Broadcasters petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 rollout

[mvcg66b3r]

A coalition of commercial broadcasters, noncommercial broadcasters and tech companies have asked the FCC to approve voluntary, market-based rollout of a new TV transmission standard, ATSC 3.0, and they want to start now.

That came in a joint petition filed by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), America's Public Television Stations (APTS) and the Advanced Warning and Response Network (AWARN) Alliance.

The next-gen system would allow for interactivity, ultra high-definition, advanced emergency alerts (where AWARN comes in), more channels in the same bandwidth, mobile broadcast TV, and datacasting, all ways for broadcasters to remain competitive in a multi-platform world.

According to the petition, the FCC would approve the standard as an option for both broadcasters and receiver manufacturers and for permission to simulcast while the new standard is being deployed so service to viewers would not be interrupted—the new transmission standard is not compatible with current sets.

They are suggesting a symbiotic approach to the rollout, with a temporary host broadcaster in a market simulcasting the signals of those broadcasting in 3.0, and one of those 3.0 stations returning the favor by delivering the host station in the new format.

The petition comes on the eve of the National Association of Broadcasters convention as well as the eve of a broadcast incentive auction that will feature a digital spectrum repack/remake. Broadcasters have argued that the transition to a new standard should not wait for that process to sort itself out.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/broadcasters-petition-fcc-atsc-30-rollout/155504

 

[umfan]

The FCC should deny it. Not enough benefit and it places a burden on OTA viewers.

Leverage the current ATSC.

 

[LKellerIII]

The FCC should deny it. Not enough benefit and it places a burden on OTA viewers.

Leverage the current ATSC.

I'm under the impression that OTA viewers are now a small minority, so I doubt broadcasters are taking them much into consideration.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that ATSC 3.0 would hasten the adoption (purchase) of 2160p smart sets by viewers. Unlike the initial roll-out of 1080p sets, which were expensive at first, 2160p sets are already being sold for quite reasonable prices. As those prices come down further, consumers will likely purchase them even though they won't be able to use the functionality beyond 1080p at first. It seems to me that the ultra HD world is coming much faster than HD did - so the broadcasters may be feeling some urgency.

 

[landtuna]

I'm under the impression that OTA viewers are now a small minority, so I doubt broadcasters are taking them much into consideration.

I believe DE has stated here several times that the current TV OTA audience is about 15% of total viewers. However, with all the recent articles about people cutting the cord that number might be growing although at what rate is questionable.

I was a very early cord cutter and have been quite satisfied with my OTA options (with one or two significant exceptions as noted in other posts). Anything that is restricted to cable I have been able to find elsewhere although I am not a huge TV watcher.

 

[LKellerIII]

I believe DE has stated here several times that the current TV OTA audience is about 15% of total viewers. However, with all the recent articles about people cutting the cord that number might be growing although at what rate is questionable.

I was a very early cord cutter and have been quite satisfied with my OTA options (with one or two significant exceptions as noted in other posts). Anything that is restricted to cable I have been able to find elsewhere although I am not a huge TV watcher.

"Cutting the cord" is used more often to refer to streaming, than it is to returning to OTA viewing. This may be a stale subject - but the reason I keep shelling out for satellite is that most of my viewing is of dramas, and a select few comedies - that are run by basic and premium cable. But with the advent of HBO GO, and now that Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are all producing original content, as well as playing content from basic cable (usually a year old), I can see a future in which I can cut the cord too.

I shell out for Amazon Prime - more for shopping than streaming, but it makes the streaming free of additional cost. If you add $10 or so per month for Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO, Showtime, and perhaps one or two others - my maximum expense would probably be around $60 per month, and that's WAAY less that I pay for DirecTV. And I switched to DirecTV because it's WAAAY less than Comcast.

My problem is that I live in a poor reception area for OTA signals from the local broadcast stations, but considering that all the stations have websites and apps that allow you to stream their news, I really don't need those OTA signals in any case.

 

[Morgan Wick]

The FCC should deny it. Not enough benefit and it places a burden on OTA viewers.

Leverage the current ATSC.

ATSC 3.0 was supposed to have enough benefits to actually justify moving to an entirely new standard with a transition on the scale of the digital transition. There does seem to be more of a focus on things broadcasters want to do than actually benefitting the consumer or actually having much use given the nature of broadcasting (like paywalled channels, custom ads, and datacasting), but the idea was to be able to do things that you *couldn't* leverage existing ATSC to do. For example, the current compression standard is hard-coded in ATSC, so if you want to move to 4K you probably have to shake up the standard. ATSC 3.0 is also supposed to be IP, whatever that amounts to, which would make it easier to fit in with the modern video revolution. I would hope it would also be flexible and extendible so we wouldn't have to go through this all over again the next time the industry feels the need to change things, because the changes could be uploaded onto the firmware of compatible TVs.

What would be most important for the future of broadcasting is if ATSC 3.0 had native mobile support. I don't know if it does or not, but I know mobile was a priority, and ATSC M/H flopped in large part because it was optional, so retransmission-consent-dependent stations were understandably reticent to do anything that might make it easier to actually receive their over-the-air signals without a cable subscription (though poor device support may have been a bigger factor, the lukewarm support from the broadcast industry didn't give device makers much reason to support it).

I hate when people use low OTA penetration to justify not caring about OTA viewers, because the *current* popularity of OTA, driven by the historical greater choice and economic advantages of cable, has nothing to do with the value of broadcasting as a *technology*. If you don't care about the people who are consuming your content on your alleged actual medium, do you really want to be a broadcast station, or a cable network? But so long as broadcasters remain dependent on retransmission consent they will have no incentive to optimize their signals to reach people like LKellerIII (assuming his situation is because of ill-optimized broadcast signals and not living far from an urban center).

 

[umfan]

Minority or not, if the FCC implements a standard that will make current technology obsolete, there will be a call to subsidize the transition. Considering this was just done, on a massive scale, in the last decade and further considering that the 'benefits' from another transition are, to put it generously, minimal, the FCC should reject the change.

 

[FreddyE1977]

How many years did they overrun the deadlines on the first digital conversion?
How many old ladies with rabbit ears still didn't get the word? How much taxpayer
money was spent subsidizing converter boxes?

All so broadcasters can have their cake and eat it too while cashing-in at the spectrum auction?
No thank you.

 

[RBR-TVBR Buzz Stream]

You Need to Know This About ATSC 3.0

ATSC Adoption of the Standard is Just the First Step, say Wiley Rein's John Burgett and Ari Meltzer.

More...

 

[LKellerIII]

I hate when people use low OTA penetration to justify not caring about OTA viewers, because the *current* popularity of OTA, driven by the historical greater choice and economic advantages of cable, has nothing to do with the value of broadcasting as a *technology*. If you don't care about the people who are consuming your content on your alleged actual medium, do you really want to be a broadcast station, or a cable network? But so long as broadcasters remain dependent on retransmission consent they will have no incentive to optimize their signals to reach people like LKellerIII (assuming his situation is because of ill-optimized broadcast signals and not living far from an urban center).

Thanks for your informative and thoughtful post. You guessed correctly - I don't live far from an urban center - I live in San Francisco. But the hills being what they are, and because I live on the southeast side of a hill - the signals from the TV stations on Twin Peaks to my northwest don't reach me. The San Jose stations to the south, and even KSBW 8 in Monterey - come in much more clearly. If this was the 50s, I'd just mount a huge ugly antenna on my roof. But my neighbors would hate me, and I wouldn't like it either. When KNTV ("NBC Bay Area") moved its transmitter north from San Jose, they picked Mt. San Bruno, to my south. I can actually see their transmitter out my upstairs window. So I assume KNTV would come in clearly, though I haven't experimented with OTA signals in probably 15 years.

 

[Groove1670]

When engineers and tech manufactures get excited about new technology, but don't realize it takes money to convert. I wonder if these groups are willing to foot the bill for the small broadcaster....I don't think so. and to be honest, the average viewer doesn't care.