way of CD stores and what the music industry did to itself.
If those in control of ATSC 3.0 are paying attention, there is still time to save themselves.
Thank you!
George McLam
Wow, OMG! I find it a real relief that someone speaks the truth! I’ve been following the progress of ATSC 3.0 for years from a technical standpoint. I’ve marveled at the technical advantages that are offered by 3.0.
But at the same time I’ve also noted the commercial and political wrangling occurring in the background to see who makes the most money from this transition. Almost 100% of this is aimed at the poor or disadvantaged consumer who happens to depend on OTA TV.
I have both a technical and a business degree. I understand that money drives almost all transitions like 3.0. But there is right and wrong way to make money. Mr. Baumgartner sums up the divide that is now taking place in this industry. I’m 100% in agreement with his assessment. Rural consumers are still struggling through the move to Digital OTA TV and now they are getting ready to be hit by something that will likely drive them back to AM radio (while that lasts).
There is so much potential in ATSC 3.0 for consumers! Let’s not forget that is who 3.0 serves.
Regards,
Allen Hill
The following response was penned by Mark Aitken, senior vice president of technology for Sinclair Broadcast Group and president of ONE Media.
“I will give readers a few points to consider or ponder, reflecting on this piece. Fred’s critique is essentially that the industry has done the technical work (standards, initial rollout) but neglected the go-to‐market, consumer value, device ecosystem, and regulatory guardrails part.
My view is that, YES, we have done the technical work and are finishing and fine tuning the technology implementations (all being done on a voluntary basis). Have there been hiccups? Yes, but I would add that there are few (if any) issues of great import that have not been taken care of.
Additionally, we have not NEGLECTED the go-to-market etc. but are awaiting the regulatory clarity that is required to build up our businesses with the investments required to fulfill the mission of better TV. Sunset certainty for 1.0 is important, essential.
Fred emphasizes two unique values of over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting that NextGen should preserve, and Fred knows that we are largely in agreement:
Reliability in emergencies: OTA broadcasting “has never failed in any emergency” while internet delivery has.
Universal access & democratic value: because broadcast is freely accessible and not filtered by algorithms, it plays a unique role in an informed public sphere.
But on the last of these two (Universal access & democratic value), I am afraid Fred misses the mark. Free, unencumbered access to the 3.0 primary and related television services is important. But encryption is not an encumbrance to free over-the-air TV when properly implemented. It is there to ensure that the high value/high quality programming Fred speaks of is available on a free basis to OTA TV viewers, not as a hindrance. Because of the “ALL-IP” nature of NextGen, content protection (safeguarding piracy) is essential. To say “Encryption must go” is ensuring all the high-quality programming that Fred says SHOULD be part of the programming mix WON’T exist.
Encryption is not an encumbrance to free over-the-air TV when properly implemented.
I can guarantee there will be multiple reasons for OTA viewers to step up to ATSC 3.0 NextGen Broadcast/TV. Fred has spoken of many. There are plenty of enhanced capabilities that unconnected viewers will find of great value. As Fred well knows, I have personally fought for the coming days of greatness of OTA TV for almost 30 years.
I am NOT about to give up now. I know the best days for broadcasting television are ahead because we will meet and exceed the needs and expectations of an increasingly choosy local television audience. What is being asked and expected of the FCC is simply to allow a set of playing rules that allow those best days to come.
Just giving you and your readers more to consider and think about.”
Fred replies:
The responses, especially the handful I received confidentially, gives me hope that enough of us are ready to take a clear-eyed look at where we are and begin the climb up the “slope of enlightenment.” That is Gartner’s “hype cycle’s” next step after the “trough of disillusionment.” We have all experienced “paradigm shifts” – those things that describe a profound change in a fundamental business model and perception of events – best seen in the rearview mirror.
IP OTA Broadcast can and should go way beyond linear and streaming. It is a new and unique media. More than a modest modulation and encoder improvement, NextGen can become very beneficial and profitable if it is competently exploited. Geotargeting advertising revenues alone more than justify the investment I’m asking for.
So far, we’ve promoted (hyped) what we could do, which seems limitless. Our many, often-conflicting visions of what we should do, and lack of a tangible forward-looking implementation to experience and build upon has painted us into a dark corner. I’ll address some of our options after I address Mark’s comments. I’ve admired Mark since I heard his voice from the back of the room some 30 years ago pushing COFDM over 8VSB. And David Smith who made NextGen development a priority for Sinclair. What implementation that has been accomplished points back to them.
Pause Encryption
Encryption is very divisive. At launch, abrupt, poorly communicated, and unexpected blanket encryption alienated and infuriated our first adopters, influencers and several manufacturers. Encryption fundamentally and inherently changes broadcasting into narrowcasting. That is its purpose.
