OPEN MIKE FROM JERALD FRITZ

Let Local TV Chart Its Own Tech Future

Jerald Fritz of ATSC 3.0 system proponent ONE Media: “Broadcast television — like every other information medium — needs the freedom to evolve. We need to lose the economic, regulatory and engineering shackles that bind us to the silos of a single, fixed reception device anchored to the living room wall. So how do we do that? We’ve done that by reimagining our business. And that starts with a clear, clean, efficient way to get our signals to viewers wherever they are, using whatever equipment they have. Local broadcasters have a better idea.”

Broadcasters are taking back broadcasting.

The nonsense that cell phone offerings of “LTE and DVB Broadcasting” in their various flavors — demonstrably less efficient and lower quality wireless substitutes for over-the-air broadcasting — are satisfactory replacements for what local broadcasters do is one of the great con jobs of the 21st century “Newspeak.” 

Broadcast — point to multipoint — is a phenomenally efficient use of spectrum. Nothing — as in nothing — has been devised that is more proficient in transmitting data to multiple users. It has been encrusted, however, by regulatory barnacles and been cleverly redefined by voracious competitors to constrain its growth and limit its potential.

Just read the recent trades. They are replete with dire predictions that broadcast TV is going the way of AM radio; that millennials are driving viewing consumption to other platforms, leaving broadcasting with their flip phones.

And the only people still concerned about broadcasting are regulators who haven’t figured out that the world is not flat — that new platforms have eviscerated the need for the economic regulations not imposed on functionally equivalent competitors.

Broadcasting, as in “Broadcast Television” — like every other information medium — needs the freedom to evolve. We need to lose the economic, regulatory and engineering shackles that bind us to the silos of a single, fixed reception device anchored to the living room wall. So how do we do that?

BRAND CONNECTIONS

We’ve done that by reimagining our business. And that starts with a clear, clean, efficient way to get our signals to viewers wherever they are, using whatever equipment they have. We’ve designed our own racehorse — not the camel manufactured for us by others. Local broadcasters have a better idea.

Our aging compromise standard, mistakenly adopted 20 years ago, may work just fine for fixed TVs in living rooms with rooftop antennas and line-of-sight to transmitting towers, but does nothing for the baseball game viewer deep in the building basement; the beachgoer who wants binge-watch five episodes of the Good Wife or Revenge without a fading signal; the train commuter hoping to catch a glitch-free newscast as he travels the rails at 80 miles per hour; or the fan who wants to watch replays in his college football stadium on his iPad without the picture buffering for 20 seconds because thousands of others are using the same inefficiently designed service simultaneously.

Yes, the business of “television broadcasting” is a part of our heritage, a part of today, and certainly a part of what we want to do tomorrow … but there is so much more we can do!

Broadcasters are not naïve about the process. Compromise and consensus drive the Advanced Television Systems Committee. And broadcasters owning hundreds and hundreds of stations have joined in that march in full force.

If the process is not being driven by the best and the brightest from within our own ranks, how do we expect that tomorrow we will be able to any more than we do today except for bigger, better pictures and sound?

Our critical path to viewers must permit evolving growth of the broadcast industry, not bind it to be fit only for fixed viewing by the 55-plus demo which has been our target audience for 70-plus years. There is a growing realization that this new standard is the ticket to dramatic expansion and opportunities in our business.

Broadcaster groups such Pearl and the newly formed Broadcaster Caucus (an inclusive group of broadcast station groups) working with the National Association of Broadcasters have coalesced to support the next-gen transmission standard with an aggressive, singular commitment to have the system fully tested and operational well in advance of the FCC’s spectrum auction.

Here is what we broadcasters demand:

A standard reinvented for high-speed mobile and pedestrian use. We want deep indoor fixed receiver reception, and we want 4K UltraHD delivery to traditional over-the-air antennas. The standard should be designed to permit single-frequency networks to help restore lost reception to vast areas of the country created by the government’s glaring failure to protect translators and low power stations in the proposed spectrum auction.

We want flexibility to transition from the outdated transmission standard that unconscionably prevented early adoption of mobile service and flexibility to optimize the system for use in different markets.

And importantly, we want it as close to NOW as possible.

To be quite clear, unlocking the evolution potential of the broadcast platform is not solely about better linear TV that we’ve always done. The migration will permit broadcasters to deliver all forms of stored content — mass data, e-books, short- and long-form video on demand, safety updates, constant, updating news.

This is also not a network vs. affiliate issue of program access; it’s about the ability of all broadcasters to exploit the business opportunities that our platform inherently permits.

As FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said regarding the spectrum auction: “This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” He was talking about selling channels. We remaining broadcasters are talking about implementing this new standard co-incident with the channel repack. It makes absolutely no sense commercially or from a public policy perspective to make broadcasters change antennas, towers and transmitters twice when it can be easily done once. We should keep our viewers in mind and coordinate this migration for their benefit.

It is past time for broadcasters to rise up and declare: We will not be relegated to the past. We demand to grow. We will have a new, robust, flexible way to reach our viewers wherever they are with programming and signal quality that will make them gasp in awe. And we will not be saddled with patchwork, “good enough for TV” system devised by our competitors to limit our vision.

It is time to say to our wireless competitors, foreign device manufacturers and regulatory champions, we as broadcasters are unanimously united with a considered and tested plan designed by local broadcasters for local broadcasters and we have the will and means to execute it.

Just get out of our way. The racehorse is ready to run.

Jerald Fritz is executive vice president for strategic and legal affairs of ONE Media LLC. He can be reached at [email protected].


Comments (7)

Leave a Reply

Ellen Samrock says:

November 17, 2014 at 12:26 pm

What Jerald is saying is absolutely true. We cannot allow the government and other competitive industries to define what broadcast television is. We cannot allow the government to pick winners and losers which is what the incentive auction is all about. But here’s the problem: the broadcast industry has done too little, too late to prevent this from happening. We now have as the law of the land, an auction that will cut into the very muscle of broadcast television and leave it severely weakened. And I put the blame for this problem squarely on the shoulders of full power broadcasters, those who have benefitted by and become dependent on retrans fees. They have done nothing (except when there is a blackout) to publicize free over-the-air TV. As a result: households that depend on OTA TV have steadily dropped in the U.S. over the past several years until the government assumes, wrongly, that hardly anyone is using this service any more. The fallout from this has unfairly hit broadcasters like myself who don’t benefit from retrans fees. We are the ones who will be the most severely affected by the auction and feel the brunt of the repack. So, yes, ATSC 3.0 has the potential to do great things and can redefine what broadcast television could be. But unless the industry does a major push back against this auction and repack, either in the halls of Congress or by refraining from participating, 3.0 will be nothing more than a footnote in the history of broadcasting in the U.S. First thing’s first.

Matt Hew says:

November 17, 2014 at 12:56 pm

“Broadcast – point to multipoint – is a phenomenally efficient use of spectrum. Nothing – as in nothing – has been devised that is more proficient in transmitting data to multiple users. ”

This is true only if most homes actually use an antenna to receive OTA DTV. As the fraction decreases, the efficiency plummets. Now NAB and CEA have a major disagreement on how many homes receive OTA DTV, see http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/files/NAB_CEAdatafeud913.html

I have no idea which is correct. But there certainly are indications that many broadcasters use their Title III license and thousands of watts of RF to guarantee “must carry”-like rights so that the majority of viewer can watch them over non-OTA systems and pressure MVPDs to carry basic cable programs that just happened to have a corporate relationship to the networks.

So if OTA is to be “valuable” and worthy of so much spectrum, it should get more viewers. It is clear that non-OTA programming is winning a greater share of awards each year!

So maybe the networks should spend less on lobbyists and more on programming people actually want!

    Ellen Samrock says:

    November 17, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    The one-to-many concept of broadcasting is still the most spectrally efficient method for delivering content–regardless of how many receive it. The bandwidth demands of internet viewing can never compete in terms of efficiency. And winning awards does not equate with how many watch a particular show, its popularity or how good it is. Mad Men, a darling of the critics, on average had only gotten 2.3 million viewers this season and at its peak only had 3.6 million viewers. By contrast, The Blacklist, which wasn’t even mentioned at the Emmys, averages 10.8 million viewers. The CW’s The Flash has, so far, been averaging 6.8 million viewers. Obviously broadcast networks are providing “programming people actually want,” as you put it. Also, it isn’t broadcasters who are putting “pressure on MVPDs to carry basic cable programs”, it’s the law. And, yes, they do transmit a signal to a MVPD headend. That’s how it works. In fact, they transmit to several headends at once–or point to multipoint.

Wagner Pereira says:

November 17, 2014 at 6:18 pm

NBC Sunday Night Football (NBC-SNF) v NFL Network Thursday Night Football (NFLN-TNF) from Sunday 11/16 and Thursday 11/13: NBC-SNF 8PM 6.5R/19.1M 9PM 6.4R/19.0M 10PM 6.0R/16.9M And what did NFLN-TNF do last Thursday? 2.8 Rating and 7,791M Total Viewers In fact, CBS’s last TNF game on 10/23 was just under twice the viewers than what turned up for the TNF on NFLN this past week (and that is WITHOUT adding in the NFLN simulcast ratings of an additiona 6,880M). In Other words, NFLN only picked up less than 1M Viewers WITHOUT the Simulcast on CBS and with all the CBS Ads and Promotion for the game. OTA linear TV is still king. You do not have to look at Mad Men or other cable programming. It is clearly obvious that people go to the Big 4 Networks for their Entertainment Choices. Content is king – however, where it is viewable is just as important.

Brian Bussey says:

November 18, 2014 at 3:56 pm

as lobbyists move us toward a caste system where all the high profile sports content reside on pay tv, I will advocate publically that any team that plays in a stadium built by tax payers should be forced to play their games on free TV. that is a start.

    Wagner Pereira says:

    November 20, 2014 at 1:27 am

    The Arizona Government gave Panasonic and Tesla Motors a tax break for their new battery plant. Should Arizona residents get free Panasonic Batteries and Telsa Automobiles?

    Wagner Pereira says:

    November 20, 2014 at 1:28 am

    Come to think of it, tax breaks are given to lower income individuals in the “caste” system you speak of. Perhaps we should do away with those tax breaks as well. Not to mention the tax credits other get. How about it?