In late October, the FCC voted to give U.S. broadcasters more freedom in determining how to manage the transition to ATSC 3.0 and the shutdown of ATSC 1.0 services. Since broadcasters have a strong incentive not to disenfranchise existing viewers, this makes sense.
The proposed rules (the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or “5FNPRM”) are not clear on what steps, if any, the Federal Communications Commission will require from other partners, such as receiver manufacturers, to expedite the transition. It also raises questions about the current use of content protection (digital rights management) and whether that complies with broadcast requirements in the Communications Act.
While the proposed rules offer positive steps towards a transition to ATSC 3.0, they also highlight the challenges and risks to broadcasters in an ATSC 1.0 shutdown. With this in mind, I’ll look at some of the main topics in the 5FNPRM. The National Association of Broadcasters’ transition proposal has been widely covered, so I don’t plan to focus on it here.
Simulcast Changes/MPEG-4
The proposed rules would eliminate the requirement for a station transitioning to ATSC 3.0 to simulcast its programming on an ATSC 1.0 guest station. However, if a station voluntarily chooses to simulcast, then the ATSC 1.0 signal must cover the ATSC 3.0 station’s community of license and be located in the same DMA.
All “substantially similar” language has been deleted, which implies the ATSC 1.0 simulcast on the guest station could be in standard definition even if the ATSC 3.0 content is in high definition or better. This would allow more ATSC 1.0 guest stations on a single ATSC 1.0 host.
While the proposed rules offer positive steps towards a transition to ATSC 3.0, they also highlight the challenges and risks to broadcasters in an ATSC 1.0 shutdown.”
The proposed rules in the 5FNPRM add MPEG-4 video encoding as outlined in ATSC standard A/72 Part 1, but for multicast streams only. As I wrote in my September 2024 column, “Revisiting MPEG-4 for ATSC 1.0 Lighthouse Stations,” converting an HD stream from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 and adding an MPEG-2 simulcast in SD makes more efficient use of spectrum in some cases and would allow reception on older devices, which may not support better than SD resolution in any event.
Without the “substantially” similar rule, as we approach ATSC 1.0 shutdown, I suspect most stations will be happy with only an MPEG-2 simulcast of their HD stream. A better option to preserve quality would be to allow use of MPEG-4 on the primary as well as multicast streams. That would allow more HD content on the remaining ATSC 1.0 host stations.
Receiver Mandates
The proposed rules do not include any new rules for receive devices. The text of the order raises questions concerning ATSC 3.0 tuner requirements, including benefits and costs of adding an ATSC 3.0 tuner to TV receivers and allowing only an ATSC 3.0 tuner, no ATSC 1.0 tuner.
The Consumer Technology Association contends the marketplace is working and an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate is unnecessary. NAB argues that manufacturers do not want to include ATSC 3.0 tuners until there is more consumer demand, and most consumers will not demand ATSC 3.0 until broadcasters “offer something they cannot get without it.” Until viewers have ATSC 3.0 receivers, broadcasters will have difficulty stopping or even reducing ATSC 1.0 services, thus limiting their ability to offer new and improved ATSC 3.0 services.
The FCC asked for public input on the timing of a tuner mandate if a mandate is adopted; warning labels on TV receivers that do not have ATSC 3.0 tuners; and NAB’s proposal to “make broadcast services available to a consumer in the same or fewer steps needed to access any other video content on the same device.” The CTA said the FCC does not have authority to mandate user interfaces and micromanaging them would be “bad policy.”
Content Protection
The FCC noted consumer complaints about the impact of digital rights management on reception of ATSC 3.0 signals.
“As this DRM encryption program has been deployed and stations have begun to encrypt 3.0 signals that previously aired without encryption, however, many viewers have been unable to watch certain 3.0 signals on equipment they purchased specifically for that purpose,” the commission said in its notice. “This has led to thousands of consumer comments in this docket opposing the use of encryption on free OTA broadcast signals, many filed by early adopters of ATSC 3.0 technology even before the Commission’s most recent Public Notice.”
The proposed rules do not include any mention of DRM, but the text asks for comments on several aspects of DRM. These include the costs and requirements of incorporating DRM and whether those factors are deterring market entry. The commission asks whether decryption keys/capabilities and related licenses are available on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms.
The concept of DRM itself is questioned by consumer groups and others, alleging “that in practice “[t]he use of DRM, private device certification and internet return-path dependencies renders ATSC 3.0 transmissions legally and functionally distinct from traditional broadcasting.”
The FCC notes that the Communications Act defines “broadcasting” as “the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations.” One of the three criteria the FCC has used to determine a lack of this intent is “the programming is encrypted in a way that “makes it unusable by the public” and that is not “enjoyable without the aid of decoders.” The commission asks whether current ATSC 3.0 encryption administered by A3SA and implemented by broadcasters constitutes “broadcasting” within the meaning of the Communications Act.
In my reading of the commission’s full text on DRM, I have the impression the commission may not be opposed to DRM itself as much as the way the current encryption is handled. At this stage in the ATSC 3.0 transition, if the FCC decides the current A3SA implementation is not legal broadcasting, is it possible to change to another content protection scheme without breaking existing ATSC 3.0 receivers?
If content protection is not allowed, what impact will that have on the availability of popular content on free ATSC 3.0 channels? ATSC 3.0 offers the option of having some content protected and other programming in the clear. One possibility is the FCC would require at least one program stream to be unencrypted with more valuable content, such as live sports, ending up transmitted on a different, encrypted program stream.
Transitioning MVPDs
The 5FNPRM devotes several pages to how a transition to NextGen TV will impact MVPDs (distributors of broadcast content via cable, internet, satellite or other means to viewers). The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) created Recommended Practice A/370 “Conversion of ATSC 3.0 Services for Redistribution,” which describes how to convert ATSC 3.0 signals to an ATSC 1.0-compatible transport stream. The 5FNPRM raises questions about the costs of this conversion and the impact on small cable companies. A suggested alternative is for the broadcaster to provide an ATSC 1.0-compatible feed directly to the MVPD, but is this practical in all cases? ATSC 3.0 provides services, such as multilanguage audio and higher data rates, that are not compatible with many cable TV systems. For more details, refer to the 5FNPRM.
In my opinion, depending on the timing, many of the questions it raises may become moot as MVPDs move away from transport-based distribution to IP distribution, where, given sufficient bandwidth, transport of IP based ATSC 3.0 programming will be much easier.
Transition Risks
Transitioning to new standards is risky. Look how long it took to complete the analog shutdown after DTV broadcasting started. During that transition, broadcasters had a second channel, receivers were required to include DTV tuners and were widely available in all sizes before analog was shut down, and low-cost converter boxes were widely available with NTIA-mandated performance. So far, none of those conditions apply to the ATSC 3.0 transition.
How can broadcasters accelerate the transition? The FCC’s proposed simulcast rules appear to allow one ATSC 1.0 host to carry a dozen or more channels in MPEG-2 SD. The loss of quality might encourage people to invest in an ATSC 3.0 receiver, if they are widely available, or they may simply move most viewing to streaming services or the omnipresent FAST channels.
For technically-challenged viewers, adding a set-top box could be difficult. What is the best way to get ATSC 3.0 capability into the homes of ATSC 1.0 viewers? Given the advantages ATSC 3.0 provides, would it make sense for broadcasters to fund a receiver or simple set-top box option for consumers that need it? It may be necessary to set up a Geek Squad-like service to aid viewers having trouble with the conversion. Is that even possible?
