As many local television broadcasters sees it, a Petition for Rulemaking and Future of Television Initiative Report filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) offers sensible rule “modernization” suggestions to the FCC that will allow the industry to further future-proof itself. As six political advocacy groups representing different sections of the TV industry see it, the NAB’s petition goes too far.
The groups individually opposing the NAB’s Petition are the Consumer Technology Association (CTA); Public Knowledge; NCTA – The Internet & Television Association; small and rural MVPD advocacy organization ACA Connects; anti-retransmission consent fee group American Television Alliance (ATVA); and the “SuperFrank” Copsidas-founded LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTVBA).
Representatives from the groups came together on June 27 and met with individuals in the Office of Chairman Brendan Carr, the Office of Anna M. Gomez, and within the Erin Boone-led Media Bureau to discuss the Public Notice in response to the Petition for Rulemaking and report filed by the NAB.
“Each participating organization has a different perspective, but we all have a common goal,” the groups shared in a letter to the FCC disclosing the meetings. “We respectfully urge the Commission to deny NAB’s requests.”
The CTA, which has taken an aggressive stance against a mandate from Congress requiring all vehicles manufactured and sold in the U.S. to include a no-cost AM radio receiver, reiterated its longstanding position that the transition of the digital broadcast standard to ATSC 3.0 should remain voluntary. In its view, a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0 would harm consumers “by imposing real costs for consumers, stifling innovation, and levying unneeded regulations. Without any regulatory mandate, the consumer technology industry has done and continues to do its part.”
Public Knowledge asserted that, in addition to harming user rights, the digital rights management (DRM) and certification process creates the ability to gatekeep competition and prevent device makers from including features users might want. It also argued that the cost of any transition should be borne by the broadcast industry that stands to benefit from it.
NCTA underscored that the Commission should maintain a market-based approach to ATSC 3.0, particularly given that NAB’s proposal would impose new regulations and “substantial and unjustifiable costs on MVPDs in the absence of any clear consumer demand for ATSC 3.0 signals.” It added that none of NCTA’s cable operator members are able to carry ATSC 3.0 signals without first making “costly” changes to their networks; one NCTA member estimates that purchasing and installing new ATSC 3.0 transceivers alone will likely cost tens of millions of dollars and take a substantial amount of time.
On a similar note, ACA Connects explained that for small providers, the costs of purchasing and installing new equipment to receive and convert ATSC 3.0 signals “would be out of proportion with the value of distributing broadcast programming. Being forced to purchase new expensive ATSC 3.0-compatible equipment could lead many smaller and midsize providers already struggling with high programming costs to drop linear video service altogether. Consumers in rural and smaller markets would have fewer options for service due to MVPDs dropping their linear video business because of exorbitant costs.”
For the ATVA, it shared its viewpoint that, if broadcasters indeed offer improvements to their television service through ATSC 3.0, “many MVPDs will lack the ability or—in the case of satellite carriers—the capacity to pass through such improvements.”
Lastly, the LPTVBA used the opportunity to express its support for authorization to transmit using all current broadcast standards, including ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0, and 5G Broadcast, which it believes is perfect for LPTV stations in the U.S.
Concluding their thoughts, the groups said, “This Administration has prioritized regulatory reduction, and it would be counterproductive to adopt new mandates that decrease flexibility and increase costs. In addition, the organizations represented here were all active participants in the Future of Television Initiative (FOTVI) and were honest brokers in working group discussions. Based on our experiences, the FOTVI Report did not accurately portray the consensus reached in the working groups in all instances.”
