Docket Rocket, Vol. 1: NAB Petition for Mandatory ATSC 3.0 Transition

What's on the Record as of June 13, 2025

The voluntary, market-by-market transition to the ATSC 3.0 standard has reached a critical juncture, and the broadcast industry’s leading advocate is now demanding a finite end to the process. The NAB’s Petition marks the official start of a new, potentially contentious, phase in the evolution of over-the-air television, shifting the debate from "how" to "how soon."

If you need to stay up to date with live email updates when filings hit the FCC's ECFS, check out docket-rocket.io. Create an account to set up email alerts for dockets or filers you care about. For instance, if you want an email alert when the NAB files in any proceeding on ECFS, Docket Rocket alerts will send you an email to access an AI-generated summary of the filing as soon as it hits the ECFS!

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to set a hard deadline to shut down legacy ATSC 1.0 broadcasts. On February 26, 2025, the NAB submitted a detailed Petition for Rulemaking in the Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard proceeding (GN Docket No. 16-142). ¹

Arguing that the transition risks stalling without decisive Commission action, the NAB proposes a coordinated, industry-wide plan to complete the migration to ATSC 3.0. The petition asserts that while Next Gen TV service is now available to over 75% of the U.S. population, the parallel requirement to maintain ATSC 1.0 simulcasts creates spectrum constraints and market uncertainty that stifle investment and innovation.

To break the logjam, NAB outlines a two-phase timeline for a mandatory switch-off of the old standard:

• Phase 1: Stations in the top 55 designated market areas (DMAs) must cease ATSC 1.0 broadcasts by February 2028.

• Phase 2: Stations in all remaining markets must transition by February 2030.

Beyond establishing this firm timeline, the petition urges the Commission to make several important rule changes to facilitate an orderly transition. Key among these requests is a call to update the DTV tuner rule to require that new television receivers include ATSC 3.0 tuners, a move aimed at driving consumer hardware adoption. The NAB also seeks to clarify MVPD carriage obligations to ensure a smooth handoff, relax interim rules on voluntary hosting arrangements, and—perhaps most urgently—secure the immediate elimination of the "substantially similar" programming requirement. The group contends that this rule unnecessarily restricts broadcasters from offering differentiated, innovative content on their new 3.0 channels, dampening a key incentive for consumers to upgrade.

Adding a significant national security dimension to their argument, the NAB revealed a major infrastructure play tied to the Next Gen TV transition. In an ex parte communication on March 10, the broadcast association detailed its progress on a Broadcast Positioning System (BPS), designed to be a terrestrial, complementary alternative to GPS for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services.² NAB quickly followed up with a detailed presentation to FCC staff two days later. In this meeting, NAB emphasized that a "GPS failure could be catastrophic to our nation," referencing Executive Order 13905 and highlighting the urgent need for a resilient PNT alternative. ³

In a subsequent presentation to Commission staff, the NAB underscored the economic dependency on GPS, valued in the trillions of dollars. It warned that a compromise could halt everything from the energy grid and equity trading to telecommunications and transportation systems.⁴ The association explained that its BPS technology operates within existing broadcast spectrum using ATSC 3.0 datacasting technology, requiring "minimal additional effort or equipment" for a Next Gen TV station to deploy. This system can function independently of GPS or cellular networks, detect GPS spoofing, and provide timing accuracy comparable to or superior to GPS. Highlighting government efforts like the DOT's Complementary PNT Action Plan, NAB asserted that a complete, nationwide transition to ATSC 3.0 is a prerequisite for deploying BPS across the country. They pointed to ongoing tests in Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Denver, and Las Vegas as proof of concept. By connecting the transition to a separate Commission inquiry on PNT (WTB Docket No. 25-110), NAB framed the ATSC 3.0 transition as a local media upgrade and an emergent component of national infrastructure.

Responding to the NAB's petition, the FCC initiated a public inquiry of the Next Gen TV transition. The Media Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comment on the NAB’s Petition for Rulemaking and the association's recent Future of Television Initiative (FOTVI) report.⁵ Comments were due by May 7, 2025, and replies by June 6, 2025.

While soliciting feedback on all of NAB’s core proposals—from the sunset timeline and tuner mandate to MVPD carriage and the "substantially similar" rule—the Bureau's notice goes much further. It has asked for input on persistent marketplace barriers, including consumer complaints about Digital Rights Management (DRM) encryption that prevents viewing on some 3.0-capable devices. It also seeks comment on technical alternatives and intermediate steps, such as permitting MPEG4 compression on primary streams and addressing VHF reception issues. The FCC is also questioning a fundamental component of the new standard: how much “spectral capacity” a Next Gen TV station must ultimately devote to free, over-the-air television service. By opening this broad line of questioning, the Commission signals that all aspects of the transition are now on the table.

The NAB proposal was met with opposition from smaller broadcasters, who fear being crushed by the financial and operational burdens of a mandated switch. One Ministries, Inc. (OMI), the operator of full-power station KQSL labeled the proposed timeline "patently unfair" and an "undue burden on minority and religious stations."⁶ OMI warns that the unfunded mandate could be the "nail in the coffin" for minority broadcast ownership, which it claims is already shrinking due to discrimination from vMVPDs that decline to carry independent stations, by forcing a transition before a viable audience with ATSC 3.0 receivers exists. The filing suggests the considerable expense and loss of viewers could force such stations into bankruptcy or a sale. Accusing the NAB of "putting the cart before the horse," OMI argues that any mandate must be preceded by several key government actions: extension of must-carry rules to vMVPDs, federal reimbursement for station conversion costs, and federal coupons to help consumers purchase 3.0 receivers.