In May 2024, I wrote a five-page primer on NextGen encryption’s impact as part of a series on the adoption of NextGen for The Spectrum Monitor (TSM). As hard as I tried, I could not make a case where the benefits of encryption outweighed the detriments. And frankly some of the justifications offered for OTA encryption are, I judge, absurd. Like Mark, I noted that encryption, if used, needed to be properly implemented. OTA encryption yearns for guardrails and invites regulation to counteract abuse. OTA encryption (Internet encryption is different) should be paused. Properly implemented OTA encryption can be selectively triggered later if the use case makes sense.
Go Directly to OTA TV Button
In normal times, technology adoption is a multidisciplinary process that involves many stakeholders. NextGen is an ecosystem, the largest part by far being the receivers/devices. I think it has taken us all by surprise that we now have TVs that make watching OTA TV difficult, annoying, and as I learned this last weekend, sometimes impossible.
During an Internet outage, our new “locked in the circle of death,” “smart TV” required removal from the wall, cycling power, then fighting the user interface to watch OTA football. Our $3,000 first run NextGen TV isn’t much better (see TSM April 2025). NAB has pertinent experience with a similar challenge. Some cars make OTA listening difficult and may leave out the AM half of radio altogether. Sound familiar? One wonders why AM radio “revitalization” is a thing with NAB and (outside of mentions in NAB’s FCC “sunset 1.0” petition filing) TV revitalization is not?
I think it has taken us all by surprise that we now have TVs that make watching OTA TV difficult.
We must nurture receivers that support our new businesses. They need persistent memory and storage, adequate processing power, multiple tuners, supporting hooks, and a frictionless user experience, etc., that they do not now possess. These are neither expensive nor difficult items to implement. Our yet to be delivered, desirable NextGen broadcast product and our promotional support is the incentive for manufacturers to offer the products we need and our mutual customers want to buy. Think of color TV’s adoption plan.
AEA&I First Opens Many Doors
A lot of resources have been put into datacasting (see TSM August 2025), BPS, encryption… things with uncertain ROIs. Nothing has been invested in implementing Advanced Emergency Alerting and Informing, which does have a ROI. Nothing would drive 3.0 adoption, solidify the industry, make friends in so many places, open as many doors to innovation, enable so many business models, and create so much buzz as well-done AEA&I interactivity.
Many erroneously conflate AEA&I with EAS. EAS on TV has been notably superseded, become ineffective and always had a negative ROI. TV broadcasters will be able to free themselves of EAS in the NextGen. Developing demonstrable AEA&I is cheap – especially when compared to what has been spent elsewhere. Launching AEA&I would completely change the course of ATSC 3.0 adoption and the trajectory of NextGen development, not to mention how it empowers TV news. Even if you could care less about saving lives and property or social contracts, there is no magical thinking or hype in this paragraph.
Changing the Rules
I don’t have the same sense of victimization as Mark does when it comes to regulation. Mark knows well and has often effectively used the power of the STA (Special Temporary Authorization). I posit that the reason the FCC rules get in the way is that we haven’t shared any vision of an implementation nor have we asked, for example, for an unrestricted NextGen national demo “channel” in lieu of the pointless, redundant simulcasts we now have. I can’t imagine an FCC that wouldn’t support a well thought out adoption and transition plan that benefits the public… or at least grant STAs so we can show the world what NextGen can do and develop and beta-test the product.
If the adoption plan is to have a sympathetic government quickly and quietly shut down 1.0, forcing viewers to MVPDs, streaming, or yet to be productized “converters” and OTA TVs that support little more than OFDM and HEVC… the optics are not good. Recently I have been to several state broadcasters conventions and engineering seminars where NextGen isn’t even mentioned any more.
Our industry is the handful of group owners who cooperated to cover most of the nation with lighthouse stations and would most benefit. My request is that they kick in what little is necessary to productize NextGen and support a realistic and lovable adoption plan. Launching an impressive implementation of AEA&I is the equivalent of Steve Jobs flaunting the first iPhone.
Innovator’s Dilemma
Much of the industry will likely focus on sweeping up the last pennies in the parking lot of what they see as a dying business. Others have some vague fleeting, cautious sense that NextGen Broadcast might become something interesting, exciting, and profitable. I think we are ready for sessions at NAB and articles in TVT and “summits” on NextGen implementation issues replacing the hype, confusion, power plays and magical thinking.
If I were an “owner” under the pressure of constant cash flow growth, I might be more interested in cannibalizing the presumed corpse and see what non-broadcast use I can divert my assets to. Mature industries struggle and frequently fail to reinvent themselves. The leaders we admire and the investments that pay off are the ones that successfully pivot.
Ultimately, this is in the hands of the half dozen or so people who oversee today’s consolidated broadcasting. If they risk making the investment, the worst-case scenario is that they fail at empowering the few people with the right stuff to lead and make NextGen happen, and they collectively lose another few million dollars. At worst, this is a small mistake.
Personally, I think broadcasting is too important to fail. If we are not ready to implement NextGen, let us pause and not squander what we have. But I’d much rather see broadcasting become an even bigger and better piece of the media mix.
What do you think? Share us your thoughts by emailing us at tvtechnology@futurenet.com.
