NEXT GENERATION TELEVISION (ATSC 3.

0)
STATION TRANSITION GUIDE

April 2019

Copyright 2019, The National Association of Broadcasters

Doc Map TOC
 Doc Map TOC

INTRODUCTION

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is pleased to present this manual to assist broadcast
stations in transitioning to Next Generation TV, also known as Advanced Television Systems Committee
(ATSC) 3.0.

The purpose of this guide is to provide relevant information for implementing a coordinated transition
from the current ATSC-1 broadcast standard to the Next Gen TV platform.

The intended audience includes broadcast executives and engineers who want to learn more about
how to make ATSC 3.0 part of their business.

This guide includes the basic principles for how to successfully transition to Next Gen TV. How-to
information and checklists are provided to assist in the decision making and implementation processes.
It should answer many of the questions you might have and provide the basis for taking advantage of
the next great television broadcasting opportunity.

NAB thanks Osborn Engineering for its help in developing this document. The overall project was led by
the NAB Technology department with strong participation by the NAB ATSC 3.0 Transition Task Force
(a sub-group of the NAB TV Technology Committee). Valuable input was also provided by the NAB Legal
and Marketing departments.

We hope you find these guidelines useful and informative and that they serve as a mechanism to assist
your transition to Next Gen TV.

BACKGROUND

The National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard for broadcast television was developed
in 1941. In 1953, a second, compatible standard for color television was introduced. Fast-forward to
1998, when U.S. broadcasters began their first commercial transmission of digital television (digital
TV), ATSC-1. It was transmitted alongside analog television using an additional channel made available
to all full-power broadcasters. This arrangement provided a simple means to transition from one system
to the other without losing audience. The full transition to 100% digital TV successfully occurred in
June, 2009.

ATSC-1, the digital TV system currently used in the U.S., is not very flexible in light of the latest advances
in technology and viewer preferences. Most of the critical elements of encoding, transmission and
receiver decoding are set in standardized technical constraints that are not extensible.

Our current legacy standard cannot adapt to newer and more efficient methodologies because much
of the infrastructure in transmission and in-home receivers is set in legacy hardware. This prevents
the industry from adding new and enhanced features within the current standard and it is not possible
to remain backwards compatible while providing the technology needed to thrive in today’s wireless
world.

The industry is responding with an aggressive schedule to produce the ATSC’s Next Gen TV standard,
ATSC 3.0. Through this massive 5-plus-year effort, the future of broadcast television is bright.

This new system addresses viewers’ desire for content to be delivered on the go, beyond the home
and available on tablets, laptops and smartphones. This can be done with the current state of digital
communications, advanced digital content compression and smart (adaptable) software-based
receivers.

i NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | INTRODUCTION

 Doc Map TOC

Voluntary migration to Next Gen TV will require broadcaster investment, time and some disruption to
our industry, as well as to the general viewing public. This disruption is necessary if the industry is to
meet the ever-increasing demands of our viewers. How to minimize this disruption is the overall goal
of this guide.

To accomplish a seamless implementation of Next Gen TV without disenfranchising viewers, the

industry must deploy this new technology in parallel with its existing digital TV services in a voluntary,
market-based manner. Today, television is only broadcast in ATSC-1. Like the analog to digital transition,
there will be a multi-year period where both ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0 will be on the air and eventually only
ATSC 3.0 will be used.

The Next Gen TV standard must operate within the existing 6-MHz television channel and be subject
to the same radio frequency (RF) interference constraints and requirements that apply to the current
standard. In other words, this transition must be accomplished without additional spectrum being
provided.

The good news is that it is possible for Next Gen TV services to be deployed within stations’ existing
coverage contours without causing interference to current digital TV services. Parallel implementation
will mean that broadcasters in each market will voluntarily deploy Next Gen TV, while continuing to
transmit using the current legacy digital standard.

Using the strategies put forth in this guide, broadcasters in each market can share the available
spectrum to simulcast their respective legacy and Next Gen TV signals, so that all viewers can
receive programming from their local stations with the choice of viewing the current ATSC-1 or
ATSC 3.0 television formats, all free and over the air.

As new devices and compelling programming become available, the long-term goal is to sunset our
current standard once Next Gen TV is sufficiently adopted in each market.

In a channel-sharing (Lighthouse) scenario, the current Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

rules regarding simultaneous carriage during the transition require that the programming carried
over both our current standard and ATSC 3.0 must be substantially the same. However, the ATSC 3.0
content can make use of many of the enhancements found in the new standard such as ultra high
definition (UHD) video, immersive audio and broadcaster smart device applications, while still meeting
regulatory requirements.

For signal coverage in a Lighthouse scenario, the FCC Report and Order mandates that a shared ATSC-1
coverage contour must remain substantially the same as a station’s existing contour. The Report and
Order is less restrictive for a shared ATSC 3.0 coverage contour. Chapter 2 of this guide examines the
Report and Order in depth.

Note about this document: If you are viewing this in portable digital format (.pdf), the document is interactive. The Document
Map on the next page contains links to sections and chapters, and there are links to external references within. Arrows at
the bottom of each page navigate to the next or previous pages, and the “Back to Main Doc Map” button at the top of each
page returns the reader to the Document Map. The page numbers in the Table of Contents link to the corresponding page.

ii NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | INTRODUCTION

DOCUMENT MAP TOC

SECTION 1: EXPLORING THE ATSC 3.0 STANDARD

Chapter 1: Description of ATSC 3.0

Chapter 2: Regulatory and Legal Issues

SECTION 2: TRANSITIONING WITH LIMITED SPECTRUM

Chapter 3: Addressing the Spectrum Conundrum

Chapter 4: Channel Sharing in Depth

SECTION 3: MARKET BUILDOUT

Chapter 5: How To Build Out ATSC 3.0

Chapter 6: Single Frequency Networks

Chapter 7: Cost

SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND APPENDICES

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Appendices
 Doc Map

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 EXPLORING THE ATSC 3.0 STANDARD............................................................... 1

Chapter 1 Description of ATSC 3.0................................................................................................ 1
Overview............................................................................................................................... 1
Opportunities....................................................................................................................... 1
Challenges........................................................................................................................... 2
The Technology Behind ATSC 3.0....................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2 Regulatory and Legal Issues....................................................................................... 5
Local Simulcasting Requirements..................................................................................... 5
Substantially Similar Programming................................................................................... 5
Carriage............................................................................................................................... 5
Public Interest Obligations................................................................................................. 5
Intellectual Property and Licensing................................................................................... 5
Content and Digital Rights Management (DRM).............................................................. 6

SECTION 2 TRANSITIONING WITH LIMITED SPECTRUM.................................................... 7

Chapter 3 Addressing the Spectrum Conundrum...................................................................... 7
Physical Considerations...................................................................................................... 7
Managing Available Spectrum............................................................................................ 8
Comparisons and Rationale.............................................................................................11
Chapter 4 Channel Sharing in Depth...........................................................................................11
Overview.............................................................................................................................11
Market Coordinator...........................................................................................................12
Coverage Considerations..................................................................................................12
Capacity Needs..................................................................................................................15
Inventory of Streams and Services..................................................................................15
Optimizing ATSC-1.............................................................................................................15
Host and Tenant Considerations......................................................................................16
Single Frequency Network Considerations......................................................................16
Example of ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse.....................................................................................17

SECTION 3 MARKET BUILDOUT..................................................................................................18

Chapter 5 How to Build Out ATSC 3.0.........................................................................................18
Considerations for Proceeding.........................................................................................18
Upgrading the Physical Plant............................................................................................18
Chapter 6 Single Frequency Networks.......................................................................................20
Description.........................................................................................................................20
Coverage Examples...........................................................................................................22
Role of Guard Interval in SFN Deployment......................................................................23
Chapter 7 Cost Associated with Conversion to ATSC 3.0.....................................................24
Base Costs.........................................................................................................................24
New Features.....................................................................................................................26
Transition Considerations.................................................................................................26

SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND APPENDICES......................................................................27

Chapter 8 Conclusions and Appendices.....................................................................................27
Appendix A: Executive Summary Appendix D: Single Frequency Network Checklist
Appendix B: Planning Checklist Appendix E: Post Repack Channel Landscape
Appendix C: Engineering Checklist Appendix F: Example of ATSC 3.0 Transmission Settings

NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Doc Map TOC

SECTION 1: EXPLORING THE ATSC 3.0 TELEVISION STANDARD

CHAPTER 1: DESCRIPTION OF ATSC 3.0

Overview
ATSC 3.0 is a major upgrade and expansion of our existing over-the-air broadcast platform.

Unlike the move to digital TV, adoption of ATSC 3.0 is voluntary. It is also not backwards compatible
with our existing ATSC-1 standard.

Opportunities
Broadcasters’ focus on covering, attracting and keeping an audience are accounted for in the
transition to Next Gen TV. The technology behind Next Gen TV will better reach viewers through a more
robust signal and by delivering to hard-to-reach indoor over-the-air televisions and mobile receivers in
smartphones, tablets and even the rear seats of automobiles.

The features offered by Next Gen TV mean that marquee events such as the Olympics, Super Bowl,
World Cup or The Masters can provide enhanced viewer experience opportunities, including UHD,
immersive audio and second screen features, that can draw and keep larger audiences. This can
provide enhanced revenue and an opportunity for stations to gain and keep a larger viewership.

There will be new sales opportunities before and after the transition. Along with core programming,
broadcasters can choose to provide enhanced advertising as well as many of the same features now
commonplace in other forms of advanced television content delivery.

Research tells us that 50% of television viewing does not involve over-the-air content. Viewers are
moving quickly to platforms that provide a richer and more fulfilling experience. The industry can adapt
to meet this challenge and remain the best source of local news, information and entertainment.

With the increasing expectations for all media, Next Gen TV will rise to the challenge of retaining
viewers with the following business improvements and viewer benefits.

Robust Untethered Reception

The new standard provides a level of robustness to the over-the-air signal that allows for excellent
reception by non-traditional receiving devices such as smart phones and tablets, and will even allow
for reception inside moving vehicles.

UHD TV
Next Gen TV provides for 4K resolution with high dynamic range, wide color gamut and high frame rate.
These capabilities provide immersive, photo-realistic images with smooth motion, which will enhance
all types of content.

Immersive Audio
The features provided by the new audio capabilities of Next Gen TV provide immersive theater-like
sound. There are capabilities for multiple languages and enhanced dialogue that will widen audiences.

Advanced Emergency Information

Next Gen TV provides the capability to “wake” a receiver from an off-state in order to provide the
viewer with important emergency information. This could be critical in weather-endangered areas
where minutes are often critical in saving lives. More advanced, vitally important and time-sensitive
content can be geo-targeted and delivered over the air, or supplemented via broadband, seamlessly
to the viewer.

1 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

Second Screen
Next Gen TV includes the ability to deliver program-related second-screen interactive content by
either over the air or via hybrid (broadband) distribution. Research shows that over 75% of viewers of
over-the-air television watch with a second screen in their hand.

Targeted Content and Advertising

Next Gen TV provides for viewer-driven choice of content that can provide geographical or user-choice
targeting capabilities, some of which require optional single frequency network (SFN) and/or low data
rate backhaul. With the addition of a hybrid-broadband connected receiver, Next Gen TV also has the
capability to directly measure audience activity.

Multiple Streams
The incredible improvement in video and audio compression technology make more streams available
to broadcasters, both for our current ATSC-1 standard and for ATSC 3.0. These improvements help
provide the means for a market transition to the new service, and ultimately more choice to the viewers.

Audience Measurement
Next Gen TV makes possible enhanced audience measurement capabilities through its internet
protocol (IP)-based architecture and support of a return pathway. In addition, ratings data from the
ATSC-1 standard can be compared against Next Gen TV data, and used to gauge the rate of adoption
of Next Gen TV devices. 

Challenges
As with most efforts to advance the state of the art, challenges must be faced and met. The road to
Next Gen TV is no different. Significant business and technology considerations are involved, and they
vary by market size and geography, duopoly and shared services agreement (SSA) scenarios, repack
status and operating band. Some specific challenges include:

The Spectrum Shortage

Allotted spectrum for broadcasting has been significantly impacted over the years, with the most recent
reduction resulting from the broadcast spectrum incentive auction.

Unlike the transition from analog to digital, the FCC is not providing a second channel for the purpose
of transitioning to Next Gen TV.

Incompatible with ATSC-1

In order to merge with today’s wireless environment and remain within the allotted 6-MHz bandwidth
assigned to each station, the ATSC 3.0 standard could not be made compatible with our existing ATSC-1
standard. Differences in modulation schemes and other factors prohibit mixing the two standards on
the same transmitter.

Voluntary Transition
Although the FCC has adopted rules to guide the transition to Next Gen TV, the broadcast industry
requested adoption be voluntary. Accordingly, broadcasters and consumer electronics manufacturers
must determine the best path for their specific business strategies.

Market-specific spectrum coordination among broadcasters, content production and the integration
of Next Gen TV chipsets in TV sets, home routers and untethered smart devices are all significant
considerations.

If a voluntary transition does not yield acceptable progress in migrating to Next Gen TV, other measures
might potentially be considered, such as broadcasters or others providing Next Gen TV-compliant
devices to viewers at a reduced or no cost.

2 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

The Technology Behind ATSC 3.0

Internet Protocol (IP)
The underlying data in the ATSC 3.0 standard uses IP. This aligns the new transmission system with the
current over-the-top (OTT) and broadband web-delivered world, which opens the possibility of hybrid
broadband delivery (to supplement the broadcaster’s bandwidth) of enhanced guides, broadcaster
applications, deep-linking to enhanced content and in-program purchasing.

ATSC 3.0 offers a wide array of improvements and enables many new capabilities. However, a core
element of any broadcast system is its capability and capacity for getting audio and video to the receiver.

A broadcast gateway, located on the studio side of the transmission system, produces the appropriate
IP transport stream for sending to the transmitter, multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD)
operators and to optional SFN transmitters.

ATSC 3.0 Transport Features

Broadly stated, capacity for a wireless delivery system is determined by two factors:

• Modulation/coding determines how receivers can successfully receive the signal and the
total data capacity of the signal
• Encoding determines how much data capacity is needed to pass video and audio of a given
quality

In ATSC-1, stations know that the data capacity of our modulation scheme (8-level vestigial side-band
[8-VSB]) is 19.39 megabits per second (Mbps). Stations have learned, over time, about what mix of
audio and video channels they can encode using the Moving Picture Experts Group version 2 (MPEG-2)
video and Dolby Digital Audio Coding Version 3 (AC-3) audio encoding schemes that are part of the
standard, to fit into that 19.39 Mbps at a quality they find acceptable.

Initially, many stations reserved the entire capacity for a single high definition (HD) stream. Over
time, improved business opportunities, the availability of revenue-generating multicast channels or
diginets, and improved encoding technologies (eg, updated MPEG-2 video encoders) allowed multiple
streams to fit in that capacity at high quality. Today, some stations carry one HD channel and as many
as four standard definition (SD) channels. Others carry two HD channels or as many as nine or 10 SD
channels.

Using ATSC 3.0, both modulation/coding and encoding take significant leaps forward. By enabling
more sharing partners per transmitter during the transition, this advancement will help the transition
create new business opportunities and flexibility. However, it also creates decision-making challenges
for business and technical management, because so many possibilities are enabled.

If one looks at a direct translation of ATSC-1 approaches to ATSC 3.0, the following is true:

• The modulation scheme (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing [OFDM]), when configured
to achieve similar results to ATSC-1, allows approximately 25 Mbps vs. 19.39 Mbps.
• The improved video (high efficiency video coding [HEVC] is two generations better than MPEG-2)
and audio (Dolby Digital Audio Coding Version 4 [AC-4]), are considerably more efficient than
the existing digital TV standard, offering the opportunity for more flexible use of the assigned
6-MHz channel bandwidth, with an HD channel requiring on the order of 10 to 12 Mbps in
ATSC-1 vs 3 to 6 Mbps in ATSC 3.0, contractual obligations notwithstanding.

ATSC 3.0 will enable better quality video and more channels to the home as well as significant new
opportunities and flexibility.

3 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

A given modulation scheme is designed to balance the needs for robustness (strength and density of
signal) and payload capacity (amount of data) needed for a given distribution scenario. ATSC-1 has
just one modulation scheme, where ATSC 3.0 enables a wide range of modulation schemes and allows
more than one to be used at the same time. These multiple distribution scenarios are enabled using
an approach called physical layer pipes (PLPs). The standard allows for up to 64 PLPs to be used on
a single RF broadcast channel. Each program service can be assigned one to four PLPs at a given
time. Each PLP can be defined to have the level of robustness and capacity needed for a specific
task. To replicate today’s scheme, an ATSC-1 equivalent PLP could be configured to provide capacity
for multiple video and audio channels, even including UHD to the home (Figure 1). For ATSC 3.0, a
different PLP could be configured to have
the additional robustness needed to
reach mobile devices, but recognizing
that mobile displays are smaller, would be
configured for a lower-resolution image.
Another PLP could be configured to have
maximum robustness to reach moving
vehicles. Figure 1. (Source: Comark Communications)

Example of Multiple PLPs

With each PLP configuration, stations are trading off robustness for capacity. That is, a PLP that is
more robust has less data capacity. While there are a multitude of configurations possible, a simple
example is enlightening:

• Designating the entire 6-MHz channel as a single PLP designed for home consumption would
yield approximately 25 Mbps of capacity, enough for one UHD and multiple HD streams.
• However, splitting the channel in half would yield a home consumption PLP with capacity of
approximately 12.5 Mbps, providing enough capacity for one UHD or multiple HD streams,
while a mobile PLP with only 3 Mbps would be enough for a single HD stream, but not enough
for UHD.

Table 1 demonstrates the trade-off between PLP data capacity and robustness. Other factors, including
guard interval and forward error correction values must also be considered because they will also
affect an ATSC 3.0 channel’s capacity.

Table 1
3D or 2nd Nbr of PLP Data
Description Content HD SD Mobile Data Robust Mod
UHD Scrn PLPs NBR Rate
Very Very
Main Program A PLP 4 PLP 3 PLP 2 PLP 2 PLP 1 PLP 1 4 1 LDM
Low High

All About Cars B PLP 3 PLP 2 PLP 1 PLP 1 3 2 Low High LDM

24 Hour News C PLP 6 PLP 5 PLP 5 2 3 Medium Medium

Cooking Channel D PLP 6 PLP 5 PLP 5 2 4 High Low

Lucy Channel E PLP 5 PLP 5 1 5 Low High

Meditation
F PLP 5 PLP 5 1 6 Medium High
Channel

4 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

CHAPTER 2: REGULATORY AND LEGAL ISSUES

On November 20, 2017, the FCC authorized voluntary use of the Next Gen TV transmission standard.
The FCC envisions a voluntary, market-driven transition to Next Gen TV that does not rely on mandates
or a nationwide transition. Under this framework, television broadcasters are permitted, but not
required, to transmit using the Next Gen TV standard subject to certain regulatory requirements. The
following is a brief summary of the important rules; any station seeking to transition should consult
with legal counsel regarding additional detailed requirements.

Local Simulcasting Requirement

The FCC’s order requires Next Gen TV broadcasters to air a local simulcast of the primary video
programming stream of their Next Gen signal in ATSC-1 format so that viewers can continue to receive
ATSC-1 service. Next Gen TV broadcasters must partner with another television station to air an ATSC-1
signal. Broadcasters have discretion to determine what constitutes their primary stream, though the
order states that the FCC believes broadcasters will simulcast the stream that viewers expect to be
able to receive, such as network programming or the stream that has the highest viewership for
non-network stations. The FCC intends for this simulcasting requirement to be temporary and will
determine in a subsequent proceeding when it would be appropriate to permit broadcasters to cease
providing an ATSC-1 signal.

Further, a station’s ATSC-1 simulcast channel must be in the same designated market area (DMA)
and must continue to cover the station’s community of license. The FCC will consider any losses in
signal coverage in evaluating simulcasting applications and will consider more favorably simulcasting
arrangements that result in service losses of no more than five percent of the population a station
serves.

Substantially Similar Programming

To comply with the FCC’s simulcasting requirement, the programming a broadcaster airs on its ATSC-1
simulcast channel must be “substantially similar” to the programming on the primary video stream the
broadcaster airs on its Next Gen TV channel. This means the programming must be the same except
for: (1) features that are only available due to the enhanced capabilities of the Next Gen TV standard;
(2) advertisements; and (3) promotions for upcoming programming. This requirement will end in 5
years unless the Commission conducts a further proceeding to extend it.

Carriage
A Next Gen broadcaster’s ATSC-1 simulcast channel will retain mandatory carriage rights, but its Next
Gen channel will not have mandatory carriage rights. As a practical matter this means that a Next Gen
broadcaster may continue to choose must-carry or retransmission consent for its ATSC-1 signal but
may only seek carriage of its Next Gen signal via retransmission consent.

Public Interest Obligations

Next Gen TV broadcasters must comply with all FCC broadcast rules including, for example, foreign
ownership, political broadcasting, children’s programming, equal employment opportunities, public
inspection file, indecency, sponsorship identification, contests and accessibility.

Intellectual Property and Licensing

The ATSC 3.0 standard contains intellectual property covered in some 13,068 patents. Some technology,
such as HEVC compression, has multiple patent pools (3) for licensing, and some IP patent holders
are not part of member’s patent pools. It should be noted that all equipment purchase agreements
language should include indemnification of the purchaser from patent infringement, since affiliation
and network agreements may require similar indemnification.

5 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

Content Protection (CP) and Digital Rights Management (DRM)

Since ATSC 3.0 is based on IP, the broadcast over-the-air content can be easily streamed over the
internet, violating redistribution agreements with copyright holders. As such, content owners seek
to prevent unauthorized reproduction and redistribution of copyrighted works by developing CP
requirements to protect against these unauthorized practices. These requirements will be included in
their contractual relationships with their distribution partners.

DRM Goals

1. Protect against unauthorized reproduction of broadcast content intended to be transmitted

over the air using the ATSC 3.0 standard both inside and outside a station’s DMA. This will be
done by incorporating CP technology and workflows that will provide both technical protection
and a basis for legal enforcement.

2. Provide a mechanism of content control that will enable new business models for broadcasters,
including services such as premium channels and pay per view, which could be offered on
either a free or paid subscription basis.

3. Find a mechanism so that receiving devices that are not connected to the internet, or unable
to be connected to the internet, can be included in the first two goals.

4. Provide certainty to the distribution partners and to consumer electronics manufacturers

about broadcasters’ operational needs and timelines for the launch of ATSC 3.0 using the CP
technology and commercial DRM solutions that it supports.

6 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 1

 Doc Map TOC

SECTION 2: TRANSITIONING WITH LIMITED SPECTRUM

CHAPTER 3: ADDRESSING THE SPECTRUM CONUNDRUM

Given that no new spectrum is available for the transition, any plan must meet the challenge of managing
the industry’s overall spectrum capacity. The specific number of channels available in a given market,
and the physical propagation characteristics of those channels, are major considerations.

Physical Considerations
All practical transition models for ATSC 3.0 must consider the RF spectrum allocated to broadcasting.
Since TV spectrum extends from low-band very-high frequency (VHF) to ultra-high frequency (UHF),
which involves more than a ten-fold difference in frequency between the high and low channels, the
characteristics of the specific TV channel assigned to your station and its usefulness for different
services is relevant.

Fixed and Mobile Service Choices

ATSC 3.0 has the flexibility and choices to allow mobile and portable/handheld service as well as
traditional fixed reception. UHF spectrum is suitable for all services. However, mobile devices use very
short antennas that are inefficient for the lower VHF channels, making mobile service in the VHF band
a challenge. High-band VHF has been shown to be viable for a vehicular mobile service but may be
challenged for personal portable device reception where longer antennas are not practical.

To offset this disadvantage, consumer gateway devices that receive over-the-air ATSC 3.0 signals and
merge them into home or local WiFi routers are being developed (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Example of Consumer Gateway with 2 receivers, supporting 2 smart devices

Robustness vs. Coverage Area

The ATSC 3.0 standard is highly flexible, with combinations of modulation and coding trading off
robustness for data rate. Highly robust signals traveling long distances can be configured at lower
data rates suitable for low definition programs or small mobile screens. Less robust signals with high
data rates for services such as UHD TV are also possible with lesser coverage. For service planning
and coverage and interference analysis, different robustness/data rate trade-offs will yield different
results.

Technology limitations for receiving noise-free UHF signals are significant. On the other hand, low-band
VHF stations must deal with impulse noise generated by power lines, electric motors and appliances.
These issues had put analog high-band VHF in a more desirable position for many years.

By the time the transition to digital TV came along, the UHF noise problem was countered by digital
error correcting techniques. These techniques work well for the predictable noise inherent in UHF, but
do not counter the unpredictable impulse noise most prevalent in low-band VHF.

7 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

Suitability for Service by Band

All stations can enjoy the benefits of ATSC 3.0. The decision for each station on whether to move
to ATSC 3.0 and how to implement depends on several factors. A significant factor for smart device
and mobile reception is channel allocation. Operating channel wavelength and resulting propagation
characteristics present a major consideration when developing ATSC 3.0 technical planning and
performance predictions.

According to the post-auction FCC database, a total of 11 full service UHF stations were repacked to
high-band VHF and 15 were repacked to low-band VHF. Once the repack is complete, there will be
approximately 1215 UHF full service stations, 419 high-band VHF and 39 low-band VHF stations, for a
total of 1673 full service stations (73% UHF, 25% high-band VHF and 2% low-band VHF).

Low-band VHF
Propagation characteristics of channels 2 through 6 are not well suited for mobile or portable operation.
Random impulse noise, lower power density, and interference from man-made and natural noise gives
this band a distinct disadvantage in comparison to UHF. Effective radiated power from channels 2
through 6 is limited due to interference concerns between markets. While low-band VHF is challenged
for mobile and portable ATSC 3.0 services, fixed reception with an appropriate rooftop antenna should
be reliable as an operational system mode.

High-band VHF
Performance of VHF channels 7 through 13 is better than low-band VHF, but the longer wavelength
of VHF reduces the chances of successful reception for many portable use cases, due to utilization
of built-in antennas in these devices. In many markets, transmitted VHF power will be more limited.
High-band VHF has been tested and found suitable for many ATSC 3.0 applications. It could be effective
in diversity mobile use cases utilizing diversity receive technology but will not perform as well as UHF
when received with a handheld device.

Utilization of optional SFNs has not been tested on VHF, so additional work will be needed to gain a full
assessment of use in the VHF band.

UHF
Due to the short wavelengths and resulting reception advantages in this part of the TV spectrum, UHF
is suitable for all anticipated ATSC 3.0 service models.

Managing Available Spectrum

It is not possible to combine the current ATSC-1 service and the new ATSC 3.0 service in the same
transmitter, and additional spectrum to aid in the transition is not available. Therefore, several
coordinated transition scenarios have been studied in order to maintain existing digital TV service
while transitioning to ATSC 3.0.

Scenario 1. Flash-cut from ATSC-1 to ATSC 3.0

Definition: Flash-cutting is the transition technique where a broadcaster simply switches (ie, flash-cuts)
from one transmission standard to another on their assigned operating channel. Most broadcasters
would be unwilling to flash-cut from ATSC-1 to ATSC 3.0 unless there is a large penetration of ATSC
3.0 receivers in place in the marketplace. This might be the case in the latter stages of the transition
for smaller non-network affiliate broadcasters or low power television (LPTV) stations. It’s generally
accepted that a critical catalyst for ATSC 3.0 receiver sales will be network programming availability.
Thus, in the early part of the transition, assuming that few receivers are deployed in the marketplace,
flash-cutting to ATSC 3.0, if approved by the FCC, could possibly disenfranchise a large number of
viewers.

8 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

Benefit: Minimum transition time. A flash-cut scenario would considerably reduce the complexity of the
transition for broadcasters. All stations would continue to have full use of their 6-MHz channel for their
program and service offerings, resulting in maximizing the ATSC 3.0 service with no degradation to the
ATSC-1 service during a transition phase. Complex collaboration between competitive broadcasters in
a market to use common facilities or sharing channels would be avoided. The transition time could be
minimized in this scenario.

Disadvantage: Requires receiver “seeding.” Flash-cutting on a large scale would be practical as a

general transition scenario only if the ATSC 3.0 receiver population is large, in order to avoid mass
viewer disenfranchisement. As ATSC 3.0 receivers are likely to cost more than ATSC-1 receivers (at least
initially), and manufacturers compete vigorously with each other on price, manufacturers are unlikely
to manufacture ATSC 3.0 receivers without such signals already in the marketplace. The relatively low
level of broadcast antenna use among viewers also influences manufacturers’ decisions to introduce
new products solely for broadcast service.

Scenario 2. Full simulcasting of ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0

Definition: This is the transition scenario that was followed in the digital TV transition, whereby a second
6-MHz channel is used to transmit the new signal and both ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0 channels would
co-exist simultaneously. Once ATSC 3.0 receiver penetration reaches some acceptable threshold, the
ATSC-1 transmissions would stop. This is the transition adopted in the Republic of Korea (South Korea)
for UHD TV service that was introduced, starting in 2017 based on ATSC 3.0 standards, where five new
6-MHz channels were allocated nationwide by the Korean government for UHD TV transmissions by
broadcasters.

Benefit: Maximum certainty of smooth transition. With each broadcaster able to provide simultaneous
transmissions of both standards on separate channels, consumers would always have access to
broadcast programming, yielding a smooth transition. During the ATSC-1 transition, a government
subsidization program allowed viewers who had not updated to the new system to obtain low-cost
converter boxes. There is no such government program envisioned for the transition to ATSC 3.0.

Disadvantage: Requires adequate spectrum resources for simulcasting. The amount of spectrum
allocated for broadcasting was reduced as a result of the conclusion of the incentive auction, making
this transition scenario largely impractical. In almost all areas, there will not be enough available
unused spectrum to allow each broadcaster to use an extra channel for ATSC 3.0. However, in some
rural and geographically isolated areas with a small number of broadcast stations, simulcasting may
be possible.

Scenario 3. Channel-Sharing ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0 Scenarios

Definition: This transition scenario has a high degree of consensus support from broadcasters and has
been described in a number of forums. The original April 2016 Joint Petition for Rulemaking submitted
to the FCC by broadcasters, consumer electronics and others presents it this way: “Stations electing
to deploy Next Generation TV will enter into market-by-market deployment plans that will rely on local
simulcasting agreements to ensure the ongoing availability of programming in the current digital TV
format. Specifically, a temporary “host” broadcaster would agree to carry on its digital TV sub-channels
the programming of those stations broadcasting with the Next Generation TV format. The “host”
station’s programming would be carried reciprocally as a programming stream on one of the stations
deploying the Next Generation TV standard. Local simulcasting will permit uninterrupted service to
continue as the American public embraces Next Generation TV reception equipment and will permit
this innovative new standard to be implemented without necessitating new simulcast channels from
the Commission.” A form of channel sharing within the current standard has already been utilized in
order for some stations to continue programming after relinquishing their spectrum during the auction.

9 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

The balance of how much data rate and how many channels to allocate for ATSC-1 vs. ATSC 3.0 is a
variable in this transition scenario. The following concept of using a Lighthouse channel has been
developed:

• ATSC-1 Lighthouse. A station that carries lower data rate versions of ATSC-1 signals maximizes
the data capacity available for ATSC 3.0 while maintaining ATSC-1 service continuity.
• ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse. A similar case can be made for the Lighthouse concept to be applied
by transitioning one or two channels to ATSC 3.0, while maintaining most of the market’s
payload capacity for the existing ATSC-1 service, in the amount and quality level experienced
by consumers prior to the transition. The ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse station(s) would provide main
programming from each of the participating stations in the new standard, perhaps with
enhanced quality and new features afforded by ATSC 3.0.

Finding the right balance to provide enough capacity for the enhanced services ATSC 3.0 provides and
offering enough capacity to maintain continuity of service via ATSC-1 is the key challenge. Without
enough ATSC 3.0 programming, users will have little reason to migrate, which could prolong or stagnate
the transition.

Benefit: Maximum practicality. This scenario takes into account the lack of additional spectrum
available for broadcasters after the completion of the incentive auction and divides the existing
spectrum resource for simultaneous provision of ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0 services.

Disadvantage: Possible service degradation or reduction. In order to fit both ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0
services into the existing spectrum now occupied solely by ATSC-1, several techniques are available:

• Employ the latest modern compression and statistical multiplexing equipment

• Use extra data capacity not currently being used in some ATSC-1 channels
• Reduce the ATSC-1 bit rate for some or all services
• Eliminate some ATSC-1 services
• Reduce the optimum bit rate new ATSC 3.0 services

Apart from the first and second bullets, the result will be some compromises on the number or the quality
of the services provided. Carefully balancing these compromises to avoid consumer disappointment
will be a priority.

Scenario 4. Other Models

It has become common to find Moving Picture Experts Group version 4 (MPEG-4) advanced video
coding video decoders in newer TV sets. While the ATSC-1 standard as adopted by the FCC is based
solely on MPEG-2 video encoding, it appears that many, if not all, manufacturers that have MPEG-4
decoders in their television sets will function if the over-the-air ATSC-1 signal is encoded with MPEG-4.
No comprehensive survey has been done to quantify the actual percentage. It is possible to extrapolate
that as older legacy sets are replaced with new TVs that include MPEG-4 decoders, MPEG-2 signals
could be entirely replaced with MPEG-4 signals. Since the efficiency of MPEG-4 is on the order of twice
the efficiency of MPEG-2, the recovered data capacity could provide significant additional data rate
for ATSC 3.0 services in the channel-sharing model. This scenario is further challenged by consumer
electronics companies stating they do not have MPEG-4 decoders in their broadcast receiver test
scenarios, so while the TV may have an MPEG-4 decoder, they are unwilling to guarantee it will work
in broadcast mode. Also, digital converter boxes from the ATSC-1 transition era generally do not have
MPEG-4 capabilities. Additionally, this would require a rule change by the FCC since MPEG-4 is not
part of ATSC-1.

10 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

Comparisons and Rationale

The full simulcast transition scenario would seem to be the most desirable transition scenario, but
will not be a universally practical alternative due to a lack of availability of spectrum for the ATSC 3.0
simulcast channels. Simulcasting may be viable for a subset of situations where ample spectrum is
available.

Similarly, flash-cutting from ATSC-1 to ATSC 3.0 will not be practical in a voluntary transition, due to
inescapable mass viewer disenfranchisement. Flash-cutting may be possible for some stations toward
the end of the transition if and when ATSC 3.0 receivers are highly dominant in the marketplace.

Channel sharing emerges as the most practical transition method among stakeholders. However,
a cautionary note is that broadcasters, manufacturers and consumers could be caught in a dual
ATSC-1/3.0 scenario for an extended period of time as the pace of this marketplace approach to the
transition is somewhat unpredictable and may need to be reassessed as the transition continues. In
addition, this scenario assumes a great deal of collaboration within and across industries.

Broadcasters need ATSC 3.0 receivers to be available in the marketplace in order to justify transmitting
ATSC 3.0 programming. Manufacturers need compelling ATSC 3.0 programming available in order
to justify the investment of manufacturing ATSC 3.0 receivers. Both receivers and transmission of
enhanced programming need to be present in sufficient quantities for consumers to justify the increased
cost of buying an ATSC 3.0 receiver. If these cross-industry needs are not met, the channel-sharing
transition scenario may stagnate.

CHAPTER 4: CHANNEL SHARING IN DEPTH

Overview
The FCC Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 17-158, adopted on November
16, 2017 (“Authorizing Permissive Use of the Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard Television
Service”) does require some obligations by the parties that will share bandwidth to make this transition
possible.

Since the Report and Order did not provide for additional bandwidth (channels) in each market to aid
in the transition, each market must find a means to transmit the ATSC 3.0 standard, while retaining its
legacy ATSC-1 digital service.
There is no single method that can be used in all markets, but the channel-sharing approach is
applicable in most markets. This will require extraordinary coordination with the stations involved that
likely have been fierce competitors. However, the ultimate goal is the improved service provided to all
viewers as well the continued health of television broadcasting as a business.

The channel-sharing scenario addresses the realities that existing ATSC-1 service shall be maintained
during the transition, no additional spectrum is available for the transition, and combining our existing
standard with the new ATSC 3.0 standard is not possible within the same transmitter.

Channel sharing requires significant cooperation and properly structured business relationships
among stations in a given market, but it is not very challenging technically.

Conceptually, the term channel sharing refers to one of two strategies, or some combination of both:

1. The ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse

a. Most stations remain on the current standard, while volunteer station(s) change to the
new ATSC 3.0 standard.

11 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

b. The stations remaining on the current ATSC-1 standard update their encoders if
necessary and/or give up some sub-channel capacity in order to broadcast the ATSC
3.0 Lighthouse station’s main programming. This will allow for maintaining the FCC
requirement to provide their main content in the current ATSC-1 standard during the
transition.
c. The ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse station(s) configure their payload capacity in order to carry
the main programming of the other participating stations so that all participants are
represented in the market with an ATSC 3.0 version of programming. As adoption of
ATSC 3.0 grows, the balance of ATSC 3.0 and ATSC-1 stations can be adjusted, while
maintaining FCC requirements for providing a legacy version of content.
 
2. The ATSC-1 Lighthouse

a. Most stations will switch to the ATSC 3.0 standard early in the transition period. One
or two stations in the market remain on the legacy standard of ATSC-1 Lighthouse and
make the necessary payload capacity accommodations in order to broadcast the main
programming of the other participating stations.
b. As ATSC 3.0 stations come on line, they broadcast the ATSC-1 Lighthouse programming
within their ATSC 3.0 payload, thus providing ATSC 3.0 content from each participating
station during the transition.
c. As adoption of ATSC 3.0 grows, the balance of ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0 stations can be
adjusted, while maintaining FCC requirements for providing a legacy version of content.

Using either strategy provides both standards, the existing ATSC-1 and ATSC 3.0, to the market during
the transition.

It is important to note that regardless of the strategy selected for a given market, over-the-air viewers
will need to re-scan their TV receivers. Upon completion, their receivers will tune to the virtual channel
of each station, thus channel branding for each station will remain undisturbed.

Specific market conditions, along with duopolies and SSAs will guide which strategy is used in a given
market.

Tables 2 and 3 depict a market lineup prior to the transition, and then after adopting an ATSC 3.0
Lighthouse scenario.

Market Coordinator
Each market should consider obtaining the services of a market coordinator to assist in the coordinating
and focusing the leadership required to accomplish this task. This position should be used to negotiate
and help draft, with the aid of legal counsel, technical and business proposals for channel-sharing
partners to find the right transition scenario for the specific market. This agreement must also ensure
the partner coverage meets the FCC requirements as well as equally protecting business interests of
all the participating stations.

ATSC 3.0 offers many more choices than our existing ATSC-1 standard. At least at the beginning
of the ATSC 3.0 rollout, reaching a general agreement on specific ATSC 3.0 configurations across a
market can be facilitated by a market coordinator. This should help in providing a more uniform viewer
experience.

Coverage Considerations
If the host station’s legacy signal is moved to another station, that station must provide coverage that
is substantially the same as the original station transmission coverage.

12 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

Table 2. Pre-Transition

Station A Main Channel WAAA ATSC-1

Station A Sub Channel 1 Fun with Flags ATSC-1
WAAA
Station A Sub Channel 2 Maynard Goes Sailing ATSC-1
Station A Sub Channel 3 The Dobie Gillis Channel ATSC-1

Station B Main Channel WBBB ATSC-1

WBBB Station B Sub Channel 1 All About Cars ATSC-1
Station B Sub Channel 2 The Zelda Channel ATSC-1

Station C Main Channel WCCC ATSC-1

Station C Sub Channel 1 Professor Proton ATSC-1
WCCC Station C Sub Channel 2 The Sleep Channel ATSC-1
Station C Sub Channel 3 Matlock vs the Sheriff ATSC-1
Station C Sub Channel 4 Nothing but Cheers ATSC-1

Table 3. Station C becomes the ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse

Station A Main Channel WAAA ATSC-1

Station A Sub Channel 1 Fun with Flags ATSC-1
Station A Sub Channel 2 Maynard Goes Sailing ATSC-1
WAAA
Station A Sub Channel 3 The Dobie Gillis Channel ATSC-1
Station C Main Channel WCCC ATSC-1
Station C Sub Channel 1 Professor Proton ATSC-1

Station B Main Channel WBBB ATSC-1

Station B Sub Channel 1 All About Cars ATSC-1
Station B Sub Channel 2 The Zelda Channel ATSC-1
WBBB
Station C Sub Channel 2 The Sleep Channel ATSC-1
Station C Sub Channel 3 Matlock vs the Sheriff ATSC-1
Station C Sub Channel 4 Nothing but Cheers ATSC-1

Station C Main Channel WCCC ATSC 3.0

Station C Sub Channel 1 Professor Proton ATSC 3.0
Station A Main Channel WAAA ATSC 3.0
WCCC
Station A Sub Channel 1 Fun with Flags ATSC 3.0
Station B Main Channel WBBB ATSC 3.0
Station B Sub Channel 1 All About Cars ATSC 3.0

13 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

As mentioned, the FCC in its Next Generation Television Report and Order imposes two requirements
regarding coverage during this transition period:

1. The shared facilities of a legacy ATSC-1 Lighthouse station should replicate 95% of its original
coverage and that of the other participating stations in the Lighthouse scenario. This is so
market coverage in the current ATSC-1 standard is not significantly impaired. The FCC will likely
accept a loss of coverage of up to 5% of the population of the market audience, but would be
less likely to entertain waiver requests that have a larger loss in audience.

