[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 222 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52327-52348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20437]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MB Docket No. 16-142; FCC 25-72; FR ID 317663]
Authorizing Permissive Use of the ``Next Generation'' Broadcast
Television Standard
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on proposed rule changes that would support
and accelerate the nation's ongoing market-based broadcast television
transition to ATSC 3.0 (or Next Gen TV). The document tentatively
concludes that the Commission should eliminate the simulcasting
requirement for stations that transition to 3.0, while continuing to
permit simulcasting on a voluntary, simplified basis. It also seeks
comment on a range of closely related issues and other matters touching
on the Next Gen TV transition.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 20, 2026; reply comments
are due on or before February 18, 2026. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before January 20,
2026.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by MB
Docket No. 16-142, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
[[Page 52328]]
Comments regarding the PRA proposed information collection
requirements. ``Currently under 60-day Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. Your comment must be
submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be
considered. In addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov, also send a
copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy
Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected].
Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. Direct press inquiries to
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy
Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 25-72, adopted on
October 28, 2025 and released on October 29, 2025. The full text of
this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic
Document Management System (EDOCS) website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-72A1.pdf or via the FCC's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs (search using
docket number). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains possible new or
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law
104-13. Public and agency comments are due January 20, 2026.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-1254.
Title: Next Gen TV/ATSC 3.0 Local Simulcasting Rules; 47 CFR
73.3801 (full-power TV), 73.6029 (Class A TV), and 74.782 (low-power
TV) and FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application).
Form No.: FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application).
Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, state, local,
or tribal government and not for profit institutions.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,422 respondents; 11,460
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-8 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement;
Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained
in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336,
338, 399b, 403, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319,
325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
Total Annual Burden: 3,852 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $147,000.
Needs and Uses: The FNPRM proposes to permit simulcasting stations,
upon notice to the Commission, to encode multicast 1.0 streams using
MPEG-4.
Synopsis:
I. Introduction
1. America's television broadcasters are in the midst of a
transition. They are shifting to a new standard in broadcasting that
can deliver significant and new benefits to consumers across the
country. Indeed, Next Gen TV, also called ATSC 3.0, represents the
future of broadcast television. Next Gen TV promises to revitalize the
nation's free, local, over-the-air (OTA) television service, which
serves as a vital source of local news and information for many
Americans, by enabling significant improvements in picture quality,
audio clarity, interactive features, and public safety and
accessibility capabilities. We expect this will enable broadcasters to
remain competitive in the video marketplace for years to come. To
achieve this future, broadcasters have undertaken a complex and
challenging technological transition without the allocation of
additional spectrum. Broadcasters have made progress toward this
transition, having launched ATSC 3.0 (or ``3.0'') service in more than
90 markets that include more than 70 percent of the country's
population.\1\ Actions proposed today support continued progress in the
ongoing transition to ATSC 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on a review of internal Commission data. This data
reflects 3.0 services offered by over-the-air television stations,
but does not reflect the adoption of 3.0 by other stakeholders
(i.e., consumers, manufacturers, and multichannel video programming
distributors (MVPDs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Herein we take steps to support and accelerate the nation's
ongoing market-based broadcast television transition to ATSC 3.0. We
propose to remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles and give substantial
flexibility to broadcasters because at this point in the transition
they are best positioned to determine how to continue to serve their
viewers while rolling out 3.0 services. Most notably, we propose to end
the simulcasting requirement. In addition, we seek comment on how to
minimize the costs and impact of this transition on all stakeholders,
including consumers, manufacturers, MVPDs, and smaller broadcasters.
II. Background
3. In 2017, the Commission authorized television broadcasters to
use the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard on a voluntary, market-driven
basis.\2\
[[Page 52329]]
The Commission required that any broadcaster voluntarily deploying ATSC
3.0 service must, with very limited exceptions,\3\ continue to air at
least their primary stream using the current-generation TV transmission
standard, also called ``ATSC 1.0'' or ``1.0.'' \4\ This is because the
Next Gen TV standard is not backward-compatible with most existing TV
sets or receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners. Because
a TV station cannot, as a technical matter, simultaneously broadcast in
both 1.0 and 3.0 format from the same facility on the same physical
channel, ``local simulcasting'' must be effectuated through
partnerships that broadcasters seeking to provide Next Gen TV service
enter into with other broadcasters in their local markets.\5\ The
Commission, however, intended that the local simulcasting requirement
be temporary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 83 FR 4998 (Feb. 2,
2018). Next Gen TV is the new digital TV transmission standard being
broadcast by many stations across the country alongside their
standard digital TV signals. This internet Protocol-based standard
was developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC)
with the intent to eventually replace the current digital television
standard, ATSC 1.0. It ``merges the capabilities of over-the-air
broadcasting with the broadband viewing and information delivery
methods of the internet, using the same 6 MHz channels presently
allocated for DTV service.'' Id. As 3.0 proponents have previously
explained to the Commission, the greater spectral capacity of the
new standard and its internet-Protocol delivery component will allow
broadcasters to provide consumers with a higher quality television
viewing experience, such as ultra-high-definition (UHD) picture
resolutions and immersive audio. It also has the potential to enable
broadcasters to reach viewers on both home and mobile screens. In
addition, ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to offer enhanced public
safety capabilities, such as geo-targeting of emergency alerts to
tailor information to particular communities and emergency alerting
capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent
emergencies, as well as greater accessibility options, localized
content, and interactive educational children's content. The
Commission refers to the innovative non-traditional services that
Next Gen TV broadcasters may provide over broadcast spectrum as
``Broadcast internet'' services to distinguish them from traditional
over-the-air video services. Such services are also referred to as
``ancillary or supplementary services.''
\3\ LPTV and TV translator stations may deploy ATSC 3.0 service
without providing an ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal. In addition, full
power and Class A stations may request a waiver of the simulcast
requirements. To date, no such waivers have been requested.
\4\ Next Gen TV broadcasters are not required to simulcast their
3.0 multicast streams in a 1.0 format.
\5\ A Next Gen TV station must partner with another television
station (i.e., a temporary ``host'' station) in its local market to
either: (1) air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the temporary host's
facility, while using its original facility to continue to provide
an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel, or (2) air an ATSC 1.0 simulcast
channel at the temporary host's facility, while converting its
original facility to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order to provide a 3.0
channel. In either case, a Next Gen TV broadcaster must simulcast
the primary video programming stream of its ATSC 3.0 channel in an
ATSC 1.0 format, so that viewers will continue to receive ATSC 1.0
service. The Commission stated that, by the time the transition is
complete, any temporary authority granted for local simulcasting
will expire, and a station will once again be required to air all of
its licensed programming on its own single channel. Low power
television stations (LPTV) operating in 3.0 are not required to have
a 1.0 simulcast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Prior to deploying 3.0 service, stations must file an
application with the Commission to modify their existing license and
receive Commission approval. Review of applications to deploy ATSC 3.0
service includes consideration of the coverage that would be provided
by a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal.\6\ The Commission
sought to minimize disruption to viewers resulting from the deployment
of ATSC 3.0 while recognizing that if a station moves its ATSC 1.0
signal to a partner simulcast host station with a different transmitter
location, some OTA viewers may no longer be able to receive the
station's 1.0 signal unless they acquire a 3.0 capable television
receiver. Among other obligations, the Commission requires the Next Gen
TV station to select a partner 1.0 simulcast host station that is
assigned to its same designated market area (DMA) and from which it
will continue to provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to its entire
community of license. The Commission also stated that an application
demonstrating that the station would provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service
to at least 95 percent of the predicted population within the station's
original noise limited service contour (NLSC) would be presumptively in
the public interest and afforded ``expedited processing.'' All other
applications require a more detailed public interest analysis by the
Commission prior to action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A Next Gen TV broadcaster must file an application and
obtain Commission approval before a 1.0 simulcast channel or a 3.0
channel aired on a partner host station can go on the air, as well
as before an existing 1.0 station can convert to 3.0 operation or
back to 1.0 operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Sunsets
5. Substantially Similar Rule. In the First Next Gen TV Report and
Order, the Commission adopted a requirement that the programming aired
on a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel be
``substantially similar'' to that of the primary video programming
stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel. This rule, which is distinct from the
simulcasting requirement itself,\7\ means that the programming on the
two versions of the primary stream must generally be the same. The rule
was initially scheduled to sunset on July 17, 2023, and was extended to
July 17, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The requirement for Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast
their primary stream in 1.0 format does not have a sunset date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Requirement to Comply with the ATSC A/322 Standard. In
authorizing use of the Next Gen TV broadcast transmission standard, the
Commission in the First Next Gen TV Report and Order required
compliance with only two parts of the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards: (1)
A/321, the standard used to communicate the RF signal type that the
ATSC 3.0 signal will use; and (2) A/322, the standard that defines the
waveforms that ATSC 3.0 signals may take.\8\ In requiring compliance
with A/322, the Commission observed that ``device manufacturers and
MVPDs may not be able to reliably predict what signal modulation a
broadcaster is using unless broadcasters are required to follow A/
322,'' at least with respect to their required primary programming
stream. The Commission explained that ``[t]his uncertainty could cause
manufacturers to inadvertently build equipment that cannot receive Next
Gen TV broadcasts or could render MVPDs unable to receive and
retransmit the signals of Next Gen TV stations. These outcomes would
harm consumers.'' The Commission, however, decided that it was not
appropriate at the time ``to require broadcasters to adhere to A/322
indefinitely,'' explaining that ``the ATSC 3.0 standard could evolve,
and stagnant Commission rules could prevent broadcasters from taking
advantage of that evolution.'' The Commission thus determined that the
requirement to comply with the A/322 standard would expire on March 6,
2023, which was later extended until July 17, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These two standards were incorporated by reference into the
Commission's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NAB Petition To Accelerate Transition and FOTVI Report
7. In January 2025, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
filed a report summarizing the discussions and progress made through
the Future of Television Initiative (FOTVI), and in February 2025, NAB
filed the Petition asking the Commission to ``establish a clear
timeline to complete the transition'' to ATSC 3.0. In April 2025, the
Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on NAB's Petition,
the FOTVI Report, and other related issues.\9\ The Bureau received more
than 900 comments and replies in response. The comment cycle closed on
June 6, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Among other things, the Bureau sought comment on the use of
MPEG-4 compression for 1.0 simulcast signals and the use of Digital
Rights Management (DRM) encryption on 3.0 signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Petition. NAB proposes that the Commission mandate a two-part
[[Page 52330]]
deadline to complete the full-power 3.0 transition. Per the NAB
proposal, full-power stations in the top 55 markets (available to about
70 percent of viewers in the country) would be required to transition
fully to ATSC 3.0 (i.e., end all ATSC 1.0 broadcasting, including
simulcasting) in February 2028, with limited waivers for ``smaller,''
independent, and noncommercial stations if necessary. Full-power
stations in the remaining markets would be required to transition fully
to ATSC 3.0 in February 2030.\10\ NAB contends that ``[w]ithout
decisive and immediate action, the transition risks stalling'' and that
``[r]eaching the finish line requires industry-wide coordination and
engagement--something individual broadcasters cannot do alone.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NAB ``does not recommend subjecting low power television
(LPTV) stations or TV translator stations to any requirement to
transition to ATSC 3.0.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NAB also proposes that the Commission impose a mandate on
television manufacturers to ``ensur[e that] consumers who buy new TVs
can continue receiving broadcast programming.'' Specifically, NAB asks
the Commission to amend section 15.117 of its rules to require that all
TV broadcast receivers include 3.0 tuners, pursuant to the Commission's
authority under the 1962 All Channel Receiver Act (ACRA).\11\ According
to NAB, ``[b]roadcasters would support removing the requirement to
include an ATSC 1.0 tuner after the date at which all full-power and
class A broadcasters cease transmitting in ATSC 1.0.'' NAB also
requests that the Commission re-examine what it means to ``adequately
receive'' television channels, as well as ``consider adopting a
requirement that television receivers make broadcast services available
to a consumer in the same or fewer steps needed to access any other
video content on the same device.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Section 15.117(b), the rule implementing the Commission's
authority under the 1962 All Channel Receiver Act (ACRA), states
that ``TV broadcast receivers shall be capable of adequately
receiving all channels allocated by the Commission to the television
broadcast service.'' The term ``TV broadcast receivers'' includes
``devices, such as TV interface devices and set-top devices that are
intended to provide audio-video signals to a video monitor, that
incorporate the tuner portion of a TV broadcast receiver and that
are equipped with an antenna or antenna terminals that can be used
for off-the-air reception of TV broadcast signals, as authorized
under part 73 of this chapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In addition, NAB asks the Commission to consider whether
updates to the MVPD carriage rules are necessary. NAB indicates that
some rules, particularly those related to must-carry signals, may need
to be revised, such as the ``good quality signal'' rule. Further, NAB
asks the Commission to clarify and/or update certain rules to
accelerate deployment. NAB argues that the Commission should relax the
95 percent coverage requirement for expedited application processing
and clarify that this coverage requirement should not apply to
multicast streams. NAB also urges the Commission to act now to
eliminate the ``substantially similar'' requirement, rather than wait
for the scheduled sunset in 2027. Finally, NAB suggests that the
Commission should update the incorporations by reference in the rules
to the current versions of the ATSC 3.0 standards, ATSC A/321 and ATSC
A/322, and may want to consider a variety of other possible
changes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Among the other issues listed are encoding, privacy, and
accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Future of Television Initiative Report. Launched in April 2023
by NAB, the FOTVI gathered industry, public interest stakeholders, and
government \13\ to work on a roadmap for the transition of television
broadcast from the currently required ATSC 1.0 protocol to ATSC 3.0.
The FOTVI Report summarizes the discussions of three working groups,
which addressed (1) backwards compatibility, tuner availability and
consumer issues; (2) completing the transition; and (3) post-transition
regulation.\14\ NAB states that it intends the FOTVI Report ``will
provide the Commission with a better understanding of the remaining
issues and concerns of stakeholders and put the Commission in a better
position to continue with the rulemaking proceedings necessary to
complete a successful transition to ATSC 3.0.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ FCC staff participated in the Working Groups but did not
contribute to the preparation of the FOTVI Report.
