WASHINGTON—Digital Alert Systems, a major supplier of Emergency Alert System and common alerting protocol equipment and solutions, has filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission rebutting some of the assertions Weigel Broadcasting has made regarding NextGen TV/ATSC 3.0 and the standard's limitations in delivering emergency alerts.
In a recent filing with the FCC. Weigel released a study contending that the transition to 3.0 broadcasts would cause problems with the public’s ability to receive vital emergency alerts.
Weigel has been a consistent opponent of proposals by the NAB and broadcasters to speed up the transition to ATSC 3.0 and set a firm cutoff date for ATSC 1.0 broadcasts.
In a June 3 meeting with FCC officials, Weigel reiterated its opposition to a mandatory cutoff for ATSC 1.0 broadcasts by arguing that: “(1) ATSC 3.0 makes a free service expensive and simple service complicated; (2) broadcasters may elect to degrade (or not improve) broadcasting in favor of non-broadcast services, such as gambling, pay television services, and private data delivery services; and (3) consumers, primarily those in rural areas underserved in terms of content and connectivity, may be the most harmed by a transition to ATSC 3.0.”
During that meeting, Weigel also “discussed Internet connectivity requirements to receive ATSC 3.0 DRM-encrypted channels” and shared its testing of “low-cost’ converter devices across four television markets. Weigel observed that when these devices weren’t connected to the Internet, EAS messages were not delivered. “In ATSC 1.0, there are no Internet connectivity requirements for EAS,” the broadcaster noted.
That study was strongly criticized by the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority (A3SA) in a June 26 letter that stressed “A3SA-suppported devices are designed to be fully compatible with the Commission’s Emergency Alert System (EAS) and to ensure that emergency alerts are reliably delivered to viewers. That is how the A3SA content protection framework was designed, and that is how it operates across the ATSC 3.0 ecosystem.”
In its FCC filing, Digital Alert Systems took no position DRM issues and praised Weigel for raising “an important and legitimate concern in that viewers must be able to receive essential emergency information over the air, including when broadband service is unavailable, unreliable, unaffordable, or disrupted by the very emergency for which public warning is needed.”
But the July 2 letter stressed that “the issues identified [by Weigel]...appear to relate more to the particular device configurations and options in those two particular products, rather than issues with ATSC 3.0, DRM, or broadcast technologies.”
The letter also attempted to “clarify the technical record insofar that a specific observed converter-device behavior is not read more broadly than the available evidence supports. The referenced ex parte presentation appears to document a particular result involving two converter devices, certain DRM-protected services, and certain offline test conditions. That result does not, by itself, establish that ATSC 3.0 inherently requires Internet connectivity for emergency alerting, that content protection necessarily interferes with EAS, or that a mandatory 19.3 Mbps `Broadcast PLP’ is the technical answer to the behavior described.”
Additional details can be found in the original filing, which is available here.
