Daily Ex Parte, Sep 4, 2025
CTA/Public Knowledge (NAB on ATSC 3.0)
I missed ACAM on Tuesday, and CTA/Public Knowledge yesterday. Apologies for the delay…
Filers
Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge — urged the FCC to deny NAB's petition for a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0.
ACAM Broadband Coalition — Enhanced ACAM (E-ACAM) Program
Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge
Proceeding(s): 16-142
Date of Meeting: August 28, 2025
Date Disseminated: September 02, 2025
Participants:
Consumer Technology Association (CTA): Brian Markwalter (Senior Vice President, Research & Standards), Rachel Nemeth (Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs)
Public Knowledge: John Bergmayer (Legal Director)
FCC: Marcus Maher (Office of Commissioner Trusty)
Summary of Discussion:
Representatives from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and Public Knowledge met with the Office of Commissioner Trusty to argue against the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which seeks to facilitate the transition to the ATSC 3.0 ("Next Generation TV") broadcast standard. Both organizations urged the FCC to deny NAB's requests, emphasizing their shared opposition to a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0.
The CTA reiterated its position that the transition should remain voluntary. They argued that a mandate would harm consumers by imposing higher costs for televisions, stifling innovation, and creating unnecessary regulations. The CTA noted that its members have already supported the voluntary transition by developing the ATSC 3.0 standards and partnering on the "NEXTGEN TV" branding. They contended that if broadcasters are concerned about market adoption, they should focus on consumer education and promotion rather than seeking a government mandate. The CTA presented research indicating that only a small percentage of households (approximately 8%) rely solely on over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting for video content, making a mandate that increases costs for all consumers an unfair burden for a feature only some desire. To illustrate the cost impact, the CTA provided an analysis showing that TVs equipped with ATSC 3.0 tuners were significantly more expensive than comparable models with only ATSC 1.0 tuners.
Public Knowledge focused on the negative impacts of ATSC 3.0's digital rights management (DRM) and certification processes. They argued that the A3SA certification model, controlled by incumbent broadcasters, operates opaquely and without meaningful oversight. This creates an environment where competition can be stifled, and device features limited. This process could lock out smaller innovators like startups, open-source projects, and academic developers from the ATSC 3.0 ecosystem, ultimately leading to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Public Knowledge also raised concerns about potential standard-essential patent (SEP) abuse and excessive licensing fees limiting competition.
Legally, Public Knowledge cited the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Library Association v. FCC, which invalidated the "broadcast flag" regime. They argued that an ATSC 3.0 mandate would similarly constitute an overreach of the FCC's authority by regulating the design of consumer electronics post-transmission. Furthermore, Public Knowledge emphasized that broadcasters have a longstanding "social contract" to serve the public interest in exchange for the use of public spectrum. They asserted that since broadcasters are the primary beneficiaries of the ATSC 3.0 transition, they should bear the associated costs. Finally, they noted that many of the interactive features touted by ATSC 3.0 are already widely available on online streaming platforms, where broadcasters are free to compete.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10902350312275/1]
ACAM Broadband Coalition
Proceeding(s): 10-90, 14-58, 09-197, 16-271, RM-11868
Date of Meeting: August 28, 2025
Date Disseminated: September 03, 2025
Participants: Representatives from the ACAM Broadband Coalition, including Sara Cole (TDS), Kevin McGuire (Great Plains Communications), Scott Schultheis (Reynolds Schultheis Consulting), Dustin Durden (Pineland Communications), and Genevieve Morelli (ACAM Broadband Coalition), met via videoconference with AJ Burton and Nathan Eagan of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, and Peter Gingeleskie of the Office of Economics and Analytics.
Summary of Discussion:
The ACAM Broadband Coalition discussed key issues related to the upcoming support adjustment process for the Enhanced ACAM (E-ACAM) Program. The discussion focused on methodologies for recalculating support levels based on updated location data and ensuring equitable outcomes for participating companies.
1. Use of a Proxy Model for Cost Estimation: The Coalition advocated for the use of a "proxy model" to recalculate per-location costs. This model was developed in conjunction with CostQuest Associates (CQA) to address potential inaccuracies that would arise from simply using old cost data with new location counts.
Methodology: The proxy model compares network investments at the census block level between the original Fabric V.2 data and the updated Fabric V.4 data. It calculates a percentage change in investment, which is then applied to the original E-ACAM model cost to produce an updated, more accurate proxy cost for each location.
Rationale: The Coalition argued that simply removing locations that no longer exist in the updated dataset would incorrectly remove the associated support for shared network infrastructure costs (e.g., Nodes 0-3 in a fiber network). This would leave the remaining locations underfunded, as they still rely on that shared infrastructure. The proxy model more accurately reflects the true costs to serve the final set of E-ACAM locations.
Impact: An analysis presented by the Coalition showed that using the proxy model results in a significantly smaller overall support reduction compared to using the original FCC offer average cost. Based on August 2025 interim data, the proxy model estimated a gross funding decrease of $27.1 million, whereas the alternative method showed a decrease of $102.2 million from the original $861 million offer.
The Coalition stated that while the most accurate method would be for the FCC to re-run the entire cost model with the final location data, the proxy model should be used if time and resource constraints prevent that.
2. Equitable Application of the 5% De Minimis Threshold: The Coalition raised concerns about the inequitable "cliff effect" of the 5% de minimis threshold, where companies with location decreases slightly below 5% (e.g., 4.9%) face no support reduction, while those with decreases just above 5% (e.g., 5.1%) face a reduction based on their entire percentage decrease.
Proposed Solution: To remedy this, the Coalition proposed a "smoothing" formula. This formula would adjust the support reduction so that all companies with location decreases over 5% would still receive the benefit of the 5% threshold.
Formula:
Final Reduction = Change in Support x ((Percent Change in Obligated Locations + 5.0%) / Percent Change in Obligated Locations)Example: A company with a 5.1% location decrease and a potential $144,106 support reduction would, under the smoothing formula, see its reduction lessened to only $4,163, creating a more equitable outcome compared to a company with a 4.9% decrease and zero reduction.
3. General Principles for the Recalculation Process: The Coalition reiterated several key principles that should guide the adjustment process:
Support should be recalculated for all E-ACAM companies.
If a company's recalculated support is greater than its original offer, it should receive the increased amount.
All companies should be reassessed to determine if they fall into the 80% uncapped support category or the up to $350/location category based on the new data.
The obligated locations used to calculate the 5% de minimis threshold should be adjusted to be consistent with final Broadband Funding Map (BFM) codes.
4. Procedural Requests: Finally, the Coalition stressed the importance of a fair and transparent process:
A complete and proper adjudication of all location, service availability, and enforceable commitment challenges must be completed before the eligible locations list is finalized for the adjustment process.
The Bureau should release at least one more interim eligible locations file and provide the industry with a reasonable opportunity for review before finalization.
They inquired about how support decreases would be implemented and offered to work with the Bureau to establish an equitable process.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, ACAM Broadband Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1090249551280/1; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1090249551280/2]