\14\ More specifically, each working group addressed the
following issues. Working Group 1--solutions to address backwards
compatibility (e.g., tuner availability, converter devices) and the
challenges to these solutions; methods to ensure widespread access
to backwards compatibility solutions while protecting consumers;
minimizing negative consumer impact; loss of traditional television
service, inconvenience, costs; availability and pricing of consumer
equipment (televisions, handsets, etc.); and consumer education
responsibilities and plans. Working Group 2--minimizing negative
consumer impact; availability and pricing of consumer equipment;
consumer education responsibilities and plans; simulcasting (under
what conditions it may end and whether it would continue to be
permissible); managing ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 capacity as more
stations transition; and tuner and labeling standards. Working Group
3--MVPD carriage of 3.0 signals; existing public interest
obligations of broadcasters and potential regulatory changes to
reflect ATSC 3.0 transmission; privacy and security for viewers and
viewing information; accessibility of ATSC 3.0 programming; and
whether all ATSC 1.0 transmission must eventually end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Current 3.0 Deployment Status
12. The Commission has been monitoring the pace of the deployment
of ATSC 3.0 both nationally and market-by-market, including the rollout
of 3.0 service by television broadcasters, the penetration of ATSC 3.0-
ready TV sets and other converter equipment, and the extent to which
MVPDs have deployed 3.0 equipment. Broadcasters have launched full-
power Next Gen TV service in more than 80 markets that contain more
than 70 percent of the population.\15\ In addition, the FOTVI Report
states that more than 14 million ATSC 3.0-capable sets and 300,000
external 3.0 converters were sold through 2024. Further, CTA estimates
that by 2028 more than half of TV sets sold each year will have 3.0
tuners even absent Commission action. We are not aware of any MVPDs
that are carrying 3.0 signals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Based on a review of internal Commission data there are
more than 90 markets where ATSC 3.0 has been authorized when
considering all classes of TV stations (i.e., full power, Class A,
and LPTV).
\16\ NCTA notes that ATSC has yet to complete its work on
recommended practices for redistribution of ATSC 3.0 signals.
Additionally, NCTA states that ``none of [its] cable operator
members will be able to carry 3.0 signals without first making
costly changes to their networks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
13. With this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM),
we seek to eliminate unnecessary regulatory barriers that hinder
continued progress toward a transition to ATSC 3.0, as well as to
facilitate the expansion of Next Gen TV service by giving more
flexibility to broadcasters and so that viewers can reap the full
benefits of this service. First, we make specific proposals and
tentative conclusions to further this goal. Second, we seek comment on
certain, closely related issues, including an ATSC 3.0 tuner
requirement, encryption of broadcast signals, and MVPD carriage of 3.0
signals, in light of our proposals and tentative conclusions, as well
as on other outstanding ATSC 3.0 issues.
A. Accelerating the ATSC 3.0 Transition and Promoting Broadcaster
Flexibility
14. We propose to permit stations to continue to voluntarily
transition from a 1.0 signal to a 3.0 signal (or continue to operate in
3.0) while giving them greater freedom to serve the specific needs of
their local markets and expeditiously provide next generation
television services to viewers. First, we tentatively conclude that we
should eliminate the 1.0 simulcasting requirement for stations that
transition to 3.0. Second, we tentatively conclude that for stations
[[Page 52331]]
that wish to continue simulcasting in 1.0 we will continue to permit
such operations on a voluntary, simplified basis, by eliminating the
``substantially similar'' rule and the 95 percent coverage threshold
for expedited processing. Third, we propose to permit the use of MPEG-4
on 1.0 streams in certain situations to help enhance broadcasters
spectral capacity and thereby facilitate simulcasting until
broadcasters and their viewers are ready for a full transition to 3.0.
We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and proposals.
1. Transitioning to ATSC 3.0 and Simulcast Termination
15. We tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the 1.0
simulcasting requirement for stations that wish to transition or have
transitioned their facilities to 3.0 service. As the Commission made
clear at the outset of the 3.0 transition, this requirement was always
intended to be temporary, and we believe the time has come for it to be
eliminated. Broadcasters have explained that transmitting in both 3.0
and 1.0 ``takes enormous capacity and creates significant constraints
on what services all participating broadcasters can offer.''
Specifically, transitioning broadcasters are generally relying on one
or two ATSC 3.0 ``lighthouses'' \17\ in each market, limiting each
participant to ``only a small fraction of the features'' that would be
possible if they could devote their entire channel capacity to 3.0. As
a result, they have struggled to demonstrate the full array of
improvements made possible by this new innovative technology. Based on
the Commission's observation of the market since 2017, we have come to
believe that while simulcasting remains important for protecting
viewers during the transition period, at this stage broadcasters have
strong market incentives to continue to effectively serve their
viewers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A 3.0 ``lighthouse'' refers to a single host station in a
market that operates in 3.0 and hosts the signals of several other
3.0 (guest) stations in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. As discussed by the Commission in the First Next Gen TV Report
and Order, ``[s]tations that do not preserve service coverage or
quality will suffer financially due to lost viewership and thus
advertising revenue.'' In fact, according to the Commission's 2024
Communications Marketplace Report, over half of broadcaster revenue is
derived from advertising. Viewers have clear expectations when it comes
to the quality of programming they expect from broadcasters and in the
current marketplace failure to meet those exceptions will likely drive
viewers to other sources for their video programming, such as MVPDs or
streaming services. As noted by NAB, ``market dynamics are likely to
ensure that popular programming remains widely accessible'' and as such
``[b]roadcasters have no financial incentive to restrict their highest-
value content to the still-limited ATSC 3.0 audience.'' Broadcasters
have also demonstrated the continued importance they place on 1.0
streams through their actions during the transition. Despite Next Gen
TV broadcasters not being required to maintain their multicast streams
in a 1.0 format, to the Commission's understanding all full power Next
Gen TV stations have chosen to preserve their multicast streams under
our voluntary 3.0 multicast licensing rules. We believe we can rely on
these incentives and marketplace realities to allow broadcasters to
decide how and when to move forward with full 3.0 service. We seek
comment on these and any additional incentives or factors we should
consider when determining whether to eliminate the simulcast
requirement as proposed. How does the benefit of removing the simulcast
requirement in order to help broadcasters expedite deployment of new
enhanced ATSC 3.0 services to consumers balance against the potential
costs to consumers who may not yet have 3.0 capable devices and may
lose access to OTA 1.0 service? How many households have a TV with an
ATSC 3.0 enabled television set or use an ATSC 3.0 converter device?
Are there any alternatives to entirely eliminating the simulcast
requirement that would still allow broadcasters to more easily deploy
3.0 service and demonstrate to consumers the enhanced features and
innovative offerings enabled by 3.0 while continuing to preserve 1.0
service for viewers that do not have the capability to receive 3.0
signals and providing certainty to broadcasters that their signals will
be received?
17. We also tentatively conclude that if the simulcast requirement
is eliminated as proposed, stations should continue to be free to
switch between 1.0 and 3.0 as market conditions dictate, subject to our
application and viewer/MVPD notification processes. We seek comment on
this conclusion. Some commenters, such as ATVA, express concern that
revenue derived from new Broadcast internet services may skew
broadcasters' market incentives. However, we tentatively agree with
broadcasters, such as Gray, who explain that ``datacasting will
supplement and support video broadcasting'' and ``not replace it.''
\18\ Broadcasters will also remain required to provide a minimum level
of broadcast service under our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Gray cites a BIA Kelsey estimate predicting that
datacasting may generate $8.7 billion annually. This figure taken
together with projections of advertising and retransmission consent
revenue suggests that datacasting could make up roughly 20% of
broadcast station revenue by 2029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. We seek comment on whether to make these new rules effective 30
days after Federal Register publication of an Order adopting this
proposal, or on a specific date. If on a specific date, we seek comment
on why the proposed date is appropriate. Alternatively, we seek comment
on whether we should instead adopt a penetration level and/or market
availability threshold for 3.0 receivers that would trigger the
elimination of the simulcast requirement; for example, requiring that a
certain percentage of viewers in a market have 3.0 devices, or a
certain number of 3.0 devices be available for sale in that market,
before local broadcasters could cease 1.0 broadcasting. What would be
the benefits or burdens of such an approach for consumers,
broadcasters, and other stakeholders? We also tentatively conclude that
stations seeking to transition without a simulcast host (i.e. ``flash-
cut'' from 1.0 to 3.0 service), or Next Gen TV stations that wish to
end an existing 1.0 simulcast, must file a Next Gen TV license
application. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and comment
on any questions we need to update in our forms if we eliminate the
simulcast requirement.
19. Finally, we propose to state explicitly in our rules that the
existing viewer and MVPD notice requirements for stations also apply to
a station that chooses to operate in 3.0 without a simulcast host
partner. Although our rules already do not require LPTV and TV
translator stations to simulcast, we propose to clarify our part 74
rules to make clear a station's viewer and MVPD notice requirements
when it has chosen to simulcast and subsequently decides to terminate
1.0 service. We seek comment on these proposals.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We remind stations that when a station flash-cuts to ATSC
3.0 or terminates its 1.0 simulcast, it is required to comply with
all applicable part 73 and 74 rules that would otherwise be
applicable to the station if it were operating in 1.0. Our proposals
are not intended to impact a broadcaster's ability to operate as a
3.0 guest. ATSC 3.0 guest stations will continue to be required to
be located in the same DMA as their host station and enter into a
``simulcasting agreement.'' Commonly-owned stations do not have to
enter into a written simulcasting agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52332]]
2. Voluntary Simulcasting
20. While we tentatively conclude that we will end the requirement
for simulcasting by Next Gen TV broadcasters, we also tentatively
conclude that we will continue to permit simulcasting on a voluntary
basis. Local simulcasting of 1.0 streams remains an important tool for
broadcasters during the transition to reach broadcast viewers within
their communities that do not yet have 3.0 capable receivers, and we
expect some broadcasters will want to continue to voluntarily simulcast
for some time.\20\ We tentatively conclude, however, that we should
also make certain changes to our local simulcasting rules to
incentivize and ensure broadcasters have flexibility to transition to
3.0 while also being able to serve their 1.0 viewers to the greatest
extent possible. First, we propose to immediately eliminate the
``substantially similar'' rule, allowing broadcasters to choose how to
divide their programing between 1.0 and 3.0 signals. Second, we propose
to eliminate the coverage threshold for expedited processing, affording
expedited processing to all applicants satisfying the DMA and community
of license (COL) coverage requirements. Finally, we propose to permit a
simulcasting station to encode at least a portion of its 1.0 signal
using MPEG-4, allowing more efficient use of what we anticipate will be
increasingly limited 1.0 capacity. We discuss these proposals in turn
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We note that broadcasters have indicated that they were
``unlikely'' to stop 1.0 simulcasting ``until most consumers can
receive ATSC 3.0 signals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Substantially Similar Rule. We propose to eliminate the
``substantially similar'' requirement immediately upon Federal Register
publication of an Order adopting this proposal. In 2023, the FCC
scheduled this requirement to sunset in July of 2027. We now believe
that the persistence of the rule beyond the end of simulcasting
requirement could discourage broadcasters from choosing to simulcast in
1.0 on a voluntary basis. However, even in the event that we do not
adopt our proposal to eliminate the simulcasting requirement, we still
independently tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the
substantially similar rule as proposed. While the existing rule aims to
provide flexibility to innovate, some broadcasters have reported that
the substantially similar requirement is preventing plans to develop
innovative programming. We tentatively find such arguments are
compelling, including NAB's argument that the rule may undermine the
transition it purportedly supports if it discourages broadcasters
``from using ATSC 3.0's capabilities to offer differentiated
programming that could drive Next Gen TV consumer interest and
adoption.'' We recognize that the Commission has previously expressed
concern about whether market incentives alone would protect viewers who
rely on 1.0 service, but upon further consideration we believe at this
stage of the transition more weight must be given to how the rule now
appears to be inhibiting the transition and preventing broadcasters
from providing new innovative offerings and services enabled by 3.0 to
consumers.\21\ As previously discussed in the context of the simulcast
requirement, we also believe significant market incentives exist that
will preserve access to existing 1.0 service. We seek comment on these
proposals and tentative conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Although as of today 3.0 service has been launched by full
power stations in more than 80 markets, based on a review of
Commission databases by Media Bureau staff, only seven new markets
have launched 3.0 service since January 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Expedited Processing. We propose to eliminate the 95 percent
coverage threshold for expedited processing,\22\ affording such
processing to all applicants satisfying the DMA and COL coverage
requirement (i.e., serving their entire COL).\23\ We tentatively agree
with NAB that a rigid coverage threshold for expedited processing
``creat[es] unnecessary roadblocks for broadcasters seeking to bring
ATSC 3.0 services to their communities,'' and that the persistence of
such a coverage requirement for expedited processing after the end of
the simulcasting requirement would only discourage broadcasters from
choosing to simulcast in 1.0 on a voluntary basis. However, even in the
event that we do not adopt our proposal to eliminate the simulcasting
requirement, we still tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the
coverage threshold for expedited processing and afford such processing
to all applicants satisfying the DMA and COL coverage requirement. We
seek to provide broadcasters with flexibility to deploy and/or expand
3.0 service. As discussed above, we tentatively conclude that
broadcasters have strong market incentives to preserve viewership
during the transition, and they are best positioned to determine how to
most effectively serve their viewers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Commission stated that it expected the Media Bureau
``generally will be able to process applications qualifying for
expedited processing within 15 business days after public notice of
the filing of such applications.'' Stations that do not qualify for
expedited processing will continue to be considered on a case-by-
case basis, generally within 60 business days after public notice of
the filing of such applications.
\23\ All full power Next Gen TV license applicants ``must
continue to cover the station's entire community of license (i.e.,
the station must choose a host from whose transmitter site the Next
Gen TV station will continue to meet the community of license signal
requirement over its current community of license, as required by
Sec. 73.625) and the host station must be assigned to the same
Designated Market Area (DMA) as the originating station. . . .).''
For purposes of Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations when the
term ``COL'' is used we mean the coverage requirements for those
classes of stations set forth in our 3.0 rules (applying the
existing 30-mile and contour overlap restrictions that apply to low
power because Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations do not have
a COL signal requirement). We also propose to modify 47 CFR
73.3801(c) to update the reference to the community of license rule,
which was moved from former 47 CFR 73.625(a) (2024) to 47 CFR
73.618. We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Consistent with this proposal, we propose to revise our
children's television multicast coverage rule to require only COL
coverage for full power stations, rather than 95 percent population
coverage.\24\ We also propose to allow Class A stations to air
children's programming on a multicast stream so long as its multicast
stream host complies with the coverage requirements of section
73.6029(c).\25\ In addition, we propose to modify sections 73.3801(i),
73.6029(i), and 74.782(j) to eliminate from our 3.0 multicast licensing
rules the expedited processing exception related to multicast streams.
