Skip to content

Broadcast Law Blog

Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies

Published by
David Oxenford logo

Menu

HomeAboutServicesContact
David Oxenford logo

In the Conversion to NextGen TV, Who is Responsible for the Content of the Simulcast Streams?

By David Oxenford on November 25, 2020
Posted in Digital Television, Incentive Auctions/Broadband Report, Programming Regulations, Public Interest Obligations/Localism, Television

In one of those weird little quandaries in the broadcast legal world, the FCC just asked for comments on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the NAB seeking a clarification as to who is responsible for the content of simulcast streams provided to comply with the ATSC 3.0 conversion rules.  Under those rules, for a station to convert to the new NextGen TV transmission system, it must leave behind a simulcast stream of its primary video channel – with that stream being broadcast on a subchannel of a station continuing to operate in the current digital television standard ( a “lighthouse” continuing to transmit the programming to viewers who have not acquired a NextGen TV set – see our articles here, here and here addressing other aspects of the lighthouse signal).  In such agreements, there is often a reciprocal agreement that the station hosting the simulcast stream gets to provide its own programming on a simulcast stream of the station that is converting to ATSC 3.0.  What has not been explicitly addressed by the FCC is the legal responsibility for the content and other public interest obligations that attach to those streams.

In the normal course, a licensee is responsible for all programming that runs on its station, including on its own subchannel programming streams.  As part of the incentive auction and subsequent repacking of the television band, where the FCC blessed channel-sharing arrangements where two or more licensees share a single television channel, the FCC has made clear that there are two separate licensees and each licensee is responsible for their own programming, public file and other regulatory obligations (see our articles here and here on channel sharing).  But in the ATSC 3.0 conversion, the question has not been squarely addressed even if the answer is implied, but clearly the NAB is correct that the answer should be made crystal clear.

As the FCC has required that the station converting to ATSC 3.0 leave behind a simulcast of its broadcast programming in the current ATSC 1.0 transmission standard, and that programming is supposed to be a simulcast, it would seem obvious that the station originating the programming, rather than the one hosting it, should have the legal responsibility.  The host station does not necessarily have any prior knowledge of what programming is to be broadcast – in fact the host may well be a competitor of the converting station which is originating the programming run on the simulcast stream.  If the host station has nothing to do with the origination of that programming coming from another licensee, it seems as if that programming and all associated public interest obligations should be treated just like programming in a channel share agreement as being the responsibility of the originating station.

But, as with so much else in the legal world, the FCC must go through the motions of seeking public comment on this clarification – hence the request for comments.  The request also asks for comment on a proposal raised by the FCC as to the legal obligations that attach to other streams that are run on a station but originated on another station.  For instance, an ATSC 1.0 may host the required “lighthouse” simulcast stream of the primary video channel of a station converting to ATSC 3.0, but that converting station may also ask that the host station also host other non-primary streams originated by the converting station – and they may even be streams that will not be broadcast in NextGen TV.  As those streams are being originated by another licensee, shouldn’t those streams be treated in the same manner as the primary stream?

Comments on these questions are due December 24, with replies due January 25 – so this matter will be resolved by a new FCC.

Tags: ATSC 3.0, lighthouse signal, Next Gen TV, primary video stream, simulcast programming, TV channel sharing
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: November 26 to December 2 , 2022
December 4, 2022
September Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters:  Reg Fees, Foreign Government Program Certifications, Final Chance to Claim Reimbursement for Repacking Expenses, Comments on ATSC 3.0 and FTC Advertising Inquiry, and More
August 28, 2022
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: July 30, 2022 to August 5, 2022
August 7, 2022

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Me on Twitter

Recent Posts

  • This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: January 30, 2023 to February 5, 2023
  • 5 Questions on the FCC’s EEO Obligations for Broadcasters
  • February Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Renewal Applications, EEO Reports, Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, Children’s Programming Reports, Copyright Fees for Webcasters, ETRS Form One, and More
  • This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: January 23, 2023 to January 30, 2023
  • FCC Extends End of January Deadlines for LMS and Online Public File Documents Due to Filing System Technical Issues 

Topics

  • About this Blog
  • Advertising Issues
  • AM Radio
  • Appearances
  • Assignments and Transfers
  • Broadcast Auctions
  • Broadcast Performance Royalty
  • Cable Carriage
  • Children's Programming and Advertising
  • Digital Radio
  • Digital Television
  • Drones
  • EEO Compliance/Diversity
  • Emergency Communications
  • Fairness Doctrine
  • FCC Fees
  • FCC Fines
  • FM Radio
  • FM Translators and LPFM
  • General FCC
  • Incentive Auctions/Broadband Report
  • Indecency
  • Intellectual Property
  • Internet Radio
  • Internet Video
  • License Renewal
  • Low Power Television/Class A TV
  • Multiple Ownership Rules
  • Music Rights
  • Noncommercial Broadcasting
  • On Line Media
  • Payola and Sponsorship Identification
  • Podcasting
  • Political Broadcasting
  • Privacy
  • Programming Regulations
  • Public Interest Obligations/Localism
  • Security
  • Television
  • Tower Issues
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized
  • Website Issues
Photo of David OxenfordDavid OxenfordPartner

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the…

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Show more Show less

Archives

David Oxenford logo
1800 M Street NW
Suite 800N
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: 202.783.5851
Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Me on Twitter
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

ABOUT

David is a partner at the law firm of Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP, practicing out of its Washington, DC office. He has represented broadcasters for over 30 years on a wide array of matters from the negotiation and structuring of station purchase and sale agreements to regulatory matters. His regulatory expertise includes all areas of broadcast law including the FCC’s multiple ownership limitations, the political broadcasting rules, EEO policy, advertising issues, and other programming matters and FCC technical rules.

Read More...
Copyright © 2023, David Oxenford. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo