Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next 
Generation” Broadcast Television Standard)
)
)
)
)GN Docket No. 16-142
THIRD REPORT AND ORDER AND 
FOURTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  June 20, 2023 Released:  June 23, 2023
Comment Date:  [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................4
A. Multicast Licensing...........................................................................................................................7
B. Sunsets ............................................................................................................................................10
III. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................13
A. Simulcast Multicast Streams...........................................................................................................15
B. Non-Simulcast 1.0 Multicast Streams.............................................................................................16
C. Non-Simulcast 3.0 Multicast Streams.............................................................................................17
D. Limits on Licensing of Host Capacity ............................................................................................18
E. Use of Multicast Streams to Minimize 1.0 Primary Stream Service Loss......................................23
F. Ownership Issues ............................................................................................................................26
G. Same-Service (or “Lateral”) Hosting..............................................................................................27
H. Rules Applicable to Multicast Streams Aired on a Host Station ....................................................31
I. Substantially Similar Rule ..............................................................................................................39
J. Requirement to Comply with the ATSC A/322 Standard ..............................................................46
IV. FOURTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.....................................................50
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.................................................................................................................57
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES........................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX A – List of Commenters and Reply Commenters
APPENDIX B – Final Rules
APPENDIX C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX D – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Third Report and Order in the Next Generation Broadcast Television (ATSC 3.0 
or Next Gen TV) docket, we make changes to our Next Gen TV rules designed to preserve over-the-air 
(OTA) television viewers’ access to the widest possible range of programming while also supporting 
television broadcasters’ transition to the next generation of broadcast television technology.  These Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
2changes are based on the records collected in response to both the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM1 and the Sunsets FNPRM.2  We generally adopt our proposal in the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM to allow a Next Gen TV station3 to seek modification of its license4 to include certain 
of its non-primary video programming streams (multicast streams)5 that are aired on “host” stations6 
during a transitional period.  In adopting this proposal, we follow the same licensing framework, and to a 
large extent the same regulatory regime, established for the simulcast of primary video programming 
streams on “host” station facilities.7  We also extend the sunsets of, and thus retain in effect until at least 
July 17, 2027, the substantially similar rule for simulcast streams and the requirement to comply with the 
ATSC A/322 standard on primary 3.0 streams.8
2. Given that Next Gen TV stations must, without any additional allocation of spectrum, 
continue serving ATSC 1.0 viewers while voluntarily transitioning to ATSC 3.0,9 we seek to take actions 
that will minimize viewer disruption as much as possible during this limited transition period.  
1 Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142, 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 16088, at para. 1 (2021) (Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM or Multicast Licensing FNPRM).
2 Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142, 
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-47, 2022 WL 2290237 at *1, para. 1 (rel. June 22, 2022) 
(Sunsets FNPRM).
3 By “Next Gen TV” broadcaster or station, we mean a television broadcaster or station that has obtained 
Commission approval and commenced broadcasting its signal using the ATSC 3.0 standard in its local market.  A 
station can deploy ATSC 3.0 service either by converting its own facility to ATSC 3.0 or by airing its ATSC 3.0 
signal(s) on a station in its local market that has converted its facility to ATSC 3.0 (which we refer to as an ATSC 
3.0 “host” station).  For purposes of this Report and Order, a station’s “own” channel or facility refers to the channel 
and facility on which it operated prior to its transition to ATSC 3.0 (even if it has already converted to operate in 
3.0).  We use this term to distinguish between operations on this facility and a station’s operations as a guest on a 
host facility.
4 While in this document we may refer to the licensing of multicast streams, we clarify that we are establishing a 
process to license a guest Next Gen TV station capacity on a host’s channel for the purpose of airing one or more 
guest multicast streams.  Consistent with the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, each portion of a host 
channel that is being licensed by a guest station to air one or more programming streams will be separately 
authorized channels under the originating (guest) broadcaster’s single, unified license.  See infra Section III.H 
(“Licensing”).  See also Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 9930, 9953-54, 
para. 48 (2017) (Next Gen TV First Report and Order) (stating that “the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 signals of a Next 
Gen TV broadcaster will be two separately authorized companion channels under the broadcaster’s single, unified 
license”). 
5 For purposes of this Report and Order, “multicast” stream(s) refers to a TV broadcast station’s non-primary video 
programming stream(s); that is, stream(s) other than the station’s primary video programming stream. 
6 A “host” station is one whose facilities are being used to transmit programming originated by another station (i.e., 
“guest”) as part of a local simulcasting arrangement. 
7 We note that our rules do not prohibit the use of private contractual arrangements for partner stations to air their 
multicast streams.  For regulatory compliance purposes, such streams would be considered multicast streams of the 
host partner station, not the originator (guest) station.
8 The Commission will initiate a review approximately one year before these rules are set to expire to seek comment 
on whether they should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.
9 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9939, para. 16 (“To avoid either forcing viewers to acquire 
new equipment or depriving them of television service, it is critical that broadcasters continue to provide service 
using the current ATSC 1.0 standard to deliver DTV service while the marketplace adopts devices compatible with 
the new 3.0 transmission standard.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
3Specifically, this Report and Order seeks to facilitate and encourage partnerships that will minimize 
potential disruptions by permitting stations in a market to work together to preserve viewers’ access to 
ATSC 1.0-formatted programming during the transition.  We intend simultaneously to facilitate 
broadcasters’ voluntary transition to ATSC 3.0, which can provide consumers with the benefit of new and 
innovative services, while protecting the vast majority of over-the-air TV viewers who continue to rely on 
1.0 equipment. 
3. In the accompanying Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (RAND FNPRM), 
we seek to further our understanding of the current marketplace for ATSC 3.0 Standard Essential Patents 
(SEPs) and the ability of third parties to develop products that rely upon them.  We also seek comment on 
the impact on consumers if the Commission were to adopt, or not adopt, rules to require essential patent 
holders in 3.0 technology to commit to licensing them on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) 
terms.
II. BACKGROUND
4. In 2017, the Commission authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV 
transmission standard, also called “ATSC 3.0” or “3.0,” on a voluntary, market-driven basis.10  The 
Commission required that broadcasters voluntarily deploying ATSC 3.0 service must, with very limited 
exceptions,11 continue to air at least their primary streams using the current-generation TV transmission 
standard, also called “ATSC 1.0” or “1.0,” to their viewers through “local simulcasting.”12  Under the 
Commission’s rules, Next Gen TV broadcasters are encouraged, but not required, to simulcast their 3.0 
multicast streams in a 1.0 format.13  
5. The Commission found that the local simulcasting requirement is crucial to deploying 
Next Gen TV service in a manner that minimizes viewer disruption.  The Next Gen TV standard is not 
backward-compatible with existing TV sets or receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners.14  
Accordingly, viewers will be unable to watch ATSC 3.0 transmissions on their existing televisions 
10 Id. at 9931, para. 1; Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 35 FCC Rcd 6793, 6794, para. 2 & n.4 
(2020) (Next Gen TV Second Report and Order).  Next Gen TV is the newest broadcast TV transmission standard, 
developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), which promises to enable broadcasters to 
deliver an array of new video and non-video services and enhanced content features to consumers.  See ATSC, 
Spotlight ATSC 3.0, https://www.atsc.org/nextgen-tv/ (last visited June 22, 2021) (listing key features of 3.0 and 
providing a video describing the 3.0 service).  ATSC 3.0 merges the capabilities of over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting 
with the broadband viewing and information delivery methods of the Internet, using the same 6 MHz channels 
presently allocated for TV service.  As 3.0 proponents have previously explained to the Commission, the greater 
spectral capacity of the new standard and its Internet-Protocol delivery component will allow broadcasters to 
provide consumers with a higher quality television viewing experience, such as ultra-high-definition (UHD) picture 
resolutions and immersive audio.  It also has the potential to enable broadcasters to reach viewers on both home and 
mobile screens.  In addition, ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to offer enhanced public safety capabilities, such as 
geo-targeting of emergency alerts to tailor information to particular communities and emergency alerting capable of 
waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent emergencies, as well as greater accessibility options, 
localized content, and interactive educational children’s content.  See Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation 
through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20-145, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14492, 14493, para. 4 (2020) 
(Broadcast Internet Order); Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9933-34, para. 4.
11 LPTV and TV translator stations may deploy ATSC 3.0 service without providing an ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal.  
Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9950, para. 40; 47 CFR § 74.782(c).  In addition, full power 
and Class A stations may request a waiver of the simulcast requirements.  Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 
FCC Rcd at 9953, para. 46.  
12 Id. at 9931, para. 1.  See infra para. 5.
13 Id. at 9937-38, para. 13 & n.40. 
14 Id. at 9939, para. 15.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
4without additional equipment.  Thus, it is critical that Next Gen TV broadcasters continue to provide 
service using the current ATSC 1.0 standard while the consumer equipment marketplace adopts 
televisions and converter devices compatible with the new 3.0 transmission standard.  This is necessary in 
order to avoid forcing viewers to acquire expensive new equipment immediately or depriving them of 
their local television service during the transition.15  Because a TV station cannot, as a technical matter, 
simultaneously broadcast in both 1.0 and 3.0 format from the same facility on the same physical channel, 
local simulcasting must be effectuated through voluntary partnerships that broadcasters seeking to provide 
Next Gen TV service enter into with other broadcasters in their local markets.16  A Next Gen TV station 
must partner with another television station (i.e., a temporary “host” station) in its local market to either: 
(1) air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the temporary host’s facility, while using its original facility to continue to 
provide an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel, or (2) air an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel at the temporary host’s 
facility, while converting its original facility to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order to provide a 3.0 channel.17  
A Next Gen TV station’s ATSC 1.0 “simulcast” must be “substantially similar” to that of the primary 
video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.18  Substantially similar “means that the 
programming must be the same except for advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and 
programming features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0.”19 
6. The process for considering applications to deploy ATSC 3.0 service includes coverage 
requirements for a Next Gen TV station’s ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal.20  The Commission sought to 
minimize disruption to viewers resulting from the voluntary deployment of ATSC 3.0 while recognizing 
that if a station moves its ATSC 1.0 signal to a partner simulcast host station with a different transmitter 
location, some OTA viewers may no longer be able to receive the station’s 1.0 signal.21  Among other 
obligations, the Commission requires the Next Gen TV station to select a partner 1.0 simulcast host 
15 Id. at 9939, paras. 15-16.  See infra note 180 (indicating that—as of August 8, 2022—the lowest cost 3.0 TV set is 
available at retail for $549.00 and the lowest cost separate 3.0 receiver (gateway device) is available at retail for 
$199).  
16 Next Gen TV Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 6794, para. 3; Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 
FCC Rcd at 9937, para. 12; 47 CFR § 73.624(b)(3).
17 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9937, para. 12; 47 CFR § 73.3801 (simulcasting rules for 
full power TV stations).  In either case, a Next Gen TV broadcaster must simulcast the primary video programming 
stream of its ATSC 3.0 channel in an ATSC 1.0 format, so that viewers will continue to receive ATSC 1.0 service.  
Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9937, para. 12; 47 CFR § 73.3801(b) (simulcasting 
requirement).  By the time the transition is complete, any temporary authority granted for local simulcasting will 
expire, and a station will once again be required to air all of its licensed programming on its own single channel.  
Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9938, n.46 and accompanying text.  In June 2022, the 
Commission initiated a proceeding to consider the state of the transition and the Next Gen TV marketplace.  See 
Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *1, para. 1.
18 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9942-44, paras. 22-24; 47 CFR § 73.3801(b).  
19 47 CFR § 73.3801(b)(1); see also id. at §§ 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).
20 Id. at 9945-46, paras. 29-31; 47 CFR § 73.3801(c).  A Next Gen TV broadcaster must file an application and 
obtain Commission approval before a 1.0 simulcast channel or a 3.0 channel aired on a partner host station can go 
on the air, as well as before an existing 1.0 station can convert to 3.0 operation or back to 1.0 operation.  Id. at 9939, 
para. 48; 47 CFR § 73.3801(f)(2).
21 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9946, para. 30 (“By requiring stations to continue to provide 
an ATSC 1.0 signal that covers their current community of license and encouraging them to keep coverage loss to 
5% or less of the population currently receiving a 1.0 signal over the air, we will limit the number of current viewers 
and MVPD headends that will lose access to the OTA 1.0 signal as a result of local simulcasting.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
5station that is assigned to its same designated market area (DMA) and from which it will continue to 
provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to its entire community of license.22
A. Multicast Licensing
7. According to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), as ATSC 3.0 deployment 
has progressed, broadcasters interested in transitioning to ATSC 3.0 while maintaining their current 
programming streams have faced challenges finding partner stations willing to host broadcasters’ 
multicast streams through private contractual agreements.23  Moreover, NAB states that Next Gen TV 
broadcasters want to “continue to serve audiences with multicast streams,” even though they are not 
required to do so.24  NAB contends that stations are hesitant to serve as hosts pursuant to private 
arrangements due to concerns about regulatory liability and whether such private multicast agreements 
are expressly permitted under the Commission’s ATSC 3.0 rules.25  Moreover, NAB observes that “a 
purely contractual approach [to ATSC 3.0 deployment-related sharing arrangements] would exclude 
noncommercial stations from participating in sharing arrangements to host commercial multicast streams” 
under section 399B of the of the Communications Act.26  In addition, NAB asserts that if broadcasters 
execute hosting agreements for their multicast streams that are not reflected on the license of the 
originating station, “the Commission might not retain enforcement authority” over the originating station 
with respect to that guest stream.27  
8. Because our existing rules do not address a guest station’s licensing of a host station’s 
spectrum to air multicast streams, even with regard to the host that is airing the guest station’s primary 
stream,  the Media Bureau implemented an interim process by which a Next Gen TV broadcaster that has 
converted or is seeking to convert its facility to 3.0 can seek special temporary authority (STA) to air 1.0 
multicast streams on a host station.28  Just as under the current rules for primary guest streams, these 
STAs permit a guest multicast stream to be treated as if it originated from the Next Gen TV broadcaster’s 
facility, as opposed to the host station’s facility, for purposes of the Commission’s rules and the 
Communications Act.29  The STAs granted to date are valid for six months but may be renewed.  This 
22 Id. at 9945-46, paras. 29-31.  See 47 CFR § 73.3801(c).  Because Class A TV stations do not have a community of 
license, the Commission established a coverage requirement based on contour overlap and mileage.  Next Gen TV 
First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9946-47, para. 32.  See 47 CFR § 73.6029(c).  Some stations may not be 
formally assigned by Nielsen to DMAs.  As stated in the Next Gen TV First Report and Order, “we will consider 
stations that are not assigned to a DMA by Nielsen to be assigned to the DMA in which they are located.”  Next Gen 
TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9946, n.93.
23 Letter from Patrick McFadden, Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, at 1-2 (filed Mar. 19, 2020) (NAB Mar. 19 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Patrick McFadden, 
Associate General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1-2 (filed Jan. 
27, 2020) (NAB Jan. 27 Ex Parte Letter).
24 Petition at 2.
25 NAB Mar. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; NAB Jan. 27 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
26 Petition at 3 and 5-6.  See also 47 U.S.C. § 399B(b)(2) (prohibiting noncommercial stations from making their 
“facilities available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement”).
27 NAB Jan. 27 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.  The NAB asserts that these issues “could create complex contractual 
indemnification concerns that could complicate deployment,” particularly for NCE stations, “some of which are 
restricted or prohibited entirely from agreeing to indemnification.”  NAB Jan. 27 Ex Parte Letter at 2; NAB Mar. 19 
Ex Parte Letter at 2.
28 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16091, para. 6.
29 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
6case-by-case process is resource-intensive for both the Commission and broadcasters, in addition to 
making it difficult for potential viewers to track where streams are being hosted.30 
9. In November 2020, NAB filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Petition for 
Rulemaking (Petition) asking the Commission to allow Next Gen TV stations to seek modification of 
their licenses to include certain of their multicast streams that are aired in a different service on host 
stations during the period of transition to 3.0.31  In response to the NAB Petition, we adopted the Next Gen 
TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM,32 which: 
•Proposed to license a Next Gen TV broadcaster’s simulcast multicast stream(s) either together 
with its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on different simulcast host(s).33  A 
“simulcast multicast stream” in the context of this proceeding is a multicast stream that is aired by 
a Next Gen TV station, in substantially similar fashion,34 in both 1.0 and 3.0 formats throughout 
the mandatory local simulcasting period.35
•Proposed to license a Next Gen TV broadcaster’s “non-simulcast” 1.0 multicast stream(s) either 
together with its primary stream on its primary 1.0 host or on different 1.0 simulcast host(s).36  A 
“non-simulcast 1.0 multicast stream” in the context of this proceeding is a multicast stream that is 
aired only in 1.0 format and not in 3.0 format.37
30 Id.
31 See generally Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Petition for Rulemaking of the National Association of 
Broadcasters, GN Docket No. 16-142 (filed Nov. 9, 2020) (Petition). 
32 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd 16088.  Comments were due February 11, 2022 and reply 
comments were due March 14, 2022.  Comment and Reply Comment Dates Set for Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, GN Docket No. 16-142, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 17142 (MB 2021).
33 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16094-95, para. 12.
34 As with primary streams (see 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1)), “substantially similar” 
multicast streams must have the same programming, except for programming features that are based on the 
enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0, including targeted advertisements and promotions for upcoming programs.  
Such enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in ATSC 1.0 format include:  “hyper-
localized” content (e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, and hyper-local news), programming 
features or improvements created for the 3.0 service (e.g., emergency alert “wake up” ability and interactive 
programming features), enhanced formats made possible by 3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR), and any 
personalization of programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer’s discretion.  Next Gen TV First Report 
and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9942-43, para. 22.  
35 That is, we mean either (1) a 1.0 multicast guest stream aired on a host that is a simulcast of a 3.0 multicast stream 
aired by the Next Gen TV station, or (2) a 3.0 multicast guest stream aired on a host that is a simulcast of a 1.0 
multicast stream aired by the Next Gen TV station.  For example, in this situation, Station A converts to 3.0 and 
arranges for Station B (remaining in 1.0) to host Station A’s primary stream and one multicast stream in 1.0; 
Petitioner wants the multicast stream, like the primary stream, to be licensed to Station A, the originator of the 
streams.  In addition, if Station A arranges for Station C (not the primary host) to host a second multicast stream in 
1.0, that multicast stream would also be licensed to Station A.  In these examples, Station A would itself be 
broadcasting both multicast streams in 3.0.  Likewise, if a station remained in 1.0, it would be allowed to license its 
3.0 multicast streams aired either by the primary host or a secondary host.  In these situations, the multicast channels 
are being simulcast. 
36 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16096, para. 14. 
37 For example, using Stations A, B, and C from the prior example, Station A (the 3.0 host) only has enough 
capacity to air its primary channel, Station B’s primary channel, and Station C’s primary channel in 3.0, but wants to 
continue to provide its multicast channels in 1.0 during the transition.  In this situation, Stations B and C would each 
be hosting a multicast stream licensed to Station A, but neither multicast stream would be simulcast.  Thus, by “non-
simulcast 1.0 multicast stream,” we refer to a multicast stream that was originated by a Next Gen TV station and 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
7•Declined to consider NAB’s proposal to license a Next Gen TV broadcaster’s “non-simulcast” 
3.0 multicast stream(s) either together with its primary stream on its primary 3.0 host or on 
different 3.0 host(s).38  A “non-simulcast 3.0 multicast stream” in the context of this proceeding is 
a multicast stream that is aired only in 3.0 format and not in 1.0 format.
•Proposed to allow, under certain circumstances, a Next Gen TV station to simulcast its primary 
stream programming both on its primary stream host and on a multicast stream carried by a 
different partner station in order to minimize the impact of service loss that would result if it were 
only able to air its primary stream on a single host.39
The Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM also considered whether to limit the amount of host 
capacity that may be used by a given Next Gen TV station, and, in particular, sought comment on NAB’s 
proposal that: “In arranging for the hosting of its programming, no individual broadcaster shall partner 
with other stations to host, in the aggregate, more programming than such station could broadcast on its 
own facilities based on the then-current state of the art for television broadcasting as evidenced by other 
television stations then operating with the same standard.” 40  In response to the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM, we received comments, reply comments, and ex parte communications from 15 
different parties, including 10 broadcast station groups and associations (including NAB) and two 
multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) associations.41
B. Sunsets
10.“Substantially Similar” Rule.  In the 2017 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted a requirement that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV station’s ATSC 1.0 
simulcast channel be “substantially similar” to that of the primary video programming stream on the 
ATSC 3.0 channel.42  This means that the programming must be the same, except for programming 
features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0 and promotions for upcoming 
programs.43  In adopting this approach, the Commission found it “will help ensure that viewers do not 
lose access to the broadcast programming they receive today, while still providing flexibility for 
broadcasters to innovate and experiment with new, innovative programming features using Next Gen TV 
technology.”44  The Commission decided, however, that the substantially similar requirement would 
expire on July 17, 2023, unless the Commission takes action to extend it.45  In this regard, the 
(Continued from previous page)  
aired in 1.0 format either on its own channel or a 1.0 host’s channel, but that has no “substantially similar” stream 
being aired in 3.0 format by the originating station, whether on its own channel or on a 3.0 host’s channel.
38 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16097, para. 18. 
39 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16098, para. 19. 
40 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16094-95, 16099-16103, paras. 21-29. 
41 See Appendix A – List of Commenters and Reply Commenters.
42 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1); First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
9942-43, para. 22.  We refer to this as the substantially similar rule.  The substantially similar rule is independent of 
the requirement for Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast in 1.0 format, a requirement that does not have a sunset 
date.  See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 74.782(b).
43 See supra note 34 (describing enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in ATSC 1.0 
format).
44 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9942-43, para. 22. 
45 Id.  We emphasize that the underlying requirement that a Next Gen TV station must simulcast in 1.0 format does 
not have a sunset date.  See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 74.782(b) (“A full power television station that 
chooses to air an ATSC 3.0 signal must simulcast the primary video programming stream of that signal in an ATSC 
1.0 format.”).  In addition, none of the other aspects of the local simulcasting rules are set to expire, including those 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
8Commission concluded that, while “this [substantially similar] requirement is necessary in the early 
stages of ATSC 3.0 deployment, it could unnecessarily impede Next Gen TV programming innovations 
as the deployment of ATSC 3.0 progresses.”46  The Commission further stated that it “intend[ed] to 
monitor the ATSC 3.0 marketplace,” and would “extend the substantially similar requirement if 
necessary.”47  The substantially similar rule took effect on July 17, 2018, and is set to expire on July 17, 
2023, unless extended by the Commission.48  The Commission affirmed this decision in 2020, but stated 
that, approximately one year before the requirement is set to expire, it would seek comment on whether 
the rule should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.49
11.Requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard.  In authorizing use of the Next 
Gen TV broadcast transmission standard, the Commission in the First Next Gen TV Report and Order 
required compliance with only two parts of the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards:  (1) ATSC A/321:2016 
“System Discovery & Signaling” (A/321),50 which is the standard used to communicate the RF signal 
type that the ATSC 3.0 signal will use; and (2) A/322:2016 “Physical Layer Protocol” (A/322),51 which is 
the standard that defines the waveforms that ATSC 3.0 signals may take.52  In requiring compliance with 
A/322, the Commission observed that “device manufacturers and MVPDs may not be able to reliably 
predict what signal modulation a broadcaster is using unless broadcasters are required to follow A/322,” 
at least with respect to their required primary programming stream.53  The Commission explained that 
“[t]his uncertainty could cause manufacturers to inadvertently build equipment that cannot receive Next 
Gen TV broadcasts or could render MVPDs unable to receive and retransmit the signals of Next Gen TV 
stations.  These outcomes would harm consumers.”54  The Commission, however, decided that it was not 
appropriate at the time “to require broadcasters to adhere to A/322 indefinitely,” explaining that “the 
ATSC 3.0 standard could evolve, and stagnant Commission rules could prevent broadcasters from taking 
advantage of that evolution.”55  The Commission thus determined that the requirement to comply with the 
A/322 standard would expire on March 6, 2023, absent Commission action to extend it.  In establishing a 
sunset for A/322 compliance, the Commission sought to “balance [its] goals of protecting consumers 
while promoting innovation.”56  The Commission affirmed this decision in 2020, but stated that, 
(Continued from previous page)  
governing simulcast arrangements and agreements; DMA and community of license coverage; and MVPD notices 
and consumer education.  See id. §§ 73.3801, 73.6029, 74.782.
46 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9942-43, para. 22. 
47 Id.
48 The local simulcasting rules, sections 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782, took effect on July 17, 2018.  Next Gen TV 
Rules Receive OMB Approval, GN Docket No. 16-142, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 6747 (MB 2018).  
49 See Second Next Gen Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 6812-13, para 39.
50 See ATSC A/321:2016 “System Discovery & Signaling” (2016), https://www.atsc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/A321-2016-System-Discovery-and-Signaling.pdf. 
51 See ATSC A/322:2016 “Physical Layer Protocol” (2016), https://atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A322-
2016-Physical-Layer-Protocol.pdf. 
52 These two standards were incorporated by reference into the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR § 73.682(f).  The 
Commission applied the A/322 standard only to a Next Gen TV station’s primary, free, OTA video programming 
stream. 
53 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9980, para. 99.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 9980, para. 100. 
56 Id. at 9979-80, para. 98.  On March 6, 2023, the Commission temporarily extended this requirement pending 
further Commission action on the sunset.  Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast 
Television Standard, Order, FCC 23-11 (Mar. 6, 2023).  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
9approximately one year before the requirement is set to expire, it would seek comment on whether the 
rule should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.57  
12. In June 2022, we adopted a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Sunsets 
FNPRM) in the Next Gen TV docket considering and seeking comment on the state of the Next Gen TV 
transition and on the scheduled sunsets of the substantially similar rule and the requirement to comply 
with the ATSC A/322 standard.58  In response to the Sunsets FNPRM, the Commission received 
comments and reply comments from 32 different parties.59
III. DISCUSSION
13. In this Order, we largely adopt the rules proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, establishing a licensing regime for Next Gen TV stations’ multicast streams that are aired on 
host stations during the transition period.  The rules we adopt facilitate and encourage Next Gen TV 
stations to preserve consumer access to multicast programming in 1.0 format during the voluntary ATSC 
3.0 transition.  They will provide the industry with regulatory certainty about the legal treatment of 
licensed multicast streams; clarify that the originating station (and not the host station) is responsible for 
regulatory compliance regarding a multicast stream being aired on a host station; give the Commission 
clear enforcement authority over the originating station in the event of a rule violation on the hosted 
multicast programming stream; and facilitate NCE stations’ 3.0 deployment by allowing them to serve as 
hosts to commercial stations’ multicast streams.  We recognize that allowing Next Gen TV stations to 
seek modification of their licenses to include capacity on multiple host stations represents a notable 
departure from our present licensing regime.  We also recognize that every such departure in aid of the 
voluntary NextGen TV transition, however minor it may appear, results in potential consumer harm and 
expense.  For example, each time a stream is hosted on a different facility with a different noise-limited 
service contour (NLSC), some current viewers may lose a signal on which they may have come to rely, 
for the entire uncertain duration of the transition.  By the same token, some viewers who were not 
previously in the coverage area may receive the signal for the first time.  These viewers may come to rely 
on a signal that may be permanently lost at the end of the transition.  Even in the case where a hosted 
stream covers the entire NLSC of the originating station, each time a change is made every single viewer 
must rescan each of their televisions and other receive devices to continue to receive that signal.  In 
considering proposals like those in this proceeding, we therefore must weigh these inescapable harms, 
along with others unique to specific proposals, against the benefits that permitting additional flexibility in 
our licensing procedures may provide.  In the case of the rules and flexibility adopted in this Order, we 
find that departing from our licensing regime is appropriate because it is limited to the temporary 
broadcast transition to 3.0 and to specific situations for which there is a clear need.  Where we have 
declined to adopt the flexibility sought by broadcasters, it is because the record does not demonstrate that 
the needs and benefits outweigh the harms.
14. First, we conclude that Next Gen TV stations may seek modification of their licenses to 
include one or more simulcast multicast streams on a host station or stations, whether that guest stream is 
a 1.0 or 3.0 simulcast (“simulcast” multicast streams).60  Second, we conclude that Next Gen TV stations 
that are broadcasting in 3.0 on their own channels may seek modification of their licenses to include one 
or more multicast streams aired only in 1.0 format on a host station or stations even if they are not 
simulcasting that stream in 3.0 (“non-simulcast” 1.0 multicast streams).61  To permit the licensing of 
multicast streams on a host, each of the originating station’s guest multicast streams will be licensed as a 
57 Second Next Gen TV Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 6815, para. 44.
58 Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *1, para. 1.
59 See Appendix A – List of Commenters and Reply Commenters.
60 See infra Section III.A.
61 See infra Section III.B.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
10temporary channel in the same manner as its primary stream is licensed on the primary host.  That is, each 
of the originating station’s guest multicast streams aired on a host will be considered to be an additional, 
separately authorized channel under the originating station’s single, unified license.  Third, we decline to 
address comments asking us to allow the licensing of 3.0 non-simulcast multicast streams (aired as guest 
streams on a 3.0 host station, as opposed to aired on a 3.0 station’s own facility) because we specifically 
did not seek comment on this issue.62  Fourth, we limit the number of 1.0 guest streams that may be 
included in the license of a single Next Gen TV station to those which it would have the capacity to 
transmit over its own facility in 1.0.63  Fifth we allow, in certain circumstances, a Next Gen TV station to 
simulcast its primary stream programming both on its primary stream host and on a multicast stream 
carried by a different partner station in order to minimize the impact of 1.0 primary service loss that 
would result if originating station were only able to air its primary stream on a single host.64  Sixth, we 
extend the “ownership waiver” that applies in the primary stream context to ensure that hosted multicast 
streams do not implicate our broadcaster attribution rules, while reiterating that any changes in our rules 
governing multicast streams, including any changes adopted in the ongoing ownership proceeding, will 
apply equally to hosted multicast streams.65  Seventh, we decline to license same service (or “lateral”) 
hosting arrangements.66  Eighth, we conclude that we will generally apply the same ATSC 3.0 transition 
rules to licensed multicast streams as we do to primary simulcast streams.67  Ninth, we conclude that our 
multicast licensing rules will apply until the Commission eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting 
requirement.68  Finally, we extend the sunset dates for the substantially similar rule for simulcast streams 
and the requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard on primary 3.0 streams.69 
A. Simulcast Multicast Streams
15. We adopt our unopposed tentative conclusion to allow a Next Gen TV broadcaster to 
seek modification of its license to include its simulcast multicast stream(s), whether they are hosted 
together with its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on different simulcast host(s).70  That is, 
a Next Gen TV station may seek modification of its license to include one or more of its multicast 
streams, hosted by one or more partner stations, whenever the Next Gen TV station is airing that multicast 
stream in “substantially similar” fashion in both 1.0 and 3.0 formats and otherwise complying with the 
capacity, coverage, and other requirements discussed below.  Broadcasters support this proposal,71 and no 
62 See infra Section III.C.
63 See infra Section III.D.
64 See infra Section III.E.
65 See infra Section III.F (hosting multicast streams on a temporary host station’s facility will not result in attribution 
under our broadcast ownership rules or for any other requirements related to television stations attribution).
66 See infra Section III.G.
67 See infra Section III.H.
68 See infra Section III.H. (“Timing”).
69 See infra Sections III.I (Substantially Similar Rule) and III.J (Requirement to Comply with the ATSC A/322 
Standard).
70 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16094-95, para. 12.
71 See, e.g., CMG Multicast Licensing Comments at 1-3; Gray Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; NAB Multicast 
Licensing Comments at 4; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-5; PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; 
Broadcasting Alliance Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; TEGNA Multicast 
Licensing Reply at 1-2.  As explained in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16095, n.47, 
the Commission did not address the issue of multicast licensing when adopting its initial rules.  Instead, by default, 
multicast arrangements were left to private contractual arrangements and more recently to the STA process.  We 
thus reject ONE Media’s characterization of our existing rules.  ONE Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 4 
(arguing that guest multicast streams on a guest’s primary host are “already covered under the guest’s Next Gen TV 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
11commenter raised any concerns about permitting the licensing of simulcast multicast streams.72  We adopt 
our tentative conclusion that any “simulcast” multicast streams must be “substantially similar” as that 
term is defined in our rules and will apply this requirement for as long as it applies to primary 
simulcasts.73  In order to be considered a “simulcast,” a 1.0 multicast stream must be paired, one to one, 
with an identified 3.0 multicast stream.74  We find that permitting the licensing of simulcast multicast 
streams best meets our dual goals of facilitating the transition to 3.0 and protecting current 1.0 viewers for 
the reasons discussed above,75 including by allowing NCE stations to host commercial multicast streams 
without violating section 399B.76  We again emphasize, however, that like local simulcasting 
arrangements for primary streams, hosting arrangements for multicast streams are temporary ones made 
to facilitate the station’s transition to 3.0 service.  Any service temporarily provided by such a multicast 
(Continued from previous page)  
license”).  We clarify that the existing rules (relating to a Next Gen TV station’s primary stream aired on a host) 
authorize only the use of the amount of capacity on a host’s channel that is necessary for airing the guest’s primary 
stream.  See 47 CFR § 73.3801(a) (providing that “a full power television station may partner with one or more 
other full power stations or with one or more Class A, LPTV, or TV translator stations in a simulcasting 
arrangement for purposes of airing either an ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 signal on a host station’s (i.e., a station whose 
facilities are being used to transmit programming originated by another station) facilities.”) (emphasis added)).  The 
Commission did not previously authorize a guest station’s use of host capacity for airing anything other than the 
guest’s primary stream.  We further clarify that we are authorizing a guest station to use host capacity only for the 
specific purpose of airing specific programming streams, each of which must be identified in the license application.  
We also thus reject ONE Media’s position that “a guest station can use its capacity on the licensed host channel(s) 
for whatever programming or data services it wants.”  ONE Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 5.  To be clear, 
guest stations (1.0 or 3.0) may never license host capacity for ancillary or supplemental services (also called 
Broadcast Internet services), although we note they may lease excess capacity from a host for such purposes through 
a private contractual arrangement.  Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20-
145, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5916, 5924, para. 15 (2020) (Broadcast 
Internet Declaratory Ruling and NPRM) (“[W]e clarify that the lease of excess broadcast television spectrum to a 
third party, including another broadcaster, for the provision of ancillary and supplementary services does not result 
in attribution under our broadcast television station ownership rules . . . .”).  Moreover, guest stations on a 3.0 host, 
of course, may air 3.0 features even if separately provided from the programming stream (e.g., advanced emergency 
alerts), as such features are not ancillary or supplemental services but rather enhanced programming features.  See 
supra note 34.
72 See ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 3 (stating that “[n]o commenter objected to this proposal when NAB 
made it, and ATVA does not object here”); NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 2 (“We generally do not 
oppose the Commission’s proposal to … permit stations to license simulcast multicast streams on a host station(s), 
whether that guest stream is the 3.0 broadcast or the 1.0 simulcast.”).  See also generally GN Docket 16-142. 
73 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16094-95, para. 12.  See, e.g., 47 CFR § 73.3801(b)(1) 
and (2).  See also NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 4; infra Section III.H (“Timing”).  
74 Multicast streams serving to deliver a primary stream’s signal in order to minimize 1.0 primary stream service loss 
are the sole exception to this requirement.  Infra Section III.E.
75 See supra para. 13.  See also, e.g., NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 4 (stating the proposal will “help 
facilitate ATSC 3.0 deployments while giving stations the flexibility to preserve multicast programming where 
possible”); Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 2, 8.  See also PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; TEGNA 
Multicast Licensing Reply at 1.
76 47 U.S.C. § 399B(a), (b)(2) (“No public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for the 
broadcasting of any advertisement,” which is defined as “any message or other programming material which is 
broadcast or otherwise transmitted in exchange for any remuneration.”).  See also Next Gen TV First Report and 
Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9954-55, para. 50 (concluding that a licensed simulcast approach will allow NCE stations to 
serve as hosts to commercial stations’ simulcast programming); Petition at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
12stream beyond the station’s NLSC is incidental and may not be considered for securing any rights or 
benefits, now or in the future.77
B. Non-Simulcast 1.0 Multicast Streams
16. We also adopt our tentative conclusion and will allow a Next Gen TV broadcaster to seek 
modification of its license to include its 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams, whether they are hosted 
together with its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on different simulcast host(s).78  That is, 
a Next Gen TV station broadcasting in 3.0 on its own channel may seek modification of its license to 
include one or more 1.0 multicast streams aired on a 1.0 host or hosts, even when it is not simulcasting 
that multicast stream on a paired stream in a 3.0 format, so long as it is otherwise complying with the 
capacity, coverage, and other requirements discussed below.79  Broadcaster commenters support allowing 
the licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams,80 while MVPD commenters do not oppose such 
licensing, provided it is subject to reasonable limitations.81  Like the licensing of 1.0 simulcast multicast 
streams, we find that permitting the licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams will help preserve 
existing service and will achieve the goals discussed above, including by allowing NCE stations to host 
commercial multicast streams without violating section 399B.82  We agree with broadcasters that allowing 
77 Infra Section III.H (“Timing”).  At the conclusion of the transition, each Next Gen TV station will resume service 
exclusively from its own facility, serving its existing NLSC.  Because any service beyond this area will be 
temporary, such service will not be considered by the Commission in other contexts (e.g., must carry demands, 
market modifications, petitions for rulemaking to change a community of license, etc.).
78 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16096, para. 14.  BitPath asked that we permit the 
licensing of multicast streams on different hosts with identical programming when necessary in order to preserve 
service.  BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at 21.  We do not adopt a specific rule addressing such streams, but 
we note that all guest multicast streams must serve the originating station’s community of license (infra Section 
III.H, “Coverage”), and each of a station’s hosted streams will be considered when determining its compliance with 
the limitations on host capacity (infra section III.D).  In order to provide flexibility to preserve existing multicast 
streams, we also decline to restrict the number of 1.0 hosts with which a station may partner, so long as it does not 
exceed its licensed capacity and complies with the coverage requirements discussed below for each of its streams.  
Infra Sections III.D and III.H.
79 Non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams licensed pursuant to our rules are not required to comply with 47 CFR §§ 
73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), and 74.782(b) (the “Simulcasting Requirement”).
80 Broadcaster commenters uniformly and enthusiastically support the licensing of non-simulcast streams and, to the 
extent the Commission adopts any limits, they support NAB’s proposed host capacity limit.  See, e.g., CMG 
Multicast Licensing Comments at 1-3; Gray Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; NAB Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 4-5; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-5; PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; 
Broadcasting Alliance Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; TEGNA Multicast 
Licensing Reply at 1-2.  See also Evoca Multicast Licensing Reply at 4.  
81 MVPDs do not oppose the licensing of non-simulcast streams, provided there are reasonable limits on the number 
and types of multicast streams a Next Gen TV station may license on a host station.  See NCTA Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 2-3 (stating that “[w]e generally do not oppose the Commission’s proposal to … permit a 3.0 station to 
license non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams on a host station(s),” but adding that “the Commission should adopt 
reasonable limits on the number and types of multicast streams a station may broadcast through a host station”); 
ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 8. 
82 Supra note 76 and accompanying text.  Section 399B of the Communications Act provides that “[n]o public 
broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.” 47 
U.S.C. § 399B(b)(2).  Under a private arrangement, an NCE station would be prohibited from hosting the simulcast 
programming of a commercial station because the stream would be aired on the “facilities” of the NCE licensee.  
However, under a licensed approach, the “facilities” are no longer exclusively the facilities of the NCE station, as 
each station has a right to use the facilities pursuant to its separate license and contractual rights.  A commercial 
stream aired on a partner NCE station will be separately licensed and authorized to use the host’s channel, therefore 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
13multicast licensing for 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams will benefit consumers by preserving viewer 
access to 1.0 multicast streams,83 particularly in situations where broadcasters that have transitioned to 3.0 
on their own channels lack capacity to air their multicast streams on their 3.0 facilities.  As observed in 
the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, at this early stage of the transition ATSC 3.0 capacity will 
be limited.84  During the initial roll-out of 3.0 service, we expect markets will generally start with one or 
two ATSC 3.0 “lighthouse” stations, leaving capacity on 3.0 lighthouse stations mostly – if not entirely – 
for Next Gen TV stations’ primary streams.85  We agree with broadcasters that denying them this 
flexibility would likely lead them to stop broadcasting some 1.0 multicast streams altogether.86  We 
therefore find that, by extending our multicast licensing approach to non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams, 
we will not only encourage Next Gen TV broadcasters to preserve the multicast streams viewers watch 
today, but also facilitate their transition to 3.0 by making it easier for them to continue serving their 
existing viewers even while 3.0 spectrum is limited.  While we expect that capacity constraints will be the 
primary reason for this relief, given the strong public interest in facilitating broadcasters’ preservation of 
the best possible 1.0 service during the transition period, and our limit on the amount of host capacity that 
may be licensed, we see no reason to require broadcasters to demonstrate 3.0 capacity constraints in order 
to license 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams.87  Finally, we again emphasize that hosting arrangements 
for multicast streams are temporary ones made to facilitate the transition to 3.0 service.88
C. Non-Simulcast 3.0 Multicast Streams
17. Our current rules do not provide for the licensing of 3.0 non-simulcast multicast streams 
aired as guest streams on a 3.0 host station.89  In the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we 
specifically declined to seek comment on NAB’s proposal asking us to allow a Next Gen TV station (that 
continues to broadcast in 1.0 on its own channel) to seek modification of its license to include 3.0 
multicast (guest) streams aired on a 3.0 host station, even if it is not simulcasting those multicast streams 
(Continued from previous page)  
permitting an NCE station to serve as a host to a commercial stream.  See Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 
FCC Rcd at 9954-55, para. 50.
83 See, e.g., CMG Multicast Licensing Comments at 1-3; Gray Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; NAB Multicast 
Licensing Comments at 4-5; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-5; PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; 
Broadcasting Alliance Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; TEGNA Multicast 
Licensing Reply at 1-2.
84 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16096, para. 15.
85 Id.
86 See, e.g., TEGNA Multicast Licensing Reply at 3 (“[W]ithout the flexibility to arrange for non-simulcast ATSC 
1.0 hosting of their multicast streams, these lighthouse stations would have had to either forego their conversion to 
Next Gen TV service (thus impeding the launch of advanced services in the market entirely) or else eliminate their 
broadcast of some or all of their multicast streams altogether.  Neither option would serve the public interest.”).
87 See, e.g., Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4 (“There are many reasons why a broadcaster may not be 
simulcasting a multicast stream in both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0.  While broadcasters cannot at this time envision 
every circumstance, we note that capacity issues are a major factor and other concerns such as rights and licensing 
issues could be at play. Broadcasters need the flexibility that the proposal would provide without the limitation 
based on demonstrated capacity in order to manage the transition.”).  We thus reject NCTA’s suggestion that we 
require a broadcaster to demonstrate 3.0 capacity constraints as a prerequisite to receiving authorization for non-
simulcast 1.0 streams.  We find that concerns regarding the need for limits on any one broadcaster’s use of spectrum 
will be adequately addressed by the capacity constraints that we adopt below.  See NCTA Comments at 2-3.
88 Infra Section III.H (“Timing”).  
89 Because at this time our rules do not allow Next Gen TV stations to license host capacity for 3.0 non-simulcast 
multicast streams, we do not address the issue of a 3.0 host capacity limit. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
14in a 1.0 format.90  Thus, we do not address the comments we nevertheless received on this issue.91  We 
note, however, that under our existing rules, a Next Gen TV station may air 3.0 non-simulcast multicast 
streams on its own 3.0 facility.  This is because, under our existing rules, a Next Gen TV broadcaster does 
not have to simulcast its multicast streams in 1.0 and does not need separate license authorization to air its 
own multicast streams on its own 3.0 facility.92  
D. Limits on Licensing of Host Capacity
18. In response to our request for comment on ensuring that a Next Gen TV broadcaster does 
not use the interim flexibility proposed in this FNPRM to aggregate capacity beyond that which is legally 
permissible today, we find that it is appropriate to limit a Next Gen TV station’s 1.0 host capacity to that 
which it could deploy on its own 1.0 channel and adopt a modified version of NAB’s proposal in order to 
effectuate this limit.93  Specifically, a Next Gen TV station that has converted its own facility to 3.0 must 
not license more capacity on partner host stations, in the aggregate, than the station could use if it were 
still operating its own facility in 1.0.  A Next Gen TV station must demonstrate compliance with this rule 
in its license application and may do so by either: (1) showing that it is seeking hosting only for streams it 
was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its transition to 3.0; or (2) by providing an example of 
another 1.0 station that is carrying or has carried the same or a similar programming lineup to that which 
it seeks to provide on host stations and at the same resolutions.  To enable the Commission and other 
interested parties to evaluate compliance with the host capacity limit, a Next Gen TV station applicant 
90 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16097, para. 18.  See NAB Petition at 1-2.
91 See, e.g., BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at 26-27; Gray Multicast Licensing Comments at 4; NAB 
Multicast Licensing Comments at 6; ONE Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 8-9; Pearl Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 10-11; PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-5; Broadcasting Alliance Multicast Licensing Reply 
at 3; NAB Multicast Licensing Reply at 11; Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; TEGNA Multicast Licensing 
Reply at 5.
92 See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 74.782(b).  Consequently, a Next Gen TV station that converts its own 
facility to 3.0 could air a “demo” multicast stream without simulcasting such stream in 1.0.  Pearl Multicast 
Licensing Comments at 11 (stating that allowing licensing of a 3.0 non-simulcast multicast stream is needed to 
provide a “‘barker channel’ or ‘demo channel’ that would contain highlights or a ‘sizzle reel’ of ATSC 3.0 
programming showcasing the new technology and how viewers can unlock the many advanced features ATSC 3.0 
makes possible”).  See also, e.g., Gray Multicast Licensing Comments at 6.
93 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16101, para. 26 (seeking comment “on how to ensure 
that a Next Gen TV broadcaster does not use the interim flexibility proposed in this FNPRM to aggregate spectrum 
beyond that which is legally permissible today” and stating that “[a] single station may generally use no more than 6 
MHz under its license”).  We also sought comment on a specific NAB proposal to address this concern, limiting the 
scope of hosting arrangements by requiring that “[i]n arranging for the hosting of its programming, no individual 
broadcaster shall partner with other stations to host, in the aggregate, more programming than such station could 
broadcast on its own facilities based on the then-current state of the art for television broadcasting as evidenced by 
other television stations then operating with the same standard.”  Id. at para. 24.  Even at the time, of proposing this 
language, however, NAB noted that it did not consider such a limitation necessary.  Letter from Patrick McFadden, 
Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1-2 (filed Apr. 9, 
2021).  We note that one 6 MHz channel provides a station with approximately 19.4 Mbps of capacity.  Although 
the FNPRM referred to “spectrum aggregation,” we agree with NAB (NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 9-10) 
that this concern is more accurately described as capacity aggregation and that this concept, and our implementation 
of NAB’s proposal, also encompasses many of the concerns discussed in the FNPRM about “programming 
aggregation.”  Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16099-100,  para. 22.  As noted in the 
Ownership Issues section, infra Section III.F, some concerns about “programming aggregation” are better addressed 
in the quadrennial proceeding.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
15will be required to provide information regarding each of its licensed streams.94  Stations may also be 
asked to submit additional information to the Commission upon request.
19. We agree with commenters asserting that a reasonable limit on the amount of host 
capacity that may be licensed by an individual Next Gen TV (guest) station is appropriate.  As these 
commenters suggest, this is needed in order to ensure that no station abuses the flexibility permitted by 
1.0 non-simulcast multicasting to aggregate capacity beyond that which is physically possible or legally 
permissible when broadcasting from a single facility.95  We believe this is necessary because it is not our 
intention to upend the entire structure of broadcast television licenses for this transition period, and we are 
conscious of the consumer confusion that may be inadvertently caused by the coverage changes inherent 
in a multiple-host approach.  We see no reason, as a matter of spectrum policy, to permit stations to use 
more capacity on hosts than they could on their own stations.  Indeed, no commenter argues that a single 
station should have the ability to aggregate host capacity beyond that which it could use if it were still 
operating on its own facility in 1.0.96  Broadcaster commenters merely argue that the likelihood of such 
aggregation is small, asserting that there will be less total 1.0 capacity in a given market when a station 
transitions and such capacity will only further diminish as more stations in the market transition.97  We 
believe it is appropriate for our rules to ensure this eventuality does not occur even if the likelihood is 
low, especially in light of the fact that reduced available capacity would only amplify any concerns about 
harms to competition and diversity of viewpoints if one station were to occupy more capacity through 
hosts than its license would otherwise permit.  Accordingly, it is our intention that the capacity limitation 
operate hand in hand with our rule permitting licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams.    
20. We agree with NAB that any capacity restriction we adopt should limit stations to the 
capacity they could have used if they were still broadcasting in 1.0 on their own facilities, without 
restricting their ability to add or change programming streams during the transition.  Accordingly, we 
decline to adopt alternative proposals to the extent they seek to address issues beyond that scope.98  To 
94 Infra Section III.H (“Form 2100”); Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16106, para. 36.  
See also Letter from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 6 (filed Sept. 21, 2017) (ATVA Sept. 21, 2017 Ex Parte Letter).
95 See, e.g., ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 2 (stating that “the Commission should place reasonable limits 
on non-simulcast multicasting”); NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 2-3 (urging the Commission to “adopt 
reasonable limits on the number and types of multicast streams a station may broadcast through a host station”); 
NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 10-12 (proposing a limit on the use of host capacity).
96 See, e.g., BitPath Multicast Licensing Reply at 10 (stating that “nobody has proposed to allow any station to use 
the hosting rules to transmit more streams than it could otherwise transmit on a single ATSC 1.0 station”).  We also 
reject APTS’ proposal to exempt NCE stations from the host capacity limit.  APTS Multicast Licensing Comments 
at 5.  We find our rationale for establishing the host capacity limit applies to both commercial and NCE stations. 
97 See Letter from Patrick McFadden, Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, at 1-2 (filed May 12, 2022) (NAB May 12 Ex Parte Letter) (stating that “because there will be 
less aggregate ATSC 1.0 capacity in any market deploying ATSC 3.0 service, and because no station has the ability 
to exert intra-market leverage over any other during the transition, concerns that broadcasters would abuse this rule 
are unfounded and unrealistic”).  See also BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at 22 (“The most basic reason not 
to fear spectrum aggregation is that the unfortunate result of transition hosting is less spectrum to go around as some 
stations are taken offline for ATSC 1.0 purposes.”). 
98 For example, while our rule addresses NCTA’s call for “meaningful and enforceable limits on the hosting of 
multicast streams,” we believe the group’s concerns about the impact on multicast signal carriage are better resolved 
in the context of private retransmission consent negotiations or, if appropriate, the carriage complaint process.  
NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 3.  Also, Edge Networks (Evoca) commented “[t]he Commission should 
address anticompetitive practices of broadcasters who use their control of content to restrict new market entry and 
video competition.”  See Edge Networks (Evoca) Multicast Licensing Comments at 14.  Evoca has clarified, 
however, that its recommendations regarding retransmission consent in its initial comments were not intended to be 
proposals for rulemaking.  Edge Networks (Evoca) Multicast Licensing Reply at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
16this end, we adopt the substance of NAB’s proposal, modifying it only to require that stations 
demonstrate compliance by submitting a limited amount of specific information at the time of application, 
rather than in response to complaints.  In the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, the Commission 
expressed concern about the specific language of NAB’s proposal, stating that “an effective rule … would 
need to be objective, simple for stakeholders to understand and apply, and amenable to enforcement.”99  
MVPD commenters agree with this concern and suggest an objective capacity limit based on a set number 
of streams, whether a generally applicable limit or one based on the number of streams the station 
provided prior to its transition to 3.0.100  Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that such 
alternatives would be overly restrictive101 and that the best metric will be the number and resolution of 
streams actually airing (or that previously actually aired) on specific 1.0 facilities.102 
21. We agree with ATVA that ensuring compliance with capacity limits associated with a 
single 1.0 station does not require the Commission to engage in a technical bit-by-bit analysis of a 
broadcaster’s service.  Rather, we conclude that reviewing basic information about each proposed stream 
(particularly its network affiliation and resolution) and considering an appropriate capacity comparison 
(either the prior capacity of the station itself or the reference point of another 1.0 station with a similar 
lineup at the same resolutions and on the same type of facility (individual or shared)) will suffice to 
enable the Commission to ensure a particular broadcaster is not expanding its capacity beyond that which 
it could use pursuant to the Commission’s traditional 1.0 licensing regime.103  We find that it is reasonable 
99 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16100-01, para. 24. 
100 See ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at ii (seeking “[a] limitation on programming streams—either 
reflecting what the station had done before or some generally applicable limit—with a rule of thumb to compare 
bandwidth consumed by various types of feeds”); NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 3 (seeking “a limit on 
the total number of multicast streams an originating station is permitted to license on host stations”); NCTA 
Multicast Licensing Reply at 2 (proposing that “the Commission adopt a rule providing that no individual 
broadcaster should be permitted to partner with other stations to host, in the aggregate, more multicast programming 
than such station was broadcasting on its own facilities at the time the Second Further Notice was adopted”); Letter 
from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, at 2 (filed May 31, 2022) (ATVA May 31 Ex Parte Letter) (stating that NAB’s proposed rule 
“needs to explicitly reference picture quality or some other measure of ‘capacity’ in order to work” and suggesting a 
station’s demonstration of compliance with the rule must “tak[e] into account reasonable comparisons of bitrate and 
picture quality”). 
101 See, e.g., BitPath Multicast Licensing Reply at i, 2 (“Limiting hosting to the streams a station was broadcasting at 
the time of the ATSC 3.0 conversion would create a significant disincentive for stations to convert.  Stations 
converting to ATSC 3.0 often have ample capacity to launch new streams before they convert, and there is no policy 
reason to require them to forfeit that option and thereby limit competition in the local market simply because they 
made the investment to convert to ATSC 3.0.”); NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 11 (stating that “selecting 
an arbitrary cap on the number of streams a station can air on host stations … may serve to deprive the public of 
desired programming, and will not factually reflect broadcast technology because streams are not a remotely 
accurate proxy for capacity”); ONE Media Multicast Licensing Reply at 5-6 (“NAB’s proposed limitation on 
hosting arrangements would wholly resolve [ATVA’s and NCTA’s ownership, spectrum aggregation, and program 
aggregation] concerns” … and “it would do so without imposing arbitrary caps on host stations or hosted streams or 
otherwise frustrating the Commission’s goals and Next Gen broadcasters’ efforts to minimize viewer disruption.”); 
TEGNA Multicast Licensing Reply at 5 (“A station that does not participate in a Next Gen TV launch is free to 
broadcast as many program streams on its channel – in any format and regardless of content – as its encoders can 
accommodate.  Indeed, ATSC 1.0 encoder technology continues to improve, which has allowed stations to expand 
their over-the-air offerings.”).
102 NAB May 12 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 (clarifying that NAB’s proposed limit was intended to cover essentially two 
situations:  (1) when a station was going to provide the same programming lineup that it did prior to its transition; or 
(2) when a station was going to provide the same or a similar programming lineup as another 1.0 station). 
103 ATVA Sept. 21, 2017 Ex Parte Letter at 6.  See also Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 
16106, para. 36.  This approach also captures the “state of the art,” as contemplated by NAB’s proposed rule 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
17to require Next Gen TV station applicants to provide this information, which is largely consistent with the 
information currently required in the Legal STA process,104 and therefore reject NAB’s proposal that Next 
Gen TV station applicants provide only a certification without further information at the time of 
application.105  
22. We reject NAB’s contention that it would be more appropriate for the burden of 
discovering excessive use of capacity to be on MVPDs and that comparison information should be 
provided by stations only in response to complaints.106  As justification for this approach, NAB asserts 
that providing the capacity information in the absence of a complaint would be a waste of both 
Commission and broadcaster resources.  We disagree.  This capacity information – asking whether the 
proposed lineup could fit within a 1.0 channel by comparing it to a similar one that has actually aired – is 
necessary to make an informed objection to a proposed use of host capacity.  Further, we fail to see how 
providing this information requires materially more resources than NAB’s certification proposal.  Any ex 
ante certification of the type proposed by NAB would require the applicant to certify that it has a 
reasonable belief that all of the proposed streams could be simultaneously broadcast by the station on its 
own 1.0 facility if it had one.  This reasonable belief presumably would need to be based upon the 
collection of the same information we are asking the broadcaster to provide.  And we are persuaded by 
NAB that broadcasters will necessarily base such a belief on the actual experience of specific stations, 
rather than on any sort of detailed technical analysis.  Therefore, requiring that stations preemptively 
share the same public information that would be the basis of their certification – that is, whether the same 
or a similar lineup has ever previously aired – is reasonable and would not “waste” broadcaster resources.  
Furthermore, we believe this requirement provides greater certainty to broadcasters than a complaint 
process, because the showing submitted will demonstrate compliance with the rule.107  Moreover, as 
discussed below, providing the required information about a station’s operations during the transition 
period will provide much needed transparency for the public and stakeholders.108
(Continued from previous page)  
language, by allowing stations to compare themselves to the most advanced peer stations both at the outset of 3.0 
service and whenever they make changes to their lineup.  See BitPath Multicast Licensing Reply at 3 (“[I]t’s easy to 
determine what the state of the art is at any time.  One need only look at the various combinations of stacking then in 
operation.”) (internal footnote excluded).
104 Infra Section III.H (“Form 2100”).
105 NAB May 12 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2 (“NAB’s proposal would require broadcasters to certify on their applications 
that they would not arrange for hosting of more content than they could host on their own facility.”); Letter from 
Patrick McFadden, Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, 
at 1 (filed June 14, 2022) (NAB June 14 Ex Parte Letter) (“NAB has proposed that the Commission allow a station 
to demonstrate that it had not acquired access to more capacity than it would otherwise have by demonstrating that it 
could successfully transmit all hosted programming on a single ATSC 1.0 facility.  To prevent the abuse of the 
Commission’s processes and the waste of both Commission and broadcaster resources, NAB has proposed that a 
broadcaster should only be required to submit such a showing in response to a Commission inquiry or a complaint 
that made a prima facie case the Commission deems worth of a response.”). 
106 NAB June 14 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (“Representatives of cable companies are the only parties to have objected to 
the substance of NAB’s proposal because these companies assert they will be uniquely injured by broadcasters’ 
entirely theoretical abuse of this rule because it will unduly burden cable companies’ capacity constraints.…  
ATVA’s members are also uniquely qualified to know whether broadcasters are indeed abusing it since, according 
to the cable lobby, the potential harm resulting from any violation would be a devastating burden on cable 
capacity.”).  Because we do not rely on claims of harm to cable companies in our decision, we do not address 
NAB’s objections to those claims.
107 We note that, while NAB identifies these as “examples” of ways to demonstrate compliance, neither they nor any 
other commenter have proposed any other way for a station to demonstrate “that it could successfully transmit all 
hosted programming on a single ATSC 1.0 facility.”  NAB May 12 Ex Parte Letter.
108 Infra Section III.H (“Form 2100”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
18E. Use of Multicast Streams to Minimize 1.0 Primary Stream Service Loss
23. We adopt rules providing that, in certain circumstances, a Next Gen TV station may 
simulcast its primary stream programming both on its primary stream host and on a multicast stream 
carried by a different partner station in order to minimize the impact of 1.0 primary service loss that 
would result if an originating station were only able to air its primary stream on a single host.109  We also 
adopt our tentative conclusion that such streams will be considered a “simulcast multicast stream” and 
count toward the host capacity limit established herein.   Accordingly, we adopt our tentative conclusion 
that a multicast stream that is a second (or additional) simulcast of a primary stream must be 
“substantially similar” to the 3.0 primary stream.110  Broadcasters largely support this proposal,111 and no 
commenter objected to it.112  We agree with broadcasters that preserving 1.0 primary service is critically 
important during the transition period and that this relief supports that goal.113 
24. We therefore affirm the earlier Bureau decision approving this method of mitigating 1.0 
service loss and bring such streams within the transition licensing regime discussed herein without the 
need for case-specific STAs.114  We expect this situation will arise only when an applicant intends to 
109 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16098-99, para. 19.  While the Bureau will consider 
proposals that would use more than one multicast stream (airing primary programming), such proposals will require 
the public interest showing under the non-expedited processing standard.  We expect this situation will arise only 
when such streams are aired on low-power TV 1.0 hosts.  See BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at 21.  
110 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 2021 WL 518291436 FCC Rcd at 16098 at *7, para. 19.  Indeed, by 
definition as a second (or additional) simulcast of a 3.0 primary stream, we expect this stream will be identical to the 
simulcast of the primary stream (which, by rule, must be substantially similar to the 3.0 primary stream).  See 47 
CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).  In addition, we adopt our tentative conclusion that this 
multicast stream, like all hosted streams, will count toward the host capacity limit established in this Order.  Supra 
Section III.D.
111 See, e.g., Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-6; NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 6; BitPath 
Multicast Licensing Comments at 20-22; CMG Multicast Licensing Comments at 4; ONE Media Multicast 
Licensing Comments 11-14; PTV Multicast Licensing Comments at 4; ATBA Multicast Licensing Comments at 5-
6.  We note that ONE Media and ATBA contend that this proposal does not go far enough and that we should afford 
such an application expedited processing.  See ONE Media Multicast Licensing Comments 11-14; ATBA Multicast 
Licensing Comments at 5-6.  We reject this proposal.  Considering whether the use of a multicast stream to 
supplement the primary stream is appropriate requires consideration on a case-by-case basis.  The non-expedited 
process allows the Bureau to collect additional information that will be used to ensure the proposed use is in the 
public interest.
112 Although the WNUV STA called this stream a “supplemental primary ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream,” we decline to 
use this term and emphasize that, contrary to the argument advanced by ONE Media, such a stream is a multicast 
stream and not an additional primary stream.  See ONE Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 12.  As a multicast 
stream, this signal has no carriage rights.  See Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16098, 
para. 19, n.72; NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 5-6.  Furthermore, as noted above, any service provided by 
such a multicast stream beyond the station’s NLSC is incidental and may not be considered for securing any rights 
or benefits, now or in the future.  For example, we will reject a request by a broadcaster to modify its market to add 
communities based on the service of this multicast stream.  See NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 5-6. 
113 See, e.g., Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 6 (“Allowing broadcasters to place their primary signal on two 
stations, as the Further Notice proposes to do, supports the goal of the Commission and broadcasters to maximize 
the ability of viewers to receive a signal.”).
114 Authorization for Application of WNUV-TV for Modification of License as Amended and Application of WNUV-
TV for Legal Special Temporary Authority as Amended, Letter Order, LMS File Nos. 0000136472 and 0000136473, 
at 1, 6 (VD June 22, 2021) (WNUV STA).  As noted in that decision, applicants whose applications are reviewed 
under the non-expedited processing standard are required to minimize the impact of the expected service loss, but 
the Commission did not require a specific method for doing so.  Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
9947-48, para. 34.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
19broadcast in 3.0 on its own channel and is unable to find a partner 1.0 host that could, on its own, provide 
coverage of its primary stream to 95 percent of the applicant’s 1.0 service area.  Applications seeking to 
use a multicast stream to supplement the service provided by their primary stream will be considered by 
the Media Bureau under the process for non-expedited applications.115  
25. Contrary to our tentative conclusion in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we 
do not limit this relief only to NCE stations or commercial stations airing multicast streams on NCE 
partner hosts.116  The Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM asked whether this approach would be an 
acceptable method for mitigating ATSC 1.0 service loss for any other types or groups of applicants.117  No 
commenter opposed extending this relief to other types or groups of applicants and we are persuaded by 
broadcasters’ comments that other similarly situated stations may be able to show that their use of 
multicast streams to minimize service loss of the primary 1.0 stream is in the public interest.118  We 
therefore allow any Next Gen TV station to apply for this relief under the non-expedited process, but 
emphasize that all applicants must demonstrate why this relief is in the public interest and outweighs any 
potential harms.  As discussed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we recognize that each 
programming stream devoted to simulcasting a primary stream is one fewer that could be devoted to 
multicast programming, potentially reducing the diversity of programming available to viewers in order to 
ensure the widest availability of the most popular programming.119  We also note that a station airing its 
primary stream programming on two hosts could be reaching many viewers previously outside its 1.0 
footprint.120  Thus, the Bureau must consider whether the benefits of a given proposal outweigh any 
harms, including any impacts on localism, diversity of programming offerings, and/or viewer confusion.  
Finally, we emphasize that service temporarily provided by a multicast stream that is used as a second 
115 In the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission established a presumption that it would favor grant of an 
application demonstrating that the station would provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to at least 95 percent of the 
predicted population within the station’s original NLSC and afford “expedited processing” to such applications.  
Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9946, para. 29.  See also 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(f)(5)-(6), 
73.6029(f)(5)-(6).  A Next Gen TV applicant whose ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal will not satisfy this 95 percent 
threshold (“non-expedited applicant”) will be considered on a case-by-case basis and must provide the following 
information:  (1) whether there is another possible simulcast partner(s) in the market that would result in less 1.0 
service loss to existing viewers and, if so, why the Next Gen TV broadcaster chose to partner with a station creating 
a larger service loss; (2) what steps, if any, the station plans to take to minimize the impact of the 1.0 service loss 
(e.g., providing ATSC 3.0 dongles, set-top boxes, or gateway devices to viewers in the loss area); and (3) the public 
interest benefits of the simulcast arrangement and a showing of why the station believes the benefit(s) of granting 
the application outweigh the harm(s).  See Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9947-48, para. 34; 47 
CFR §§ 73.3801(f)(6)(iii), 73.6029(f)(6)(iii).
116 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16098, para. 19, n.74 (“For the purposes of this 
tentative conclusion, we consider similarly situated originating stations to be NCEs, or commercial stations working 
with NCE partner hosts, transitioning their own channel to 3.0, who are unable to find a partner 1.0 host that could, 
on its own, provide coverage of its primary stream to 95 percent of the applicant’s 1.0 service area.”).  In proposing 
this approach, we supported the Bureau’s prior decision, which found that “permitting NCE stations to participate in 
the ATSC 3.0 rollout arrangements in this manner is critical to the success of the transition,” in large part because 
NCE stations make up over 20% of all full power broadcasters.  WNUV STA, at page 6. 
117 Id. at 20.
118 See, e.g., Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 4-6; BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at 21.  Pearl 
contends that “this [relief] is a particularly good solution for various scenarios, such as: small markets that are 
spectrum constrained; geographically large markets with a small population, like the Butte-Bozeman DMA in 
Montana; and markets where some broadcasters rely on a single full power station to serve the market and other 
broadcasters have multiple stations serving the same market, such as La Crosse-Eau Claire in Wisconsin or 
Birmingham, Alabama.”  Id.
119 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16099, para. 20.
120 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
20simulcast of a primary stream will not give rise to any rights for the broadcaster or impose any obligations 
on MVPDs, and may not be considered for purposes of securing any rights or benefits, now or in the 
future.
F. Ownership Issues
26. Consistent with our decision with regard to hosted primary streams of NextGen TV 
stations, hosting multicast streams on a temporary host station’s facility will not result in attribution under 
our broadcast ownership rules or for any other requirements related to television stations attribution (e.g., 
filing ownership reports).121  In the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we asked whether the 
temporary nature of the exemption and our desire to minimize viewer disruption while facilitating the 3.0 
transition made the hosting of multicast streams similar enough to the hosting of primary streams to 
warrant the same approach.122  We are persuaded by the record that they do.  Broadcaster commenters 
support this approach, maintaining that the hosting of multicast streams would further the same objectives 
as primary stream hosting.123  Consistent with the need articulated by broadcasters, we emphasize that the 
new flexibility we grant herein is intended to serve the purpose of minimizing viewer disruption, and we 
find that the clear benefits of such an approach for viewers outweigh any potential for abuse under our 
ownership rules that some commenters have raised.124  This decision does not change the Commission’s 
broadcast ownership rules in any substantive way and certainly does not alter the number of stations a 
broadcaster can own in a particular market.125  As discussed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, ATVA and others have raised concerns in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding about the 
practical impact of the ownership rules in light of the growing practice of placing Big-four network 
programming on multicast streams.126  We find that those concerns are best addressed in the Quadrennial 
Review context,127 not least because any decision made in that proceeding with respect to Big-four 
network affiliations will apply to all licensed multicast streams, hosted or otherwise.
121 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9972, n.237.  See also Broadcast Internet Declaratory 
Ruling and NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 5924, para. 15.
122 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16102-03, paras 27-28.
123 See, e.g., Pearl TV Multicast Licensing Comments at 6 (contending that “[t]he Commission should extend the 
waiver of the local broadcast ownership rules that it adopted along with the ATSC 3.0 rules to apply to the multicast 
arrangements discussed herein”) (internal footnotes omitted); Cox Multicast Licensing Comments at 4 (requesting 
that the Commission “extend the waiver of the local broadcast ownership rules to multicast stream hosting 
partnerships for the duration of the transition”); NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 8 (arguing that “there is no 
reason to take a different approach with respect to multicast streams, whether simulcast or not, than the Commission 
has taken with respect to simulcast primary streams with respect to the Commission’s ownership rules”).  See also 
Scripps Multicast Licensing Reply at 7 (arguing that the Commission should instead describe temporary hosting 
arrangements as “not subject to” the broadcast ownership rules).
124 ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 5, 8-9 (“Non-simulcast multicasting could also create a new loophole 
that could permit stations to evade the local ownership rules… broadcasters here seek to disturb the status quo by 
creating a new loophole.”) (emphasis in original).
125 Supra Section III.F.  See also One Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 16 (contending that “the proposed 
administrative change of licensing the temporary hosting arrangements discussed above rather than continuing to 
approve them through STAs does not create any ‘loopholes’ to any Commission ownership rules”).
126 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16099-100, paras 22-23.
127 See, e.g., Pearl TV Multicast Licensing Comments at 12 (“[T]o the extent there are any concerns about 
programming aggregation as related to ownership issues, these concerns are more productively addressed in the 
Quadrennial Review.”); BitPath Multicast Licensing Reply at 10-11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
21G. Same-Service (or “Lateral”) Hosting
27. We adopt our tentative conclusion declining at this time to license same service (or 
“lateral”) hosting arrangements, though we are open to considering such arrangements in limited 
circumstances.128  Same-service (or “lateral”) 1.0 hosting refers to a situation in which a Next Gen TV 
station still operating its own facility in 1.0 and serving as a 1.0 host for another Next Gen TV station that 
converted its facility to 3.0 seeks to relocate one or more of its own multicast streams to another 1.0 host 
station.129  We are not convinced that a general rule as proposed that would permit this practice is 
necessary to minimize viewer disruption during the transition.  Even advocates for a rule concede that the 
hypothetical problems it could resolve would occur only rarely.130  Given the lack of any demonstrated 
need to allow such arrangements in all markets, we refrain from adopting a general rule at this time.  
Nonetheless, as discussed below, we will entertain requests for special temporary authority to permit 1.0 
same-service hosting and may revisit this decision once we have more experience with situations in which 
such flexibility may be necessary to enable a market to transition.131
28. BitPath and other commenters contemplate scenarios in which multiple Next Gen TV 
stations across a market would shift streams from station to station in order to facilitate their move toward 
3.0.132  For example, broadcasters in the New York DMA (the New York City market) have argued that 
multiple stations engaging in same-service hosting is a business necessity in order to maximize the 
number of stations willing to transition simultaneously.133  On the current record, however, there is no 
evidence that same-service hosting is technically necessary to make any market’s transition possible.  
Indeed, there has only been one instance in which a Next Gen TV broadcaster sought Commission 
approval to keep its facility in 1.0 while shifting some 1.0 programming to a host.134  That station and that 
128 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16096, para 14.  
129 Letter from Patrick McFadden, Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN 
Docket No. 16-142, at 1 (filed Aug. 10, 2022) (NAB Aug. 10 Ex Parte Letter) (explaining that this refers to a 
situation in which “a station transmitting in ATSC 1.0 might arrange for the hosting of one or more of its multicasts 
on another 1.0 station in the market to ensure that the first station has sufficient capacity to host the programming of 
an ATSC 3.0 station in the market”).  Such a scenario could theoretically also arise among 3.0 hosts.
130 NAB Aug. 10 Ex Parte Letter (stating that “such arrangements would be a last resort”).
131 We recognize that most broadcasters strongly support lateral hosting, seeking maximum flexibility under our 
licensing regime.  See, e.g., BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at I, 11, 12; NAB Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 5; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 5; NAB Aug. 10 Ex Parte Letter; Letter from Patrick 
McFadden, Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1 
(filed Oct. 3, 2022) (NAB Oct. 3 Ex Parte Letter) (meeting also included representatives from NBCUniversal, Fox 
corporation and Paramount); Letter from Sally A. Buckman, Counsel, WNET, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1 (filed Oct. 21, 2022) (WNET Oct. 21 Ex Parte Letter); Letter from Patrick 
McFadden, Deputy General Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1 
(filed Jan. 13, 2023) (NAB Jan. 13 Ex Parte Letter).  See also, e.g., Letter from Patrick McFadden, Deputy General 
Counsel, NAB, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 1 (filed Feb. 1, 2023) (proposing 
minimal geographic limits on unrestricted lateral hosting).  But see Letter from Mary Beth Murphy, Vice President 
& Deputy General Counsel, NCTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-142, at 2 (filed Feb. 
23, 2023) (supporting a waiver approach to lateral hosting).
132 See, e.g., BitPath Multicast Licensing Comments at I, 11, 12; NAB Oct. 3 Ex Parte Letter, WNET Oct. 21 Ex 
Parte Letter.
133 NAB Oct. 3 Ex Parte Letter, WNET Oct. 21 Ex Parte Letter.
134 LMS File No. 0000125644.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
22market, however, were ultimately able to begin the transition without any “lateral” hosting, and the station 
also retained enough capacity that it has since added yet another 1.0 stream to its lineup.135  
29. Furthermore, there is potential for abuse in a lateral hosting scenario, particularly given 
the continuing uncertainty around the ultimate duration of the transition.  For instance, preventing the 
aggregation of excess capacity in such a scenario would require a more complex capacity limitation rule 
than is supported by our record.  This is particularly true given the need to consider not just programming 
but any ancillary and supplementary services being provided over a station’s own facility.  In the absence 
of such protections, a station relying on same-service hosts could potentially use significantly more 
capacity than is permitted under its license, even while complying with the capacity limit rule adopted 
today.136  The record simply does not demonstrate that creating such potential for confusion and abuse is 
justified by any countervailing need.
30. We will, however, consider requests for special temporary authority in those rare 
circumstances in which relief may be necessary to ensure that a market can transition effectively.  We 
expect that addressing any potential issues using this process will allow us to monitor the changing state 
of the market as the transition moves forward and to collect more information about any situations that 
arise in which there is a technical need for this type of “lateral” flexibility.  Indeed, the STA process 
provided valuable, real-world information that helped inform our decisions in this item.  Finally, 
broadcasters have argued in this proceeding that the appropriate measure of how much programming a 1.0 
station is capable of airing is whether any 1.0 station is airing or has previously aired the same or a similar 
programming lineup at the same resolutions.137  We agree and we direct Media Bureau staff to review and 
process any potential STA requests (and the inherent potential of any such requests to expand 
broadcasters’ capacity as described above) in light of this “historical” approach, which we have adopted 
elsewhere in this Order to limit capacity in the multicast hosting context.138  Furthermore, as noted above, 
same-service hosting is limited to a host station’s multicast stream (i.e., a host station’s own primary 
stream is not eligible for lateral hosting).  And while the Media Bureau will have flexibility to review the 
particular circumstances of each case, we expect that staff will consider the potential impact on over-the-
air availability of programming that has significant viewership (e.g., the stream is ranked in the top 4 in 
the market or would cause viewers to lose their only source of noncommercial or major network 
programming) or specifically provides children’s programming in the station’s service area.139  
H. Rules Applicable to Multicast Streams Aired on a Host Station
31. With respect to the other ATSC 3.0 transition rules, except as detailed in this Order, we 
will apply the same rules to simulcast and non-simulcast licensed multicast streams as we currently apply 
to primary simulcast streams, consistent with our tentative conclusions.140  These rules are intended to 
135 WXYZ & WMYD TV Schedules, https://www.wxyz.com/entertainment/television/schedule (last visited Jan. 1, 
2023).
136 See also supra para. 13 (discussing the harms inherent to all hosting of streams during the transition).
137 NAB May 12 Ex Parte Letter.
138 See supra para. 18 (implementing limits on hosting capacity).  Such requests must clearly identify any 
programming that would be discontinued in the absence of an STA and explain why there is no reasonable 
alternative to the requested reliance on a same-service host and how viewer impacts will be minimized (e.g., is the 
same stream available to viewers in any loss area from another station in the same or adjacent market).  STAs will 
be granted for a period of 180 days and must be subsequently renewed.  See 74 CFR § 73.1635.
139 47 CFR § 73.671.
140 The rules at issue are those found in sections 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of the Commission’s rules (each 
entitled “Television Simulcasting”).  These include simulcast arrangements and agreements (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(a) 
and (e), 73.6029(a) and (e), 74.782(a) and (f)); the simulcasting requirement (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 
74.782(b)); contour, DMA, and community of license coverage requirements (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 
73.6029(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 74.782(e) and (g)(5)-(6)); MVPD notice requirements (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(h), 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
23protect consumers from service disruption, especially the loss of access to the 1.0 television programming 
they currently watch, without restricting broadcasters’ ability to choose to participate in the voluntary, 
market-driven transition to ATSC 3.0.  We believe these proposals best balance the goal of preserving 
maximum availability of multicast streams with the reality that broadcasters could simply decline to air 
multicast streams if our rules are too burdensome.  
32.Coverage rules.  As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we will 
apply the DMA and community of license coverage requirements to all multicast streams but will not 
consider those streams when determining whether a station qualifies for expedited processing.141  Thus, 
1.0 multicast streams aired on a host channel must continue to cover the guest station’s entire community 
of license and the host station must be assigned to the same DMA as the originating station.142  For 3.0 
multicast streams aired on a host channel, as with 3.0 primary streams aired on a host channel, only the 
DMA requirement applies.143  When determining whether a station seeking to transition is eligible for 
expedited processing, however, we will continue to ask only whether the primary stream will remain 
available in 1.0 to at least 95% of a station’s current OTA audience.144 
33. Although commenters generally do not oppose this approach, some commenters support 
variations to it.  A small number of broadcasters suggest that the rule should require only a host in the 
same DMA without a requirement regarding the community of license.  They express concern that it will 
be challenging in the future for stations to find host partners that can fully cover their community of 
license.145  ATVA, on the other hand, contends that no station should receive expedited processing unless 
all of its multicast streams meet the 95% coverage threshold or if the station pledges to deliver signals to 
MVPDs.146  We reject these proposals.  With respect to both of these concerns, we emphasize that 
retaining a station’s 1.0 service to its community of license remains our priority under current 
marketplace conditions.147  We will review each application – including any unique characteristics of the 
market involved – as it arises.  
34. Finally, as proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, for children’s 
programming on a multicast stream to count toward the originating station’s children’s television Core 
Programming requirement, the multicast stream must either be carried on the same host as the originating 
station’s primary stream or on a host that serves at least 95% of the predicted population served by the 
(Continued from previous page)  
73.6029(h), 74.782(i)); consumer education provisions (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), 74.782(h)); and 
licensing procedures (47 CFR §§ 73.3801(f)(2), 73.6029(f)(2), 74.782(g)(2)).  See Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16103, para. 30, n.97.  No commenters specifically addressed these requirements.
141 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16104-05, paras. 32-33, n.104.  
142 As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM and noted below in the paragraphs discussing 
updates to Form 2100, Next Gen TV applications must note the predicted percentage of population within the 
station’s NLSC that will be served by each multicast stream host.  Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 
FCC Rcd at 16104, 16106, paras. 32, 36.
143 See Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16104, n.104.  No commenter specifically 
addressed this proposal.
144 In the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission established a presumption that it would favor grant of an 
application demonstrating that the station would provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to at least 95 percent of the 
predicted population within the station’s original NLSC and afford “expedited processing” to such applications.  
Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9946, para. 29.  See also 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(f)(5)-(6), 
73.6029(f)(5)-(6).  
145 See, e.g., One Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 15; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 5.
146 ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 13-14.
147 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9944, paras. 25-26.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
24applicant’s pre-transition 1.0 signal.148  Commenters do not oppose this proposal, although the 
Broadcasting Alliance proposed that we combine hosts of multiple “copies” of a multicast stream to 
determine whether that stream is reaching 95% of the relevant population.149  While we do not bar stations 
from airing identical content on multiple hosted multicast streams,150 we decline to adopt this alternative 
on the grounds that it would incentivize inefficient use of limited 1.0 capacity.
35.Licensing.  As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we will apply 
our licensing process for primary simulcast streams to guest multicast streams aired on a host station.151  
No commenter opposes this proposal.  Thus, upon grant of an application, each of an originating station’s 
multicast streams aired as a guest stream on a host will be licensed as an additional temporary channel of 
the originating broadcaster.152  We also adopt our unopposed tentative conclusion that commonly owned 
stations are not required to enter into written agreements for the hosting of either primary or multicast 
streams,153 consistent with the process the Bureau uses for handling the hosting of primary streams on 
commonly owned stations.154 
36.Form 2100.  We adopt the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM’s proposal to 
modify our Next Gen TV license application form (FCC Form 2100) to accommodate multicast licensing 
by collecting information similar to that already collected in the STA process.155  Broadcasters generally 
support a requirement to file the same information they currently provide when seeking to transition, 
though other commenters suggest the filing should be more extensive.156  NAB asserts that licensees 
should not have to file any information at all about multicast streams.157  We reject NAB’s argument.  We 
148 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16105, para. 34.
149 Broadcasting Alliance Multicast Licensing Reply at 5-6.
150 Supra note 78.
151 Under these rules, a Next Gen TV station could seek to obtain separate authorizations for each host station used 
to air any programming stream and would no longer be limited to the two authorizations contemplated in the Next 
Gen TV First Report and Order.  Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9953-54, para. 48.
152 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16105-06, para. 35, citing Next Gen TV First Report 
and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9953-54, para. 48.
153 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16094, n.42.
154 Media Bureau Announces That It Will Begin Accepting Next Generation Television (ATSC 3.0) License 
Applications in the Commission’s Licensing and Management System on May 28, 2019, GN Docket No. 16-142, 
Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 3684, 3685 n.5 (MB 2019).
155 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16106, para. 36.  We direct the Media Bureau to 
revise Form 2100 as needed to implement these changes, and to process applications filed using Form 2100.
156 See, e.g., One Media Multicast Licensing Comments at 10 (“[T]here is no reason to impose additional 
requirements on multicast stream hosting arrangements than what currently apply to primary stream hosting 
arrangements or what has been collected thus far under the interim STA process.”); NCTA Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 4-5 (“At a minimum, the Commission should require broadcasters to identify, for each market they 
serve, their partner host station(s); the network affiliation, broadcast standard, and format (HD or SD) for each 
stream being hosted; and to the extent hosting of non-simulcast streams is allowed, whether the streams are being 
simulcast on the originating broadcaster’s station in the alternate standard.”); Pearl TV Multicast Licensing 
Comments at 9 (“[T]his additional requirement [proposed by NCTA] is unnecessary because of the information 
already submitted through the STA process or which will be required on Form 2100 should the FCC implement the 
Further Notice proposals.”).
157 See, e.g., NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 12-13 (requesting that the Commission not “add new 
information collection requirements as part of this proceeding”).  See also Cox Multicast Licensing Comments at 4 
(stating that the Commission should “simply add more spaces for broadcasters to list additional host stations – no 
further information collection is needed”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
25note that our rules do not prohibit the use of private contractual arrangements for partner stations to air 
their multicast streams.  For regulatory compliance purposes, such streams would be considered multicast 
streams of the host partner station, not the originator station.158  To the extent stations seek instead to 
modify their license to include multicast streams hosted by partner stations, both the Commission and the 
public need visibility into the basic terms of that hosting relationship.  Such transparency will ensure 
compliance with our rules, particularly compliance with the host capacity limit (see section III.D, above.).  
We therefore will require certain additional information as an addendum to Form 2100 if stations seek to 
include hosted multicast streams within their license.159  We also clarify and slightly modify the 
requirements of our rules governing Form 2100 to reflect the possibility of reliance on multiple hosts.
37. Specifically, applicants must prepare an exhibit identifying each proposed hosted stream 
and provide the following information about each stream, as broadcast:
•the host station;
•channel number (RF and virtual);
•network affiliation (or type of programming if unaffiliated);
•resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); 
•the predicted percentage of population within the noise limited service contour served by the 
station’s original ATSC 1.0 signal that will be served by the host, with a contour overlay map 
identifying areas of service loss and, in the case of 1.0 streams, coverage of the originating 
station’s community of license; and
•whether the stream will be simulcast, and if so, the “paired” stream in the other service.
Finally, the exhibit must either state that the applicant will be airing the same programming that it is 
airing in 1.0 at the time of the application or identify the station that has aired or is airing the same or a 
similar programming lineup at the same resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared), as 
well as that station’s lineup (with resolutions).  This exhibit must be placed on the applicant’s public 
website or in the applicant’s online public inspection file if the station does not have a dedicated 
website,160 with a link provided in the application.  This information is consistent both with that currently 
collected in STA applications161 and the approach identified in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM.162  As with broadcast licenses generally, modifications to this license application or its 
accompanying exhibit (with respect to the primary or multicast streams) must be preceded by the filing 
and approval of a new application.  Changes to the affiliation or content of a stream, or the elimination of 
a stream, however, do not implicate the concerns raised in this proceeding if they would not result in the 
use of additional capacity and if information about the change is easily available to the public.  Therefore, 
158 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16090-91, para. 5.
159 See Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16106, para. 36.
160 See https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/.  If a station has neither a public website nor an online public inspection file, it 
will be considered in compliance with this requirement if it publishes the exhibit in a local newspaper identified in 
its application.  Any changes to the exhibit will require publication of the revised exhibit.
161 See, e.g., Authorization for Application of WNUV-TV for Modification of License as Amended and Application of 
WNUV-TV for Legal Special Temporary Authority as Amended, Letter Order, LMS File Nos. 0000136472 and 
0000136473, at 1, 6 (VD June 22, 2021).
162 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16106, para. 36.  While the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM did not specifically mention identification of the “pair” of each simulcast stream (that is, the 
specific stream in the other service that is carrying substantially similar programming), we believe the need for this 
information logically arises from the question about whether a stream will be simulcast in situations where there is 
more than one simulcast stream. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
26in order to streamline this process for both broadcasters and the Commission, such changes may be 
implemented without prior Commission approval.  They need only be reflected in a timely update to the 
exhibit that the applicant makes available on its public website or in the applicant’s online public 
inspection file and in an email notice to the Chief of the Media Bureau’s Video Division.
38.Timing.  As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, the rules adopted 
in this Order will apply until and unless the Commission eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting 
requirement.163  Commenters generally support this approach, which will preserve existing 1.0 viewership 
while giving broadcasters the flexibility to transition to 3.0.164  MVPD commenters support the proposed 
timing with respect to simulcast multicast streams, but propose that the rule permitting non-simulcast 1.0 
multicast streams should sunset after five years.165  Broadcasters oppose this proposal, arguing it is 
contrary to the public interest.166  We agree that establishing a prescribed sunset for the non-simulcast 
multicast licensing rules adopted in this Order could lead to a sudden reduction in the availability of 1.0 
programming, harming consumers.  We therefore decline to adopt a sunset of the non-simulcast multicast 
and will continue to encourage broadcasters to maximize their 1.0 service throughout the transition in 
order to minimize the disruption to consumers.
I. Substantially Similar Rule 
39. Based on the existing record, we retain the substantially similar rule at this time and 
extend the sunset date to July 17, 2027.167  In the Sunsets FNRPM, we sought comment on whether we 
should retain the substantially similar rule or permit it to sunset in July, 2023.168  After consideration of 
the state of the transition reflected in the record of this proceeding, we find this rule continues to be 
necessary at this time for the same reasons it was adopted, to protect consumers by ensuring that OTA 
viewers who rely on 1.0 are able to continue watching the same programming they watch today, as well 
as any new programming offerings on a broadcaster’s primary channel that can be reasonably provided in 
1.0 format.169  Based on the current record, we find that broadcasters’ market incentives alone are 
insufficient to protect OTA viewers from potential loss of 1.0 service.  Furthermore, we find that there has 
not yet been a sufficient shift in the marketplace that would justify elimination or modification of the 
substantially similar rule.  Moreover, we see no evidence on the record that the substantially similar rule 
is currently impeding, or is likely in the near future to impede, the provision of innovative 3.0 features 
163 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 16106, para. 37.  
164 See, e.g., NAB Multicast Licensing Comments at 3; Cox Multicast Licensing Comments at 5; Pearl Multicast 
Licensing Comments at 7. 
165 NCTA Multicast Licensing Comments at 4; ATVA Multicast Licensing Comments at 12; NTCA Multicast 
Licensing Reply at 3.
166 APTS Multicast Licensing Reply at 3; NAB Multicast Licensing Reply at 8.
167 See Appendix B – Final Rules; 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).  We note that the 
requirement to simulcast in 1.0 is intended to be temporary and will be eliminated when the transition to 3.0 is 
complete.  First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9938, para. 14.
168 Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *9, para. 24.
169 The Commission has explained that it will not apply the substantially similar rule to certain enhanced capabilities 
that cannot reasonably be provided in ATSC 1.0 format.  See First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
9943, para. 23.  These capabilities include “hyper-localized” content (e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency 
alerts, and hyper-local news), programming features or improvements created for the 3.0 service (e.g., emergency 
alert “wake up” ability and interactive programming features), enhanced formats made possible by 3.0 technology 
(e.g., 4K or HDR), and any personalization of programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer’s discretion.  
Id.  See also 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).  While some of these capabilities may be 
theoretically possible within the ATSC 1.0 framework, they are not currently part of the ATSC 1.0 standards, are 
unlikely to be included in current consumer equipment, and as such cannot reasonably be provided via ATSC 1.0.  
First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9943, para. 23, n.78. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
27and content.  The rule as it stands affords significant flexibility for broadcasters to innovate and 
experiment with new programming features using 3.0 technology because it does not require broadcasters 
to duplicate enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in the 1.0 format.  
Furthermore, broadcasters provide no reason why programming aired on the 3.0 primary stream that can 
reasonably be provided in 1.0 format should not be provided in such format.  On the other hand, 
eliminating the substantially similar rule at this time, in light of the current state of the transition, poses a 
risk of harm to OTA viewers who rely on 1.0, particularly vulnerable consumers, who without the rule 
could be forced to either purchase new 3.0 equipment or lose access to stations’ primary programming.    
40. The purpose of the substantially similar rule is to give effect to the underlying 
requirement to “simulcast” 3.0 programming in 1.0, protecting 1.0 viewers from losing access to a Next 
Gen TV station’s programming when that station transitions its facility to 3.0.170  While the underlying 
simulcast requirement that a Next Gen TV broadcaster must continue to air a primary 1.0 signal (when 
deploying that signal in 3.0) ensures 1.0 viewers continue to receive one free OTA TV signal during the 
transition, the substantially similar rule ensures that 1.0 viewers actually receive the same primary 
programming as that aired on the 3.0 channel, including new programming to the extent that such 
programming can reasonably be provided in 1.0 format.  Thus, these rules work in tandem to ensure that 
viewers are protected during the transition period.  As the Commission explained in the 2017 First Next 
Gen TV Report and Order, “it is important not only to require that television broadcasters continue to 
broadcast in the current ATSC 1.0 standard while ATSC 3.0 is being deployed, but also that they continue 
to air in ATSC 1.0 format the programming that viewers most want and expect to receive.  We seek to 
ensure that broadcasters air their most popular, widely-viewed programming on their 1.0 simulcast 
channels so that viewers are not forced to purchase 3.0 capable equipment simply to continue to receive 
this programming rather than because they find the ATSC 3.0 technology particularly attractive.”171 
41. The record of this proceeding does not provide a basis for us to conclude that the 
substantially similar rule is no longer needed at this time for the same purposes it was originally adopted.  
Without the substantially similar rule, Next Gen TV broadcasters would be free to air the most desirable 
programming, including popular existing programming and new program offerings that could reasonably 
be provided in 1.0 format, only on their 3.0 primary programming stream.172  This could create two 
different tiers of free, OTA television service, which we find would not be in the public interest.173  We 
170 See First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9943, 9944, para. 22, 25.
171 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9944, para. 25.
172 Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *10, para. 26.  See PK/OTI Sunsets Comments at 8 (“Without the 
substantially similar rule, broadcasters are not required to offer anything beyond a single standard definition 
broadcast on their ATSC 1.0 airwaves.”).
173 In recognition of the capacity constraints imposed by the transition, the Commission has already given 
broadcasters flexibility with respect to the resolution and coverage of 1.0 primary streams, and the availability of 1.0 
multicast streams.  In contrast to these situations, 1.0 capacity constraints do not prevent the provision of 
substantially similar programming, particularly since Next Gen TV broadcasters are not required to simulcast 
programming that cannot reasonably be aired in 1.0 format.  NAB contends the Commission’s discussion of the 
potential development of two tiers of programming ignores that “[t]here already are two tiers of programming 
service: pay and free.”  NAB Sunsets Comments at 14.  NAB asserts that “the Commission does not require other 
actors in the communications marketplace, including those with which broadcasters compete, to intentionally slow 
the pace of innovation when they upgrade their technology to avoid creating different tiers of service.”  Id. (citing 
the 5G context).  NAB further states that “[b]roadcasters are the only entities the Commission regulates that are 
required to provide a free service.”  Id. at 14-15.  We remind broadcasters that, as trustees of the public airwaves, 
they are required by statute to serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”  47 U.S.C. § 309(k)(1).  Next 
Gen TV stations may have only one primary programming stream, which they are required to simulcast in 1.0.  
Finally, we note that broadcasters are not the only regulatees with public interest obligations.  For example, cable 
operators and satellite carriers are required to carry qualified broadcast stations that request mandatory carriage.  47 
U.S.C. §§ 338, 534, 535.  Also, satellite carriers are required to reserve a percentage of channel capacity for 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
28agree with NCTA and PK/OTI that this would “plac[e] viewers at risk of losing access to popular 
programming should they be unwilling or unable to pay for this new [3.0] equipment.”174  In particular, 
PL/OTI notes that lower-income consumers could be especially vulnerable.175  Furthermore, at this stage 
of the transition, we agree that many consumers may find there to be a lack of affordable 3.0 TV 
equipment.176
42. We find that broadcasters’ market incentives alone cannot be relied upon to ensure that 
all 1.0 viewers are able to continue to access stations’ primary programming without incurring significant 
costs; this is particularly of concern with respect to vulnerable consumers who are often slow to adopt 
new technology.177  We recognize that broadcasters may have strong incentives to offer substantially 
similar simulcast programming early in the transition.  Broadcasters contend that the market will protect 
all viewers,178 but as discussed below these assertions often come with qualifications and caveats.  
Broadcasters have willingly made significant investments in ATSC 3.0 technology, claiming it is 
necessary to remain competitive in the video marketplace.179  Thus, while they do have incentives to 
provide their most popular programming to all of their viewers, they also have incentives to promote their 
ATSC 3.0 offerings.  We recognize that broadcasters do incur some costs by offering programming in 
both 1.0 and 3.0 to ensure uninterrupted service to current OTA viewers.  If the transition progresses and 
the number of OTA viewers who rely on 1.0 declines, broadcaster incentives to serve 1.0 viewers may 
weaken as the benefits shrink relative to those costs.  These weakened incentives would be a direct result 
of the success of the transition as more and more OTA viewers migrate to 3.0.  Some broadcasters state 
(Continued from previous page)  
noncommercial educational or informational programming, 47 U.S.C. § 335(b)(1); and cable operators are required 
to set aside channel capacity for commercial use by unaffiliated video programmers.  47 U.S.C. § 532.
174 NCTA Sunsets Comments at 3; PK/OTI Sunsets Reply at 4.
175 See, e.g., PK/OTI Comments at 8 (stating that without the substantially similar rule “[a] large proportion of 
lower-income consumers—and even many other consumers who recently purchased a non-compatible TV—could 
end up with no access to their local over-the-air channels, including what remains of local broadcast station public 
interest obligations concerning local news and emergency weather and other alerts”).