2. Any station that chooses to operate as an ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse must broadcast substantially
the same content of their primary service in the new standard. It is likely that any broadcaster
entering into an ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse agreement would want to replicate their legacy coverage
area in the new service, although this is not mandated.

Figure 3. Example of two stations with similar but not duplicative coverage

ATSC 3.0 service is given more leeway in its requirements for duplication of coverage. There is a
requirement for the primary ATSC 3.0 service to be a free service using modulation and coding that
provides a signal to noise ratio (S/N) approximately equal (15.5 dB) to that of its legacy ATSC-1 signal.

Coverage patterns among full power stations in most markets are roughly equivalent, and finding a
suitable host station will be relatively easy. However, other markets have stations with some overlap,
but do not replicate each other (see Figure 3). In these specific cases, it may be challenging to find a
host station that can be served by a legacy signal partner and replicate 95% of their original coverage.
In some of these cases, the use of SFNs may provide a solution in an ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse scenario,
as covered later in this guide.

14 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

The simulcast of ATSC 3.0 services must be substantially the same as the legacy ATSC-1 transmission in
terms of program content. Small items such as commercials or promotional messages can be different,
but the overall programming must be the same. The resolution and features of the services are also
permitted to be different, such as high dynamic range video, possibly additional audio channels, or
the addition of interactive applications. However, content should be substantially the same in program
content as the station’s legacy transmission.

Capacity Needs
As previously mentioned, during the initial years of the ATSC 3.0 transition, in most markets broadcasters
will need to share a common channel or channels. If a transmission mode in the ATSC 3.0 standard
(called modulation and coding) is used that approximately replicates the current legacy transmission
S/N of 15.5 dB, it will constrain the usable digital payload capacity in a single ATSC 3.0 RF channel to
approximately 25 or 26 Mbps.

At the same time, it is likely that most initial broadcasts will require ATSC 3.0 content at quality levels
at least equal to or greater than their current legacy ATSC-1 content quality. In practice this can be
achieved using HEVC, variable bit rate and statistical multiplexing. The rule-of-thumb is that HEVC is
about four times more efficient than the MPEG-2 encoding used in ATSC-1.

Using this general rule of thumb, a single standard RF channel can easily accommodate four to five or
more HD progressive-scan channels in ATSC 3.0 because of the greatly improved efficiency of its more
modern encoding.

Inventory of Streams and Services

One of the most important requirements of the market coordinator will be taking an inventory of the
currently available payload capacity of each station in a market. Any potential excess capacity needs
to be evaluated. Evaluation should consider efficiencies that may be provided with any improvements
in encoding and multiplexing at each of the stations that are part of the common transition planning.

For example, the displaced streams from the host station would be accommodated by the other market
transition participants. This might require the displacement of several individual multicasts from the
host station as well as the other participants in order to make room for the host station’s main legacy
HD telecast. Market partners that either own duopolies or share facilities in service agreements will
make finding a spectrum clearing solution easier.

Through market-wide planning and the use of Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP), the
identities of the individual streams will remain clear, despite being moved to other channels, once a
market-wide re-scan of all viewer receivers has been completed.

In all cases, television broadcasting is the best platform to provide notifications to its viewers via its
own promotional platform. No other medium provides a better platform to inform the audience about
an impending change in a market. If done properly with plenty of advance notice, there should be little,
if any, market disruption.

Market-wide coordination and MVPD communication is particularly important. Despite many market
stations feeding their signal to cable head-ends via means other than over the air, generally MVPDs still
use the over-the-air signal as a backup. Therefore, as these streams are moved, careful coordination
with cable and direct broadcast satellite service is critical. It is required under current FCC rules for
MVPDs to be notified 120 days in advance of such a move.

Optimizing ATSC-1
Regardless of the agreed upon transition scenario, the first step in enabling a transition to Next Gen TV
is to optimize and clear spectrum in order to provide capacity for ATSC 3.0 services, while maintaining

15 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

the legacy ATSC-1 service. To help make that happen, each station must look at how efficiently they
are making use of the current payload capacity being used for their legacy digital service. Any capacity
they can clear will help in hosting current services and thus clear the channel(s) required for Next Gen
TV.

By updating existing encoding equipment, an ATSC-1 Lighthouse station may gain sufficient capacity
to host legacy content for stations transitioning to ATSC 3.0. Similarly, ATSC-1 stations with updated
encoding equipment will have more flexibility for carrying legacy program streams displaced by the
ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse station.

The use of PSIP that currently resides within the legacy ATSC-1 signal, provides the legacy station’s
logical identity to all receivers and will be used to ensure that the viewers will be able to find their
favorite services by the same virtual channel number, despite the possibility that the service has been
moved to a different physical channel. This ability to move services to channels without audience
disruption is the very basis of how the transition can be accomplished without additional spectrum
allocations.

Host and Tenant Considerations

When a market partnership agreement is crafted, there needs to be a series of channel-sharing
agreement(s) created to allow for the displaced services from the host and other stations to be legally
bound. During that process there are several legal, FCC and capital ownership issues to be considered.
First, there are the channel-sharing agreements required for the primary HD signal and any multicast
that will be required to be moved to free up the channel’s payload capacity. This will require separate
agreements between the broadcasters involved in addition to the required permissions from the
networks and/or content owners involved. Additionally, as in the repack, and now part of the Next Gen
TV FCC rules, the prime channel move must be authorized by the FCC.

Also, each partner must obtain FCC authorization for transmitting in ATSC 3.0. Fortunately, there is a
streamlined method for obtaining this authorization as provided in the FCC Next Generation Television
Report and Order.

Lastly, as part of the partnership agreement, there needs to be consideration about the ownership of
all the equipment required to create a Lighthouse agreement. Some of the equipment will be unique
to each station’s use (as in encoding). However, much of the equipment will be used in common
(as in packaging, route/guide building, broadcast gateway, exciter, transmitter, transmission line and
antenna).

Additionally, common-site continuing costs will need to be included in all agreements. These include
power, rent, equipment maintenance, etc.

Each licensee will be independently subject to all of the FCC’s obligations, rules, and policies. The
FCC retains the right to enforce any violation of these requirements against one, more than one, or all
parties to a channel-sharing agreement. Because of this and other complexities involved in channel
sharing, consideration should be given to reciprocal hold-harmless clauses in relevant agreements
between licensees.

Single Frequency Network Considerations

Broadcasters will have the option to build SFNs for ATSC 3.0, which can improve existing coverage,
particularly for more robust indoor and mobile device reception. The decision to add optional SFNs can
be made at the start or after the initial rollout of ATSC 3.0 in a given market.

16 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

While broadcasters are sharing facilities for the transition to ATSC 3.0, the use of SFNs is possible in
any Lighthouse scenario.

Since SFNs do not require additional spectrum, they provide a potential solution for ATSC 3.0 coverage
issues in a channel-sharing market with poor partner-station coverage overlap or to provide better local
signal levels near the edge of the market coverage.

As with some of the equipment that would be required in a single Lighthouse transmission facility, a
local agreement will need to be created to cover the design, installation, legal and equipment ownership
costs of a shared SFN. Additionally, there are likely to be ongoing operating costs associated with
vertical and land rent, power, support and connectivity.

Any market partnership should consider the possibility of a future SFN while creating its initial
partnership, even if it is not targeted to begin service at the start of the transition. Thinking ahead about
this possibility, even if it is remote when the partnership agreement is created, removes a potential
future barrier when the decision eventually needs to be made in earnest.

Example: ATSC 3.0 Lighthouse Scenario

The goal is to free the capacity of at least one channel (possibly more in a larger market) to provide
space for the new Next Gen TV services. Fortunately, the new ATSC 3.0 services require less payload
per service, so depending on service requirements (quality and coverage) five or more current HD
services with similar coverage and quality are possible within a 6-MHz channel, as seen in Figures 4a
and 4b depicting an ATSC 3.0 lighthouse scenario.

Figures 4a and 4b

17 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 2

 Doc Map TOC

SECTION 3: MARKET BUILDOUT

CHAPTER 5: HOW TO BUILD OUT ATSC 3.0

Once a decision to convert to ATSC 3.0 has been made, careful consideration must be given to the
entire transmission path, starting at the antenna, and working back to the program stream generation
point.

Upgrading from ATSC-1 to ATSC 3.0 is a task that involves many players. It is recommended to get all
vendors involved early in the planning process.

Note: If you are a repack station, the incremental out-of-pocket cost of making upgrades now will be
significantly lower than making them later.

Considerations for Proceeding

Antenna Contours
The signal contours of stations in any given market are often different, depending on licensed power,
location of tower, interference protection and other factors. In a channel-sharing agreement, the
ATSC-1 signal should replicate 95% of the original service (according to the FCC Report and Order),
thus requiring a comparison between contours of participating stations.

Lighthouse Choices
In a given market, the number and operating band of post-repack stations, along with the emergence
of a clear Lighthouse candidate for ATSC 3.0, may impact the degree of ATSC 3.0 readiness to invest in
now. The most significant considerations are in tower related items, since a post-repack upgrade
will essentially double those expenses for stations that are impacted by the repack.

Duopoly Status
For an entity that has two stations, ie, a duopoly or SSA in the same market, this situation allows
the stations’ owner to utilize one of the two channels as its Lighthouse station. Clearly, this solves
a cooperation dilemma that is foreign to most broadcasters. If either or both of the duopoly or SSA
channels are repacking, this gives the potentially added incentive of new equipment from which to
build the ATSC 3.0 systems. Consideration must be given to maintain equivalent coverage contours.