The opposition from smaller, community-focused operators was amplified by the LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTVBA), which introduced a significant technological challenge to the NAB's vision. In its comments, the LPTVBA took a nuanced stance, supporting a mandatory transition for full-power stations but strongly opposing any mandate for low-power, translator, and Class A stations.⁷ It championed 5G Broadcast as a more viable and cost-effective alternative for its members, highlighting its ability to broadcast directly to smartphones.

Reinforcing this position, the National Television Association (NTA), representing TV and FM translator and LPTV operators, detailed the practical impossibilities of the NAB’s plan for its members. They opposed the NAB’s proposal to eliminate the ATSC 1.0 tuner requirement from new televisions, pointing out this would render any station that remains on the legacy standard invisible to future audiences, effectively regulating them out of existence.⁸

Adding to the opposition from within the industry, Weigel Broadcasting Co. argued that a "flash cut" threatens the foundation of free over-the-air television. Weigel expressed deep concern that proponents are emphasizing non-broadcast services like datacasting over actual broadcast improvements, creating a risk that broadcasters will use the new standard to divert spectrum away from public service. The company contends that a forced transition, absent massive consumer demand, would impose substantial costs and complexity on viewers through new equipment, potential internet requirements, and controversial DRM. Weigel noted that the current rules would allow a station to devote as little as 3-4% of its capacity to a single SD video stream, leaving the remainder for monetized non-broadcast services. To prevent this, Weigel urged the Commission to implement "guardrails" before any transition, including mandating a minimum capacity equivalent to an ATSC 1.0 signal (19.3 Mbps) be dedicated to free, internet-independent broadcasting and establishing a floor for signal robustness to ensure reception quality.⁹

The public broadcasting community echoed this call for caution, staking out a position that embraces the new technology but rejects a rigid, one-size-fits-all mandate. In a joint filing, America’s Public Television Stations (APTS) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) argued that noncommercial educational (NCE) stations must be allowed to determine their transition timing based on local needs and resources (APTS and PBS are collectively known as PTV).¹⁰ Citing their universal service mission, particularly to rural and underserved communities, PTV highlighted NCEs' unique burdens, including staggering transition costs, lengthy public budgeting cycles, and difficulty finding sharing partners for geographically isolated stations. To address this, PTV proposed a blanket exemption for NCEs from the NAB’s initial 2028 deadline and a streamlined, presumptive waiver process for the final 2030 deadline. While supporting the NAB's call for channel prominence and an exemption for TV translators, PTV insisted on preserving existing must-carry rules to ensure continued public access.

The NAB's call for a tuner mandate drew opposition from television manufacturers. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), representing over 1200 tech companies, launched an early campaign at the Commission through ex parte meetings and followed with official comments delivering a comprehensive rejection of the NAB’s core requests.¹¹ CTA argued that the NAB's petition represents a "unilateral reversal" from the original 2017 joint position where both organizations agreed that a tuner mandate would be "counterproductive and unnecessary." It asserts there is "no basis whatsoever for heavy-handed and risky government intervention" when the market has delivered over 14 million Next Gen TV-capable sets. CTA wielded the Commission’s "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative against the broadcasters, arguing that NAB’s proposal "constitutes precisely the kind of hyper-regulatory approach" that the administration seeks to eliminate.

Representing the interests of cable and satellite providers, The American Television Alliance (ATVA) attacked the NAB’s petition, arguing the proposal is a transparent attempt to force a costly transition with few public benefits to create new, monetized businesses for broadcasters. ATVA asserted that the primary driver is not improving free over-the-air television but ancillary services like datacasting, quoting one broadcast executive who referred to the potential as a "license for broadcasters to print money." The alliance detailed the technical and financial burdens the mandate would impose on MVPDs, including new headend equipment, patent royalty fees, and capacity constraints, particularly for satellite carriers. ATVA argued that these costs would come with no corresponding benefit for pay-TV subscribers, as most features, like 4K video, would have to be downconverted to be compatible with existing set-top boxes. Raising fundamental legal objections, ATVA contended that the Commission lacks the statutory authority for a mandate and that allowing broadcast spectrum to be used primarily for non-broadcast services would constitute a de facto spectrum reallocation, an action that exceeds the FCC’s authority under the major questions doctrine.¹²

Reinforcing the pay-TV industry's opposition, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association filed comments arguing that a government mandate is a "heavy-handed" intervention that lacks market justification and would impose substantial costs on operators and subscribers.¹³ NCTA contends that mandatory carriage of ATSC 3.0 signals would violate the First Amendment (compelled speech) and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by forcing operators to dedicate scarce capacity and incur upgrade costs without compensation. Should the Commission proceed despite these constitutional infirmities, NCTA demanded a comprehensive set of new rules. These include redefining "good quality signal" for the IP-based standard, clarifying that down-conversion is not "material degradation," and allowing MVPDs to remove watermarks. NCTA urged the FCC to prohibit broadcasters from leveraging retransmission consent to negotiate for carriage of non-broadcast "Broadcast Internet" services and to require that essential patents be licensed on a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) basis.