176 The record indicates, as of August 8, 2022, there were approximately 120 models of television sets with 3.0 
tuners available in the United States from four manufacturers, but these are mid- to high-end TV sets.  See, e.g., 
Pearl Sunsets Comments at 14; NAB Sunsets Comments at 4-5; NCTA Sunsets Comments at 3.  According to Pearl, 
the lowest cost 3.0 TV set is available to consumers at retail for $549.00.  See Pearl Comments at 15 (citing the Sony 
X80K 4K HDR LED TV with smart Google TV, https://electronics.sony.com/tv video/televisions/all-
tvs/p/kd43x80k (last visited Aug. 8, 2022)).  The lowest cost separate 3.0 receiver (gateway device) is available at 
retail for $199.  See SiliconDust HDHomeRun 4K Flex, https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun-flex-4k/ 
(last visited Dec. 13, 2022).  See also NAB Comments at 5.  
177 See, e.g., BitPath Sunsets Comments at 15-16; CMG Sunsets Reply at 3; Evoca Sunsets Reply at 5-6; Graham 
Sunsets Reply at 4-5; NAB Sunsets Comments at 13; Pearl Sunsets Comments at 22; Scripps Sunsets Reply at 5.  
We note that if it were true that broadcasters have no incentive to favor their 3.0 offerings, then our rule would 
simply codify broadcasters’ commitment and would not impede any innovations.
178 See, e.g., Pearl Sunsets Comments at 22 (“Broadcaster revenue is maximized by reaching the maximum number 
of viewers.  Thus, broadcasters would only harm their own bottom line by restricting their most popular 
programming to a subset of their viewership.  The FCC does not need a rule to require broadcasters to act in their 
own financial interest.”); CMG Sunsets Reply at 3-4 (“[A]n advertiser-supported free-to-the viewer service, 
broadcasters have a strong incentive to air popular programming on their most widely viewed programming 
stream.”); BitPath Sunsets Comments at 15 (“It is a business imperative for broadcasters to make the best 
programming, which closely corresponds to the most expensive programming, available to the widest possible 
audience.”).
179 See, e.g., NAB Sunsets Comments at 16 (stating that broadcasters “view ATSC 3.0 as critical to the future 
success of their industry and their ability to serve their customers”); Pearl Sunsets Reply at 7 (stating that ATSC 3.0 
will “enhance the long-term viability of free, over the air broadcast television”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
29that they have every incentive to “maximize” viewership,180 but those arguments more correctly appear to 
focus on maximizing profits, which will not necessarily support the needs of OTA 1.0 viewers for the 
length of the transition, particularly when that audience is split between two different services.181  
Broadcaster commenters acknowledge that even these incentives hold only “while the vast majority of 
viewers continue to watch [1.0 signals].”182  Given our decision herein to extend the sunset date, the 
Commission can consider the status of incentives based on the viewership at the time the requirement is 
set to expire.  The current record demonstrates that the substantially similar element of the simulcast rule 
remains important to the transition at this time, in order to provide certainty to those who continue to rely 
on 1.0.  
43. Furthermore, most broadcasters are not committing to make new programming available 
to all viewers.183  Indeed, many seem to indicate that, if the substantially similar rule were eliminated, 
they would provide new, 3.0-exclusive programming on their primary streams even if such programming 
could reasonably be provided in 1.0 format.184  We recognize that broadcasters are incurring costs by 
simulcasting and are eager to complete the transition to pursue higher OTA viewership and new revenue 
opportunities (via broadcast internet services) in the long term.185  Thus, it is not surprising that 
180 Supra note 184.
181 There is no evidence in the record regarding the financial impact on broadcasters of losing a declining number of 
1.0 OTA viewers, particularly older and lower income viewers who may not be favored by advertisers.  We also 
note that many broadcasters receive significant revenue from retransmission consent fees, which would not seem to 
be directly impacted by any loss in OTA viewership.  See S&P Global, US TV station industry total revenue 
projections, 2009-2027 (June 2022) (stating that, in 2021, retransmission consent fees made up 41% of TV station 
revenues, while spot advertising made up 51%, and digital/online revenue made up 8%.); Nielsen, OTA + OTT: The 
new TV Bundle (May 2022), https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2022/ota-ott-the-new-tv-bundle/ (stating that 57% of 
TV households have traditional MVPD service, while only 15% of TV households have OTA TV service, and 27% 
of TV households are broadband-only households).
182 See, e.g., Scripps Sunsets Reply at 5 (“[T]here would be no business value, and rather a significant cost, to 
ceasing distribution of a station’s most desired programming in ATSC 1.0 while the vast majority of viewers 
continue to watch via the legacy standard.”); NAB Sunsets Comments at 13 (“Broadcasters cannot afford to 
eliminate the majority of their OTA audience by shifting their most popular programming exclusively to ATSC 
3.0.”); Pearl Sunsets Reply at 2 (“[B]roadcasters’ market incentives virtually guarantee that they will provide their 
most popular, widely viewed programming on their 1.0 simulcasts, which by any measure remain the most widely 
viewed streams.”).
183 But see Graham Sunsets Reply at 5 (stating that it “is fully committed to ensuring that its stations’ programming 
continues to reach all viewers in their markets, not only those that are able to access programming broadcast in the 
3.0 standard”).
184 See, e.g., NAB Sunsets Comments at 14 (stating the most likely result of sunsetting the substantially similar 
requirement is not that broadcasters will alter the programming transmitted on their ATSC 1.0 signals; rather it is 
that broadcasters take the opportunity to try different programming or features on their ATSC 3.0 signals to entice 
viewers to voluntarily upgrade their equipment); Graham Sunsets Reply at 4 (“With the requirement lifted, 
broadcasters can do the sort of experimenting and innovating with unique NextGen TV content and features that will 
ultimately drive adoption of ATSC 3.0 technologies and NextGen TV programming.”); Scripps Sunsets Reply at 6 
(“[R]emoval of the substantially similar rule would allow broadcasters to expand offerings that make full use of the 
enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0.”).  As discussed below, to the extent such 3.0 content cannot reasonably be 
provided in 1.0, broadcasters are free to provide such programming only in 3.0 under the current rule.  However, if 
such content can reasonably be provided in 1.0, then it illustrates the benefits of the current rule for viewers.  See 
also supra Section III.C (noting that a Next Gen TV station that converts its own facility to 3.0 can “experiment” 
with non-simulcast multicast streams).
185 See BitPath Sunsets Comments at 8 (stating the transition “is expensive and cumbersome.  No broadcaster wants 
the transition to go on one hour longer than necessary.  But the sine qua non of an end to hosting is widespread 
adoption of ATSC 3.0 receivers.”).  See also NAB Sunsets Comments at 16 (“To offer competitive services, and to 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
30broadcasters are already contemplating “trade-offs” like the “loss or degradation of 1.0 programming” in 
the near future absent regulatory requirements to the contrary.186  Given the above, and based on the 
current record, we are not convinced market incentives alone will protect viewers who rely on 1.0.  
Moreover, we remind broadcasters that, as trustees of the public airwaves, they have a statutory obligation 
to serve the public interest, even where market incentives might temporarily push in a contrary 
direction.187  
44. Furthermore, we find that the substantially similar rule is not presently impeding 
innovation in broadcast programming.188  Broadcasters assert that the rule is preventing them from 
innovating with 3.0 content and features.189  However, nothing in the current record supports this.190  The 
current rule expressly allows broadcasters to innovate and experiment with new, innovative Next Gen TV 
programming features, including on their primary streams.191  Broadcasters identify only two specific 
examples of potential innovation hampered by the rule, neither of which withstands scrutiny.  First, Pearl 
seems to suggest that the rule prevents broadcasters from airing 
(Continued from previous page)  
offer new services that may generate additional revenue to support broadcasters’ ability to serve their local 
communities, broadcasters must make this transition work.”).
186 See, e.g., BitPath Sunsets Comments at ii-iii (“It is inevitable that tradeoffs will have to be made to accomplish a 
non-backward compatible rollout of new technology with no transition channels.  The Commission should give 
broadcasters maximum flexibility to pursue hosting in a way that eliminates loss or degradation of 1.0 programming 
where possible and minimizes it when it is inevitable.”).  
187 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(a) (requiring the Commission to determine, in the case of applications for licenses, “whether 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by granting such application”); 47 U.S.C. § 307(b) 
(requiring the Commission to “make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power 
among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service 
to each of the same”).
188 See ATVA Sunsets Comments at 6; NCTA Sunsets Reply at 4; PK/OTI Sunsets Comments at 8-9.
189 See Graham Sunsets Reply at 4 (“With the requirement lifted, broadcasters can do the sort of experimenting and 
innovating with unique NextGen TV content and features that will ultimately drive adoption of ATSC 3.0 
technologies and NextGen TV programming.”); NAB Sunsets Comments at 14 (stating that broadcasters seek “the 
opportunity to try different programming or features on their ATSC 3.0 signals to entice viewers to voluntarily 
upgrade their equipment”); BitPath Sunsets Comments at 16 (“[A] government rule that inhibits broadcasters from 
introducing, at appropriate times, new or dissimilar programming to take advantage of the full capabilities of new 
technology actually dampens the pro-consumer benefits of ATSC 3.0.”); Scripps Sunsets Reply at 6 (“[R]emoval of 
the substantially similar rule would allow broadcasters to expand offerings that make full use of the enhanced 
capabilities of ATSC 3.0.”).  See also Airwavz Sunsets Reply at 1 (“sunset ‘substantially similar’ content on legacy 
ATSC 1.0 by July 2023”).
190 See ATVA Sunsets Comments at 6 (“Broadcasters have suggested that they need to eliminate the rule in order to 
offer enhanced services.  To date, however, they have failed to explain with specificity what the rule prevents them 
from doing.”); NCTA Sunsets Reply at 4; PK/OTI Sunsets Comments at 8-9.  See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 
73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).  Next Gen TV broadcasters do not have to duplicate enhanced content or features that 
cannot reasonably be provided in the 1.0 format.  First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9943, para. 
23.  As stated above, this includes:  “hyper-localized” content (e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, 
and hyper-local news), programming features or improvements created for the 3.0 service (e.g., emergency alert 
“wake up” ability and interactive programming features), enhanced formats made possible by 3.0 technology (e.g., 
4K or HDR), and any personalization of programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer’s discretion.  See 
47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1). 
191 See id.  Stations broadcasting in 3.0 over their own facilities can experiment with innovative 3.0 multicast 
streams that are not subject to simulcast requirements.  Supra Section III.C.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
31“a ‘barker’ or demo channel of 3.0 programming, showcasing the new technology and 
demonstrating how viewers can unlock the many advanced features that ATSC 3.0 makes 
possible.”192  
We observe that a “demo channel” would presumably not be a station’s primary stream.193  As for a 
multicast stream, we reiterate our clarification that any Next Gen TV station that converts its own facility 
to 3.0 (including a 3.0 host) could air a “demo” multicast stream, including content from its guest partners 
and other stations in the market, without simulcasting such a stream in 1.0.194  Second, Graham seems to 
suggest that the rule prevents broadcasters from airing “alternate interactive programming or expanded 
local programming” only in 3.0.195  It is unclear what Graham means by “expanded local programming” 
as a unique 3.0 feature, but the substantially similar rule expressly permits “hyper-local news” and 
“interactive program features.”196  To the extent any “expanded local programming” provided on a 
primary stream could reasonably be provided in 1.0 format, we agree such programming must be 
simulcast in substantially similar fashion in 1.0 format to comply with the rule.  However, to the extent 
programming can reasonably be provided in 1.0 format, we fail to see how such programming could be 
considered innovative programming reliant on the enhanced capabilities of 3.0 technology.  
45. As a result of the current status of the transition reflected in the record, we conclude that 
the sunset of the substantially similar rule is unnecessary at this time.  We note, however, that the pace of 
the transition has necessarily been impacted by the recent pandemic.  As the transition continues and the 
consumer equipment market evolves, the impact of eliminating or modifying the substantially similar 
requirement may change.  We therefore find that it would be appropriate to revisit this issue in the future 
once the transition has had more time to advance.  Moreover, we anticipate that the Commission’s 
recently announced “Future of TV” public-private initiative, which will be led by the National 
Association of Broadcasters (NAB), will provide additional information on the pace and nature of the 
transition.197  These insights, including any proposals discussed by partnership stakeholders in this 
initiative, can help inform any potential changes to the substantially similar requirement.  Accordingly, 
we adopt a new sunset date of July 17, 2027.  Given the ongoing transition, we believe at this time that 
this is an appropriate sunset period.198  This date will allow for the opportunity of material changes to the 
192 See Letter from Gerard J. Waldron, Counsel to Pearl TV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 
16-142 (filed Apr. 11, 2022) at 2; Pearl Multicast Licensing Comments at 11.  
193 We note, however, that “demo” programming aired on a primary stream would likely be covered by the rule’s 
exception for “advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and programming features that are based on the 
enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0.”  See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).
194 Supra Section III.C.  To the extent that 3.0 guests can show good cause why they need to license a “demo” 
channel on a host (rather than having the host air such demo channel), we will consider limited waiver requests to 
license such non-simulcast 3.0 multicast guest streams. 
195 Graham Sunsets Reply at 5.
196 See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 73.6029(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 74.782(b)(1)(i)-(ii).
197 Press Release, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Chairwoman Announces Launch of ‘Future of TV’ 
Public-Private Initiative Focused on Transition to NextGen TV (Apr. 17, 2023). 
198 While, at present, a small number of converter devices that work with the television sets in viewers’ homes are 
available for purchase, we expect more will come to market in coming years and that the price should come down.  
For example, another 3.0-to-1.0 set-top-box has recently been announced by ADTH, which would be the lowest 
priced converter device to date.  According to ADTH, its “NEXTGEN TV Box” is scheduled to ship in July 2023.  
It costs $119.99, but it is available for pre-order at the discounted price of $79.99 for a limited time.  Atlanta DTH 
(ADTH), Press Release, “ADTH and Tolka Awarded First Certification as NEXTGEN TV Upgrade Accessory 
Receiver,” (May 9, 2023); https://adth.com/adth-and-tolka-awarded-first-certification-as-nextgen-tv-upgrade-
accessory-receiver/.  The Commission can consider the availability and cost of such devices in subsequent reviews 
of the substantially similar rule.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
32transition such that a subsequent review is warranted.  Consistent with the previous sunset, the 
Commission will initiate a review approximately one year before the requirement is set to expire to seek 
comment on whether it should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.  This balanced 
approach will provide 1.0 viewers with needed certainty while giving broadcasters an additional 
opportunity to demonstrate that the substantially similar requirement should be eliminated or modified.
J. Requirement to Comply with the ATSC A/322 Standard
46. Based on the existing record, we retain the A/322 requirement at this time and extend the 
sunset date to July 17, 2027.199  In the Sunsets FNPRM, we sought comment on whether we should retain 
the requirement that Next Gen TV broadcasters’ primary video programming stream must comply with 
the ATSC A/322 standard and, if so, for how long.200  In response to the record, we find the A/322 
requirement remains necessary to protect consumers and other stakeholders.  We further find that the rule 
does not presently impede broadcasters’ ability to innovate.  As discussed below, the record shows that 
the standard itself provides broadcasters with significant flexibility, and the requirement to comply with 
the standard applies only to a broadcaster’s primary programming streams.  Consistent with the rule, 
broadcasters have ample opportunity to innovate with other broadcast streams, as well as with non-
broadcast 3.0 services (also known as Broadcast Internet).
47. We find that the A/322 requirement remains essential at this time for protecting both 
innovators and investors in the 3.0 space, allowing stakeholders to develop and purchase equipment with 
confidence.  As Pearl TV notes, the rule gives “key certainty” to television receiver manufacturers, 
affording them the confidence to build Next Gen TV equipment and bring it to market knowing that it 
will reliably work with 3.0 signals now and in the future.201  It likewise protects consumer investments in 
3.0 technology by ensuring that 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 equipment they purchase are, and will remain, 
compatible with primary 3.0 signals.202  We agree with LG that “[c]onsumers have purchased ATSC 3.0-
enabled equipment with the good faith expectation that it will be able to properly receive and decode an 
ATSC 3.0 signal not just at the time of purchase, but for years to come.”203  For similar reasons, the rule 
will also benefit MVPDs as they begin to receive and retransmit 3.0 broadcast signals to their 
subscribers.204  Indeed, broadcasters themselves benefit from the certainty the rule provides, by knowing 
199 See Appendix B – Final Rules; 47 CFR § 73.682(f)(2). 
200 Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *11, para. 30.
201 Pearl Sunsets Reply at 4-5 (“Pearl agrees that the requirement provides key certainty to device manufacturers 
who are working to scale up the retail market for ATSC 3.0-compatible devices.”).  See also, e.g., LG Sunsets 
Comments at 6 (“A/322 allows device manufacturers to confidently develop their products and bring them to 
market.”); NAB Sunsets Comments at 12-13 (stating the rule “has been helpful in encouraging television 
manufacturers to design and build television sets that incorporate ATSC 3.0 receivers”).
202 See, e.g., CTA Sunsets Comments at 8 (“Sunsetting the A/322 standard requirement could … jeopardize the 
provision of NEXTGEN TV as a free and universally available digital broadcast television service.”); LG Sunsets 
Comments at 5 (“By not permanently incorporating A/322 into its rules, the Commission risks stranding consumers 
who have already purchased ATSC 3.0-enabled devices or disenfranchising consumers who purchase devices 
capable of receiving some, but not all, ATSC 3.0 signals.”).
203 LG Sunsets Comments at 1.  
204 See NCTA Sunsets Comments at 5 (“[W]ithout a requirement to follow A/322, ‘device manufacturers and 
MVPDs may not be able to reliably predict what signal modulation a broadcaster is using’ which could ‘cause 
manufacturers to inadvertently build equipment that cannot receive Next Gen TV broadcasts or could render 
MVPDs unable to receive and retransmit the signals of Next Gen TV stations.’”) (quoting First Next Gen TV Report 
and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9980, para. 99); LG Sunsets Comments at 6 (“MVPDs also rely on the A/322 
requirement to ensure that the broadcast signals they receive over-the-air are free from interference.  If MVPDs do 
not know or cannot reliably predict the transmission scheme a broadcaster is using, they may not be able to properly 
receive the broadcaster’s signal, which in turn would limit their ability to provide the signal on their systems, 
thereby causing the public interest to suffer.”).  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
33that every viewer in their markets who purchases a 3.0 set will be able to receive their primary 
programming.205   Compliance with A/322 may also help prevent harmful interference to and by 
broadcasters, which benefits every stakeholder and consumer.206  Given these benefits, almost all 
commenters support retention of the A/322 rule.207  We agree with LG that “if a broadcaster used a 
standard other than A/322 for transmission of its primary broadcast stream, consumers would be unable to 
obtain the broadcaster’s programming because support for that bespoke standard would not be 
incorporated into the consumers’ devices.”208
48. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate any current or likely harms arising from the 
rule at this time.209  The only commenter to oppose even an extension of the requirement, One Media, 
identifies no harms associated with this specific rule and makes no effort to grapple with its benefits.  
Instead, One Media contends that broadcasters should not have “to keep coming back to seek government 
approval each time the standard changes” and should not have “standards codified into their services’ 
rules” but should instead simply be required to avoid interference.210  With respect to the first concern, the 
Commission has and will independently monitor the evolution of the ATSC 3.0 standard and will act to 
update our rules as necessary and appropriate, as we do in this Order.  As for One Media’s general 
objection to codified standards, adoption of A/322 into our rules will ensure that broadcasters are serving 
the public interest, for the reasons above.211  
49. Ultimately, we find that the current record does not support sunsetting the A/322 standard 
at this time.  The rule currently provides needed protection to consumers, while also affording significant 
flexibility to broadcasters.  Nevertheless, we agree with commenters that urge the Commission to 
continue to monitor the marketplace and the standard as they develop.212  Accordingly, in order to align 
205 WNET Sunsets Reply at 5 (asserting that “sunsetting the requirement now could lead to confusion, particularly if 
a broadcaster were to use its spectrum to broadcast a service that does not use the A/322 standard”); LG Comments 
at 6 (stating that A/322 “ensures that all broadcasters operate from the same ATSC 3.0 playbook”).
