Articles Posted in

By
By
Published on:

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) yesterday filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to establish a “clear timeline” to complete the transition to the ATSC 3.0 (a/k/a “NextGen TV”) television transmission standard.  The Petition follows last week’s NAB ex parte meeting with Chairman Carr and Acting Chief of the Media Bureau, Erin Boone, in which it advocated for a comprehensive industry-wide plan to expedite completion of the transition (along with measures to modernize and/or eliminate local and national broadcast ownership restrictions and reopen the long-dormant vMVPD proceeding).

The Petition for Rulemaking calls for a 2-phase approach to ending ATSC 1.0 transmissions and fully transitioning to the NextGen TV standard.  Phase 1 would require stations in the top 55 markets (representing approximately 70% of the U.S. population) to transition to ATSC 3.0 by February 2028, with limited waivers for small or noncommercial stations if necessary.  Phase 2 would require stations in the remaining markets to transition to ATSC 3.0 by February 2030.

In support of this transition plan, the Petition highlights a number of NextGen TV consumer benefits, including:

  • Improving the viewer experience with 4K ultra high-definition video, interactive broadcast apps, a high dynamic range picture, and improved audio with dialog enhancement to make programming more accessible;
  • Making available for the first time the Broadcast Positioning System (BPS), a new technology that leverages NextGen TV to transmit precise timing signals to address critical positioning, navigation and timing needs that is less vulnerable to jamming, spoofing, and cyberattacks than GPS, ensuring that critical systems remain operational during GPS disruptions.
  • Unlocking the “Broadcast Internet,” which can be used to relieve content delivery network congestion for high-demand streaming programming, deliver time-sensitive information to first responders in heavy crowd situations where mobile networks are overloaded, expand distance learning and telehealth accessibility, and enable many other datacasting applications;
  • Disseminating advanced emergency information during natural disasters and other emergencies; and
  • Ensuring continued public access to popular content, as the ability to offer 4K high dynamic range transmissions of sporting events may determine whether these events will remain available free over the air or will migrate to pay services that deliver a higher quality experience than the current ATSC 1.0 standard permits.

The Petition emphasizes that while broadcasters have made significant progress in rolling out NextGen TV over the past few years, a complete and coordinated transition will be necessary to take full advantage of NextGen TV’s capabilities and avoid trade-offs in picture quality and signal robustness that current capacity constraints impose when broadcasters are required to transmit duplicative signals in both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0. Continue reading →

Posted in: ATSC 3.0 and Television
Published on:
Updated:

By and
By and
Published on:

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • Seven-Figure Fine Proposed for Robocaller Targeting FCC Staff
  • FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Issues Payola Warning to Broadcasters
  • California Noncommercial TV Station Licensee Enters $25,000 Consent Decree to Wrap Up Investigation Into Multiple Rule Violations

FCC Proposes Seven-Figure Fine for Telecom Company Accused of Allowing Bad Actors to Use Its Network to Intimidate FCC Staff

The FCC proposed a multi-million dollar fine against a voice service provider accused of failing to prevent illegal voice traffic on its network.  Some of the pre-recorded calls targeted FCC staff and their families and purported to be from the FCC’s “Fraud Prevention Team,” which does not exist.  The calls attempted to extract money from the recipients through intimidation.

Under Section 64.1200(n)(4) of the FCC’s Rules, a voice service provider must take “affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to originate illegal traffic.”  The rule gives voice service providers discretion as to how they police their own networks as long as the measures they put in place effectively prevent the origination of illegal traffic and ensure they know their customers.  Knowing your customer involves collecting and verifying customer information, including their corporate records, government identification, and the addresses from which they will be originating their calls.  The FCC has warned providers that high-volume callers merit heightened scrutiny to ensure they will not abuse the provider’s network.

In a redacted Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), the FCC detailed the parties involved in the alleged scheme, including the voice service provider and two of its customers.  The two customers were accepted as customers on the same day, and while they provided different names and email addresses, they both had the same physical address (a Toronto hotel) and used the same domain name.  According to the NAL, on the same day they were accepted as customers and into the next day, the two entities originated automated calls that reached FCC staff and sought to connect the recipients to a live caller who, in at least one case, demanded $1,000 in gift cards to help the caller avoid jail time for “crimes against the state.”

The FCC worked with the Industry Traceback Group to determine the origin of the suspected illegal robocalls.  The Enforcement Bureau then subpoenaed call records from the voice service provider and learned that the two customers made nearly 2,000 calls over the two days that FCC staff reported receiving calls.  The FCC’s investigation revealed that the information the customers provided to the voice service provider was false and that the voice service provider did not corroborate or independently verify the customers’ information, thereby failing to apply the scrutiny necessary for the company to know its customers.  The FCC noted that the customers paid the provider in untraceable bitcoin, which helped to conceal their identities, but said it was not a factor in the FCC’s finding of apparent rule violations. Continue reading →