In the Third Report and Order, the Commission excluded multicast stream
coverage from consideration under expedited processing. By eliminating
the 95% threshold for expedited processing, both multicast and primary
streams will have the same simulcast coverage requirements and the
exception in the 3.0 multicast rules is no longer necessary. Under this
proposal all simulcast applications (primary streams and multicast
streams) will be eligible for expedited processing so long as a
station's 1.0 host is located
[[Page 52333]]
in the same DMA and covers its COL.\26\ We seek comment on these
proposals and tentative conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Under our 3.0 multicast rules, a station that covers less
than 95% of its 1.0 coverage area is not permitted to use any
programming aired on its simulcast multicast stream for purposes of
compliance with 47 CFR 73.671. We propose to adopt this rule change
independent of whether we eliminate the simulcasting or
substantially similar requirement.
\25\ In a separate proceeding the Commission has proposed to
modify the so-called ``30 mile rule,'' which limits Class A and LPTV
station facility relocations to 30-miles from the station's antenna
reference coordinates. In order to ensure consistency with whatever
rule is adopted, we propose to amend 47 CFR 73.6029(c) and 74.782(d)
to align with the distance requirement of 47 CFR 74.787(b). We also
propose to delete 47 CFR 74.782(j)(3) because LPTV stations are not
required to comply with the Commission's children's television
programming requirement in 47 CFR 73.671. We seek comment on these
proposals.
\26\ In furtherance of this proposal we also propose to
eliminate the word ``primary'' from the expedited processing rule to
make it applicable to all streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. MPEG-4. We propose to permit simulcasting stations, upon notice
to the Commission, to encode multicast 1.0 streams using MPEG-4, and we
seek comment on this proposal. We therefore also propose to incorporate
by reference into the rules ATSC Standard A/72, Part 1:2023-04. MPEG-4
is a more efficient compression method than that contained in our
rules, allowing a larger number of streams using the same capacity.\27\
Under our current rules, broadcasters transmitting in 1.0 must comply
with the ATSC A/53 standard (which includes only MPEG-2), and there is
evidence that some older digital televisions cannot display programming
encoded using MPEG-4. Commenters have argued in the record that the
``great majority of televisions in American households today can decode
MPEG[-]4 transmissions.'' \28\ The Media Bureau has also permitted
simulcasting stations to use MPEG-4 for multicast streams to increase
the preservation of 1.0 service.\29\ As Sinclair explains, ``by
allowing broadcasters to compress more content into less spectral
capacity, MPEG[-]4 may allow broadcasters in many markets to deploy an
additional ATSC 3.0 facility, beyond the single stick typically
operating in most markets.'' Further, according to Sinclair, ``the use
of MPEG[-]4 may allow broadcasters to preserve all current content
during the transition, rather than forcing broadcasters to drop
channels or lower resolution.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ MPEG-4 not only permits a larger number of streams, but
also enables stations to potentially provide more higher quality
streams.
\28\ Our understanding is that, generally, a TV set with
streaming functionality (or ``smart'' TV) will support MPEG-4 video.
We seek comment on this assumption.
\29\ While we do not disturb the applications granted by the
Bureau, we note that free, OTA broadcast streams transmitted to
viewers may not be considered ancillary and supplementary. Our
proposal is also consistent with the Bureau's current practice. We
are also aware of stations not engaged in simulcasting that have
adopted the use of MPEG-4 on multicast streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. We tentatively conclude that while some viewers with older TV
equipment could lose access to 1.0 service if broadcasters choose to
use MPEG-4, we expect broadcasters that are simulcasting multicast
streams will weigh this potential loss of 1.0 service against the
benefits of expanded 3.0 service. While our understanding is that
virtually all 1.0 TV sets and equipment manufactured today include
decoding capability for MPEG-4, we seek comment on this. What is the
current penetration level and market availability of MPEG-4-capable
receivers? Is MPEG-4 appropriate in some situations to provide
broadcasters with flexibility as they begin to expand 3.0 services? We
seek comment. We also seek comment on whether we should permit the use
of MPEG-4 on the primary streams of simulcasting stations in the
process of transitioning to 3.0, and if so in what circumstances.\30\
We separately seek comment on whether MPEG-4 use should also be
permitted for 1.0 multicast streams on 1.0-only stations, regardless of
whether they are part of a 3.0 arrangement. In each circumstance
proposed above, are there penetration and/or market availability levels
that we should consider before providing broadcasters with the option
to use MPEG-4 at their discretion? If so what should be those levels
and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Potentially limited to specific situations such as a 1.0
``nightlight,'' when one or a few stations in a market remain in 1.0
to simulcast their own and other stations' primary streams during
the final phase of a market's transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. We recognize that adding MPEG-4 to the digital transmission
standard in Sec. 73.682(d) would require all new TV receivers to
include decoding capability for MPEG-4 pursuant to Sec. 15.117(b).
Given our understanding that virtually all 1.0 TV sets and equipment
manufactured today include decoding capability for MPEG-4, we believe
equipment manufacturers would be able to comply with such a
requirement, but seek comment on this issue. Specifically, if MPEG-4 is
permitted for any broadcasters, we seek comment on our proposal to
incorporate by reference ATSC Standard A/72, Part 1:2023-04 to Sec.
73.3800(a) and to the broadcasting standard in Sec. 73.682(d) of our
rules (thus requiring manufacturer compliance). Alternatively, we seek
comment on whether we should provide an exception in Sec. 15.117(b) in
the same manner as the 3.0 standard in Sec. 73.682(f) of our rules
(which did not impose a requirement on manufacturers). Should such an
exception be limited to smaller manufacturers or include a labeling
requirement (i.e., identifying equipment that lacks decoding capability
for MPEG-4)? What if any impediments exist that could restrict the
implementation of MPEG-4 for manufacturers if it were required by our
rules? If use of MPEG-4 is permitted more broadly (rather than limited
to simulcast stations), would an exception in Sec. 15.117(b) still
appropriate? Why or why not? We also seek comment on whether any
approach adopted requires corresponding changes elsewhere in our rules;
for example, if MPEG-4 is permitted but limited to 3.0 multicast
streams, should there also be changes to Sec. Sec. 73.3801(i),
73.6029(i), and 74.782(j) to reflect this flexibility?
27. Other Changes. Should we make any other changes to the
voluntary simulcasting rule or our licensing processes in order to
facilitate and promote continued simulcasting during the remainder of
the transition? \31\ For example, should we eliminate or provide for
streamlined waivers of the DMA and/or COL coverage requirements for
simulcasting stations during the final phase of a market's transition?
Should we streamline the information required to be submitted in
support of 3.0 license applications? We seek comment on these and any
other potential changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Among other things, the simulcasting rule requires
broadcasters to: (1) maintain a written copy of any simulcasting
agreement and provide it to the Commission upon request; (2) use a
host in the same DMA and provide coverage to the entire community of
license (COL); (3) provide on-air notices to viewers via daily
Public Service Announcements (PSAs) or crawls every day for 30 days
prior to the date that the station will terminate ATSC 1.0
operations (e.g., moving to a host station's facility, subsequently
moving to a different host, or returning to its original facility);
and (4) provide notices to MVPDs at least 90 days in advance of
relocating ATSC 1.0 streams. In addition, under current 3.0
application procedures a station that is newly constructed and that
has never operated before, but wishes to commence its operations in
3.0, must first file an application for license to cover and then
file a license modification application. Further program test
authority does not apply to 3.0 license applications as they require
Commission approval prior to a station providing 3.0 service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Issues Related to Next Gen TV
28. In this section, we seek comment on a variety of issues related
to the ATSC 3.0 transition. We have previously received comments on
many of these issues in the context of NAB's proposal for a mandatory
transition. Here, we consider these issues in light of our proposal to
eliminate the simulcasting requirement and our goal to eliminate
regulatory barriers that are hindering adoption of ATSC 3.0 technology.
Specifically, we seek comment on an ATSC 3.0 tuner requirement,
encryption of broadcast signals, and MVPD carriage of 3.0 signals.
1. Next Gen TV Tuner Mandate
29. We seek comment on whether we should require at some point in
time that all new TV broadcast receivers be capable of adequately
receiving and displaying ATSC 3.0 signals. Although the record reflects
that the number of ATSC 3.0-capable devices sold continues to grow each
year, the vast majority of sets in use continue to be
[[Page 52334]]
limited to ATSC 1.0 signals. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Communications Act'' or the ``Act''), provides that the
Commission ``from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or
necessity requires, shall'' have the ``authority to require that
apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast
simultaneously with sound be capable of adequately receiving all
frequencies allocated by the Commission to television broadcasting. . .
.'' Pursuant to this authority, the Commission requires that TV
broadcast receivers \32\ be capable of adequately receiving digital
television (DTV or ATSC 1.0) signals. In the First Next Gen TV Report
and Order, however, the Commission found that the statute leaves it to
the Commission's discretion when to require that television receivers
must be capable of receiving all television broadcast frequencies and
opted against requiring that TV broadcast receivers include ATSC 3.0
tuners, observing at that time that ``the deployment of ATSC 3.0 will
be voluntary and market-driven and that broadcasters will continue to
transmit ATSC 1.0 signals indefinitely.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The term ``TV broadcast receivers'' includes ``devices,
such as TV interface devices and set-top devices that are intended
to provide audio-video signals to a video monitor, that incorporate
the tuner portion of a TV broadcast receiver and that are equipped
with an antenna or antenna terminals that can be used for off-the-
air reception of TV broadcast signals, as authorized under part 73
of this chapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of adopting an ATSC
3.0 tuner requirement at this time. CTA contends that the marketplace
is working and that a 3.0 tuner mandate is unnecessary.\33\ CTA argues
that imposing a mandate ``before broadcasters have adopted and promoted
NEXTGEN TV on a nationwide basis, and thus before there is adequate
indication of consumer interest or demand,'' would be ``misguided.''
NAB contends, however, that a 3.0 tuner mandate is needed to break
``the cycle of hesitation.'' That is, NAB contends that manufacturers
do not want to include 3.0 tuners in more devices until there is
consumer demand, and most consumers will not demand 3.0 devices until
broadcasters ``offer something they cannot get without it.'' Meanwhile,
NAB asserts, broadcasters cannot provide such offerings until they stop
simulcasting and viewers have 3.0 devices. NAB notes that the DTV tuner
mandate in 2002 was similarly intended to break this problem cycle. NAB
also argues that a 3.0 tuner mandate is needed to protect consumers,
stating that ``[c]onsumers buying new televisions after stations have
stopped broadcasting in ATSC 1.0 should not have to worry about whether
their brand-new device can receive all channels.'' We seek comment on
these points. We also seek comment on whether manufacturers should be
allowed to choose whether to include only a 1.0 or 3.0 tuner, and our
authority to provide such flexibility. What would be potential benefits
and costs of such an approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CTA also adds that a 3.0 tuner mandate is ``unnecessary''
and ``would run directly counter to the FCC's (and the
Administration's) strong policy preference to focus on
deregulation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Costs. We also seek comment about the costs of a 3.0 tuner
requirement for manufacturers and, in turn, the costs for consumers. In
a survey of six 55-inch 4K resolution, mini-LED QLED TV sets from a
national retailer, CTA found that the ATSC 3.0 TV sets were, on
average, $80 more expensive than the ATSC 1.0 sets. We seek comment on
this estimate and request further cost comparisons of ATSC 3.0 and ATSC
1.0 sets. What are the reasons for this cost difference? Would a tuner
mandate lower the cost of ATSC 3.0 sets, for instance through economies
of scale or for other reasons? Are there other costs that should be
considered related to a tuner mandate and what are those costs and who
would bear them?
32. Implementation. If we decide to adopt a 3.0 tuner requirement,
how should we implement the requirement? For instance, we recognize
that, if adopted, manufacturers would need lead time to comply with a
3.0 tuner requirement. How much lead time would be needed? What
challenges do manufacturers face? What lessons should be learned from
the DTV transition with respect to lead time and implementation
generally? Should we phase-in the requirement starting with TV sets
with larger screens, as was done in the 2002 DTV Tuner Order? Should we
afford smaller equipment manufacturers additional time to come into
compliance and, if so, how much more time and how should we define
small for these purposes? \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ For example, we note that the SBA small business size
standard for Television Sets Manufacturing classifies businesses
having 1,250 employees or less as small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Labeling Requirement. We also seek comment on whether, if we
were to adopt an ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate, we also should require
informational labeling by wholesalers and retailers of any TV broadcast
receivers which do not include an ATSC 3.0 tuner. Would this ensure
that consumers have the necessary information at the point of purchase
to decide if they wish to buy a television that has only an ATSC 1.0
tuner? During the DTV transition, the Commission adopted point of sale
disclosure (or ``labeling'') requirements for analog-only television
equipment after adopting the DTV tuner requirement. We seek comment on
whether we should adopt such a requirement for ATSC 1.0-only TV
broadcast receivers, and we seek comment on the costs and benefits of
such a requirement as well as the Commission's statutory authority for
imposing such requirements.
34. NAB's User Interface Proposal. We also seek comment on NAB's
proposal that the Commission require television receivers to ``make
broadcast services available to a consumer in the same or fewer steps
needed to access any other video content on the same device.'' CTA
contends that the Commission lacks authority to adopt such a
requirement. CTA also argues that micromanaging user interface designs
would be ``bad policy.'' NAB itself acknowledges that the ``Next Gen TV
devices currently on the market, for the most part, do provide an easy
method for viewers to access television'' and that ``the Commission
need not resolve this concern prior to moving forward.'' We seek
comment on these points and the need for such a requirement at this
time. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of such a requirement
and on our statutory authority for imposing such a requirement.
35. In addition to the specific issues noted above, we seek comment
generally on any other matters related to a 3.0 tuner mandate,
including but not limited to matters raised in the existing record.