206 See LG Sunsets Comments at 5 (“A/322 ensures that an ATSC 3.0 signal is reliably transmitted and received, as 
it describes the interference characteristics of the signal and ensures that it does not interfere with ATSC 1.0 signals 
or other 3.0 signals.  Thus, to ensure a stable, reliable, and predictable RF environment, the Commission should 
incorporate A/322 into its rules permanently.”).  See also Qualcomm Sunsets Comments at 9 (stating that “5G 
Broadcast signals and ATSC 3.0 signals can co-exist over the same six-megahertz channel via time-division 
multiplexing (TDM).  Since broadcasters are required to comply with the A/322 standard, Qualcomm used the 
characteristics of that standard to ensure successful co-existence.”).  But see ONE Media Sunsets Comments at 16 
(stating that “[t]he interference criteria currently applicable to broadcasters are and will remain more than adequate 
to meet the goal of non-interference”).
207 See, e.g., CTA Sunsets Comments at 2; LG Sunsets Comments at 1; NAB Sunsets Comments at 12-13; NCTA 
Sunsets Comments at 5-6; Pearl Sunsets Reply at 4-5; Qualcomm Sunsets Comments at 1-2; Scripps Sunsets Reply 
at 7; WNET Sunsets Reply at 5; Rohde & Schwarz Sunsets Reply at 3.  
208 LG Sunsets Comments at 5.
209 See, e.g., NAB Sunsets Comments at 12 (“To date, the Commission’s approach [A/322 rule] has not interfered 
with broadcasters’ efforts to deploy ATSC 3.0 service.”).
210 ONE Media Sunsets Comments at 16.  Airwavz.tv also references A/322, but appears to be conflating the two 
rules scheduled to sunset in 2022.  We read Airwavz.tv’s comments as supporting the sunset of the substantially 
similar rule.  Airwavz Sunsets Reply at 1 (stating it “is in favor of the FCC permitting the ATSC A/322 standard to 
sunset ‘substantially similar’ content on legacy ATSC 1.0 by July 2023”); supra note 191.
211 See supra para. 47.
212 The Sunsets FNPRM sought comment on whether to update our rules to incorporate the 2021 version of the 
A/322 standard.  Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *12, para. 32.  Commenters on this issue support updating 
our rules, but pointed out that a more recent version of A/322 was published by ATSC in March 2022.  ATSC 
Comments at 6; LG Sunsets Comments at 8.  However, since the comment period closed, there have been two more 
updates to A/322, and we have not received any comments about this new version.  See ATSC A/322:2022, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
34this review with that of the substantially similar requirement, we adopt a new sunset date of July 17, 
2027.  As noted above, the Commission will initiate a review approximately one year before the 
requirement is set to expire to seek comment on whether it should be extended based on marketplace 
conditions at that time.  This balanced approach will provide needed certainty while also providing an 
additional opportunity to demonstrate that the A/322 standard should be eliminated or modified.
IV. FOURTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
50. With this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek to further our understanding 
of the current marketplace for ATSC 3.0 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the ability of third parties 
to develop products that rely upon them.  As the Commission has previously observed in this proceeding, 
the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), which developed the ATSC 3.0 standard, requires 
patent owners to disclose that they hold essential patents and to commit to licensing them on reasonable 
and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.213  The Commission decided in 2017 that “[w]ith no evidence of 
patent licensing issues, … it [was] premature to impose regulations on the private licensing 
marketplace.”214  After reviewing the record developed in response to the Sunsets FNPRM, we invite 
additional comments about both the specific issues raised below and the general state of the market.  This 
will inform the Commission’s consideration of its authority to act on these issues, as well as the need for, 
appropriateness of, and potential benefits of rules governing the RAND licensing of SEPs.  
51. A number of commenters identify issues with the current ATSC 3.0 patent marketplace 
and encourage the Commission to “closely monitor” the market or even to immediately adopt 
Commission rules formalizing RAND requirements for SEPs.  The Alliance for Automotive Innovation 
(AAI), for example, explains that “[t]he ability to license patents declared essential to technical standards 
on reasonable and non-discriminatory…terms is critical to enabling automotive companies to deploy new 
technologies.”215  However, they contend that, despite the ATSC RAND requirement, “some ATSC 3.0 
SEP holders have refused to license to some willing implementers on RAND terms.”216  AAI thus 
proposes that the Commission not just monitor the market to ensure compliance with the existing ATSC 
requirements, but also actively inquire into the licensing practices of SEP holders and their 
representatives.217  Likewise, other commenters urge the Commission to take an active role.218    Finally, 
Public Knowledge/Open Technology Institute (PK) goes further, proposing that the Commission should 
immediately adopt enforceable RAND requirements for SEPs.219  PK argues that reliance on third party 
(Continued from previous page)  
“Physical Layer Protocol” (published November 24, 2022); https://www.atsc.org/atsc-documents/type/3-0-
standards/.  Therefore, we decline to update our rules at this time and will seek comment on this issue in a future 
proceeding.
213 Sunsets FNPRM, 2022 WL 2290237 at *3, note 29 (citing ATSC’s Patent Policy, Doc. B/04 at 
https://www.atsc.org/policies/policy-documents/) (“It shall be the policy of [ATSC] that Essential Claims included 
in ATSC Specification Documents be available to implementers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.”)).  
214 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9981, n.300.
215 AAI Ex Parte at 2.
216 Id. at 3.
217 Id.
218 See, e.g., Airwavz.tv Sunsets Reply at 7 (specifically expressing concern about the potential fees charged for 
access to ATSC 3.0 “patent pools,” like the one coordinated by commenter MPEG LA, which function as “one-stop 
shops” for essential patents); NCTA Sunsets Comments at 6 (contending, without providing evidence of abuse, that 
the Commission should “respond as necessary to evidence of licensing abuses, which could result in an unfair 
windfall to patent owners and higher costs for consumers.”); V Box Communications Sunsets Comments at 3 (“Lack 
of [information about] patent licensing required and costs information may result in delays with final end-user 
products arrival on the market.”).
219 PK Sunsets Comments at 12; PK Sunsets Reply at 7.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
35enforcement of the ATSC RAND requirement is insufficient.  They note that the standard leaves 
resolution of patent disputes to the courts but contend that third party enforcement may not always be 
possible or effective, as courts must find that a disclosure and licensing commitment like ATSC’s was 
actually intended to bind members against third parties.220  Furthermore, courts would look to the intent of 
the contracting parties, not broader case law, when interpreting the relevant terms in ATSC’s policy, 
meaning the very definition of “reasonable and non-discriminatory” could be up for debate.221  PK 
therefore proposes that the Commission adopt rules of its own.
52. On the other hand, several other commenters oppose Commission involvement in what 
they describe as a still-nascent market showing no signs of market failure.222  Other commenters contend 
that adoption of RAND requirements by the Commission is unnecessary at best and potentially even 
harmful to the consumer market for ATSC 3.0 devices.223  We seek additional comment on the state of 
this market, particularly from the perspective of parties, or the representatives of parties, that do not hold 
SEPs but have licensed or attempted to license them.  Are SEP holders complying with the ATSC RAND 
requirements?  If not, how are disputes currently resolved?  Are the existing ATSC RAND requirements 
imposing any adverse economic impacts?  Why or why not?  Patent pool operator MPEG LA states that it 
is unaware of any SEP outside of its ATSC 3.0 patent pool,224 and the Commission is not aware of any 
similar alternative patent pool.  AAI claims that MPEG LA is focused exclusively on “downstream” users 
of SEPs, which “inhibits upstream suppliers from securing the license rights necessary to develop 
products, offer them for sale, or even determine whether to enter the market without the ability to know 
what a license’s cost would be.”225  Is MPEG LA or any other party in a position to refute or address these 
concerns raised by AAI? 
53. Some commenters also assert that, regardless of the state of the market, the Commission 
does not have authority to impose RAND requirements on ATSC 3.0 patent licenses.  For example, ONE 
Media and MPEG LA contend that the Commission may not have jurisdiction over all SEP holders.226  
Other commenters emphasize the lack of explicit statutory authority for the imposition of RAND 
requirements, while acknowledging that the Commission has taken action in the past to prevent the abuse 
of patent rights.227  We invite comment on the specific arguments raised by commenters regarding 
jurisdiction.  
220 PK Comments at 10.
221 Id.
222 See, e.g., ONE Media Sunsets Comments at iii and 21; MPEG LA Sunsets Comments at 10; InterDigital, Inc. 
Sunsets Comments at 3; NAB Sunsets Comments at 12; IP Europe Sunsets Reply generally.  
223 Ericsson Sunsets Comments at 4 (supporting a voluntary RAND regime but arguing that “[r]egulatory 
interventions in the RAND licensing regime risks harming both innovation and standards development to the 
detriment of U.S. consumers”); Qualcomm Sunsets Comments at 11-12 (contending that interventions in the patent 
market should be left to “U.S. federal and state court systems and expert federal agencies”); and Scripps Sunsets 
Reply at 4 (asserting that Commission RAND rules “could have a detrimental rather than beneficial effect”).
224 MPEG LA Sunsets Comments at 4.  But see One Media Sunsets Comments at 20 (claiming that “not all holders 
of ATSC 3.0 patents have joined this pool” but not identifying the holdouts or whether the patents they hold are 
“essential”). 
225 AAI Ex Parte at 3.
226 ONE Media Sunsets Comments at 18; MPEG LA Sunsets Comments at 5.
227 See, e.g., Ericsson Sunsets Comments at 5-8; Qualcomm Sunsets Comments at 11-12.  See also Basic Service 
Tier Encryption et al., MB Docket No. 11-169; PP Docket No. 00-67; CSR-8483-Z; CSR-8525-Z; CSR-8334-Z; 
CSR-8528-Z, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12786, 12803-04, para. 24 (2012) (declining to impose RAND 
requirements, but imposing a “good faith” licensing requirement on cable operators).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
3654. If the Commission were to find problems in the SEP marketplace that—consistent with 
the Commission’s existing authority—could be ameliorated by the application of RAND requirements, 
how could those requirements be crafted to minimize any potential adverse economic impact while 
maximizing the opportunity for participation in the ATSC market?  PK proposes that the Commission 
adopt RAND rules in line with the policy established by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers (IEEE), which PK argues provide sufficient detail to minimize costly disputes.228  Other 
commenters emphasize that in 2019 the Department of Justice expressed concern that the IEEE policy 
had “dampened enthusiasm for the IEEE process” causing delays in standards adoption,”229 though PK 
points out that the Fair Standards Alliance praised the IEEE policy as recently as last year.230  
Commenters also note that the Departments of Justice and Commerce recently endorsed a “case-by-case” 
approach to addressing patent disputes.231  Were the Commission to adopt regulations, would the IEEE 
approach, a case by case approach, or another approach be best suited to administration by the 
Commission?  What are the competitive impacts of these different approaches?  If the Commission were 
to establish specific standards, are there sources instead of or in addition to the IEEE policy to which the 
Commission should look?  Regardless of the approach adopted, if any, how could the Commission ensure 
speedy resolution of complaints?  For example, should resolution of such complaints be delegated to a 
bureau, office, or administrative judge?  Should complaints be deemed denied if not acted upon within a 
certain time frame?  To what extent should any Commission rules consider the non-price terms and 
conditions of licensing agreements?
55. Are there other issues the Commission should consider with respect to the possible 
application of RAND rules to the licensing of SEPs?  We invite comment on the questions above and any 
others related to the current SEP marketplace and possible Commission rules relating to the RAND 
licensing of SEPs.
56.Digital Equity and Inclusion.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all,232 including people of color, people with disabilities, people who live in rural or 
Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations233 and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.  Specifically, we 
seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.
228 PK Sunsets Comments at 11 (citing IEEE SA, https://standards.ieee.org/about/policies/bylaws/sect6-7).
229 Ericsson Sunsets Comments at 5. 
230 PK Sunsets Comments at 11.
231 See, e.g., Qualcomm Sunsets Comments at 11.
232 Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that the FCC “regulat[es] interstate and 
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, to 
all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or 
sex.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.
233 The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, 
and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have 
been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans 
and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons 
otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.  See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009, 
Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 
Government (January 20, 2021).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
37V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
57.Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),234 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”235  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of rule and/or policy changes 
contained in this Third Report and Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.  We 
have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of 
rule and policy changes in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on small entities.  The 
IRFA is set forth in Appendix D.
58.Final PRA Analysis.  This document contains new information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).236  The requirements will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.  OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding.  The Commission will publish a separate document in the 
Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments.  In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA),237 we will seek specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees.
59.Initial PRA Analysis.  This FNPRM may result in new or modified information collection 
requirements.  If the Commission adopts any new or modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such 
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).238  In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,239 the Commission will seek specific comment on how it 
might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.”
60.Congressional Review Act.  The Bureau has determined, and the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that these rules 
are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
61.Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose.  This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-
disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.240  Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
234 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
235 See id. § 605(b).
236 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 
of title 44 U.S.C.).
237 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) 
(codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).  See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
238 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 
of title 44 U.S.C.).
239 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) 
(codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
240 47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
38Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting 
at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made 
during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or 
arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or 
arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  Documents shown or given 
to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through 
the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native 
format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).  Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
62.Filing Requirements—Comments and Replies.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of 
the Commission’s rules,241 interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the 
dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).242
•Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
•Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  
•Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 
Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
oCommercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
oU.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any 
hand or messenger delivered filings.  This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the 
health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.243
oDuring the time the Commission’s building is closed to the general public and until 
further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption 
of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each 
additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
oAfter COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, the Commission has established that hand-
carried documents are to be filed at the Commission’s office located at 9050 Junction 
241 Id. §§ 1.415, 1419.
242 Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd 11322 (1998).
243 FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020).  See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-
and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
39Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.  This will be the only location where hand-
carried paper filings for the Commission will be accepted.244
63.People with Disabilities.  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
64.Media Bureau Contact Information.  For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, 
Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142.  Direct press inquiries to 
Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
65.IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 
309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 
534, and 535, this Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS 
HEREBY ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
66.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY 
AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in 
the Federal Register, except for 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 which contain new or 
modified information collection requirements that require approval by the OMB under the PRA and 
which shall become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing 
OMB approval and the effective date of the rules. 
67.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 155(c), the Chief, Media 
Bureau, is granted delegated authority for the  purpose of amending FCC Form 2100 as necessary to 
implement the licensing process adopted herein.
68.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order and 
Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
69.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Third Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
244 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5450 (OMD 2020).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
40APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTERS AND REPLY COMMENTERS
Multicast Licensing FNPRM1
1. America’s Public Television Stations (APTS) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), collectively 
“Public Television Stations” or “PTV”
2. Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance (Broadcasting Alliance)
3. American Television Alliance (ATVA)
4. Spectrum Co. LLC, dba “BitPath”
5. CMG Media Corporation dba Cox Media Group (CMG or Cox) 
6. Edge Networks Inc. dba “Evoca”
7. Gray Television, Inc. (Gray)
8. LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTV Assoc.)
9. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
10. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)
11. NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA)
12. ONE Media 3.0, LLC (ONE Media) 
13. Pearl TV, LLC (Pearl)2
14. The E. W. Scripps Company (Scripps)
15. TEGNA Inc. (TEGNA)
Sunsets FNPRM3
1. Accessibility Advocacy and Research Organizations 
2. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC)
3. Airwavz.tv
4. Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
5. America’s Public Television Stations (APTS), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (CPB), and 
the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (collectively, “PTV”)
6. American Television Alliance (ATVA)
7. AWARN Alliance
8. CMG Media Corporation dba Cox Media Group (CMG or Cox)
9. Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
10. E. W. Scripps Company (Scripps)
11. Edge Networks (Evoca)
12. Ericsson
13. Graham Media Group, Inc. (Graham)
1 Comments dated on or before February 11, 2022; replies dated on or before March 14, 2022.
2 Pearl TV group consists of eight of the largest broadcast companies in America: CMG, Scripps, Graham Media 
Group, Hearst Television Inc., Meredith Local Media Group, Nexstar Media Group, Gray, TEGNA, and Sinclair 
Broadcast Group, Inc.
3 Comments dated on or before August 8, 2022; replies dated on or before September 6, 2022.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
4114. Hank Bovis, individual
15. Interdigital
16. IP Europe
17. Jon M. Peha, Professor and Center Director, Carnegie Mellon University
18. LG Electronics Inc. (LG)
19. LPTV Broadcaster Association
20. MPEG LA
21. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
22. NCTA- The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)
23. ONE Media 3.0 LLC (ONE Media)
24. Pearl TV
25. Public Knowledge (PK)/ Open Technology Institute (PK/OTI)
26. Qualcomm Inc.
27. Rhode and Schwarz
28. Roger Davis, individual
29. Saankhya Labs Pvt. Ltd. (Saankhya Labs)
30. Spectrum Co LLC d/b/a BitPath (BitPath)
31. VBox Communications (VBox)
32. WNETFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
42APPENDIX B
Final Rule Changes
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as follows:
PART 73 – RADIO BROADCAST SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
2. Section 73.682 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
§ 73.682   TV transmission standards.
* * * * * 
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section will sunset on July 17, 2027.
3. Section 73.3801 is amended  by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (f)(5) and (6), and by adding 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 73.3801  Full Power Television Simulcasting During the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) Transition
* * * * *
(b) * * * 
(3) The “substantially similar” requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will sunset on July 17, 
2027July 17, 2023.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with the streamlined process in paragraph 
(f)(3) of this section will receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air an ATSC 
1.0 primary signal on the facilities of a host station, the that station will provide ATSC 1.0 service to at 
least 95 percent of the predicted population within the noise limited service contour of its original ATSC 
1.0 facility.
(6) Required information. 
(i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section must include the following information: 
(A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, identified by call sign and facility 
identification number, if applicable; Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
43(B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable; 
(C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA of each host station, if 
applicable; and 
(D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this section, if applicable; and
(E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to process the application. 
(ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on 
the facilities of a host station or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i), also indicate on the application: 
(A) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal; 
(B) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting 
simulcasting arrangement or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and 
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on the host station will serve 
at least 95 percent of the population in paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section. 
* * * * *
(i) Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station is not required to license, under paragraph (f) of this 
section, a “guest” multicast programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host 
station.  If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest multicast streams must comply with 
the requirements of this section (including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), 
except for paragraph (f)(5) and as otherwise provided in this paragraph.  For purposes of this 
section, a “multicast” stream refers to a video programming stream other than the primary video 
programming stream. 
(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 1.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.  Non-
simulcast streams are not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section. 
(i) Host Capacity Limit.  A Next Gen TV station that has converted its own facility to 3.0 
must not license more capacity on one or more partner host stations, in the aggregate, than 
the station could use if it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0.  It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.
(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 3.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. 
