I still don't get the point about MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0. MVPDs don't carry
ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0. They carry the *content*, transmitted using their own
variant of these techniques. If a station transmits ATSC 3.0 with wide color
gamut and HDR, cable STBs wouldn't be able to use that extra information
anyway. So what's the fuss about? As long as ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 are to be
simulcast, as this article says, there should be no issue. (There might be an
issue if ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 were NOT simulcasts, but that's not in the cards
at this time?)
The question about whether ATSC 3.0 streams should be licensed as multicasts,
rather than temporary channels. Too technical for me. Sounds like multicasts is
the easier answer.
"No receiver mandate 'at this time,'" says the FCC NPRM. Where is Michael
Powell when the broadcasters behind this ATSC 3.0 transition need him?
Some interesting comments at the end. Although honestly, I don't get how
someone with a $145 DirecTV monthly bill would consider OTA an alternative.
Internet TV, maybe.
Bert
----------------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/0031/fcc-atsc-30-comment-roundup/280990
ATSC 3.0 Local Simulcasting Approach Debated
Broadcasters ask for flexibility, MVPDs ask for answers
May 9, 2017
By Deborah D. McAdams
WASHINGTON-Local simulcasting is at the core of the next-gen broadcasting
proposal pending at the Federal Communications Commission. The idea is, a TV
station that fires up ATSC 3.0 continues to transmit the same programming in
ATSC 1.0, the current format, from another station's facility.
The Feb. 24, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes requiring local
simulcasting "as a condition to offering ATSC 3.0."
The question is how to do it. Proponents of the new standard want as much
flexibility as possible, while the commission posed questions about how
licensing, interference and pay-TV carriage would work with local simulcasting,
among other issues.
Comments were due on the NPRM docket, No. 16-142, Tuesday, May 9. The document
reflects an April, 2016 petition filed by America's Public Television Stations,
the AWARN Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association and the National
Association of Broadcasters, asking for voluntary deployment of ATSC 3.0.
In comments filed May 9, petitioners requested only that the "bootstrap"
portion of the standard be incorporated into current rules, and lobbied for "as
much flexibility as possible in tailoring local simulcasting arrangements to
best suit their viewers." *
With regard to simulcast carriage, the NPRM would require pay-TV operators to
continue providing must-carry for ATSC 1.0 signals but not 3.0 signals, which
would be subject to retransmission consent.
The American Cable Association, which represents smaller cable operation, is
concerned that broadcasters will "coerce" carriage through retransmission
consent, either in future agreements or "in longstanding language in existing
agreements [that] could be read to require ATSC 3.0 carriage-even where such
language dates from years before anybody had heard of ATSC 3.0."
The petitioners counter that the retransmission discussion is "simply
irrelevant in this proceeding" since carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals will not be
mandatory.
The ACA nonetheless favors separate carriage negotiations for ATSC 3.0 and 1.0
signals. (See ACA comments here.) The organization also is concerned about the
cost of carrying the ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, the format and picture quality of
those simulcasts and what happens when the signal from a simulcasting location
no longer reaches a cable provider's headend. A filing from Midcontinent
Communications further elaborates.
The petitioners urged the commission to allow "market forces to determine
coverage and signal quality issues," and noted that broadcasters now
transmitting in high-definition are already exceeding the FCC's current
standard-def requirement. They also ask that the commission not require an
identical simulcast, since 3.0 has multiple more capabilities than 1.0.
"For example, broadcasters might choose to use the next-gen station to
highlight ultra-high definition or the benefits of high-dynamic range or other
features using content that might be less appealing to viewers if transmitted
using ATSC 1.0," they said.
Nexstar Broadcasting seconded this request: "Mandating an absolute exact
duplication between the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 transmissions is
counterproductive to the flexibility of the ATSC 3.0 standard."
Petitioners also asked to use vacant, in-band channels, aka "white spaces,"
subject to FCC approval, "for the duration of the transition." The U.K.-based
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, a consortium of companies with designs on white
spaces, urged the commission "not to expand broadcasters' spectrum rights by
allowing them to claim white spaces for ATSC 1.0-or ATSC 3.0-simulcasts."
Separately, Microsoft met with FCC staff members April 27 to lobby for "three 6
MHz channels... for unlicensed use in the 600 MHz and TV bands" and that "in no
way should the ATSC 3.0 proceeding be used as a vehicle to unnecessarily extend
the incentive auction transition period."
The NPRM also asks if 3.0 signals should be licensed as second or temporary
channels, defined as multicasts, or a choice thereof. Licensing gives the
commission more authority over the 3.0 signals, but it means more work for both
broadcasters and FCC staff. Multicasting would be easier but leave
non-commercial educational stations out of the mix because they are statutorily
precluded from transmitting ads. (See Sec. 399B.)
Petitioners said that the commission could authorize simulcasts as multicasting
"without difficulty," but suggested license modification as an alternative.
Separately, NAB's Alison Neplokh and Patrick McFadden met with Media Bureau
staffers to advocate for license modification to accommodate simulcasting,
according to an ex parte notice of the April 12 meeting.
Either way, broadcasters intending to transmit 3.0 would have to file a
facilities modification notification.
The NPRM also seeks input on 3.0-into-1.0 interference issues (to be measured
with OET-69), as well as the petitioners' claim that simulcast deals can be
done between facilities "serving a substantially similar community of license."
The NPRM essentially asks what that means.
Additionally, it would impose current public interest obligations on 3.0
simulcasts, but no receiver mandate "at this time." Petitioners are fine with
both, but Ronald Brey of Rockford, Ill., would like to see "minimum tuner
standards" imposed.
Other issues in the NPRM include handling the impact of 3.0 on the post-auction
TV band repack as well as viewer education. A need for viewer education was
illustrated in comments such as one from Evelyn Rhoads who interpreted the
petition to force another set-top on viewers. Petitioners said broadcasters
would handle viewer education voluntarily.
Among other commenters, Spencer Karter of Greenwood, S.C., suggested expanding
the signal coverage to 250 miles and to "eliminate" service contours. He also
replied to the opposition to the petition filed by John Notor of San Jose,
Calilf., and his contention that over-the-air broadcasting is "obsolete."
Karter countered that 3.0 will improve reception and provide an alternative to
pay TV.
"Our DirecTV bill is currently $145 a month, and it's not cheap," he writes.
Bill Sanford, CEO of Lakeland Public Television in Bemidji, Minn., didn't
opposed 3.0, but said it was "too late to the party." He requested the
rulemaking to allow voluntary MPEG-4 encoding in addition to the MPEG-2 scheme
broadcasters are locked into now.
Spectrum Evolution, a group led by low-power TV pioneer Greg Herman, asked that
LPTV licensees "be included from the start and not left out of the initial
conversion opportunity" to transmit 3.0. Herman is president and CEO of WatchTV
in Portland, Ore., which was granted an experimental license in February to
transmit 3.0 over a distributed transmission system.
American Tower, which owns and/or operates 40,000 communications towers across
the United States, simply asked for a speedy rulemaking so broadcasters could
incorporate 3.0 in the repack. The request was made about a year ago. FCC
Chairman Ajit Pai stated-most recently in his address at the NAB Show-that he
hopes to nail down a 3.0 rulemaking by the end of this year.
* The bootstrap layer represents the foundation of ATSC 3.0, enabling entry
into the broadcast waveform, receiver detection and a flag for emergency alerts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