2. Encryption of OTA Broadcast Signals
36. We seek comment about whether we should adopt standards and/or
rules concerning the encryption and/or signing of free, OTA television
broadcast signals and what authority the Commission has to impose such
standards and/or rules. Encryption scrambles data in such a way that it
can be accessed only with a digital ``key.'' Digital Rights Management
(DRM) is a type of encryption that can be used for protecting digital
content and is contemplated by the ATSC 3.0 Standard. Signal signing is
an encrypted method of authenticating a broadcast signal. It confirms
that the signal originated with a specific signer (station), and that
it has not been altered since it was signed. The ATSC 3.0 Security
Authority (A3SA), a private entity founded by the major broadcast
networks and large broadcast
[[Page 52335]]
companies, is currently administering the broadcaster DRM encryption
and signal signing programs.\35\ A3SA argues that encryption is
``essential for the security of broadcast transmissions, applications
and content'' and ``insures [sic] NextGen broadcasts meet the standards
specifications, can work correctly with receivers, provide viewers with
internet level security, allows broadcasters to protect content from
piracy and provides for future monetization opportunities.'' \36\ As
this DRM encryption program has been deployed and stations have begun
to encrypt 3.0 signals that previously aired without encryption,
however, many viewers have been unable to watch certain 3.0 signals on
equipment they purchased specifically for that purpose.\37\ This has
led to thousands of consumer comments in this docket opposing the use
of encryption on free OTA broadcast signals, many filed by early
adopters of ATSC 3.0 technology even before the Commission's most
recent public notice. We acknowledge the widespread consumer
frustration expressed in these filings. We seek to ensure the public's
ability to easily watch stations' free OTA signals in ATSC 3.0 just as
they do today. We also seek to provide regulatory certainty to
equipment manufacturers (including those who incorporate decryption
keys/capabilities in their devices) and ensure that broadcasters'
chosen encryption regime, if any, does not impose unreasonable costs
and burdens on them, particularly if we decide to adopt a 3.0 tuner
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Specifically, A3SA's ``founding members'' are ``ABC, CBS,
Fox, NBCUniversal, Univision, and the Pearl TV business group of
eight broadcast companies.'' Pearl TV's website states that it
currently consists of ``nine of the largest broadcast companies in
America including: Cox Media Group, the E.W. Scripps Company, Graham
Media Group, Hearst Television Inc., Gray Television, Sinclair
Broadcast Group and TEGNA, Inc.'' According to its website, ``A3SA
provides device manufacturers and broadcasters with access to
standardized protection and security credentials that enable secure
delivery of high-value television content while adding new features
to free over-the-air television that protect viewers of that content
wherever they live.'' A3SA states that its content security
``utilizes the same encryption technology used by internet streaming
services.''
\36\ According to the A3SA website, ``[t]he ATSC 3.0 standard
specifies service and content protection systems that are essential
for the security of broadcast transmissions, applications and
content. Implementing these systems insures NextGen broadcasts meet
the standards specifications, can work correctly with receivers,
provide viewers with internet level security, allows broadcasters to
protect content from piracy and provides for future monetization
opportunities. The A3SA (ATSC 3.0 Security Authority) was created by
the major networks and large broadcast groups, in consultation with
the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), to implement these ATSC
standards.''
\37\ Many of these commenters are users of SiliconDust's
HDHomeRun gateway device. Despite it being the first commercially-
available ATSC 3.0 receiver box in the market (in October 2020), as
well as the best-selling 3.0 receiver box on Amazon today,
SiliconDust's HDHomeRun has not been able to obtain the necessary
decryption approvals. A3SA and SiliconDust have blamed each other
for this impasse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. A3SA Requirements. As an initial matter, we seek more
information about the A3SA and the requirements it imposes on
broadcasters and 3.0 equipment manufacturers seeking to encrypt or
decrypt broadcast programming. We note that A3SA does not appear to
have a formal relationship with the ATSC, nor does it appear to be a
standards-setting organization. We seek comment on these points. To
what extent does A3SA operate independently of its broadcaster and
broadcast network founders in relationships with manufacturers and
smaller broadcasters? A3SA states that it ``makes available a platform
and infrastructure for content security, establishes implementation
compliance rules, facilitates interoperability between broadcasters and
devices, and provides a means for third party certification or self-
certification.'' According to A3SA's website, ``[a]ll stations are
required to have A3SA and Widevine licenses.'' We seek comment on these
licenses and what is needed to obtain and retain them over time. We
seek information about A3SA's implementation requirements, as well as
any other requirements imposed by third parties.\38\ Are these
requirements in line with those applied to, for example, video
streaming services and, if not, how do they differ? Are there entities
beyond A3SA that control access to Widevine licenses and if so who are
those entities and what costs or other requirements do they impose? We
also seek comment on the costs and benefits of this encryption program
to all stakeholders.\39\ Are there limitations on any of the potential
capabilities of ATSC 3.0, such as mobile viewing or time shifted
viewing, that are impacted by the need to use Widevine? Are steps being
taken to permit interoperability with other platforms? \40\ Are
broadcast signals capable of including multiple encryption methods
without the use of significant additional capacity? Are there alternate
products that could provide the same security or other services
provided by Widevine and if so why should such products not be
available as solutions in the context of ATSC 3.0? Does the protocol
make it more complicated for consumers to access broadcast signals, or
does it make it more challenging for viewers without an internet
connection to access broadcast signals? To what extent are stakeholders
prevented from raising issues about A3SA requirements due to non-
disclosure agreements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ We note that, to the extent some of this information is
considered proprietary, it may be submitted to the Commission with a
request for confidentiality.
\39\ According to the A3SA Executive Summary document, A3SA's
annual costs for content protection are $1,000.00 for small market
stations, $1,500.00 for middle market stations, and $2,000.00 for
large market stations. The document does not contain similar pricing
information for manufacturers.
\40\ Commenters indicate that use of Widevine DRM means that
encrypted programming can only be viewed on devices that implement
Google Widevine, which excludes the use of Apple or Microsoft
devices that implement different encryption schemes, and may exclude
other makers of such devices that do not implement Widevine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Competition Concerns. We seek comment on the concerns raised in
the record about the A3SA's ``gatekeeping'' role and its impact on
competition in the marketplace, particularly with respect to 3.0
converter devices. Consumer Groups argue that ``DRM permits licensees
of public spectrum to act as gatekeepers not only over the content they
broadcast, but over the devices and technologies the public may
lawfully use to access that content.'' What is the impact of this
encryption regime on the marketplace? Are the costs and requirements of
the encryption program deterring market entry? As the Commission has
previously observed, ATSC 3.0 patent holders have committed to making
their patents available on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND)
terms, making it possible for any manufacturer to participate in the
NextGen TV marketplace. Are decryption keys/capabilities and related
licenses also being made available on RAND terms? Are there private
commitments to provide decryption keys/capabilities and related
licenses on RAND terms that have been made by A3SA or ATSC? \41\
According to A3SA, different types of devices are treated differently.
What is the differing treatment and the reason for this difference? We
seek comment on the extent of this problem, including which 3.0 sets
and devices are not capable of decryption and the relative cost of such
sets and devices in comparison to the sets and devices that are capable
of decryption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ A3SA states that its ``uniform set of policies'' apply
``equally and objectively to all manufacturers of a particular
device type.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Definition of Broadcasting. Consumer groups and others allege
that in practice ``[t]he use of DRM, private device certification, and
internet return-path dependencies renders ATSC 3.0 transmissions
legally and functionally
[[Page 52336]]
distinct from traditional broadcasting.'' We seek comment about whether
broadcasters' current encryption regime, as administered by A3SA,
implicates the fundamental question of whether video programming
streams distributed via 3.0 meet the definition of ``broadcasting.''
The Communications Act defines ``broadcasting'' as ``the dissemination
of radio communications intended to be received by the public, directly
or by the intermediary of relay stations,'' and a ``broadcast station''
as ``a radio station equipped to engage in broadcasting.'' The
Commission has determined that this definition applies to services
intended to be received by an indiscriminate public and has identified
three non-exclusive indicia of a lack of such intent: (1) the service
is not receivable on conventional television sets and requires a
licensee or programmer-provided special antennae and/or signal
converter so the signal can be received in the home; (2) the
programming is encrypted in a way that ``makes it unusable by the
public'' and that is not ``enjoyable without the aid of decoders''; or
(3) the provider and the viewer are engaged in a private contractual
relationship. In the First Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission
said it expected that ``stations transmitting ATSC 3.0 signals will be
engaged in `broadcasting' within the meaning of the Communications
Act.'' The Commission anticipated that the free, over-the-air ATSC 3.0
programming stream would be ``intended to be received by all members of
the public'' and would ``not require a private contractual agreement
between the broadcaster and the viewers,'' and that ``ATSC 3.0
transmissions will be receivable eventually on conventional television
sets.'' The Commission in 2017 acknowledged NAB's prediction that
``free Next Gen signals may be encrypted,'' but emphasized that
``[p]rogramming that is encrypted must not require special equipment
supplied and programmed by the broadcaster to decode.'' We seek comment
on whether the current 3.0 encryption regime, as administered by A3SA
and implemented by broadcasters, constitutes ``broadcasting'' within
the meaning of the Communications Act.
40. Consumers' Ability to View Encrypted Signals. We seek comment
on whether we should adopt rules requiring device manufacturers to
ensure that encrypted 3.0 signals are able to be displayed on all TV
sets and devices that conform to the 3.0 standard, particularly if we
decide to adopt a 3.0 tuner requirement. Would the stated requirements
of section 303(s)--that TV broadcast receivers be capable of
``adequately receiving all television signals''--be met if we did not
also require that receivers be capable of displaying encrypted signals?
Alternatively, should we, at a minimum, require that devices that
cannot display 3.0 encrypted signals disclose such limitation at the
point of sale to consumers? We seek comment on how such a notice could
be provided and whether there are other means to provide consumers the
same information (e.g., by requiring broadcasters that encrypt their
signal(s) to provide notice via their website or some other means). We
note, for example, that NEXTGEN TV logo certified devices \42\ are not
necessarily able to display encrypted 3.0 signals, as the logo program
is separate from the A3SA decryption program.\43\ The FOTVI Report
indicated that ``[d]iscussions are underway to unify the testing
programs.'' We seek comment on the status of those discussions and the
likelihood that they will result in a program that ensures consumers
are able to view encrypted signals on NEXTGEN TV-certified equipment.
What is the extent of this problem, including which 3.0 sets and
devices carry the logo but are not currently capable of displaying
encrypted signals and the reasons for this disconnect. We also seek
comment on Consumer Groups' concern that ``[i]f the Commission mandates
a nationwide transition to ATSC 3.0 while permitting broadcasters to
encrypt signals such that only A3SA-approved devices may receive them,
it will effectively outsource the operability of broadcast reception to
a private entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ According to the FOTVI Report, ``NEXTGEN TV-certified
television sets offer a streamlined way for consumers to continue to
receive television service as broadcasters transition to ATSC 3.0.
The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) established the NEXTGEN TV
certification program to help consumers easily identify televisions
and devices that are compatible with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast
standard. Televisions that are certified under this program bear the
NEXTGEN TV logo, indicating that they have been verified to receive,
decode, and display ATSC 3.0 signals accurately.''
\43\ The FOTVI Report states that ``A3SA's verification test
suite is currently separate from the NEXTGEN TV test suite, but most
devices go through the processes simultaneously.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Finally, we seek comment on whether broadcasters should be
required to use a specific encryption method to provide regulatory
certainty to equipment manufacturers and prevent viewer confusion as to
what devices will work in order for them to receive broadcast signals.
What is the potential impact on equipment manufacturers, and the
consumers of televisions and reception equipment, if broadcaster
encryption methods change over time or if different encryption methods
are used by different stations? For example, if an encryption-capable
receiver is built in 2025, what will happen to that receiver if
broadcasters change their type of encryption in the future? Could this
be addressed by a software update, and if so, how will non-internet-
connected devices receive this update? Are there time or other limits
on the ability of devices to obtain updates, or costs that must be
borne by either manufacturers or consumers?
42. Fair Use and Encoding Rules. We seek comment on whether to
adopt encoding rules to ensure consumers can continue to watch OTA TV
3.0 broadcasts with the features and functionalities that are available
to viewers of OTA 1.0 programming. As discussed above, thousands of
individual consumers have expressed concern that DRM encryption would
place technological restrictions on consumer devices, such as blocking
time-shifting and other features, and interfere with viewers' fair use
\44\ of free OTA programming. The NAB Petition states it would not
object to the Commission's adoption of encoding rules.\45\ According to
the FOTVI Report, A3SA has approved a set of ``encoding rules'' for
encrypted 3.0 broadcasts ``[t]o provide extra reassurance for viewers
of ATSC 3.0 content,'' though they apply only if the signal is
simulcast in 1.0. These rules are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ According to one commenter, ``[f]air use is a
constitutionally grounded doctrine that permits individuals to
record, excerpt, transform, or repurpose content for criticism,
education, commentary, research, and personal use. The contours of
fair [use] have been affirmed repeatedly by the federal courts, most
notably in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S.
417 (1984), which held that individuals have the right to time-shift
broadcast content for later viewing in the privacy of their homes.''
\45\ NAB makes reference to outdated rules which have since been
removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Viewers must be allowed to decrypt and record these broadcasts
even if they are using a less secure device that requires an internet
connection;
(2) Viewers must be allowed to make an unlimited number of copies
of these broadcasts;
(3) Such copies cannot have retention limits;
(4) Viewers must be allowed to use `trick play' features such as
pause, rewind, fast-forward, and ad-skipping;
(5) Viewers must be allowed to use any authorized digital output
(i.e., no selectable output control); and
(6) Viewers must be allowed to use analog outputs to connect to
legacy TVs
[[Page 52337]]
(i.e., no prohibition or required down-resolution).
We seek comment on A3SA's encoding rules for 3.0 broadcasts and
applying them without regard to whether the signal is simulcast in 1.0.
