Cable Lays Out its Concerns Over ATSC 3.0

Among the comments filed at the FCC on its proposed transition to the ATSC 3.0 next-gen TV standard that raise concerns about broadcasters’ plans are those of the American Television Alliance and the American Cable Association. The main issue that both raise is that of the transition “being truly ‘voluntary’ for all parties and so long as it does not harm others.”

ATVA’s main points include:

• The commission should prevent broadcasters from compelling carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals.
• The commission should protect viewers from service loss and signal degradation during simulcasts.
• The commission should require that patent-holders in the ATSC 3.0 standard and related standards agree to reasonable and nondiscriminatory pricing—and make clear that it will enforce such commitments.
• It should update the fees broadcasters pay to offer “ancillary and supplementary” services, in light of 20 years of additional auction data.
• It should specify whether there is a point at which the offering of differentiated television content to individual viewers no longer constitutes “broadcasting” in order to avoid adverse consequences down the road.

Both groups worry that MVPDs will not have the same flexibility as broadcasters in implementing various innovations. ATVA said: “Broadcasters propose to give themselves complete flexibility in how they use their spectrum. They have made no commitments so far about the services and functionalities they will offer through ATSC 3.0. They could, in other words, allocate the benefits of the proposed transition however they choose. A broadcaster could, for example, improve its over-the-air television service by offering better pictures, more robust emergency alerts, and differentiated content, all free of charge. It could instead choose to lease most of its spectrum to wireless carriers, to offer targeted advertising or its own audience measurement service, or to offer its own fee-based service. Or it could provide some combination of these services.

“MVPDs, by contrast, would have little flexibility in avoiding costs generated by broadcast innovations. Some of these costs relate to reception and processing of ATSC 1.0 simulcasts delivered from a new location. MVPDs could not avoid such simulcast-related costs because, in many cases, regulation or contracts require them to carry simulcasts (but make no provision for the additional costs necessary to do so).

“Other costs relate to ATSC 3.0 transmissions. These include a variety of equipment-related costs, patent royalties, and potential capacity burdens.”

ATVA said “broadcasters should not obtain MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals (in which viewers may have little interest) by threatening existing television service (in which viewers have a great deal of interest). The simplest way to prevent a broadcaster from conditioning carriage of ATSC 1.0 signals on initial carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals is to require separate negotiations of the two.”

Second, ATVA said, “broadcast innovation must not harm others. Broadcasters should not degrade the service they provide viewers (including MVPD viewers) today. Nor should they burden others with the costs of a transition that primarily benefits them, or prevent others from offering their own innovative services.”

ACA said it supports each of ATVA’s suggestions but added its own concerns for small cable operators. “ATVA describes a variety of costs that multichannel video programming distributors will incur to receive and deliver ATSC 1.0 simulcasts — and explains why MVPDs will assume such costs involuntarily. Costs associated with ATSC 1.0 simulcasts will prove especially problematic for small MVPDs. Such costs will relate to a video business that is increasingly unprofitable for small MVPDs. And such costs will preclude small MVPDs from investing in broadband — a service critical to their long-term survival (and one that increasingly subsidizes small-MVPD video services).

ACA continued: “The commission should require broadcasters to reimburse small MVPDs for costs incurred to receive and transmit ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, even if it chooses not to do so for larger MVPDs.

“Under the broadcasters’ proposal, stations may choose to transmit ATSC 1.0 simulcasts from other stations’ facilities. ATVA explains why simulcasts from other facilities may not reach MVPD headends and how this will harm MVPDs that rely exclusively on off-air delivery. Here again, this particularly harms small MVPDs — and especially rural small MVPDs, who are more likely to lose service, and for whom the costs of obtaining alternate delivery can be substantial (and, in some cases, prohibitive),” ACA added.