Mobile 3.0 Mandate Needed, Just Not Now

One of the great promises of Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) is that it will make broadcasting mobile. That is, broadcasters will be able to reach smartphones — where a growing number of people are watching TV these days.

But there’s a problem.

For broadcasters to go mobile, smartphone makers and wireless carriers will have to agree to outfit the phones with 3.0 tuners, and that’s something that they aren’t likely to willingly do. It would add more complexity and cost to the phone and it would open the door for broadcasters to compete with the carriers in providing services.

So, if smartphone users of the future are going to have access to broadcasts, the government is going to have to mandate that phones have the tuners built in.

Yes, I know that regulations are unpopular these days, but there is a good case to be made for this one.

First, broadcasting — one-to-many, rugged and reliable — is the best medium in emergencies. When cell networks fail, broadcasting keeps plugging along, sending out news and warnings and potentially life-saving information of where to get help.

If a public official needs to speak live to the public —a city or the entire nation if need be — in a crisis, the only way to do it would be via broadcasting.

Emergency alerting has been built into the DNA of the 3.0 standard, and an entire organization — AWARN — is now devoted to developing its capabilities.

With 3.0, broadcasters will be able to “wake up” TV sets (and, I would hope, smartphones) if they are turned off with alerts and offer datacasting services to law enforcement and first responders.

Even when the cell networks don’t fail, broadcasting still fills a special role when things go wrong. That’s because broadcasting has extensive local newsgathering and weather tracking and forecasting resources that no other medium has.

Today, broadcasting as an emergency lifeline is limited by fact that most broadcast receivers — TV sets — are not portable and require AC power, which like wireless service tends to disappear in crunch time. Put the 3.0 chips in the phone, and those limitations go away.

Second, broadcasting merits special treatment because broadcasters have special obligations. Among other things, they must provide “reasonable access” to federal candidates and “equal opportunities” for all candidates; they must identify sponsors; they must air educational programs for children and limit the commercials within them; and they must police themselves for indecent remarks and images.

Finally, and most important, broadcasting is the peoples’ medium and the government has an interest in perpetuating it.

It provides quality news and entertainment services to all Americans at all times. There may be a digital divide, but there has never been a broadcasting divide. Everybody is equal — and wanted — in the broadcast ecosphere.

The government cannot allow the wireless industry to become gatekeepers, denying smartphone users access to broadcast services, any more than it could allow cable operators to become such gatekeepers. See must-carry.

While the justification for a mobile mandate is clear, the politics are not.

At this point, it would probably be unwise for broadcasters to mount a campaign for a mandate.

They must stay focused on getting the FCC to authorize 3.0, which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has put on a fast track. Pai floated a draft of the rulemaking last week and he intends to get it going at the FCC’s Feb. 23 meeting.

Frankly, broadcasters don’t have the muscle to get it done now. Their call for a mandate would be met with vigorous opposition from the powerful wireless industry, including the Communications Technology Association, which joined broadcasters in asking the FCC to approve 3.0 for use. CTA would go from friend to foe.

To get CTA’s support, broadcasters had to agree not to ask for a mandate that every TV set be equipped for 3.0. (That’s OK because it’s unnecessary. Consumers are going to demand that their sets are broadcast-capable, and set makers as going to see 3.0 enhancements as great new selling points.)

It would also be awkward for broadcasters to be asking for a regulation to force an industry to do something it doesn’t want to do, while at the same time seeking relief from the TV ownership regulations. This is especially true in the Trump era.

Still, after 3.0 is up and running throughout the country several years from now, broadcasters are going to want that mandate. I may be wrong, but I can’t imagine that the wireless industry is ever going to voluntarily enable phones to pick up rival services. Their record in resisting FM in phones is telling.

And when 3.0 is real, broadcasters will be in a better position to win this battle. They will have demonstrated the capabilities of 3.0 and shown that the benefits of mobile reception are clear cut and that opposition is merely anti-competitive.

That said, it would be nice if someone at the FCC or some federal agency concerned about homeland security or disaster preparedness at least raised the question of a mobile mandate on its own motion in the upcoming 3.0 rulemaking — sua sponte as the lawyers say.

I’ll make it easy for them. Here’s some language that they can slip into the rulemaking before Feb. 23:

Smartphones today are not capable of receiving Next Gen TV signals. We seek comment on whether we (or the Congress if we are deemed not to have the authority) should require that smartphones and tablets include the capability to receive Next Gen TV signals. What public interest would be served by such a mandate?

A question or two can do no harm, right?

Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted at 973-701-1067 or here. You can read earlier columns here.