Would they ensure viewers retain the same features and functionalities
that they enjoy today? We also seek specific comment on our authority
to adopt encoding rules such as the ones established by A3SA.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ We note that, in 2013, the District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) vacated encoding rules the
Commission had applied to the satellite television context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Signal Signing. We seek comment on signal signing. ATSC has
adopted a standard for signal signing in ATSC Standard A/331. According
to A3SA, which is administering the signal signing program, ``[s]ignal
signing ensures the signal being received is from an FCC licensed
broadcaster and that the information received has not been tampered
with.'' Although not required by our rules, the ATSC standard requires
all broadcasters to use signal signing, even if they are not encrypting
their signals. In light of A3SA's assertions, should a requirement for
signal signing be included in the Commission's rules? Should signal
signing be required for all broadcasters? We seek information on how
broadcasters could implement signal and application signing. What are
the consequent costs and requirements imposed on broadcasters and
equipment manufacturers? \47\ LPTVBA has expressed concern that signal
signing costs ``could prove unaffordable for many small stations,
potentially forcing many smaller TV broadcasters to go out of
business.'' We seek comment on the number and characterization of
stations that may not be able to afford signing costs. In addition,
LPTVBA further explains that ``[a] certified ATSC 3.0 receiver cannot
reliably display content from a non-certified ATSC 3.0 transmitter.''
That is, devices that comply with A3SA's rules may not display unsigned
3.0 broadcast signals. We seek comment on these issues and the impact
of signal signing on viewers ability to access to broadcast signals. To
what extent are broadcasters using signal signing today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ For example, according to the A3SA Executive Summary
document, all broadcasters are required to obtain ``digital
certificates'' from Eonti, a third-party company. A3SA states that
``there are fees associated with the acquisition and use of Eonti's
services/certificates.'' These include annual costs of $998.00 for
signal signing, $499 for application signing, and other optional
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. We also understand that at some future date set by A3SA
(referred to as ``high noon''), unsigned 3.0 broadcast signals will
either no longer be displayed on receivers or will display an error
message about the unsigned status of the signal. How will the timing of
``high noon'' be determined? Will devices allow for users to decide
whether to view signals with expired or missing certificates? We seek
comment on these points. Weigel claims that A3SA has made itself the
only practical source for signing certificates. Weigel further
expresses concern that A3SA asserts the authority to revoke a
certificate for any failure to comply with the terms of the
``agreements'' it requires of broadcasters. What are the costs and
impacts to the industry and consumers if A3SA enters into, or has
entered into, contracts with major equipment manufacturers that require
such manufacturers to use only A3SA approved signal signing? Should
Commission rules address these costs, and if so, how? What type of
oversight, if any, should the Commission have over such arrangements in
order to ensure continued access to free OTA broadcast signals, and
what would be the Commission's authority for such oversight? We seek
comment on these points. How does this process compare with that used
for the internet and streaming services? What is the reason for any
differences?
45. In addition to the specific issues noted above, we seek comment
generally on any other matters related to encryption of 3.0 signals,
including but not limited to matters raised in the existing record.
3. MVPD Carriage
46. We seek comment on whether we should make any changes to our
MVPD carriage rules in light of our proposal to eliminate the
simulcasting requirement. We also seek comment on the changes to our
carriage rules that will be needed after the 3.0 transition is
complete. Under our current rules, a Next Gen TV station may assert
mandatory carriage rights only with respect to its ATSC 1.0 signal but
not its ATSC 3.0 signal.\48\ Absent changes to our rules, a Next Gen TV
station that is operating only in 3.0 (i.e., a station that is not
simulcasting in 1.0) may not assert mandatory carriage rights,\49\ but
its signal may be carried pursuant to retransmission consent.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ A Next Gen TV station that airs its 1.0 simulcast signal on
a host station may assert mandatory carriage rights only if it (1)
qualified for, and has been exercising, mandatory carriage rights at
its original location, and (2) continues to qualify for mandatory
carriage at the host station's facilities, including (but not
limited to) delivering a good quality 1.0 signal to the MVPD, or
agreeing to be responsible for the costs of delivering such a signal
to the MVPD. Under our existing must-carry rules, broadcasters are
required to bear the costs of delivering a good quality signal to
MVPDs. The rules, however, do not apply to the costs on MVPDs of
receiving and redistributing the signal to their subscribers, and so
MVPDs generally assume these costs. Such costs are generally viewed
as the costs of doing business as MVPDs.
\49\ The Commission further stated that a 3.0-only station could
not assert carriage rights even if it arranged for an alternative
method of delivery to MVPDs.
\50\ The Commission has declined to adopt any restrictions on
the voluntary carriage of 3.0 signals pursuant to retransmission
consent. In 2017, the Commission found that it was ``premature to
address any issues that may arise with respect to the voluntary
carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals before broadcasters begin transmitting
in this new voluntary standard'' and concluded that retransmission
consent issues should be addressed at the outset through marketplace
negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Under the Communications Act, full power television broadcast
stations, and certain low power stations, are entitled to mandatory
carriage of their signal (also known as ``must-carry'') on any cable
system located within their local market.\51\ Full power stations also
have carriage rights on any DBS operator providing local service into
the market. If a broadcast station asserts its must-carry rights, the
MVPD may not accept or request any compensation from the broadcaster in
exchange for carriage of its signal. Alternatively, commercial
broadcast stations with carriage rights may elect ``retransmission
consent.'' \52\ The terms of retransmission consent frequently include,
among other negotiated terms, compensation from the MVPD to the
broadcaster in exchange for the right to carry the station's signal. If
the broadcaster and MVPD cannot reach a retransmission consent
agreement, however, the MVPD is prohibited from carrying the
broadcaster's signal. Thus, commercial broadcasters are presented with
a carriage choice--elect mandatory carriage and forego compensation
while assuring carriage, or elect retransmission consent and forego
assured carriage while retaining the possibility of compensation for
carriage. Noncommercial educational stations (NCEs) are entitled to
must-carry, but not to elect retransmission consent.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ A station's local market for this purpose is its
``designated market area,'' or DMA, as defined by The Nielsen
Company.
\52\ The Act requires broadcasters and MVPDs to negotiate for
retransmission consent in good faith.
\53\ While an NCE station does not have retransmission consent
rights (and thus cannot withhold its signal from being carried by an
MVPD), an NCE station is free to negotiate with MVPDs for voluntary
carriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Mandatory Carriage of Next Gen TV Stations
48. Mandatory Carriage. We seek comment on whether we should allow
stations to assert mandatory carriage rights for their 3.0 signals
(instead of
[[Page 52338]]
their 1.0 signals), in light of our proposals to eliminate the
simulcasting requirement and the substantially similar rule for
voluntary simulcasting. When adopting the Next Gen TV carriage rules in
2017, the Commission found that ``mandating any MVPD carriage of the
3.0 signal at [that] time would be antithetical to a voluntary and
market-driven 3.0 deployment for all stakeholders and would not advance
the interests under the must carry regime.'' The Commission noted that
``until there is widespread adoption of 3.0 technology by OTA viewers,
mandatory carriage of 3.0 signals would not serve the goals of
promoting OTA broadcasting.'' \54\ The Commission also observed that
allowing a station to demand mandatory carriage of its 3.0 signal would
impose significant costs on MVPDs and found that ``it would not be
reasonable to interpret the Act in a manner that would compel MVPDs to
incur these added costs.'' Does this reasoning still apply? How, if at
all, has the market changed with respect to 3.0 viewership and MVPD
carriage of 3.0 signals? What would be the likely consequences of
allowing mandatory carriage rights for 3.0 signals at this time? If the
Commission took no action at this time, meaning 3.0 signals continue to
have no carriage rights, would this deter a significant number of
stations from completing their transition at this stage? We note that
NCTA and ATVA contend that affording mandatory carriage to 3.0 signals
would be unconstitutional. We seek comment on these points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ In Turner II, a majority of the Supreme Court recognized
that the must-carry provisions serve the important and interrelated
governmental interests of: (1) ``preserving the benefits of free,
over-the-air broadcast television,' '' and (2) promoting `` `the
widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of
sources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. 3.0-Only Stations Providing a 1.0 Direct Feed. We also seek
specific comment on whether we should, as an interim approach, afford
mandatory carriage rights to a 3.0-only station only if it agrees to
provide a 1.0 version of its signal feed to MVPDs through a direct
connection. We recognize that the tentative conclusions in Section
III.A, if adopted, would likely result in some stations choosing to
flash-cut to 3.0-only service or cease 1.0 simulcasting, while others
in a market continue to broadcast in 1.0. Thus, if we do not generally
afford mandatory carriage rights for 3.0 signals, should we
nevertheless allow a 3.0-only station to assert must-carry by arranging
for the direct delivery of its 1.0 feed to an MVPD? \55\ The MVPD would
thus not be required to engage in its own down-conversion or update its
equipment to receive and redistribute the 3.0 signal itself, but would
instead carry the 1.0 version provided by the broadcaster. What are the
costs associated with such delivery? Are all MVPDs capable of accepting
delivery of a broadcast signal through a direct connection? \56\ Would
the costs of such alternate delivery of the signal still deter must-
carry stations from flash-cutting or terminating 1.0 simulcasting? We
seek comment on these questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ For example, we could permit such delivery, provided the
station delivers its stream to MVPDs through a direct fiber-based IP
connection in accordance with SCTE 277 2024.
\56\ To the extent it is not technically feasible for certain
smaller MVPDs to accept alternate delivery, the Commission could
consider a request for exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Technical Challenges and Costs
50. We seek comment on the technical challenges that MVPDs face in
carrying 3.0 signals, either by down-converting them or passing them
through directly to subscribers. The FOTVI Report observed that
``individual MVPDs may differ significantly in how digital television
is [currently] carried on their systems,'' and therefore ``technical
challenges and limitations may vary across the MVPD ecosystem.''
Accordingly, we seek comment from different types of MVPDs, including
smaller and rural MVPD systems, about the different challenges they may
face. NCTA states that ``mandatory carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals will
present formidable technical challenges for MVPDs. . . .'' and that
rule changes are needed ``before any stations are required to
transition to ATSC 3.0 or any MVPD is required to carry such signals.
Below, we consider many of the issues raised by MVPDs in this regard
and seek comment on these and all related matters.
51. Technical Standards Regarding Carriage of 3.0 Signals. We seek
comment on the relevant technical standards and recommended practices
regarding MVPD carriage of 3.0 signals. Should the Commission require
compliance with any of these standards or practices? What technical
issues remain unresolved in the existing standards? What is the status
of ongoing standards work related to these open technical issues and
what is the timetable for completing this work? ATSC has issued a
recommended practice (RP), ATSC A/370: ``Conversion of ATSC 3.0
Services for Redistribution,'' which ``provides recommended practices
for the conversion of ATSC 3.0 services for Redistribution into ATSC
1.0 and other legacy services.'' \57\ This RP indicates that the
conversion will be performed at the broadcaster's facility in some
situations, and at the MVPD's facility in others. Is there an adequate
supply of commercially available equipment that can perform these
conversions? \58\ The ATSC A/370 RP indicates that ``[a] TV station may
provide an ATSC 1.0 signal via direct feed even when its ATSC 1.0 over-
the-air service has been discontinued.'' Is this something that all
stations will be able to do? If not, why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ We note, however, that DIRECTV refers to this document as a
``candidate'' standard, and we seek clarification on this point.
\58\ For example, DIRECTV indicates that there are ATSC 3.0
receivers compatible with DIRECTV's system, but that such receivers
are in ``very limited supply'' and ``cost roughly $8,000 per feed
(i.e., primary and multicast feeds).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. We also understand that ATSC is still working on recommended
practices for MVPDs to receive 3.0 signals for direct redistribution.
What is the status of this work specifically and of the coordination
efforts between Next Gen TV broadcasters and MVPDs more generally? \59\
Should the Commission wait to adopt rules in this area until ATSC's
work on recommended practices for MVPDs to receive 3.0 signals for
direct redistribution is concluded and publicly available? How do
broadcasters and MVPDs anticipate handling voluntary carriage of 3.0
signals, if at all, in the absence of such recommended practices? Is
there an adequate supply of commercially available head-end and set-top
equipment that would allow MVPDs to receive 3.0 signals OTA and pass
them directly through to subscribers rather than down-converting them?
NCTA states that other standards work is also needed. We seek comment
on these points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ We understand that ATSC has tasked a Working Group, called
the ``TG3/S37 Specialist Group,'' with developing standards for MVPD
distribution of ATSC 3.0 signals, including over fiber. We note that
DIRECTV has indicated that ``there is no longer any MVPD
representation in TG3'' and attributes this to ``what MVPDs view as
the domineering and uncollaborative behavior of the broadcast
representatives in the Working Group.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. Good Quality Signal. We seek comment on how to define a ``good
quality signal'' for purposes of ATSC 3.0 carriage. The Commission's
1.0 rules provide that a station asserting must-carry rights must
deliver a good quality signal--defined for ATSC 1.0 carriage as a
signal strength level of -61 dBm--to the principal headend of a cable
system or the local receive facility (LRF) of a satellite carrier.
Broadcasters are required to bear the costs of delivering a good
quality signal to MVPDs. The 1.0
[[Page 52339]]
rules, however, do not apply to the costs on MVPDs of receiving and
redistributing the signal to their subscribers, and so MVPDs generally
assume these costs.
54. NAB's Petition explains that the fixed signal level for
determining whether a signal is adequate to be eligible for must-carry
was derived using certain planning factors for DTV reception, which
included, among other things, a carrier-to-noise (C/N) ratio of 15.2
decibels (dB). In contrast, ATSC 3.0 signals can be provided using a
variety of modulation and coding (modcod) combinations, which can
require a C/N ratio that is either higher or lower than required in
ATSC 1.0. NAB states that ``while most broadcasters are currently
providing their primary video streams using a modcod that meets or
exceeds the robustness of an ATSC 1.0 signal, the Commission may want
to modify the definition of good quality signal to require a higher
signal level when necessitated by the choice of modcod.'' We seek
comment on whether it is necessary to take the choice of modcod into
account for purposes of defining a good quality signal and, if so, how
to do so. We note that while the Next Gen TV rules do not expressly
address good quality signal, they do require stations broadcasting an
ATSC 3.0 signal (using the Next Gen TV transmission standard in Sec.
73.682(f)) to ``transmit at least one free over the air video
programming stream on that signal that requires at most the signal
threshold of a comparable received DTV signal.'' Thus, by rule, the 3.0
primary stream must be at least as robust as the 1.0 primary stream. To
what extent does this address the concern described by NAB? We seek
comment on these points.