The Commission’s focus on Digital Rights Management also proved prescient, as public sentiment entered the record. Individual viewers voiced strong opposition, concerned that the new standard could reduce, rather than enhance, their viewing rights. One filer submitted a formal Motion to Quash the entire NAB petition, arguing that broadcasters' use of DRM on Next Gen TV signals effectively "locks out viewers" and prevents recording.¹⁴ These viewer fears were crystallized around a specific, high-profile event by filer Hank Bovis, who argued that the NAB’s proposed 2028 sunset was “particularly ill-advised” as it could prevent millions of Americans from watching the Los Angeles Olympics in HD.¹⁵ Instead of a forced sunset, Bovis proposed the Olympics be used as a prime opportunity to showcase 1.0 HD alongside 3.0 4K, driving organic consumer adoption. He also challenged the NAB’s assurances on DRM, pointing out that any viewer rights protections currently in place are tied directly to the 1.0 simulcast and would “cease to exist” once the legacy signal is terminated.

These concerns were consolidated and amplified into a comprehensive legal and policy assault by a coalition of public interest and consumer advocacy groups. Public Knowledge, Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others flatly opposed the NAB's petition, arguing it prioritizes broadcaster profits over the public interest by privatizing the public airwaves. The groups contend that mandatory DRM acts as a "technological toll booth," undermining fair use rights, stifling innovation, and potentially violating the First Amendment. They warn that the proposed transition would impose significant costs on consumers, create a mountain of e-waste, and disproportionately harm vulnerable populations.¹⁶

Bridging the gap between the public interest opposition and pro-transition engineering arguments, attorney Richelle Brittain, filing as an individual, submitted a detailed counter-proposal. While rejecting the NAB’s timeline as "totally unworkable," Brittain also opposed indefinite delays, outlining a comprehensive, multi-phase transition spanning at least seven years. Her entire framework, however, is contingent on the market availability of an affordable and functional "$40 tuner" to ensure consumers are not left behind. Echoing the consumer advocates, Brittain launched a pointed legal attack on Digital Rights Management, arguing its use on free-to-air channels is "contrary to the spirit if not the absolute letter" of federal law and should be banned on all primary channels. Her proposal also extends to a restructuring of video carriage rules, advocating for a new compulsory copyright license scheme to replace retransmission consent for cable and streaming providers.¹⁷

The Wireless Microphone Spectrum Alliance (WMSA) warned that the NAB’s plan threatens the viability of major live events and content production. WMSA, a coalition of wireless microphone users, providers, and manufacturers, argued in an ex parte meeting with FCC staff that the Phase 1 transition deadline would "jeopardize the RF planning for the LA 2028 Olympic Games" and should be postponed.¹⁸ The group challenged the NAB’s premise by contesting the characterization of channels unused by broadcasters as "vacant." WMSA asserted these spectrum gaps in the TV-UHF band are "precisely the channels used by wireless mics" and are essential for everything from the Super Bowl and concerts to church services. Highlighting data from the Paris 2024 Olympics showing that 89% of audio links operated in the 470-694 MHz range, WMSA warned that the ATSC 3.0 transition could eliminate this essential resource. Further, the group argued that any future "spectrum dividend" created by the transition must not be reallocated to services like 5G or 6G, which is incompatible with wireless microphone operations.

The North American Spectrum Alliance (NASPA), a coalition of content creation and distribution stakeholders, amplified these concerns, which filed reply comments in full support of WMSA’s position.¹⁹ Echoing the call to avoid complicating preparations for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, NASPA argued that the Commission must not allow broadcasters to use UHF channels currently utilized by wireless microphones for the ATSC 3.0 transition. Going a step further, NASPA contended that if the transition creates spectral efficiencies, any resulting "spectrum dividend" should be reserved and allocated for dedicated wireless microphone usage, not reallocated to other commercial services.

Sennheiser Electronic Corporation filed reply comments supporting the transition in principle but demanding that the Commission protect the spectrum needs of wireless microphone operators. Sennheiser argued that while the transition offers benefits, it threatens the viability of content creation by further squeezing the UHF TV band spectrum on which professional microphones rely. Highlighting the massive coordination effort already underway for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, Sennheiser warned that the NAB’s proposed February 2028 deadline leaves only five months to resolve spectrum availability for the thousands of wireless systems required. To mitigate this risk, the company floated a counterintuitive proposal: the FCC should consider an earlier transition date for the largest markets to provide the necessary planning certainty well before the Games.²⁰

Moving beyond policy to specific engineering solutions, technology firm djr Technologies, LLC, submitted comments critiquing the transition’s real-world execution. The firm argued that Next Gen TV’s promise is undermined by current implementation choices that make reception more difficult than legacy ATSC 1.0. To address this and the DRM issue, djr Technologies proposed a technical framework where the FCC would mandate that a station’s primary public service channel be broadcast unencrypted and engineered for maximum robustness and accessibility.²¹

ATSC (the Broadcast Standards Association) filed comments providing a technical justification for ending the transition period.²² While noting that policy decisions are outside its purview, ATSC argued from a technical standpoint that the FCC-mandated simulcasting is the most significant impediment to realizing the standard’s full potential. Due to spectrum scarcity, the organization explained that broadcasters in a given market must share a single 6 MHz channel for their ATSC 3.0 signals, leaving each with only a fraction of the total data capacity. ATSC concluded that by retiring the 1.0 standard, each broadcaster can gain access to 100% of their licensed channel capacity, thereby unlocking the advanced services that will drive innovation and consumer adoption.