Upgrading the Physical Plant

Making your tower, antenna and transmission line ready for ATSC 3.0 are major considerations for
repack stations because the incremental cost of structural work is likely to be significantly lower than
a later upgrade.

Tower
The structural condition and capacity of your broadcast tower is the starting point for any change to your
antenna and/or transmission line. Any change in antenna or transmission line will require a structural
analysis and, potentially, structural work to the tower, in order to support changed equipment.

If you lease space on a tower, your provider will be able to determine the extent of work required.

Antenna
Existing antennas operating at their maximum power limit on ATSC-1 may not be capable of handling
the additional peak-to-average ratio (PAR) needed for ATSC 3.0.

Since the ATSC 3.0 standard is tailored to both over-the-air broadcast and delivery of data and secondary
content to mobile devices, one must consider the mobile market. Adding vertical polarization (V-pol)

18 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

to the broadcast signal greatly increases reliable reception in mobile and other devices, both indoors
and outdoors. However, V-pol necessitates more transmitter power, which affects all aspects of the RF
path.

Another option to consider is adding null-fill to better serve densely populated areas, but this diminishes
coverage in the outskirts for a given power level. This option is more viable if SFNs are installed in the
outskirt areas, should population density warrant it.

Transmission Line
Just like antennas, if the transmission line is operating at or near its rated capacity with an ATSC-1
signal, it will most likely need to be replaced to carry the ATSC 3.0 signal. The new transmission line
power capacity is determined based on the added power requirements of ATSC 3.0, as well as the
additional power required to drive any added antenna V-pol or null fill.

Mask Filter
One of the prerequisites for the FCC approving the ATSC 3.0 standard was that it must meet the same
emission mask requirements as ATSC-1. The occupied bandwidth of an ATSC 3.0 signal is slightly
wider than an ATSC-1 signal, but most current filters are able to pass the specifications. However, if an
ATSC-1 station currently operates with a sharp-tuned mask filter, the filter may need to be upgraded
to handle the additional peak-to-average power. Keep in mind if transmitter power output (TPO) is
increased to add V-pol to the antenna or to make up for the difference in PAR while keeping the same
effective radiated power (ERP), the mask filter must be capable of handling the additional power.

Transmitter
If the transmission plant was installed when the station transitioned from analog to ATSC-1, several
pieces of equipment will most likely have to be upgraded or replaced in order to pass the ATSC 3.0 data
stream. This also holds true for repack transmitters that were retuned rather than replaced. The
following factors must be considered when planning an ATSC 3.0 upgrade.

There is a 2-dB power difference between the PAR of an ATSC-1 8-VSB modulation and an ATSC 3.0
OFDM modulated signal. If the transmitter was sized to operate efficiently at the assigned TPO and
ERP for ATSC-1, there’s a good chance it won’t produce enough power or meet linearity specifications
for ATSC 3.0. You may be able to add additional power amplifiers; otherwise, the transmitter will have
to be replaced. Keep in mind if you can add additional amplifiers, the reject loads and other ancillary
equipment may have to be upgraded as well. For repack stations, some transmitter manufacturers
‘de-rate’ their specifications in anticipation of an ATSC 3.0 upgrade. It is important to check with your
manufacturer about this when specifying transmitter power requirements.

Adding V-pol percentage means the transmitter power must be increased as well if you want to maintain
the same ERP. Adding 30% V-pol means a 30% increase in transmitter power. Remember the FCC
assigned ERP is based on horizontal polarization (H-pol) only, so you may add V-pol up to the limit of
your H-pol FCC authorization.

Exciter
Since ATSC 3.0 content is delivered via IP and ATSC 3.0 uses OFDM instead of 8-VSB modulation, earlier
exciters are not compatible. Some of the exciters manufactured recently are software based and can
be upgraded, but others will have to be replaced (Figure 5). It is best to check with the manufacturer
early in the planning phase. Refer to Appendix F for examples of ATSC 3.0 transmission settings.

Layer division multiplexing (LDM) consists of a lower data rate but more robust modulation and coding
configuration injected at a higher power level, plus a higher data rate but less robust configuration

19 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

Figure 5. Example of an ATSC 3.0 Exciter using 2 Layer Division Multiplexing (LDM)
Physical Layer Pipes, and 4 Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) Physical Layer Pipes

injected at a lower power level. This technique maximizes bandwidth

and it can be employed on two PLPs while time or frequency division
multiplexing techniques are employed on the remaining PLPs (Figure
6).

Broadcast Gateway and Studio-To-Transmitter Links (STL)

The Broadcast Gateway is a new concept with ATSC 3.0. It combines
live and non-real-time content, advanced emergency alerting, program
guide, program-related data and control data, and then produces an Figure 6
IP stream called the STL transport stream (STLTP), which can be deployed by a Society of Motion Picture
and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 2022-1 compliant microwave and/or fiber equipment (Figure 7).
Existing ATSC-1 STL systems are not compatible with ATSC 3.0.

While planning the STL upgrade, remember that you still need to keep an ATSC-1 STL operational, and
depending on how your market addresses the transition, you may need to provide STL links to your
channel-sharing partner(s). Direct feeds to MVPD providers should also be considered, keeping in
mind the provision of the correct ratings watermark to all feeds. STL considerations are common to
repack and non-repack stations.

Auxiliary Transmission Systems

Many stations have backup transmission systems. One must consider what to upgrade in the auxiliary
system. All of the above items usually apply with auxiliary systems, but at lower power levels.

CHAPTER 6: SINGLE FREQUENCY NETWORKS (SFNs)

Description
SFNs are multiple transmitters emitting the same content on the same frequency at the same time.
As long as the various signals, and their echoes, arrive at the receiver within the OFDM guard interval,

20 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

Figure 7. Example of Broadcast Gateway

then the reception is enhanced. Outside the guard interval, and of sufficient amplitude, SFN signals
can lead to destructive self-interference that will actually decrease signal levels. SFNs can help provide
more uniform signal strength throughout the service area, which may ultimately be necessary for phone
manufacturers to install ATSC 3.0 chipsets in their smartphone and tablet devices, and for automotive
manufacturers to install consumer gateways in vehicles. In the older ATSC mobile handheld system,
signals were not consistent throughout the DMA for most stations and resulted in poor reception. ATSC
3.0 SFNs can provide geographical diversity, in that the receiver “sees” multiple signal sources from
different directions. It can create a much wider deployment and solve difficult terrain-related signal
issues in a particular DMA.

The efficient use of SFN technology in ATSC 3.0 is made possible by the OFDM modulation scheme.
The OFDM modulation and coding in ATSC 3.0 has over 40,000 possible configurations, of which
only a small subset of those will probably be used to transmit the ATSC 3.0 signals. We can use SFNs
to supplement a station’s main ATSC 3.0 signal and thereby improve service, increase over-the-air
audience, and enable new revenue sources, including better reception by mobile and portable devices
and 5G-type data delivery. An SFN will allow reliable mobile reception at highway speeds, and it will
be IP-based. It will give the opportunity for targeted advertising, conditional access, and is scalable/
configurable/adaptable. In order to take advantage of these new services we need to ensure strong
reception throughout service areas; thus, SFNs will be necessary to maintain a higher signal level
throughout all areas of a DMA, including highly populated interstate highway corridors. It is well
documented that a signal of 73 dBu or more is necessary for mobile/portable and indoor reception. In
order to achieve this high level of high RF penetration and keep the ATSC 3.0 service quality similar to
ATSC-1 and its bit rates above 25 Mbps, SFNs will definitely be necessary.

Content delivery to portable/mobile devices is one of the most attractive and important elements of
ATSC 3.0. Many broadcasters who intend to adopt ATSC 3.0 as their new broadcast standard share
this view. Reliable reception by relatively small antennas becomes a priority which, in turn, requires
better and more uniform distribution of signal throughout the stations DMA and possibly beyond. ATSC
3.0 is OFDM-based, which facilitates the deployment throughout a given DMA of multiple transmitters
operating on the same frequency as the main transmitter. The inherent guard interval, added to the
start of each symbol, is the enabling OFDM feature that permits SFN deployment. SFNs consist of

21 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

multiple transmission sources, possibly five to seven additional sites in any given market, using the
same content on the same frequency. Multiple signals from multiple incidence angles dramatically
improves the probability of reception. There is wide deployment throughout the world for these types of
OFDM-based SFNs, especially in Asia and Europe. The success of these networks is well documented.

In order to deploy an ATSC 3.0 system in a particular market, a channel-sharing agreement, as described
in Chapter 4, must first be implemented. This cannot be accomplished by using existing ATSC-1 signals
or combining both. Stations within a market must agree on their SFN goals. Do they want better
reception for UHD 4K/fixed/mobile/indoor reception? If so, the SFN must be initially designed for
this type of service reception and probability. Development of accurate propagation models are thus
essential, much like in a cellular type-based system. Field strength alone is not sufficient. Robustness,
or the probability of good signal reception over time, is critical. Remember that ATSC 3.0 has over
40,000 possible configurations. The use of sophisticated software tools to design and optimize the
SFNs is essential.

Since FCC rules allow stations to operate SFNs within their theoretical maximized contour and/or
their table of distances circle, it is possible to merge the main station’s coverage area with those of
associated SFN transmitters, forming a coverage polygon that will be called the allotment area. The
allotment area is used to constrain every SFN transmitter’s contour. We start the planning process by
selecting candidate transmitter sites and entering ERP and height above ground level values for omni-
directional antenna. Tower sites are then chosen that can also be used to fill in the contours at a later
time by using them as “gap fillers”. There is also the possibility being discussed of extending these
allotment areas outside of DMAs in order to connect hyphenated DMA or highway corridors for national
reception. This will require further testing and FCC rule changes and new agreements with networks
on sharing their content.

The cost of creating a SFN network can be millions of dollars for each site and DMA. Most stations
will collaborate with other stations in the market to share these facilities and to lower costs. Some
third-party companies are planning turnkey SFN sites, and the stations that participate will only be
required to pay monthly use fees that will ramp up over time as new businesses mature using this
technology.

Figures 8 through 10 show a real

world example of how an SFN in San
Francisco was developed and how it
significantly increases the ATSC 3.0
over-the-air coverage in a difficult RF
environment.