55. NCTA and ATVA contend that the current good quality signal
definition (-61dBm) ``is insufficient to enable redistribution of the
primary ATSC 3.0 video channel by MVPDs.'' They argue that determining
whether a 3.0 signal is of good quality must entail consideration of a
wide range of additional factors.\60\ We seek comment on these concerns
and whether they relate to the purpose of the rule, which is to ensure
that the station provides a strong/robust enough signal to reach the
location of the MVPD's headend or LRF. We note that the existing rule
does not relate to reception and redistribution of the signal, both of
which are currently the MVPD's responsibility. NCTA also argues that
the good quality signal rules ``should require that broadcasters
deliver their ATSC 3.0 feed to MVPDs through a direct fiber-based IP
connection in accordance with SCTE 277 2024.'' Direct delivery,
however, such as via fiber, is only required under our current rules if
a station cannot deliver a good quality signal to the MVPD over the
air. We seek comment on these proposals and issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ NCTA further states that ``the good quality signal rules
should also require broadcasters to provide their primary over-the-
air signal in HD.'' We note that the good quality signal rule
relates to signal strength, not picture quality, and therefore we do
not consider this proposal in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Material Degradation. We seek comment on what constitutes
``material degradation'' for purposes of 3.0 carriage. The
Communications Act requires that cable operators carry broadcast
signals ``without material degradation.'' The Act also directs the
Commission to ``adopt carriage standards to ensure that, to the extent
technically feasible, the quality of signal processing and carriage
provided by a cable system for the carriage of local commercial
television stations will be no less than that provided by the system
for carriage of any other type of signal.'' In the context of the
carriage of digital signals, the Commission has interpreted these
requirements: (i) to prohibit cable operators from discriminating in
their carriage between broadcast and non-broadcast signals; and (ii) to
require cable operators to carry HD broadcast signals to their
subscribers in HD.\61\ NCTA states that ATSC 3.0 features ``may exceed
the capabilities and capacity of MVPDs' digital video systems,'' and
ATVA contends that, at this time, many carriers would likely be unable
to pass through the improved broadcast features (such as higher-quality
video and audio) to their subscribers.\62\ For example, NCTA states
that in some ``instances, the transcoding process will necessarily
down-convert [3.0] audio and video to encoding protocols and formats
supported by the set-top [boxes].'' NCTA argues that such down-
conversion should not be considered ``material degradation'' under the
statute. We seek comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Small cable systems that are not offering any programming
in HD are exempt from this HD carriage requirement.
\62\ ATVA explains that ``MVPD systems do not simply pass
through directly the signal received from broadcasters--nor would
they do so with ATSC 3.0. With respect to video quality, for
example, many MVPD set-top boxes do not support 4K resolution and
other ATSC 3.0 formats, such as High Efficiency Video Coding
(`HEVC'), Scalable High Efficiency Video Coding (`SHVC'), High-
Dynamic Range (`HDR'), and Wide Color Gamut (`WCG'). MVPDs do not
support SHVC, and only some MVPD set-top boxes support 4K, HDR, or
WCG. To the extent that a broadcaster used an ATSC 3.0 signal to
deliver video in those formats, MVPDs would need to down convert the
signal to an encoding and resolution format supported by the MVPDs'
various set-top boxes. Once the signal was down-converted, however,
consumers viewing broadcast television channels over their MVPD
subscriptions would not receive broadcast quality improvements that
broadcasters may offer using ATSC 3.0 signals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Program-Related Material. We seek comment on what constitutes
``program-related material'' for purposes of 3.0 carriage. The Act
requires a cable operator to carry in its entirety, on the cable system
of that operator, the primary video, accompanying audio, and line 21
closed caption transmission of each of the local commercial television
stations carried on the cable system and, to the extent technically
feasible, program-related material carried in the vertical blanking
interval or on subcarriers.\63\ The Commission's rules for satellite
carriage include the same program-related requirements as apply to
cable. The Commission has found that the factors enumerated in WGN \64\
provide useful guidance for what constitutes program-related
material.\65\ Some examples of program-related material include (but
are not limited to) closed captioning, video description, parental
control information (``V-chip''), and Nielsen
[[Page 52340]]
ratings information (``SID codes''). With regard to the ``technical
feasibility'' of the carriage of program-related material in the VBI or
on subcarriers, the Commission has stated that such carriage would be
considered ``technically feasible'' if ``only nominal costs, additions
or changes of equipment are necessary.'' NCTA contends that any must-
carry obligations for 3.0 broadcasts should be ``limited to the primary
video and audio stream and material that is intimately connected to the
primary video service.'' NCTA asserts that ``[n]ew data transport
mechanisms enabled by ATSC 3.0 standards--including mechanisms within
the audio and video streams and watermarking--should not be considered
program-related material, consistent with the Commission's findings for
multicast streams.'' \66\ NCTA further asserts that ``interactive
elements embedded within the 3.0 signal, including interactive ads and
other features that require a return path, are not program-related.''
Alternatively, NCTA states that ``it should not be considered
`technically feasible' to carry such material.'' Broadcasters, in the
FOTVI Report, have argued that watermarks and other advanced features
should be considered program related and should generally be passed
through to subscribers. We seek comment on this issue, and on whether
there are specific 3.0 features that should or should not be considered
program-related.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Retransmission of other material in the vertical blanking
interval or other nonprogram-related material (including teletext
and other subscription and advertiser-supported information
services) is at the discretion of the cable operator. Where
appropriate and feasible, operators may delete signal enhancements,
such as ghost-canceling, from the broadcast signal and employ such
enhancements at the system headend or headends. Section 615(g)(1)
provides the same requirements for NCE stations, except that such
operators also must carry program-related material contained in the
VBI or on subcarriers ``that may be necessary for receipt of
programming by handicapped persons or for educational or language
purposes.''
\64\ WGN Continental Broadcasting, Co. v. United Video Inc., 693
F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1982). The WGN case addressed the extent to which
the copyright on a television program also included program material
in the VBI of the signal and set out three factors for making a
copyright determination. First, the broadcaster must intend for the
information in the VBI to be seen by the same viewers who are
watching the video signal. Second, the VBI information must be
available during the same interval of time as the video signal.
Third, the VBI information must be an integral part of the program.
The court in WGN held that if the information in the VBI is intended
to be seen by the viewers who are watching the video signal, during
the same interval of time as the video signal, and as an integral
part of the program on the video signal, then the VBI and the video
signal are one copyrighted expression and must both be carried if
one is to be carried.
\65\ Closed captioning information and television ratings data
are some examples of the material carried in the vertical blanking
interval. The Commission subsequently clarified that the factors set
forth in WGN do not necessarily form the exclusive basis for
determining program-relatedness. For example, on reconsideration,
the Commission found that Source Identification Codes (``SID
codes'') are program-related material under the statute, even though
they may not precisely meet each factor in WGN, ``because they
constitute information intrinsically related to the particular
program received by the viewer.''
\66\ NCTA argues that MVPDs should be allowed to remove
watermarks from 3.0 streams. Broadcasters ``disagree that the
potential for consumer confusion should result in rules that permit
MVPDs to strip watermarks out of broadcast signals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. MVPD Costs. We seek comment about the financial costs
associated with MVPD carriage of 3.0 signals.\67\ ATSC 3.0 is not
backwards compatible with existing MVPD digital video systems. ATVA and
NCTA have indicated that MVPDs would need to purchase and install new
transcoders, receivers, demultiplexers, and demodulators in order to
receive and redistribute 3.0 signals. MVPDs also would have to incur
other expenses based on whether they receive ATSC 3.0 signals over the
air or via fiber. For example, MVPDs may need to conduct new
engineering studies and/or upgrade tower equipment to receive OTA ATSC
3.0 signals. We observe that MVPDs could incur costs to enable 3.0
carriage and later lose access to the 3.0 signal if the broadcaster
chooses to switch back to 1.0. We seek comment on the costs of such
changes and possible protections for MVPDs that invest in 3.0
technology. We seek comment on these and related questions of cost. We
seek comment on the amount of such costs and who would/should bear such
costs. We seek comment on the impact of any costs on consumers. We also
seek comment on the benefits of ATSC 3.0 service to MVPDs, particularly
small MVPDs and MVPD consumers, and on balancing the costs to such
entities with any benefits, including those to 3.0 OTA broadcasters and
viewers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ We request that commenters be as specific and detailed as
possible, and indicate the basis for any cost estimates. Cost
estimates for each signal required to be carried would be
instructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. In addition to the specific issues noted above, we seek comment
generally on any other matters related to MVPD carriage of 3.0 signals,
including but not limited to matters raised in the existing record such
as MVPD capacity constraints.
C. Other Issues
60. Finally, we seek comment on a number of other outstanding ATSC
3.0 issues. As with the matters discussed above, we have previously
received comments on many of these issues in the context of NAB's
proposal for a mandatory transition. Now, however, we seek to consider
these issues in light of our proposal to eliminate the simulcasting
requirement and our goal to eliminate regulatory barriers to the
adoption of ATSC 3.0 technology and services. We therefore invite
comment on the issues below.
61. Sunset of 1.0 Service. We seek comment on whether there should
be an eventual sunset of 1.0 broadcasting and if so whether the sunset
of 1.0 should be tied to a date certain or specific market conditions.
If the former, we seek comment on whether that date should be phased
for different markets and stations, similar to the approach proposed in
the Petition, or a single nationwide date, and what those date(s)
should be. If the latter, what conditions should apply? For example,
should the sunset be tied to broadcaster deployment, the availability
of low-cost converter devices, consumer uptake, or some other factor or
combination of factors, including factors not related to market
conditions?
62. A/322 Compliance Sunset. We seek comment on whether and how to
address the scheduled July 17, 2027, sunset of the requirement that
Next Gen TV broadcasters' primary video programming stream comply with
the ATSC A/322 standard. In 2023, the Commission found that ``the A/322
requirement remains essential at this time for protecting both
innovators and investors in the 3.0 space, allowing stakeholders to
develop and purchase equipment with confidence.'' We note that, at that
time, both equipment manufacturers and broadcasters agreed that the
rule should be retained. What would be the impact on consumers,
television receiver manufacturers, and MVPDs if this requirement were
to sunset? If we do not require compliance with the ATSC A/322
standard, how can we ensure that 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 TV equipment
will be able to receive all 3.0 broadcast signals? Have marketplace
developments since 2023 reduced or eliminated the need for mandatory
compliance with the ATSC A/322 standard? What marketplace conditions
are relevant to this question? Should the sunset date be extended or
eliminated? If the date should be extended what sunset date should
apply? Should it be a date certain or tied to specific market
condition? If the latter, what conditions should apply?
63. Updating Standards Incorporated in Rules. We seek comment on
whether to update our rules to reflect the most recent versions of the
A/321 and A/322 standards, as proposed by NAB. Based on the ATSC
website, it appears the most recent versions of A/321 and A/322 were
issued by ATSC in July 2025. What, if any, substantive changes have
been made to these standards since we mandated their use in 2017? Are
any subsequent versions and substantive updates planned, and if so,
what is the timeframe? We seek comment on these points.
64. Options to Offset Consumer Costs. As the Commission has
previously stated, broadcasters are ``obligated to operate their
stations to serve the public interest--specifically to air programming
responsive to the needs and issues of the people in their communities
of license.'' Because the 3.0 standard is not backwards compatible,
when a station converts from 1.0 to 3.0 viewers without 3.0-capable
equipment will not be able to receive the station's 3.0 signal. During
the analog to digital television transition, there was a whole of
government effort to ensure that consumers could continue to receive
OTA broadcast service on their existing televisions. We seek comment on
the availability of low-cost converter devices and on options for
potential funding sources to offset costs for consumers. Is
congressional action needed to establish public funding, such as when
Congress established the DTV coupon program? What options are there or
should there be to ensure that consumers receive the necessary
information about the need for 3.0 enabled devices in order to receive
3.0 signals. Beyond consumer information efforts, what, if any consumer
support
[[Page 52341]]
for a 3.0 transition is available from broadcast industry stakeholders?
What are other potential sources of funding for consumer costs to
ensure consumers can afford new 3.0 enabled devices? Do other
stakeholders, such as small MVPDs or broadcasters, need access to the
funds as has been made in other transitions, and if so for what
purposes?
65. Test Market(s). We seek comment on whether the Commission
should actively encourage or require coordinated ``test markets'' for
technical testing and to confirm viewer and MVPD readiness. We seek
comment on which market(s) are the best options for such tests and why.
How should these tests be implemented, what information should be
gathered, and what should be the timeline for any test(s)?
66. Accessibility. We seek comment on how, specifically, the
industry will ensure that current video accessibility requirements
continue to be met in the context of ATSC 3.0 service. In the First
Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission emphasized that
``broadcasters that choose to deploy ATSC 3.0 are expected to comply
fully with all relevant Part 79 requirements.'' Accessibility Groups,
however, have urged the Commission not to ``just assume that current
accessibility rules `need not be modified' in the transition to NextGen
TV.'' They contend, ``[s]imply assuming that existing ATSC 1.0 rules
will carry over without issue ignores the real-world challenges faced
by consumers who rely on closed captioning and other access features.''
We seek comment on what, if any, specific changes to existing rules
would be needed to clarify that current video accessibility
requirements apply with respect to 3.0. Additionally, we seek comment
on whether we should require the provision of advanced accessibility
features (e.g., multiple audio streams, customizable closed captioning
placement, speed, font colors, styles, and weights, and sign language
integration) by 3.0 broadcasters and device manufacturers, whether
MVPDs should be required to pass through such features, and on the
legal authority that would support such requirements. What are the
costs and benefits associated with such requirements?
67. Emergency Alerting. In the First Next Gen TV Report and Order,
the Commission required Next Gen TV broadcasters to comply with all of
its broadcast rules and specifically required compliance with the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules. Nothing in this FNPRM should be
interpreted as reopening that issue. We seek comment on any actions or
information that emergency alerting stakeholders should be aware of to
ensure EAS messages continue to be made available to all broadcast
audiences, both during and after the transition. Could our proposal to
allow broadcasters to choose how to divide their programing between 1.0
and 3.0 signals threaten to deprive viewers of access to EAS? Could
implementation of the 3.0 broadcast security features, such as
encryption and signal signing, diminish the availability of emergency
alerts by introducing a risk of blocking valid alerts, including EAS
alerts? If so, should there be differences in how EAS and advanced
emergency alert signaling are treated, including by MVPDs? What
obstacles exist to the widespread adoption of advancing emergency
alerting functionality, and what steps can the Commission take to
address those obstacles?