Supporting the NAB’s core proposal, InterDigital, Inc., a technology company holding patents essential to the ATSC 3.0 standard, argued that a firm government deadline is required to solve a "tragedy of the commons" scenario.²³ Providing a direct counterpoint to the CTA's opposition, Philips, an innovator in video technology, endorsed the NAB's call for a mandated timeline and tuner rule update, arguing that history has shown that providing a "date certain" is necessary to drive progress.²⁴ Video compression specialist V-Nova, Inc. added its support, highlighting the standard's technical evolution and international potential, arguing the platform's demonstrated ability to incorporate advanced codecs like VVC and LCEVC ensures it can deliver commercially viable UltraHD services.²⁵

Adding a powerful voice supporting a mandated transition, Sinclair, Inc., a key architect of the ATSC 3.0 standard, submitted comments framing the Next Gen TV transition as a cornerstone of a much larger deregulatory agenda.²⁶ Sinclair’s filing, submitted across six separate dockets, argues that broadcasters are trapped by "ossified regulatory burdens" while facing existential competition from largely unregulated "Big Tech" platforms. In more comments specific to the Next Gen TV docket, Sinclair argued that ATSC 3.0 is the "way out of the competitive and regulatory quicksand," citing Nielsen data showing broadcast’s share of viewership (20.5%) is now less than half that of streaming (43.8%).²⁷ To that end, Sinclair strongly endorsed the NAB’s proposed sunset dates and urged the Commission to immediately end the "substantially similar" simulcast rule and permit MPEG4 compression to speed deployment. Further, Sinclair opposed any new rules governing DRM or setting a minimum spectral capacity for free TV, arguing such "heavy-handed, prescriptive overregulation" would impede broadcasters' ability to innovate and compete. Sinclair’s position is clear: to ensure the survival of local journalism, the Commission must not only adopt the ATSC 1.0 sunset but also eliminate ownership rules to allow broadcasters to achieve the scale necessary to compete with giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon.

While Sinclair framed the transition as part of a deregulatory battle, other major broadcasters offered more focused, but equally strong, support for the NAB's petition. Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), the nation’s largest religious broadcaster, echoed the NAB’s core arguments in its comments, labeling the mandatory ATSC 1.0 simulcast an "operational nightmare" and a "financial drain."²⁸ Gray filed comments endorsing the NAB's petition, framing the transition as essential for the survival of local television.²⁹ The E.W. Scripps Company (“Scripps”), another major broadcast group holding 152 station licenses, added its support for a coordinated, date-certain transition, stating bluntly that "voluntary transition efforts, while impressive so far, simply will not continue to cut it."³⁰

Pearl TV, a coalition representing broadcasters that reach over 95% of the U.S. population, filed comments in lockstep with the NAB.³¹ Pearl argued that "decisive Commission action" via a firm sunset date is essential to provide clarity for all stakeholders and prevent the transition from stalling. Framing the issue as a competitive imperative, Pearl asserted that retiring the obsolete ATSC 1.0 standard is necessary for broadcasters to compete against modern streaming platforms and "Big Tech." Echoing the NAB's regulatory roadmap, Pearl endorsed streamlining rules on signal quality and multicast streams, invoking the Commission's "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative to argue for removing unnecessary burdens. It also introduced a new proposal aimed directly at device manufacturers, urging the FCC to adopt a rule ensuring that broadcast services are accessible in "the same or fewer steps" as other video content, preventing platforms from "gatekeeping" local channels.

Sinclair doubled down on this aggressive posture in its reply comments, directly confronting multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Sinclair accused MVPD commenters of improperly using the proceeding to attack fundamental broadcaster rights and undermine the ATSC 3.0 transition. By directly refuting MVPD efforts to block a facilitated Next Gen TV transition, Sinclair positioned the sunset as a battleground in the ongoing war between broadcasters and the pay-TV industry over signal carriage and value.³²

Adding the collective weight of over 700 local stations to the pro-mandate side, the 'Big Four' network affiliate associations—representing ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates—filed joint reply comments in full support of the NAB's petition. The affiliates argued that a definitive transition timeline is essential to provide the regulatory certainty needed to unlock the full potential of Next Gen TV, including improved quality and enhanced emergency alerts. Reinforcing the NAB's roadmap, they urged the Commission to eliminate the "substantially similar" programming requirement, update DTV reception rules to ensure future devices include ATSC 3.0 tuners, and clarify application processing standards to remove barriers to deployment.³³

A public safety argument from a key technology partner bolstered the broadcaster-led push for a mandate. Digital Alert Systems, Inc. (DAS), a company central to the nation’s emergency alerting infrastructure, strongly supported an expedited transition, arguing that the life-saving potential of ATSC 3.0’s advanced alerting capabilities is a paramount public interest concern.³⁴ Citing its deep involvement in developing the new standards, DAS detailed how Next Gen TV enables precise geotargeting, rich media alerts with maps and images, and multilingual support—all delivered over broadcasters' highly resilient infrastructure. By framing the transition as a upgrade for national resilience and communications equity, DAS provided a public safety rationale for the Commission to act swiftly.