Figure 8. In San Francisco, the first

step was to identify the existing
tower sites that would be available
for SFN transmitters. The distance
between these sites determines the
ATSC 3.0 parameters that the engi-
neers will use to determine the best
network design.
Figure 8

22 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

Figure 9. In San Francisco,

TV signals are limited by
terrain. The real-world
coverage of a current, single
transmission site channel is
shown based on signal levels
that are greater than 73 dBu,
which is widely accepted
as the minimum signal for
mobile, hand held, and
indoor reception. Only about
one-third of the homes in the
DMA now get this signal level
or better.

Figure 9

Figure 10. With just four SFN

sites, the signal density of
the same station is much
improved and over 80% of the
homes in the DMA will receive
signal greater than 73 dBu.
More SFN sites will likely be
added in the final design.

Figure 10

Role of Guard Intervals in SFN Deployment

Consider two signals, both on the same channel, arriving at a vehicle. In our example drawing (Figure
11), the signal from transmitter 2 arrives slightly earlier. The difference in arrival time can be addressed
by building a Guard Interval into the signal that is broadcast from both transmitters. In the drawing,
distance 2 is the main (shortest) path. If the time difference between both signals is less than the
guard interval setting entered into the transmission system, then the two signals can work together to
improve reliability of the received information. The actual value of the guard interval determines the
maximum allowed spacing between transmitters. The length of the guard interval detracts from the
data capacity of the channel. The longer the guard interval, the lower the data capacity.

23 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

SPACING BETWEEN TRANSMITTERS

Figure 11

CHAPTER 7: COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

CONVERTING TO ATSC 3.0

Figure 12 is an example of an ATSC 3.0

transmission system. When estimating
the costs to implement ATSC 3.0 there are
several areas to consider:

• Base Costs
• New Features Costs
• Transition Considerations

Base Cost
Base Costs items are meant to be those
required to enable the ATSC 3.0 platform.
These costs do not include those of making
a station or market-coordinated conversion
for any new services.

All costs illustrated are meant to be ballpark

ranges for planning purposes and not
suitable for defining actual budgets.

A typical broadcast chain has several sections

that will need to be converted to handle
IP-based data streams rather than transport
streams and the HD-SDI format so pervasive
in today’s broadcast studio infrastructure.
Antenna, tower and transmitter equipment
may need to be upgraded. Figure 12

24 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

Several factors impact base costs. The amounts shown in Table 4 are estimates based in part on FCC
Repack Guidelines found here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Widelity%20Report.pdf

Table 4.

Item Description Cost Range Notes

Needed if any antenna
Tower Structural
Tower integrity 5,000 - 16,000 or line modifications are
Study
made
If not already incorporated
Antenna Change Addition of vertical polarity 125,000 - 300,000
in existing
Transmission Line 96,000 - 327,000
Handle increased power Only if V-pol is added
Upgrade (based on 1,000’)
160,000 – 1,300,000
Tower Upgrade Structural work If needed based on above
(includes rigging)
Mask Filter Handle increased bandwidth 6,000 - 90,000 Only if sharp tuned filter
Depends on existing
250,000 - 1,075,000
Transmitter Handle increased power transmitter power rating
(Solid State)
and licensed ERP
May be included with
Exciter ATSC 3.0 capable 20,000 – 45,000
newer transmitters
STL Transmitter/ Existing STL needs to be
Change to IP-based system 130,000
Receiver maintained as well
Encapsulates data and
Converts to ATSC 3.0
Broadcast Gateway 50,000 – 75,000 works with ATSC 3.0
standard
exciter
Specified for applicable
IP Equipment Glue to connect everything 25,000
protocols and speed
UHD Net Pass- Depends on how network UHD pass through without
10,000
Through delivers UHD material MC upgrade
Improved efficiency,
Live Content HEVC standard for each
75,000 – 150,000 compliant with 3.0
Encoders program stream
standard
Some or all of the following
Handles setup and monitoring items may be combined
System Manager 50,000
of system into the system manager
hardware
Non-Real-Time For optional second screen
5,000
Encoders and apps
Program Guide
Program schedule insertion 5,000 – 8,000
Generator
Opportunities for picture
Emergency Alerting ATSC 3.0 Standard 5,000 – 8,000 in picture, device wake up,
etc.
System Integration Contractor to install and test 10,000 – 25,000

FCC and Legal Filing fees, consultant, etc. 5,000 – 7,500

25 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

New Features: Building from the Base Configuration

Assuming the above systems are in place, you can now transmit on the new platform. At this stage you
should carefully consider the new services to be deployed and those utilizing back channel data paths,
which require IP connectivity back to the content origination point. As additional services, using the
new platform come into play, we must next add in the IP distribution chain (Figure 13).

While it is yet to be determined when the new services will be rolled out widely within the broadcast
industry, you can consider some features that could differentiate you in a market or as a company.

Figure 13. Example of ATSC 3.0 New Features

Some examples to consider:

• Advanced Emergency Information Systems
• Local Studio Production:
▪▪ Capital cost for converting news studio to HD 60p or 4K UHD TV
• News Production:
▪▪ Capital cost for converting electronic news gathering/satellite news gathering trucks to 4K
UHD TV
▪▪ Capital cost for newsroom/Control room workflows
• Single Frequency Networks:
▪▪ Capital cost for a single SFN site
▪▪ Operating expense for SFN site including: AC power, HVAC, fiber circuits, building rent, tower
rent, security systems, remote control, depreciation, taxes, maintenance

Transition Considerations
Costs will vary depending on the amount of cooperation in your market, the Lighthouse scenario
chosen and operating expenses for legal, marketing coordinator, shared capital and operating costs.
Some specifics include the following:
• Upgrade of existing encoders to increase channel capacity
• Broadcast gateway and STL upgrades/additions
• Shared build-out and operating expenses for Lighthouse
• Public relations expenses
• Shared costs of optional SFN deployment

26 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 3

 Doc Map TOC

SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND APPENDICES

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS

When our current ATSC-1 system was launched over 20 years ago, Mark Zuckerberg was a young teen.
Nobody knew what an iPhone was. Netscape was the browser of choice, and the compact disc was
in. It seems like only yesterday to many of us, but a lot has changed since the era of cordless phones.

Advances in technology foster advances in entertainment and information. Facebook, Twitter, and
instant messaging have taken over our lives. YouTube, Google and Amazon are household names.
Cable TV is feeling the heat, and so is broadcasting.

But all is not doom and gloom. Standard TV viewing is at 3 hours and 10 minutes per day. Reach is
at 91.3%. More time is spent watching screens, big and small, than ever before, and everything about
anything is at just about everyone’s fingertips.

Over-the-air broadcasting can take the next step in providing untethered services and UHD video with
theater quality sound all wrapped up in the same signal. Second screen and advanced emergency
information can be delivered to anyone with a device, regardless of their data budget. All of this and
more continue to grow the value of our spectrum and our licenses.

Next Gen TV is designed and built from the ground up to be flexible, extensible and upgradeable.
By adopting the same technology that powers the internet and marrying it with the technology that
make today’s wireless environment possible, we will build the best of the best into a system that is
competitive with today’s and tomorrow’s communications revolution.

But the journey is never easy or simple. Challenges lay ahead. The next step is complicated and it’s
voluntary, but the potential is great.

Hard business decisions are in our futures, and specific market conditions are a bigger factor than
ever before.
Next Gen TV - The Next Generation of entertainment and information delivered with no strings (or
wires) attached. Coming soon to a device near you, as we meet the challenges of tomorrow.

27 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 4

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What is ATSC 3.0?

ATSC 3.0 is a major upgrade and expansion of our existing over-the-air broadcast platform.

Unlike the move to ATSC-1, adoption of ATSC 3.0 is voluntary, and it is not backwards compatible with
our existing ATSC-1 standard.

What makes ATSC 3.0 TV Different?

The core difference is the framework around which it is built. There are two main components of the
new framework:

1. It is based on IP, which is the same protocol used to power the internet.

2. The way the signal is modulated is a robust, proven technology found in cellular telephone
architecture and in other broadcasting standards around the world.

The new framework makes several advanced features available, including the following:

1. UHD TV and beyond, with immersive audio, a wider color palette which brings out even the
subtlest color shades, and high dynamic range video which significantly increases the shades
between dark and light.

2. Dynamic Scaling, providing different combinations of quality vs. signal robustness within the
same broadcast. This same concept is used when you stream a video on your smart TV or
wireless device.

3. Data streams within the signal to supply second-screen applications.

4. Advanced life-safety services, including the ability to signal first responders and to wake up
your TV or smart device in the event of an emergency.
Pros and Cons – Cost
Costs vary by several factors, most notably repack status and market specifics.

The Population Shape of Your Market

For both repack and non-repack stations, population density in relation to your transmitter location can
be a factor to consider. For example, consider maximizing your contour for ATSC 3.0 if your population
distribution warrants it.

Repack Stations
If you are a repack station, a relatively small incremental investment to upgrade your transmission
system during the repack can make you Next Gen TV ready. The investment includes:

1. Adding some V-pol to your new transmitting antenna.

2. Increasing the power rating of your new antenna and transmission line if necessary.

3. If transmitter replacement is called for to make you whole in the repack, then upgrades in
power rating and an ATSC 3.0-compatible exciter is worth considering.

Remember, repack reimbursement only covers what is necessary to make you whole based on your
pre-repack facility. However, depending on your specifics, the additional power needed for ATSC 3.0 may
be within the ratings of available transmitters and antenna systems, thereby limiting the incremental
expense involved.

28 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX A

 Doc Map TOC

Non-Repack Stations
If you are not a repack station, factors that determine cost include:

1. Transmission system considerations include the addition of V-pol, null fill and the ability of
your existing system to handle the power increase required (transmitter, filter, line, antenna.)

2. Condition and ownership status of tower.

Infrastructure
While network pass-through of UHD material may be the most logical starting point for most stations,
factors to consider for syndicated programs and local production include:

1. Status of your STL

2. Central-casting status (Master Control, Traffic, Graphics)

3. Age of facility

4. Opportunity to migrate to an IP-based workflow

5. Virtualization of some studio workflows

Pros and Cons – Rollout

Because the transition to Next Gen TV is voluntary, and the FCC will not allocate additional channels
to facilitate the transition, several scenarios have been developed. At this time, the most popular
scenario utilizes a channel-sharing plan as a way to move forward. At its core, this plan requires sharing
existing payload capacity between stations in the market. Features of the existing ATSC-1 standard
allow virtual channel info to move with services, thereby protecting branding, marketing and channel
position once consumers re-scan their sets.