68. Fundamental Use of Broadcast Spectrum. We seek comment on
whether to require Next Gen TV broadcasters to dedicate a specific
portion of their licensed spectrum to broadcasting free over-the-air
video programming after they transition to 3.0. The Commission has said
that it expects the ``fundamental use'' of television broadcast
spectrum to continue to be the provision of free, over-the-air
television service, but has not yet addressed the question of how much
of its capacity a Next Gen TV station must ultimately devote to free,
OTA television service after the ATSC 3.0 transition. Under the current
rules, 1.0 broadcasters are required only to ``transmit at least one
free over the air video program signal at no direct charge to
viewers.'' \68\ Several commenters, however, observed that ATSC 3.0 has
much greater spectral capacity and expressed concerns that broadcasters
might derogate their free OTA TV service in favor of datacasting and
other non-broadcast services. Weigel urged the Commission to ensure
that broadcasters use their increased capacity to improve the free OTA
TV service and recommended a ``[g]uardrail to preserve minimum capacity
devoted to broadcasting that does not require the internet.'' ATVA
stated that allowing ``broadcast spectrum being used overwhelmingly for
non-broadcast purposes also raises significant issues related to
statutory authority.'' In response, broadcasters have offered
assurances that any datacasting services provided would be to support
and improve its free OTA service and not to supplant it. We seek
comment on these points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The rule also states that the TV service provided pursuant
to the rule ``must have a resolution of at least 480i (vertical
resolution of 480 lines, interlaced).'' This rule is also known as
the derogation of service standard, as the rule was adopted to
implement the Communications Act's directive for the Commission to
``limit the broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary services on
designated frequencies so as to avoid derogation of any advanced
television services, including high definition television
broadcasts, that the Commission may require using such
frequencies.'' In addition to full power, these standards and rules
are also applicable to Class A and LPTV stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. Privacy. We seek comment on whether privacy rules are needed to
address broadcaster collection of viewer data. The FOTVI Report
``examined whether ATSC 3.0's new features and capabilities warrant new
or different privacy regulations to protect viewers' information.''
According to the FOTVI Report, ``[p]articipants agreed that there are
no new privacy concerns for viewers who receive ATSC 3.0 exclusively
over-the-air without an internet connection, as user data cannot be
collected without a return path.'' However, it stated that ``viewers
with an internet connection can take advantage of ATSC 3.0's
interactive and personalized services, which may require the collection
of user data to customize content and enhance the viewing experience.''
We seek specific comment on whether broadcasters' collection of viewer
data will include the collection of personally identifiable information
(PII). We note that the Communications Act places certain requirements
on cable and satellite operators with respect to the collection and
disclosure of subscribers' PII. Should broadcasters be subject to MVPD-
like privacy rules, or other privacy requirements? Would compliance
with privacy requirements be part of a broadcasters' statutory
obligation to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity?
Does the Commission have other statutory authority to impose privacy
requirements on broadcasters under these circumstances? Would privacy
requirements be necessary if broadcasters develop MVPD-like
relationships with viewers? Consumer Groups have urged the Commission
``to adopt a binding privacy framework tailored specifically to ATSC
3.0's hybrid capabilities.'' We seek comment on this proposal and how
any framework should be tailored.
70. Notice Requirements. As discussed above, individual stations
are currently required to provide 30 days of notices to viewers and 90
days' notice to MVPDs before ``relocating'' their 1.0 service, and we
have sought comment on explicitly revising those rules to apply to a
station that chooses to flash-cut to 3.0 or terminate its current 1.0
[[Page 52342]]
simulcast.\69\ We also seek comment on whether the Commission should
adopt additional pre-transition notice requirements on broadcasters or
other industry participants, similar to those adopted leading up to the
DTV transition, and the Commission's authority to adopt such
requirements.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ We also propose to make clean up edits to the MVPD notice
requirements to reflect that the post-incentive auction transition
period has passed and as such the requirement to provide 120 day
notice to MVPDs no longer applies. We seek comment on this update to
the rules.
\70\ In its DTV Consumer Education Initiative proceeding, the
Commission sought to ensure widespread consumer understanding of the
benefits and mechanics of the transition by promoting a coordinated,
national DTV consumer education campaign. The following requirements
were among those adopted: (1) All full-power broadcasters must
regularly conduct on-air education, including Public Service
Announcements, to explain the various important issues of the
transition and explain how viewers can find more information; (2)
Broadcast stations must electronically report their consumer
education efforts to the Commission on a quarterly basis via Form
388, and these reports must be placed in the broadcaster's public
file and, if a broadcaster has a public website, on that website;
(3) All MVPDs must provide notice of the DTV transition to their
subscribers in monthly bills or billing notices; (4) Manufacturers
of television receivers and certain related devices must include
information with those devices explaining what effect, if any, the
DTV transition will have on their use; (5) DTV.gov Transition
Partners must report their consumer education efforts, as a
condition of continuing Partner status; (6) Eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) must provide DTV transition
information to Lifeline and Link-Up customers; (7) Winning bidders
in the 700 MHz spectrum auctions (Auctions 73 and 76) must detail,
on a quarterly basis, what, if any, DTV transition consumer
education efforts they are conducting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. RAND Licensing. We continue to monitor the marketplace for ATSC
3.0 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the ability of third parties
to develop products that rely upon them. We invite comment on the state
of the market.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The Commission last sought comment on patent licensing in
the Fourth FNPRM in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Next Gen TV Public Interest Considerations. As the Commission
recognized in the First Next Gen Report and Order, ``Next Gen TV
stations will be public trustees with a responsibility to serve the
`public interest, convenience, and necessity.' '' In addition to the
comments requested above about how the public interest bears on the
resolution of specific issues, we also seek comment more generally on
how the public interest informs the overall regulatory approach the
Commission takes to the continued advancement of ATSC 3.0 in this
proceeding. For example, as discussed above, Next Gen TV promises to
revitalize the nation's free, local, OTA television service, which
serves as a vital source of local news and information for many
Americans, by enabling significant improvements in picture quality,
audio clarity, interactive features, hyper-local content, and public
safety and accessibility capabilities. How can we ensure that our
overall approach to ATSC 3.0 best advances those public interests? Are
there specific public interest considerations reflected in the record
and FCC's Next Gen TV analyses to date that should be accounted for in
our overall approach? Are there additional public interest
considerations that should inform our overall approach?
73. Additional Matters. We seek comment on clarifying edits to
sections 73.3801(i)(1), 73.6029(i)(1), and 74.782(j)(i) to add the
terms ``simulcast'' and ``non-simulcast'' in order to make clear, in
light of proposed changes to our rules and as the Commission determined
in the Third Report and Order, that licensed multicast streams aired in
a 1.0 format may be either simulcast (i.e., aired in both a 1.0 and 3.0
format) or non-simulcast (i.e., aired in only a 1.0 format). We also
seek comment on non-substantive edits to sections 73.6029(c)(3) and
74.782(d) to add missing terminology and sections 74.782(g), (i), and
(j) to update inaccurate cross references. Finally, in addition to the
specific issues discussed in this FNPRM, we seek comment generally on
any other matters related to the ATSC 3.0 transition, including but not
limited to matters raised in the existing record.
IV. Procedural Matters
74. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules.\72\ Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b),
47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f), 47 CFR
1.49(f), or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
75. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, Public Law 104-121, the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies proposed in this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided on the first page of the
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this entire FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
76. In 2017, the Commission authorized television broadcasters to
use the Next Gen TV transmission standard, also called ``ATSC 3.0'' or
``3.0,'' on a voluntary, market-driven basis. The Commission required
that any broadcaster voluntarily deploying ATSC 3.0 service must also,
with very limited exceptions, continue to air at least their primary
stream using the current-generation TV transmission standard, also
called ``ATSC 1.0'' or ``1.0.'' This is called the local simulcasting
requirement. The
[[Page 52343]]
Commission, however, intended that the local simulcasting requirement
be temporary.
77. In the FNPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that it
should eliminate the local simulcasting requirement for stations that
transition to 3.0. The Commission also tentatively concludes that it
should continue to permit simulcasting on a voluntary basis. That is,
Next Gen TV broadcast stations can choose if they want to fully
transition to 3.0 or if they want to begin, or continue, to simulcast
in 1.0. The Commission also proposes to immediately eliminate the
``substantially similar'' rule and the 95 percent population coverage
threshold for expedited processing. The Commission also proposes to
permit simulcasting stations to use MPEG-4 in certain situations.
Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on a variety of issues related to
the ATSC 3.0 transition, including an ATSC 3.0 tuner requirement,
encryption of broadcast signals, multichannel video programming
distributor (MVPD) carriage of 3.0 signals, and other issues.
B. Legal Basis
78. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to the authority
found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319,
325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
79. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act (SBA). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
80. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
81. The rules proposed in the FNPRM will apply to small entities in
the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) \73\ codes and
corresponding SBA size standard.\74\ Based on currently available U.S.
Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each
identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a
substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide
additional information regarding the number of potentially affected
entities in the industries identified below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying
business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing,
and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business
economy. See www.census.gov/NAICS for further details regarding the
NAICS codes identified in this chart.
\74\ The size standards in this chart are set forth in 13 CFR
121.201, by six digit NAICS code.
\75\ Affected Entities in this industry include Broadband Radio
Service and Educational Broadband Service and Fixed Microwave
Services.
\76\ Affected Entities in this industry include Competitive
Access Providers, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs),
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service,
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs), Open Video
Systems, Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems aka
Private Cable Operators (PCOs), Cable Companies and Systems (Rate
Regulation), and Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).
Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated Industry (Footnotes
specify potentially affected SBA size Total small
entities within a regulated NAICS code standard Total firms firms % Small firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio and Video Equipment 334310 750 employees... 506 492 97.23
Manufacturing.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees. 1,184 1,081 91.30%
Carriers (except Satellite)
\75\.
Television Broadcasting 516120 $47 million..... 744 657 88.31%
Stations.
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees. 3,403 3,027 88.95
Carriers \76\.
Electronics and Appliance 449210 $40 million..... 17,421 14,818 85.06
Retailers.
Radio and Television 334220 1,250 employees. 155 136 87.74
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52344]]
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
service provider data (Data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) \77\............................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) \78\.... 585 498 85.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Broadcast TV Entity Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TV Broadcast Stations (as of August 8, 2025) SBA size standard ($47 million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small firms % Small
Affected entity # Licensed \79\ entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Television Stations (full power)................................ 1,767 1,672 94.68
Commercial (full power)......................................... 1,384 1,289 93.1
Noncommercial educational (NCE)................................. 383 383 100
Class A TV...................................................... 383 383 100
Low Power (LPTV)................................................ 1,780 1,780 100
TV Translators.................................................. 3,094 3,094 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Cable Entities Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Small firms
Cable entities Size standard Total firms Small firms in industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Serves fewer than 530 524 98.87
Standard) Small Cable Operator. 498,000 subscribers,
either directly or
through affiliates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Affected Entities in this industry include all reporting
fixed local service providers (CLECs & Incumbent LECs).
\78\ Affected Entities in this industry include all reporting
wireless carriers and service providers.
\79\ All NCE, Class A TV, LPTV and TV Translators are presumed
to be small entities under the above SBA small business size
standard, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of these television station licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
83. The FNPRM seeks comment on a range of potential changes to
existing reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements
that, if implemented, would impact small entities to some degree. In
the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to permit voluntary simulcasting and
tentatively concludes that it should eliminate the local simulcasting
requirement for stations that transition to ATSC 3.0. Small and other
Next Gen TV broadcast stations would be able to choose whether they
want to fully transition to ATSC 3.0 without a simulcast (i.e. flash-
cut or terminate their existing 1.0 simulcast(s)) or whether they want
to begin, or continue, to simulcast in ATSC 1.0. The Commission also
proposes to immediately eliminate the ``substantially similar'' rule,
removing the requirement that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV
station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel be substantially similar to that
of the primary video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel. In
addition, the Commission proposes to eliminate the 95 percent coverage
threshold for expedited application processing and only require that
the originating station is located the same DMA as its host station and
its host station meets a minimum coverage requirement (e.g., a
station's community of licensee (COL)). Similarly, the FNPRM proposes
to revise the children's television multicast coverage rule to require
only COL coverage for full power stations, rather than 95 percent
population coverage. The Commission also proposes to allow Class A
stations to air children's programming on a multicast stream so long as
the multicast stream host complies with the revised coverage
requirements of section 73.6029(c). In addition, the Commission
proposes to allow simulcasting ATSC 1.0 stations to use MPEG-4 (a more
efficient compression method) for multicast streams. It also seeks
comment on whether to extend this flexibility to other situations or
broadcasters, and whether, if MPEG-4 is permitted for any broadcasters,
it should be added to the broadcasting standard in sections 73.8000(a)
and 73.682(d) of our rules (requiring manufacturer compliance) or
whether we should provide an exception in section 15.117(b) in the same
manner as the 3.0 standard in section 73.682(f) of our rules (which did
not impose a requirement on manufacturers).
84. The Commission also seeks comment on issues related to these
tentative conclusions and proposals. These include: ATSC 3.0 tuner and
labeling requirements and television interface designs; the encryption
of broadcast signals, including related costs and benefits for small
and other stakeholders; and MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0, including
mandatory carriage of 3.0 signals, and the technical challenges, costs,
and other burdens and
[[Page 52345]]
benefits related to MVPD carriage, specifically by smaller and rural
MVPD systems. Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on a number of other
outstanding ATSC 3.0 issues, including an eventual sunset of ATSC 1.0
service, continued compliance with A/322, options to offset potential
consumer costs related to converter devices, accessibility
requirements, emergency alert requirements, requirements to provide a
minimum amount of free over-the-air programming, privacy concerns, and
pre-transition notice requirements.
85. Television broadcasters have been authorized to use the Next
Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis since
2017, allowing broadcasters to decide whether (and if so when) to
deploy ATSC 3.0 service and bear the costs associated with such
deployment. All broadcasters, including small entities, will need to
undertake any costs or burdens associated with ATSC 3.0 service should
they choose to do so. The item seeks comment on a requirement that
MVPDs carry 3.0 signals, and MVPDs may consequently bear certain costs.