Adding further weight to the pro-mandate replies, Pearl TV reinforced the broadcast industry's call for a swift Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish a firm sunset. The coalition directly confronted arguments from the CTA and Public Knowledge, contending that a firm deadline, far from being premature, is the only way to accelerate consumer adoption and drive down device costs, echoing the FCC's actions during the DTV transition. The group also mounted a robust defense of signal encryption, framing it not as an anti-consumer tool but as a commercial prerequisite for securing the high-value content needed to compete with streaming platforms. Furthermore, Pearl urged the Commission to reject unnecessary new regulations proposed by public interest groups and avoid reopening settled issues like patent licensing and retransmission consent.³⁵

Sinclair's gambit to tie the Next Gen TV transition to wholesale deregulation drew a rebuke from MVPDs. In reply comments, The American Television Alliance (ATVA), which represents cable and satellite providers, launched a direct assault on the broadcasters' deregulatory push, arguing it would come at the direct expense of consumers.³⁶ ATVA presented a clear causal chain: eliminating local and national ownership caps would inevitably lead to further broadcaster consolidation. This increased market power, ATVA contended, would give broadcasters greater leverage in retransmission consent negotiations, leading to higher fees that MVPDs would be forced to pass on to subscribers. By framing ownership deregulation as directly harming consumers, ATVA has positioned itself as the primary opponent to Sinclair's broad vision for a deregulated broadcast landscape.

A free-market advocacy group provided ideological reinforcement for the pay-TV industry’s constitutional arguments. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) argued in its reply comments that the NAB's entire proposal contradicts principles of deregulation by asking the FCC to "pick marketplace winners and losers," thereby stifling innovation and harming consumers.³⁷ Echoing the MVPDs, TPA asserted that extending must-carry rules would violate the First Amendment's free speech protections and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The group also sided with manufacturers in opposing a tuner mandate, arguing the market, not the government, should dictate product design. TPA's core position is that the current market-led transition is working and that the NAB's call for government intervention is both unnecessary and legally precarious.

Providing further ideological support for the anti-mandate coalition, The James Madison Institute (JMI) filed reply comments arguing that NAB’s request for government mandates directly conflicts with established deregulatory policy.³⁸ JMI asserted that market evidence, such as low consumer adoption despite widespread signal availability, demonstrates a lack of perceived value in the new standard, not a "cycle of hesitation" requiring government intervention. The Institute warned that a mandate threatens to cut off essential services for vulnerable populations, including older adults, rural residents, and low-income families, who cannot afford new equipment. JMI argued that the Commission lacks the authority to impose a mandate without explicit congressional authorization, noting that the prior DTV transition was directed by statute, unlike the current broadcaster-initiated effort.

Joining the opposition, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) filed reply comments branding the NAB’s petition as “unnecessary, harmful, and costly.”³⁹ CAGW argued that mandating a transition without demonstrated consumer demand is antithetical to the FCC's deregulatory principles. Drawing parallels to the DTV transition, the group pointed to a GAO report that estimated consumer converter box subsidies could have cost taxpayers up to $10.6 billion. Citing the concerns of Weigel, NTA, and CTA, CAGW asserted that the current voluntary, market-driven approach is working and should continue, and that a mandate would impose enormous costs on viewers and LPTV operators without justification.

Free-market advocacy group Digital Liberty echoed this anti-mandate sentiment, arguing that while the broadcast industry is overregulated, the solution is to lift those burdens, not impose new ones on its competitors.⁴⁰ In its reply, Digital Liberty framed the NAB petition as a flawed attempt to use regulation to limit competition, pointing out that the current voluntary approach has already successfully brought Next Gen TV to over 75% of the population. The group accused the NAB of "perversely" quoting deregulatory arguments to justify new regulations that would force competitors to adopt broadcast standards. The proper path forward, Digital Liberty concluded, is for the Commission to reject the petition and allow genuine market competition, not FCC mandates, to determine which technologies thrive.

Adding another free-market voice to the anti-mandate chorus, the American Action Forum argued that the transition should remain voluntary, allowing market forces and consumer demand to dictate the pace of adoption. In his reply comments, Director for Technology & Innovation Policy Jeffrey Westling contended that a mandate would distort the competitive video market and impose undue costs on consumers and MVPDs. However, Westling also proposed that the Commission actively facilitate a voluntary transition by removing outdated regulatory barriers. He recommended relaxing local and national ownership restrictions to enable better coordination, eliminating the costly simulcasting requirement, and easing content restrictions to allow broadcasters to better compete with their unregulated streaming rivals.⁴¹

In its reply comments, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) argued that the record overwhelmingly supports maintaining a voluntary, market-driven transition. The CTA highlighted that consumers have already purchased over 16 million Next Gen TVs without government intervention, suggesting the market is working despite what it characterized as a slow rollout and lack of promotion by broadcasters. The association rejected the tuner mandate and NAB's call to "micromanage the way consumers discover and interact with content" through user interface regulations, arguing it would stifle the innovation manufacturers use to differentiate their products. By synthesizing the concerns of numerous other filers—from ATVA and NCTA to Public Knowledge and small broadcasters—CTA contended that a mandate would impose substantial costs on consumers and manufacturers, contradicting the administration's deregulatory goals.⁴²