Factors to Consider Include:

1. The ability for your market to cooperate with competitors

2. Similarity (or lack thereof) of coverage patterns among the stations in the market

3. The placement of a market coordinator

4. The number of duopolies and SSAs

5. A fallback plan should Next Gen TV adoption stagnate

6. Distribution rights and minimum required bit-rates in some agreements

7. Patent clearances for Next Gen TV technologies.

The Chicken-and-the-Egg Factor:

1. Adoption and rollout of the ATSC 3.0 standard by consumer equipment manufacturers

2. Availability of UHD programming

29 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX A

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX B: ATSC 3.0 PLANNING CHECKLIST

Item Comments
Are you a Repack station? Repack stations should consider adding ATSC
3.0 incremental upgrades to Antenna, Line and
Yes Transmitter at time of repack.
Physical Post-Repack UHF (14 and above) Most suitable for mobile
Channel _________________ and smart devices.

No High-band VHF (7 – 13) Suitable for fixed. Mobile

and smart devices may be reached through
Physical Channel _________________ consumer WiFi gateways.

Low-band VHF (2 – 6) Suitable for fixed with

external antenna.
Other TV or Radio Broadcasters on Tower? Considerations of planning and cost of tower
modifications, and work that may be necessary
Yes to add V-pol to radiated signal, which will
No enhance reception to mobile and smart devices.

Tower Condition

Good

Fair

Poor
Holes in Coverage area (Terrain/Urban clutter)? May benefit from SFNs which are feasible in
ATSC 3.0. These are most effective on UHF
Yes channels.
No

Translators or LPTVs? May be possible to replace or augment with SFN.

Conversion cost and timeline considerations.
Yes

No

Do you have an Auxiliary Transmitter Facility? Cost considerations to convert. May help to
facilitate any needed tower work, especially if
Yes not co-located.
Co-Located with Main?

Yes

No

No

30 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX B

 Doc Map TOC

Are you part of a Duopoly or SSA? Consideration for determining Lighthouse

options in order to maintain substantially similar
Yes programming and 95% replication of ATSC-1
Do both stations have similar coverage (current) coverage.
contours?

Yes

No

No

Are all the transmitters in your market in the Considerations for Lighthouse options. If an
same area? ATSC-1 Lighthouse scenario is used, then the
Lighthouse station should have a coverage
Yes contour that provides at least 95% population
No coverage for each participating station.

Do all the stations in your market have similar

coverage contours?

Yes

No

Likelihood for market cooperation between Considerations for developing a plan and
stations in your market? time-table to transition from ATSC-1 to ATSC 3.0

Good
Fair

Poor

Is there a station or stations that stand out as

Lighthouse candidate(s)?

Yes

No

Other Considerations

Cable penetration

Number of VHF stations in the market

Direct feeds to MVPD head-ends

Sub-channel availability and

programming agreements

31 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX B

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX C: ENGINEERING CHECKLIST TO CONVERT TO ATSC 3.0

The technical infrastructure for an ATSC 3.0 ready facility requires careful planning and consideration
that addresses the standard today and where it plans to be in the future. It’s important that as stations
discuss and decide on their plans for deployment, that they reach out to key vendors for input.

• Towers
▪▪ Structural integrity of the tower must be validated by a licensed firm prior to installation of
any new antennas, transmission line or other equipment. If you are involved in the repack
process, it’s likely an antenna and possibly line replacement is necessary. For those not
involved in the repack process who plan to replace antenna and/or transmission line, a
structural analysis and possible structural upgrades will be necessary.
• Antenna and Transmission Line
▪▪ The antenna specification will be a determining factor in the quality of service for ATSC 3.0
to viewers. Things to be considered when selecting an antenna include:
▫▫ Polarization
-- Consider adding V-Pol to improve reception to built-in antennas and portable/mo-
bile performance
-- Null fill should be considered depending on tower location and terrain
▫▫ Power handling capacity
-- Consider higher PAR for ATSC 3.0
-- Consider power needed to drive any V-pol and/or null fill addition
• Transmitter
▪▪ Power requirements for ATSC 3.0 are higher than for ATSC-1.
▫▫ ATSC 3.0 has a PAR about 2dB higher than ATSC-1. Check with your manufacturer to
determine if there is enough headroom in your existing transmitter. Note: Some manu-
facturers “de-rate” their transmitters to include the necessary headroom for ATSC 3.0,
while others do not. It is important to clarify this point with your manufacturer.
▫▫ The addition of V-Pol or Null fill will require additional power.
▫▫ If a transmitter upgrade is necessary, upgrade of utility power feed, generator, and
uninterruptible power supply systems may be necessary.
▫▫ Other considerations like overall age, condition of IOT(s) and cost of operation should
be addressed.
▪▪ If your RF system utilizes a sharp-tuned mask filter, it may require an upgrade, depending
on its power rating. This is because the bandpass of ATSC 3.0 is slightly wider than ATSC-1.
Consult your manufacturer.
• Exciter
▪▪ Some ATSC-1 exciters are upgradeable via software to support the new ATSC 3.0 standard.
If your transmitter is being replaced due to the repack, chances are your new exciter will be
upgradeable. Check with manufacturer to verify.
• Broadcast Gateway and Studio-to-Transmitter Link
▪▪ Existing STL links that handle SMPTE 310 or a 20 Mbps ASI stream will not work for ATSC
3.0. ATSC A/324 describes a Broadcast Gateway that produces a SMPTE 2022-1 IP stream
that can be transported using microwave or fiber designed for IP. The Broadcast Gateway
signal can be used to feed multiple destinations, including SFNs and MVPD.
▪▪ NOTE: Depending on the specific method used to transition to ATSC 3.0, it may be necessary
to operate your existing ATSC-1 STL in parallel with the ATSC 3.0 system.

32 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX C

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX D: SINGLE FREQUENCY NETWORK FACILITIES CHECKLIST

SFN Considerations
Several factors are involved in the decision to deploy a SFN. Because of the nature of how a SFN works,
some of the trade-offs between the number and location of sites, contours and distance from the main
transmitter are significant.

The following is an overview checklist intended to be a guide in the decision process:

1. For each SFN:

a. ERP
b. Tower Height
c. Antenna Polarization
d. Antenna Directivity (Pattern)
e. Beam Tilt of the antenna
f. Null fill
g. Shared Site Considerations
i. Combiners
ii. Antenna/Line Bandwidth specifications
iii. Sharp-Tuned transmitter output filters (Active Tuning)

2. Site considerations:
a. Distance from main transmitter, proper Guard Interval selection
b. Utility Power, UPS and Backup Generator
c. Space availability for Transmitter and Filters
d. Availability of Fiber Connectivity and/or STL feasibility
e. Ease of access to the Site
f. Local Zoning and Permitting
g. Tower Loading Analysis
h. Frequency Coordination with other Tenants as necessary
i. FCC Licensing and FAA Notification
j. Strategy for Remote Control and Monitoring systems
k. Interface to GPS 10-MHz reference
l. Procedure for handling loss of reference

33 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX D

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX E: POST REPACK LANDSCAPE BY THE NUMBERS

This document is derived from the FCC Post-Auction Parameters data found at:
https://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/Current_Transition_Files/

Repacked Repacked
Post-Repack No Repacked
to High- to Low-band Totals Pct.
Stations Change In Band
band VHF VHF
Full Service UHF
501 688 11 15 1215 73%
Stations
Full Service High-
354 64 - 1 419 25%
band VHF Stations
Full Service Low-band
39 0 0 0 39 2%
VHF Stations
Totals 894 752 11 16 1673 100%

Class A UHF Stations 146 203 2 1 352

Class A High-band
16 3 - 0 19
VHF Stations
Class A Low-band VHF
6 0 0 6
Stations
Totals 167 205 2 1 377

Total Stations 2050

Repacked Repacked
Post-Repack No Repacked
to High- to Low-band Totals
Percentages Change In Band
band VHF VHF
Full Service UHF
41% 57% 1% 1% 100%
Stations
Full Service High-
84% 15% - 0% 100%
band VHF Stations
Full Service Low-band
100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
VHF Stations

Class A UHF Stations 41% 58% 1% 0% 100%

Class A High-band
84% 16% - 0% 100%
VHF Stations
Class A Low-band VHF
100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Stations
 

34 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX E

 Doc Map TOC

APPENDIX F: EXAMPLES OF ATSC 3.0 TRANSMISSION SETTINGS

This table describes some of the physical layer choices. Optional technologies for constructing SFN
networks are not included. See ATSC A327-2018 for more information.

PLP Parameters Description Values Notes

Frame Length Data frame including 50ms – 5 sec Longer equates to
Bootstrap and Preamble less overhead. Shorter
equates to faster re-
ceiver acquisition time
FEC Code Length Forward Error Correction Code Length: 64Kbits Frame size comes from
or 16Kbits length of inner code
(LDPC)
FEC Code Rate Useful Bits / Total Bits 2/15 – 13/15
Constellations Modulation Choices QPSK, 16 – 4096 QAM
Multiplexing PLP multiplexing Time Domain (TDM) Use of LDM provides
Up to 64 total PLPs al- Freq Domain (FDM) better spectrum use
lowed per 6-MHz ch. A sin- Layer Domain (LDM) efficiency. Currently
gle service can be spread 2 levels, Core and En-
across 1 to 4 PLPs hance. May not be suit-
able for uses involving
SFN configurations.
System Parameters Description Values Notes
FFT Fast Fourier Transform 8k, 16K, 32K Number of transfer
points
Pilot Patterns Number and persistence Scattered (16 choices) Inserted into Frame
of pilots mapped to a Continual during waveform por-
frame Edge tion of encoding.
Subframe boundary
Guard Intervals Length of guard interval 12 Choices Important consider-
ation in SFN network
design.

35 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | APPENDIX F

 Doc Map TOC

The following table is representative of selectable choices for the ATSC 3.0 Physical Layer in a 2 PLP
LDM configuration.
Source: ATSC A327-2018 Physical Layer Recommended Practices

36 NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | SECTION 4

 Doc Map TOC

NOTES

NAB ATSC 3.0 TRANSITION GUIDE | NOTES