The item also seeks comment on a mandate that all new television
broadcast receivers be capable of receiving and displaying ATSC 3.0
signals, and manufactures consequently may also bear certain costs. We
anticipate the information we receive in comments including, where
requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission further
identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities,
including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the
inquiries we make in the FNPRM.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
86. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
87. The FNPRM discusses a number of proposals and related
alternatives that may reduce economic burdens for small television
stations and other broadcasters, if adopted. The proposals contained in
this FNPRM would eliminate the requirement that Next Gen TV
broadcasters simulcast in 1.0, although they are still permitted to do
so, and reduce the requirements related to simulcasting. The Commission
seeks comment on whether to allow broadcasters to flash-cut or
terminate simulcasting 30 days after Federal Register publication of an
Order, subject to viewer and MVPD notice requirements, or whether to
end the simulcasting requirement on a different date. Regarding Next
Gen TV tuner mandates, the Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt
proposals to mandate that all new tuners receive and display ATSC 3.0
signals, or whether it is unnecessary at this time based on marketplace
demand and availability. If such a mandate were adopted, the Commission
asks whether small equipment manufactures would be allowed additional
time to comply with the new rules. The FNPRM also seeks comment on
encryption of over-the-air broadcast signals, and the costs of
encryption for broadcasters and manufacturers, including small
entities. The FNPRM also seeks comment on possible rules governing MVPD
carriage of 3.0 signals, and possible exemptions for small MVPDs to
limit the costs they would face.
88. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this
proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final
alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur
on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
89. None.
VI. Ordering Clauses
90. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections
1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b,
403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336,
338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535, this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby adopted and notice is hereby given of the
proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Fifth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
91. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of
Advocacy.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 and 74
Communications equipment, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as
follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334,
336, 339.
0
2. Amend Sec. 73.624 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.624 Digital television broadcast stations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) TV licensees or permittees that choose to broadcast an ATSC 3.0
signal (using the Next Gen TV transmission standard in Sec. 73.682(f))
shall transmit at least one free over the air video programming stream
on that signal that requires at most the signal threshold of a
comparable received TV signal. TV licensees or permittees that choose
to broadcast an ATSC 3.0 signal (using the Next Gen TV transmission
standard in Sec. 73.682(f)) may also simulcast the primary video
programming stream on its ATSC 3.0 signal by broadcasting an ATSC 1.0
signal (using the TV transmission standard in Sec. 73.682(d)) from
another broadcast television facility within its local market in
accordance with voluntary simulcasting as described in Sec. Sec.
73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 73.682 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) and
(f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.682 TV transmission standards.
* * * * *
[[Page 52346]]
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) ATSC A/65C; and
(iv) ATSC A/72, Part 1: 2023, as provided for in Sec. Sec.
73.3801(i)(1)(ii), 73.6029(i)(1)(ii), and 74.782(j)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) As an alternative to broadcasting an ATSC 1.0 signal using the
DTV transmission standard set forth in paragraph (d) of this section,
DTV licensees or permittees may choose to broadcast an ATSC 3.0 signal
using the Next Gen TV transmission standard set forth in this paragraph
(f).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 73.3801 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a), paragraphs (b), (c), (f)(5), (f)(6)(ii)(C), (g)(1), (g)(4), the
introductory text of paragraph (h)(1), paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(2)(i),
(h)(4)(i) and (ii), the introductory text of paragraphs (i) and (i)(1),
and paragraph (i)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3801 Full Power Television Simulcasting During the ATSC 3.0
(Next Gen TV) Transition.
(a) Simulcasting arrangements. For purposes of voluntary
simulcasting as described in paragraph (b) of this section, a full
power television station may partner with one or more other full power
stations or with one or more Class A, LPTV, or TV translator stations
in a simulcasting arrangement for purposes of airing either an ATSC 1.0
or ATSC 3.0 signal on a host station's (i.e., a station whose
facilities are being used to transmit programming originated by another
station) facilities. Noncommercial educational television stations may
participate in simulcasting arrangements with commercial stations.
* * * * *
(b) Voluntary simulcasting. A full power television station that
chooses to air an ATSC 3.0 signal may simulcast the primary video
programming stream of that signal in an ATSC 1.0 format, as well as any
multicast stream(s) in the manner set forth in paragraph (i) of this
section.
(c) Coverage requirements for the ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal. For
full power broadcasters that elect temporarily to relocate their ATSC
1.0 signal to the facilities of a host station for purposes of
deploying ATSC 3.0 service (and that convert their existing facilities
to ATSC 3.0), the ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal must continue to cover the
station's entire community of license (i.e., the station must choose a
host from whose transmitter site the Next Gen TV station will continue
to meet the community of license signal requirement over its current
community of license, as required by Sec. 73.618) and the host station
must be assigned to the same Designated Market Area (DMA) as the
originating station (i.e., the station whose programming is being
transmitted on the host station).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with
the streamlined process in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will
receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air
an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station, that station
must be assigned to the same DMA as the originating station and will
provide ATSC 1.0 service to at least the community of license as
required in paragraph (c) of this section.
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on
the host station will serve at least the community of license as
required in paragraph (c) of this section.
(g) * * *
(1) Commercial and noncommercial educational stations that
terminate their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or relocate their ATSC 1.0 signals
(e.g., moving to a host station's facility, subsequently moving to a
different host, or returning to its original facility) are required to
air daily Public Service Announcements (PSAs) or crawls every day for
30 days prior to the date that the stations will terminate ATSC 1.0
operations on their existing facilities. Stations that transition
directly to ATSC 3.0 will be required to air daily PSAs or crawls every
day for 30 days prior to the date that the stations will terminate ATSC
1.0 operations.
* * * * *
(4) Content of PSAs or crawls. For stations terminating or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals or transitioning directly to ATSC
3.0, each PSA or crawl must provide all pertinent information to
consumers.
(h) * * *
(1) Next Gen TV stations terminating their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a temporary host
station's facilities, subsequently moving to a different host, or
returning to its original facility) must provide notice to MVPDs that:
(i) No longer will be required to carry the station's ATSC 1.0
signal due to the termination or relocation; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Date and time of any ATSC 1.0 termination or channel changes;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in
advance of terminating or relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
(ii) If the anticipated date of the ATSC 1.0 signal termination or
relocation changes, the station must send a further notice to affected
MVPDs informing them of the new anticipated date.
* * * * *
(i) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast
programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host
station. If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest
multicast streams must comply with the requirements of this section
(including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), except
as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For purposes of this section,
a ``multicast'' stream refers to a video programming stream other than
the primary video programming stream.
(1) 1.0 Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
simulcast or non-simulcast guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on
one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Children's television. A Next Gen TV station may rely on a
multicast stream it is airing via a host partner to comply with the
Commission's children's television programming requirement in Sec.
73.671. Such a stream must either be carried on the same host as the
Next Gen TV station's primary stream, or on a host that serves at least
the community of license (see Sec. 73.618) served by the Next Gen TV
station's pre-transition 1.0 signal.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 73.6029 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a),
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2) and (3), (f)(5), (f)(6)(ii)(C),
(g)(1), (g)(4),
0
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h)(1),
0
d. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i), (h)(2)(i), (h)(4)(i) and (ii),
0
e. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (i) and (i)(1), and
0
f. Revising paragraph (i)(3).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 73.6029 Class A television simulcasting during the ATSC 3.0
(Next Gen TV) transition.
(a) Simulcasting arrangements. For purposes of voluntary
simulcasting in
[[Page 52347]]
paragraph (b) of this section, a Class A television station may partner
with one or more other Class A stations or with one or more full power,
LPTV, or TV translator stations in a simulcasting arrangement for
purposes of airing either an ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 signal on a host
station's (i.e., a station whose facilities are being used to transmit
programming originated by another station) facilities.
* * * * *
(b) Voluntary simulcasting. A Class A television station that
chooses to air an ATSC 3.0 signal may simulcast the primary video
programming stream of that signal in an ATSC 1.0 format, as well as any
multicast stream(s) in the manner set forth in paragraph (i) of this
section.
(c) * * *
(2) May not relocate its ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal more than the
distance permitted under Sec. 74.787(b)(2); and
(3) Must select a host station assigned to the same Designated
Market Area (DMA) as the originating station (i.e., the station whose
programming is being transmitted on the host station).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with
the streamlined process in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will
receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air
an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station, that station
must be assigned to the same DMA as the originating station and will
meet the coverage requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on
the host station will meet the coverage requirements in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(g) * * *
(1) Class A stations that terminate their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or
relocate their ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a host station's
facilities, subsequently moving to a different host, or returning to
its original facility) will be required to air daily Public Service
Announcements (PSAs) or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date
that the stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations on their existing
facilities. Stations that transition directly to ATSC 3.0 will be
required to air daily PSAs or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the
date that the stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations.
* * * * *
(4) Content of PSAs or crawls. For stations terminating or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals or transitioning directly to ATSC
3.0, each PSA or crawl must provide all pertinent information to
consumers.
(h) * * *
(1) Next Gen TV stations terminating their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a temporary host
station's facilities, subsequently moving to a different host, or
returning to its original facility) must provide notice to MVPDs that:
(i) No longer will be required to carry the station's ATSC 1.0
signal due to the termination or relocation; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Date and time of any ATSC 1.0 termination or channel changes;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in
advance of terminating or relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
(ii) If the anticipated date of the ATSC 1.0 signal termination or
relocation changes, the station must send a further notice to affected
MVPDs informing them of the new anticipated date.
* * * * *
(i) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast
programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host
station. If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest
multicast streams must comply with the requirements of this section
(including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), except
as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For purposes of this section,
a ``multicast'' stream refers to a video programming stream other than
the primary video programming stream.
(1) 1.0 Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
simulcast or non-simulcast guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on
one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Children's television. A Next Gen TV station may rely on a
multicast stream it is airing via a host partner to comply with the
Commission's children's television programming requirement in Sec.
73.671. Such a stream must either be carried on the same host as the
Next Gen TV station's primary stream, or on a host that serves at least
the area required under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 73.8000 by adding paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.8000 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) ATSC Standard A/72, Part 1:2023-04, ``Video System
Characteristics of AVC in the ATSC Digital Television System,'' (Apr.
25, 2023), IBR approved for Sec. 73.682.
* * * * *
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
7. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and
554.
0
8. Amend Sec. 74.782 by
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d)(2) and (3), (g)(5);
0
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (g)(6)(i) and paragraph
(g)(6)(i)(D);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (g)(6)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)(C), (h)(1), (h)(4);
0
f. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (i)(1);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), (i)(3), (i)(4)(i) and
(ii);
0
h. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (j) and (j)(1) and
paragraph (j)(2);
0
i. Removing and reserving paragraph (j)(3); and
0
j. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (j)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 74.782 Low power television and TV translator simulcasting
during the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) transition.
(a) Simulcasting arrangements. For purposes of voluntary
simulcasting in paragraph (b) of this section, a low power television
(LPTV) or TV translator station may partner with one or more other LPTV
or TV translator stations or with one or more full power or Class A
stations in a simulcasting arrangement for purposes of airing either an
ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 signal on a host station's (i.e., a station whose
facilities are being used to transmit programming originated by another
station) facilities.
* * * * *
(b) Voluntary simulcasting. An LPTV or TV translator station that
elects voluntarily to simulcast may simulcast the primary video
programming stream of their ATSC 3.0 signal in an ATSC 1.0 format, as
well as any multicast
[[Page 52348]]
stream(s) in the manner set forth in paragraph (j) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) May not relocate its ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal more than the
distance permitted under Sec. 74.787(b)(2); and
(3) Must select a host station assigned to the same Designated
Market Area (DMA) as the originating station (i.e., the station whose
programming is being transmitted on the host station).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with
the streamlined process in paragraph (g)(3) of this section will
receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air
an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station, that station
must be assigned to the same DMA as the originating station and will
meet the coverage requirements in paragraph (d) of this section .
(6) * * *
(i) An application in paragraph (g)(2) of this section must include
the following information:
* * * * *
(D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (j) of this
section, if applicable; and
* * * * *
(ii) If an application in paragraph (g)(2) of this section includes
a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station
or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in
paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section, also indicate on the application:
* * * * *
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on
the host station will meet the coverage requirements in paragraph (d)
of this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) LPTV and TV translator stations that elect voluntarily to
simulcast and that terminate their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or relocate their
ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a host station's facilities,
subsequently moving to a different host, or returning to its original
facility) will be required to air daily Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date that the
stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations on their existing
facilities. LPTV and TV translator stations that transition directly to
ATSC 3.0 will be required to air daily Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date that the
stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations.
* * * * *
(4) Content of PSAs or crawls. For stations terminating or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals or transitioning directly to ATSC
3.0, each PSA or crawl must provide all pertinent information to
consumers.
(i) * * *
(1) Next Gen TV stations terminating their ATSC 1.0 signal(s) or
relocating their ATSC 1.0 simulcast signals (e.g., moving to a
temporary host station's facilities, subsequently moving to a different
host, or returning to its original facility) must provide notice to
MVPDs that:
(i) No longer will be required to carry the station's ATSC 1.0
signal due to the termination or relocation; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Date and time of any ATSC 1.0 termination or channel changes;
* * * * *
(3) If any of the information in paragraph (i)(2) of this section
changes, an amended notification must be sent.
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in
advance of terminating or relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
(ii) If the anticipated date of the ATSC 1.0 service termination or
relocation changes, the station must send a further notice to affected
MVPDs informing them of the new anticipated date.
* * * * *
(j) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to
license, under paragraph (g) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast
programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host
station. If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest
multicast streams must comply with the requirements of this section
(including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), except
as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For purposes of this section,
a ``multicast'' stream refers to a video programming stream other than
the primary video programming stream.
(1) 1.0 Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
simulcast or non-simulcast guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on
one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) 3.0 Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 3.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (g)of this section.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) Application exhibit required. A Next Gen TV station seeking to
license hosted multicast streams must prepare and host on its public
website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does not
have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph
(g)(6)(i)(D) of this section. The exhibit must contain the following:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 74.795 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 74.795 Low power TV and TV translator transmission system
facilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The transmitter shall be designed to produce digital television
signals that can be satisfactorily viewed on consumer receiving
equipment based on the digital broadcast television transmission
standard in Sec. 73.682(d) or Sec. 73.682(f) of this chapter;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-20437 Filed 11-19-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P