Representing the interests of small and rural video providers, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association argued that a mandate would impose severe and unjustifiable costs on its members and their customers. The group contended that the NAB has failed to demonstrate any market demand for ATSC 3.0 and that forcing the transition would disproportionately harm rural communities where rising programming costs are a primary driver of cord-cutting. Echoing the arguments of ATVA and NCTA, the NTCA questioned the Commission’s legal authority for a mandate and argued the proposal is fundamentally at odds with a market-driven approach. The group proposed that if a rulemaking proceeds, the Commission should consider whether broadcasters, as the primary beneficiaries, should be required to bear the transition costs they seek to impose on others.⁴³

Vision Communications, LLC, argued that while it supports voluntary adoption, a hard sunset would impose devastating burdens on small broadcasters. Vision advocated granting LPTV stations the flexibility to choose their path, whether remaining on ATSC 1.0, transitioning to 3.0, or adopting an alternative like 5G Broadcasting to best serve their niche communities.⁴⁴ This position underscores a consistent theme from the LPTV sector: a one-size-fits-all mandate ignores smaller stations' unique operational realities and community service obligations.

Reinforcing the opposition from religious and minority broadcasters, One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) accused the NAB of hypocrisy, arguing the association actively hindered the expansion of ATSC 3.0 among LPTV stations by opposing a viable transition path: hybrid ATSC 3.0 and FM operation on channel 6 (FM6). OMI asserted that the Commission and major broadcasters consistently overlook the unique struggles of small stations, pointing to its years-old, still-pending petition for market modification as evidence of disparate treatment compared to the fast action granted to large media companies. The filing reiterated that an unfunded mandate would be disastrous for small operators already disadvantaged by a lack of vMVPD carriage and called on the FCC to remove barriers to FM6 operation as a way to equitably accelerate the transition for LPTVs.⁴⁵

However, the LPTV community was not unified in opposition. The Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance (ATBA), representing LPTV and OTT interests, filed in support of the NAB’s petition.⁴⁶ ATBA argued that a defined transition framework is essential to give LPTV stations the certainty needed to upgrade their facilities. The group explicitly endorsed NAB's proposals for a clear timeline, a modernized tuner mandate, and prominence requirements to ensure broadcast services are easily discoverable on consumer devices.

A counter-proposal submitted by individual filer Richelle Brittain evolved into a rebuttal of Sinclair's deregulatory agenda. In her filing, Brittain accused Sinclair of prioritizing commercial interests over the public by actively working to replace free over-the-air television with paid services enabled by DRM.⁴⁷ She labeled Sinclair’s defense of DRM disrespectful to consumers and a violation of the spirit of the All Channel Receiver Act (ACRA), while arguing against repealing coverage and simulcast rules. Brittain sided with Weigel and other public interest advocates by opposing Sinclair’s request to avoid a spectral capacity requirement, viewing Sinclair's position as a threat to broadcast subchannels and an indication of intent to dedicate the majority of the public airwaves to paid services. She also suggested that the FCC open a new docket to consider 5G TV as a potential long-term alternative to ATSC 3.0.

Tyler Kleinle of Antenna Man LCC refuted the claims of broadcaster coalition Pearl TV, arguing corporate interests, not consumer demand, are driving the transition. Kleinle contended that consumer adoption is low, innovative features like 4K are essentially non-existent on 3.0 signals, and the new converter boxes are more expensive and less capable than their 1.0 predecessors. He asserted that broadcaster implementation of DRM has actively stifled innovation, citing the crippled functionality of the HDHomerun Flex 4K device. He argued that the FCC should prioritize the public interest over the broadcasters’ push for a mandate.⁴⁸

Expanding on his earlier Olympics-focused filing, individual filer Hank Bovis submitted reply comments that challenged multiple core tenets of the NAB’s proposal and advocated for an entirely voluntary transition.⁴⁹ Bovis argued that the Commission should reject a hard sunset for all stations, asserting that must-carry stations should retain the flexibility to remain on ATSC 1.0 to avoid losing their OTA audience. Instead of a sunset, he proposed a 4K "sunrise date" requiring major networks to simulcast a minimum amount of 4K content, creating a positive incentive for consumer adoption. He also challenged broadcasters’ justifications for the transition, noting the "substantially similar" rule already allows for targeted content and questioning unsubstantiated claims about sports contracts. Echoing Antenna Man, Bovis sharply criticized broadcasters for using viewers' home internet bandwidth for ATSC 3.0 services without permission, characterizing it as "stealing."

In its final rebuttal, the public interest coalition led by Public Knowledge synthesized the arguments of nearly every party opposing the mandate.⁵⁰ The groups argued that the record demonstrates a clear lack of consumer demand for ATSC 3.0, pointing to low adoption rates and high costs for converter boxes and new TVs. They contended that the NAB’s primary focus is not on improving free public television but on enabling new monetized services like "Broadcast Internet," effectively privatizing public spectrum. The coalition echoed the legal red flags raised by ATVA and NCTA, asserting the Commission lacks the authority for a mandate and that the proposal raises serious constitutional and anticompetitive risks. Finally, by reinforcing the concerns of PTV, the NTA, and WMSA, they argued that a forced transition would disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, jeopardize translator services, and disrupt important spectrum planning for major national events like the 2028 Olympics.

The broad public interest critique was sharpened by a coalition of disability rights advocates, who argued that the transition, as currently conceived, risks leaving the most vulnerable viewers behind. In a joint reply, eight major accessibility organizations—including the American Foundation for the Blind, the National Association of the Deaf, and the Hearing Loss Association of America—expressed grave concern that accessibility is being treated as an afterthought rather than a core component of the Next Gen TV rollout.⁵¹ While acknowledging the standard’s potential for enhanced features like ASL integration and improved captions, the group noted that the NAB’s proposals make only minimal reference to accessibility. The coalition insisted that current accessibility rules must be the floor, not the ceiling. It urged the Commission to proactively update its rules to fit the new IP-based architecture, mandating that features like audio description pass-through and accessible menus be embedded from the outset. They called for a funding mechanism to help low-income disabled users afford the new equipment, ensuring a hard deadline does not disenfranchise those who rely most on free over-the-air television.

Bringing the initial comment cycle to a powerful close, the NAB filed a comprehensive reply, systematically refuting its opponents and demanding immediate Commission action. The association argued that the record is complete and that "regulatory certainty" is essential to unlock investment and innovation, urging the FCC to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this summer to establish a firm transition timeline.⁵² NAB dismissed arguments that the FCC should wait for higher consumer adoption as a recipe for permanent delay, contending that the market cannot overcome the inertia of simulcasting without a clear policy signal.

In its reply, the NAB aimed its arguments directly at its chief opponents. It characterized opposition from the pay-TV industry as a "disingenuous," coordinated effort to preserve market dominance and prevent broadcasters from delivering innovative services. It directly confronted the CTA by arguing that what was adequate to start the transition would not be enough to finish it. Invoking the DTV transition, the NAB reminded the Commission that it had previously updated its tuner rule in 2002 after rejecting nearly identical manufacturer arguments about cost and consumer interest.

Finally, NAB defended signal encryption against critiques from public interest groups. The association framed DRM not as a barrier but as a commercial necessity to secure rights for high-value content, such as professional sports. NAB argued that the technology is the same as that used by free streaming services like YouTube, does not prevent DVR use, and does not impose costs on viewers. It also offered its interpretation of the Broadcast Flag case, asserting the ruling only limits the FCC's ability to impose post-demodulation requirements on devices, not a broadcaster’s ability to encrypt its signal. By dismissing concerns from wireless microphone users and reiterating its core arguments, the NAB has unequivocally signaled that it believes the time for debate is over and the time for rulemaking has begun.

If you need to stay up to date with live email updates when filings hit the FCC's ECFS, check out docket-rocket.io. Create an account to set up email alerts for dockets or filers you care about. For instance, if you want an email alert when the NAB files in any proceeding on ECFS, Docket Rocket alerts will send you an email to access an AI-generated summary of the filing as soon as it hits the ECFS!

The FCC’s Developer APIs made this article possible, but the FCC has not endorsed or certified it.

1. [Petition For Rulemaking, National Association of Broadcasters, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10226086607681/1]

2. [Notice Of Exparte, National Association of Broadcasters, 3-10-2025 BPS Ex Parte.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10312206807488/1]

3. [Notice Of Exparte, National Association of Broadcasters, 3-10-2025 BPS Ex Parte.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/103122752611157/1]

4. [Notice Of Exparte, National Association of Broadcasters, 3-17-2025 BPS Ex Parte.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10318813023389/1]

5. [Public Notice, Media Bureau, DA-25-314A1.pdf, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-314A1.pdf]

6. [Comment, One Ministries, Inc., OMI Comments ATSC 3 Rulemaking April 8 2025.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1040851619533/1]

7. [Comment, LPTV Broadcasters Association, LPTVBA Comments on ATSC 3 Mandate Petition - MB Docket No. 16-142 - 4.28.2025.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10428052828608/1]

8. [Comment, National Television Association, NTA Comments Docket No. 16-142.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10508559703984/1]

9. [Comment, Weigel Broadcasting Co., GN 16-142 Weigel Comments FINAL.pdf, https://www.fec.gov/ecfs/document/10507041648615/1]

10. [Comment, America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), ATSC 3.0 Public Notice - PTV Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10507154423950/1]

11. [Notice Of Exparte, Consumer Technology Association, CTA Simington ex parte 3.6.25.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10310325603401/1] [Notice Of Exparte, Consumer Technology Association, CTA Starks and Gomez ex parte.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/103130696205162/1] [Notice Of Exparte, Consumer Technology Association, CTA OCH and MB ex parte 03-16.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1031777776420/1] [Comment, Consumer Technology Association, CTA Comments re NAB ATSC 3.0 PN.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10507299146733/1]

12. [Comment, The American Television Alliance, ATVA Comments re ATSC 3.0 Petition.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050736427840/1]

13. [Comment, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, 050725 16-142 NCTA Comments on NAB ATSC 3.0 Petition.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10508334120287/1]

14. [Motion To Quash, Howard Cobb, MOTION TO QUASH.rtf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1042217564443/1]

15. [Comment, Hank Bovis, Simulcast_2028_Olympics_in_4K_Nationwide.docx, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10508013066832/1]

16. [Comment, Public Knowledge, Access Humboldt, Consumer Reports, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Council Hawaii, Open Technology Institute at New America, PK_et_al_NAB_ATSC3_Petition_comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105071750416733/1]

17. [Comment, Richelle Brittain, Richelle Brittain Comment on NAB ATSC 3.0 Petition.docx, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050825814018/1]

18. [Notice Of Exparte, Wireless Microphone Spectrum Alliance, May 20 Final WSMA Ex Parte FCC Meeting.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1052276984823/1]

19. [Reply To Comments, North American Spectrum Alliance, North American Spectrum Alliance Reply Comments on NAB Petition for Rulemaking (MB Docket No. 16-142) FINAL.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10531995723555/1]

20. [Reply To Comments, Sennheiser Electronic Corporation, Sennheiser ATSC 3.0 NAB Petition Reply Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060600120163/1]

21. [Comment, djr Technologies, LLC, FCC 16-142 - djr Technologies, LLC.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105070585602894/1]

22. [Comment, ATSC: The Broadcast Standards Association, ATSC COMMENT TO FCC - DOCKET NO 16-142 Public Notice 06May2025.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10506300171526/1]

23. [Comment, InterDigital, Inc., Comments of InterDigital 20250506 GN 16-142 Next Generation Broadcast TV Standard.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050698703108/1]

24. [Comment, Philips North America LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips - Petition Comments - 20250507.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050726733924/1]

25. [Comment, V-Nova, Inc., Alan J Stein, fcc-comment-gn16-142-vnova-inc-2025-05-07.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105072737809522/1]

26. [Comment, Sinclair, Inc., Comments of Sinclair Inc - Delete Delete Delete (4-11-2025).pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1041178585844/1]

27. [Comment, Sinclair, Sinclair ATSC PN Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050739202137/1]

28. [Comment, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Trinity Broadcasting Network - Comments on NAB Petition.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10506202414741/1]

29. [Comment, Gray Local Media, Inc., Gray ATSC 3.0 NAB Petition for Rulemaking Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1050784410408/1]

30. [Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company, Scripps Comments re ATSC 3.0 Petition for Rulemaking.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105070982912102/1]

31. [Comment, Pearl TV, Pearl NAB Petition Comments 5.7.25.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/105080826406587/1]

32. [Reply To Comments, Sinclair, Inc., Sinclair Reply - Delete Delete Delete (4-28-2025).pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10428953822543/1]

33. [Reply To Comments, ABC Television Affiliates Association, NBC Television Affiliates, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television Affiliates Association, Four Affiliates Associations -- Joint Reply Comments -- ATSC 3.0 Rulemaking Pet. (June 2025).pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106062027908576/1]

34. [Reply To Comments, Digital Alert Systems, Inc., DAS ATSC30 Petition Reply Comments GN Docket 16-142.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10607468921684/1]

35. [Reply To Comments, Pearl TV, Pearl NAB Petition Reply Comments 6.6.25.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10607386817725/1]

36. [Reply To Comments, The American Television Alliance, ATVA Reply re Delete.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1042986668676/1]

37. [Reply To Comments, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, TPA Comments on ATSC 3.0 FCC Proceeding.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106051567405604/1]

38. [Reply To Comments, The James Madison Institute, JMI Comments, GN Docket 16-142.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606906208903/1]

39. [Reply To Comments, Citizens Against Government Waste, CAGW Reply Comments on NAB Petition for ATSC 3 06_05_2025.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10605108585882/1]

40. [Reply To Comments, Digital Liberty, Digital Liberty ATSC Submission.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10607430425634/1]

41. [Reply To Comments, Jeffrey Westling, Westling NAB Petition Reply Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060600275182/1]

42. [Reply To Comments, Consumer Technology Association, CTA Replies re NAB ATSC 3.0 PN.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606993602014/1]

43. [Reply To Comments, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, 6.6.25 ATSC 3.0 NTCA Reply Comments MB Dkt 16-142.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060624832108/1]

44. [Reply, Bill Christian, Vision Communications Reply Comments ATSC 3.0.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106060207728109/1]

45. [Reply To Comments, One Ministries, Inc., OMI ATSC 3 Reply June 7 2025.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106070220023736/1]

46. [Reply To Comments, Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance, ATBA ATSC 3.0 Reply Comments.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606980722488/1]

47. [Reply To Comments, Richelle Brittain, Richelle Brittain Reply Comment to Sinclair ATSC 3.0 Comment.docx, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060417123980/1]

48. [Reply To Comments, Antenna Man LCC, Tyler Kleinle, Antenna Man Response to Pearl TV Comment on Docket 16-142.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060663787156/1]

49. [Reply To Comments, Hank Bovis, HankBovisReply16-142.docx, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1060787315182/1]

50. [Reply To Comments, Public Knowledge, Access Humboldt, Consumer Reports, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Council Hawaii, Open Technology Institute at New America, PK_et_al_ATSC_Replies.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/106062199526072/1]

51. [Reply To Comments, TDIforAccess, Inc., American Foundation for the Blind, American Council of the Blind, Communication Service for the Deaf, Deaf Equality, Hearing Loss Association of America, National Association of the Deaf, Perkins School for the Blind, Accessability Orgs - Reply Comments re ATSC 3.0 (June 2025).pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606058414110/1]

52. [Reply To Comments, National Association of Broadcasters, Reply Comments Next Gen Petition.pdf, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10606861830907/1]