(3) Children’s Television.  A Next Gen TV station may rely on a multicast stream it is airing via a 
host partner to comply with the Commission’s children’s television programming requirement in 
Section 73.671 of this Part.  Such a stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen 
TV station’s primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent of the predicted population 
served by the Next Gen TV station’s pre-transition 1.0 signal.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
44(4) Application Exhibit Required.  A Next Gen TV station seeking to license hosted multicast streams 
must prepare and host on its public website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does 
not have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph (f)(6)(i)(D) of this section.  The 
exhibit must contain the following:
(i) for each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); network affiliation (or type of 
programming if unaffiliated); resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the 
stream will be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other service; 
and
(ii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the host capacity limit.  It may do so by either showing that it is seeking 
hosting only for streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its transition to 
3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying or has carried the same or a similar 
programming lineup at the same resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or 
shared);
(iii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the coverage requirement for guest multicast streams, including by 
providing a contour map showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the 
station’s community of license; and
(iv) Changes to the exhibit.  Changes to the affiliation or content of a stream that would not 
result in the use of additional capacity, the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive 
corrections may be made at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the Chief of the Media 
Bureau’s Video Division or their designee.  No other changes, including to the location of 
the exhibit itself, may be made without the filing and approval of a new application.
4. Section 73.6029 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (f)(5) and (6), and by adding 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 73.6029   Class A Television Simulcasting During the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) Transition
* * * * *
(b) * * * 
(3) The “substantially similar” requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will sunset on July 17, 
2027July 17, 2023.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with the streamlined process in paragraph 
(f)(3) of this section will receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air an ATSC 
1.0 primary signal on the facilities of a host station, the that station will provide ATSC 1.0 service to at 
least 95 percent of the predicted population within the noise limited service contour of its original ATSC 
1.0 facility.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
45(6) Required information. 
(i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section must include the following information: 
(A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, identified by call sign and facility 
identification number, if applicable; 
(B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable; 
(C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA of each host station, if 
applicable; and 
(D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this section, if applicable; and
(E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to process the application. 
(ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on 
the facilities of a host station or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i), also indicate on the application: 
(A) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal; 
(B) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting 
simulcasting arrangement or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and 
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on the host station will serve 
at least 95 percent of the population in paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section. 
(iii) * * *
* * * * *
(i) Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station is not required to license, under paragraph (f) of this 
section, a “guest” multicast programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host 
station.  If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest multicast streams must comply with 
the requirements of this section (including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), 
except for paragraph (f)(5) and as otherwise provided in this paragraph.  For purposes of this 
section, a “multicast” stream refers to a video programming stream other than the primary video 
programming stream. 
(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 1.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.  Non-
simulcast streams are not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section. 
(i) Host Capacity Limit.  A Next Gen TV station that has converted its own facility to 3.0 
must not license more capacity on one or more partner host stations, in the aggregate, than 
the station could use if it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0.  It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
46(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 3.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. 
(3) Children’s Television.  A Next Gen TV station may rely on a multicast stream it is airing via a 
host partner to comply with the Commission’s children’s television programming requirement in 
Section 73.671 of this Part.  Such a stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen 
TV station’s primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent of the predicted population 
served by the Next Gen TV station’s pre-transition 1.0 signal.
(4) Application Exhibit Required.  A Next Gen TV station seeking to license hosted multicast streams 
must prepare and host on its public website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does 
not have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph (f)(6)(i)(D) of this section.  The 
exhibit must contain the following:
(i) for each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); network affiliation (or type of 
programming if unaffiliated); resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the 
stream will be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other service; 
and
(ii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the host capacity limit.  It may do so by either showing that it is seeking 
hosting only for streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its transition to 
3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying or has carried the same or a similar 
programming lineup at the same resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or 
shared);
(iii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the coverage requirement for guest multicast streams, including by 
providing a contour map showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the 
station’s community of license; and
(iv) Changes to the exhibit.  Changes to the affiliation or content of a stream that would not 
result in the use of additional capacity, the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive 
corrections may be made at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the Chief of the Media 
Bureau’s Video Division or their designee.  No other changes, including to the location of 
the exhibit itself, may be made without the filing and approval of a new application.
PART 74 – EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES 
5. The authority citation for part 74 is revised to read as follows: 
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and 554.
6. Section 74.782 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (g)(5) and (6), and by adding paragraph 
(j) as follows:Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
47§ 74.782   Low Power Television and TV Translator Simulcasting During the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen 
TV) Transition
* * * * *
(b) * * * 
(3) The “substantially similar” requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section will sunset on July 17, 
2027July 17, 2023.
(g) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with the streamlined process in paragraph 
(f)(3) of this section will receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air an ATSC 
1.0 primary signal on the facilities of a host station, the that station will provide ATSC 1.0 service to at 
least 95 percent of the predicted population within the noise limited service contour of its original ATSC 
1.0 facility.
(6) Required information. 
(i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section must include the following information: 
(A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, identified by call sign and facility 
identification number, if applicable; 
(B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable; 
(C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA of each host station, if 
applicable; and 
(D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this section, if applicable; and
(E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to process the application. 
(ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on 
the facilities of a host station or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i), also indicate on the application: 
(A) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal; 
(B) The predicted population within the noise limited service contour served by the station's 
original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting 
simulcasting arrangement or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and 
(C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on the host station will serve 
at least 95 percent of the population in paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section. 
* * * * *
(j) Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station is not required to license, under paragraph (f) of this 
section, a “guest” multicast programming stream that it originates and which is aired on a host 
station.  If it chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest multicast streams must comply with 
the requirements of this section (including those otherwise applicable only to primary streams), 
except for paragraph (f)(5) and as otherwise provided in this paragraph.  For purposes of this Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
48section, a “multicast” stream refers to a video programming stream other than the primary video 
programming stream. 
(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 1.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.  Non-
simulcast streams are not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section. 
(i) Host Capacity Limit.  A Next Gen TV station that has converted its own facility to 3.0 
must not license more capacity on one or more partner host stations, in the aggregate, than 
the station could use if it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0.  It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.
(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams.  A Next Gen TV station may license its guest ATSC 3.0 multicast 
stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. 
(3) Children’s Television.  A Next Gen TV station may rely on a multicast stream it is airing via a 
host partner to comply with the Commission’s children’s television programming requirement in 
Section 73.671 of this Part.  Such a stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen 
TV station’s primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent of the predicted population 
served by the Next Gen TV station’s pre-transition 1.0 signal.
(4) Application Exhibit Required.  A Next Gen TV station seeking to license hosted multicast streams 
must prepare and host on its public website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does 
not have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph (f)(6)(i)(D) of this section.  The 
exhibit must contain the following:
(i) for each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); network affiliation (or type of 
programming if unaffiliated); resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the 
stream will be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other service; 
and
(ii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the host capacity limit.  It may do so by either showing that it is seeking 
hosting only for streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its transition to 
3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying or has carried the same or a similar 
programming lineup at the same resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or 
shared);
(iii) for a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the exhibit must also demonstrate 
compliance with the coverage requirement for guest multicast streams, including by 
providing a contour map showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the 
station’s community of license; and
(iv) Changes to the exhibit.  Changes to the affiliation or content of a stream that would not 
result in the use of additional capacity, the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive 
corrections may be made at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the Chief of the Media 
Bureau’s Video Division or their designee.  No other changes, including to the location of 
the exhibit itself, may be made without the filing and approval of a new application.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
49APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the Third Report and Order
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 as amended, an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Third FNPRM in this proceeding.2  The Federal Communications 
Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRMs, including 
comment on the IRFAs.  The Commission received no comments in response to either IRFA.  This 
present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order
2. In the first Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission authorized television 
broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV transmission standard, also called “ATSC 3.0” or “3.0,” on a 
voluntary, market-driven basis.  ATSC 3.0 is the new TV transmission standard developed by the 
Advanced Television Systems Committee as the world’s first Internet Protocol (IP)-based broadcast 
transmission platform.  The Commission determined in the Next Gen TV Report and Order that 
broadcasters that deploy ATSC 3.0 generally must continue to deliver current-generation digital television 
(DTV) service, using the ATSC 1.0 transmission standard, also called “ATSC 1.0” or “1.0,” to their 
viewers through local simulcasting.  Specifically, the Commission required full power and Class A TV 
stations deploying ATSC 3.0 service to simulcast the primary video programming stream of their ATSC 
3.0 channel in an ATSC 1.0 format.
3. The Commission determined in the Next Gen TV Report and Order that the local 
simulcasting requirement is crucial to the deployment of Next Gen TV service in order to minimize 
viewer disruption.  The Next Gen TV standard is not backward-compatible with existing TV sets or 
receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners.  This means that consumers will not be able to 
view ATSC 3.0 transmissions on their existing televisions without additional equipment.  Thus, it is 
critical that Next Gen TV broadcasters continue to provide service using the current ATSC 1.0 standard 
while the marketplace adopts devices compatible with the new 3.0 transmission standard in order to avoid 
either forcing viewers to acquire new equipment or depriving them of television service.  A TV station 
cannot, as a technical matter, broadcast in both 1.0 and 3.0 format from the same facility.  Therefore, local 
simulcasting will be effectuated through voluntary partnerships that broadcasters that wish to provide 
Next Gen TV service must enter into with other broadcasters in their local markets.  Next Gen TV 
broadcasters must partner with another television station (i.e., a temporary “host” station) in their local 
market to either: (1) air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the temporary host’s facility, while using their original 
facility to continue to provide an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel, or (2) air an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel 
at the temporary host’s facility, while converting their original facility to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order 
to provide a 3.0 channel. 
4. In this Third Report and Order, we adopt changes to our ATSC 3.0 (3.0 or Next Gen TV) 
rules considered in both the Second FNPRM (or Multicast Licensing FNPRM) and Third FNPRM (or 
Sunsets FNPRM).  In the first part of this Order, the Commission generally adopts the rules proposed in 
the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, establishing a licensing regime for Next Gen TV stations’ 
multicast streams that are aired on host stations during the transition period.  These rules facilitate and 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2 Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd at 16113, Appendix B (2021) (Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM); 
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-47, 2022 WL 2290237, Appendix A (rel. Jun. 22, 2022) 
(Next Gen TV Sunsets FNPRM).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
50encourage Next Gen TV stations to preserve consumer access to multicast programming in 1.0 format 
during the voluntary ATSC 3.0 transition.  They will provide the industry with regulatory certainty about 
the legal treatment of licensed multicast streams; clarify that the originating station (and not the host 
station) is responsible for regulatory compliance regarding a multicast stream being aired on a host 
station; give the Commission clear enforcement authority over the originating station in the event of a rule 
violation on the hosted multicast programming stream; and facilitate NCE stations’ 3.0 deployment by 
allowing them to serve as hosts to commercial stations’ multicast streams.  The Commission recognizes 
that allowing Next Gen TV stations to seek modification of their license to include capacity on multiple 
host stations represents a significant departure from its present licensing regime.  The Commission finds 
that doing so is appropriate because it is limited to the temporary broadcast transition to 3.0 and to 
specific situations for which there is a clear need. 
5. In the second part of this Order, the Commission retains the substantially similar rule and 
requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard until July 17, 2027.  The substantially similar rule 
requires that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV station’s ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel be 
“substantially similar” to that of the primary video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.4  This 
means that the programming must be the same, except for programming features that are based on the 
enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0 and promotions for upcoming programs.5  In this Order, the 
Commission finds that this rule remains necessary to protect consumers by ensuring that over-the-air 
(OTA) viewers who rely on 1.0 are able to continue watching the same programming they watch today, as 
well as any new programming offerings on a broadcaster’s primary channel that can be reasonably 
provided in 1.0 format.  The Commission finds that there has not yet been a sufficient shift in the 
marketplace that would justify elimination or modification of the substantially similar rule.  The 
requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard, which applies only to Next Gen TV broadcasters’ 
primary video programming stream, provides certainty to consumers, television receiver manufacturers, 
and MVPDs that 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 TV equipment will be able to receive all 3.0 primary broadcast 
signals.  In this Order, the Commission finds that this rule remains necessary at this time to protect 
consumers and other stakeholders.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
6. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed 
in the IRFA of either the Second or Third FNPRM.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
7. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.6  
4 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1); First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 
9942-43, para. 22.  The substantially similar rule is independent of the requirement for Next Gen TV broadcasters to 
simulcast in 1.0 format, a requirement that does not have a sunset date.  See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 
74.782(b).
5 Such enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in ATSC 1.0 format include:  targeted 
advertisements, “hyper-localized” content (e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, and hyper-local 
news), programming features or improvements created for the 3.0 service (e.g., emergency alert “wake up” ability 
and interactive programming features), enhanced formats made possible by 3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR), and 
any personalization of programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer’s discretion.  See 47 CFR §§ 
73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1).
6 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
518. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.7  The RFA generally defines 
the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” 
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”8  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as 
the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.9  A small business concern is one 
which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.10  Below, we provide a description of such 
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
10.Television Broadcasting.  This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”11  These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.12  These 
establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may 
originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small.13  2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the 
entire year.14  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.15  Based on this data we 
estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size 
standard. 
11. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations.16  Of 
this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to 
7 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
8 Id. § 601(6).
9 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
10 15 U.S.C. § 632.
11 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
12 Id.
13 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120). 
14 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
15 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
16 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
52Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database (MAPro) on 
January 13, 2023,17 and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  In 
addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV 
translator stations.18  The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to 
financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many 
of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.  Nevertheless, given 
the SBA’s large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station 
licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small 
business size standard.
12.Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired communications networks.19  Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a 
combination of technologies.  Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network 
facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including 
VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet 
services.20  By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.21  Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.22 
13. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.23  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.24  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.25  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged 
17 BIA Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database, 
http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro (last visited on Jan. 13, 2023).
18 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022. 
19 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Fixed Local Service Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax 
CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
Audio Bridge Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Local Resellers fall into another U.S. Census 
Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is not included in this industry.  
23 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
25 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
53in the provision of fixed local services.26  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.27  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.  
14.Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation).  The Commission has developed its 
own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, 
a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.28  Based on industry 
data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S.29  Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 
subscribers.30  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 
15,000 or fewer subscribers.31  Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in 
the U.S.32  Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers.33  Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small. 
15.Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States 
and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.”34  For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable 
system operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet 
the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public 
Notice.35  Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers.36  
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this 
size standard.  We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
26 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/pubId.lic/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
27 Id.
28 47 CFR § 76.901(d).  
29 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited May 26, 2022).
30 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022); S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).
31 47 CFR § 76.901(c).  
32 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited May 26, 2022).
33 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022).
34 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).
35 FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2225 (CSB 2001) (2001 Subscriber Count PN).  In this Public Notice, the Commission determined that there were 
approximately 67.7 million cable subscribers in the United States at that time using the most reliable source publicly 
available.  Id.  We recognize that the number of cable subscribers changed since then and that the Commission has 
recently estimated the number of cable subscribers to traditional and telco cable operators to be approximately 58.1 
million.  See Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60, 2020 Communications Marketplace 
Report, 36 FCC Rcd 2945, 3049, para. 156 (2020) (2020 Communications Marketplace Report).  However, because 
the Commission has not issued a public notice subsequent to the 2001 Subscriber Count PN, the Commission still 
relies on the subscriber count threshold established by the 2001 Subscriber Count PN for purposes of this rule.  See 
47 CFR § 76.901(e)(1).
36 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022); S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
54million.37  Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable 
system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications 
Act.
16.Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service.  DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” 
antenna at the subscriber’s location.  DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry 
which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and 
video using wired telecommunications networks.38  Transmission facilities may be based on a single 
technology or combination of technologies.39  Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband internet services.40  By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.41  
17. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.42  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 
firms operated in this industry for the entire year.43  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.44   Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under 
the SBA small business size standard.  According to Commission data however, only two entities provide 
DBS service - DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for 
operation.45  DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a 
small business.  Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general 
DBS service is provided only by large firms.
18.Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable 
Operators (PCOs).  SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed 
transmission paths without using any public right-of-way.  They acquire video programming and 
37 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(e) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR § 76.910(b).
38 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
39 Id.
40 See id.  Included in this industry are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone 
carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed-circuit 
television (CCTV) services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; 
direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution 
systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (MMDS).
41 Id. 
42 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
44 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
45 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eighteenth Report, Table III.A.5, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 595 (Jan. 17, 2017).  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
55distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and 
condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings.  SMATV 
systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers’ industry which includes 
wireline telecommunications businesses.46  The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.47  U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.48  
Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.49  Thus under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
19.Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service.  HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite 
industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of 
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency.  Unlike DBS, which uses 
small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of 
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that 
are licensed to facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video programming.  Because HSD provides subscription 
services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers.50  The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or 
fewer employees as small.51  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that 
operated for the entire year.52  Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.53  Thus, 
under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
20.Open Video Systems.  The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996 
and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local 
exchange carriers.  The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming 
other than through cable systems.  OVS operators provide subscription services and therefore fall within 
the SBA small business size standard for the cable services industry, which is “Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.”54  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.55  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
46 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
47 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
48 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
49 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
50 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
51 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
53 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
54 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
55 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
563,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.56  Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees.57  Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this industry can 
be considered small.  Additionally, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators who 
are now providing service and broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant 
holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.  The Commission does not have financial or 
employment information for the entities authorized to provide OVS however, the Commission believes 
some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
21.Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  Broadband Radio 
Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel 
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,”58 transmit video programming to 
subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).59  Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS 
often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable 
and other multichannel video programming distributors.  Wireless cable programming to subscribers 
resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.60    
22. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite).61  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.62  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.63  Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
57 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
58 The use of the term "wireless cable" does not imply that it constitutes cable television for statutory or regulatory 
purposes.
59 See 47 CFR § 27.4; see also Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing 
Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and 
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
60 Generally, a wireless cable system may be described as a microwave station transmitting on a combination of 
BRS and EBS channels to numerous receivers with antennas, such as single-family residences, apartment 
complexes, hotels, educational institutions, business entities and governmental offices. The range of the transmission 
depends upon the transmitter power, the type of receiving antenna and the existence of a line-of-sight path between 
the transmitter or signal booster and the receiving antenna.
61 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
62 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
63 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
57fewer than 250 employees.64  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
23. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 
active BRS and EBS licenses.65  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to BRS 
involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these 
services.  For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small 
businesses.  A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.66  Of the ten winning bidders for BRS 
licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very 
small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses.67  
One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has 
an active licenses as of December 2021.68   
24. The Commission’s small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very 
small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five 
(5) years.69  In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a 
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
25.Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers.  
64 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
65 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR, ED; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note 
that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more 
licenses.
66 See 47 CFR § 27.1218(a). 
67 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 86: Broadband Radio 
Service, Summary, Reports, All Bidders, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/86/charts/86bidder.xls. 
68 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
69 See 47 CFR § 27.1219(a). Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
58Wired Telecommunications Carriers70 is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard.71  
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small.72  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 
in this industry that operated for the entire year.73  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.74  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring 
Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers.75  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees.76  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small 
entities.
26.Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers.77  
Wired Telecommunications Carriers78 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.  
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small.79  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 
that operated in this industry for the entire year.80  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.81  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring 
Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local 
70 See  U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
71 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
72 Id.
73 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
74 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
75 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf.
76 Id.
77 Competitive Local Exchange Service Providers include the following types of providers: Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP 
Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, 
Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers.
78 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
79 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
80 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
81 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
59exchange service providers.82  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,808 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees.83 Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these 
providers can be considered small entities.  
27.Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.84  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.85  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.86  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.87  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.88  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
28.Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and 
public address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made by these establishments 
are video cassette recorders, televisions, stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video 
cameras, jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address systems.89  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies firms with 750 employees or less as small.90  According 
to 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data, 464 firms in this industry operated that year.91  Of this number, 399 
firms operated with less than 250 employees.92  Based on this data and the associated SBA size standard, 
we conclude that the majority of firms in this industry are small.
82 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/pubId.lic/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
83 Id.
84 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220. 
85 Id.
86 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
87 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/31SG2//naics~334220
88 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
89 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334310&year=2017&details=334310.
90 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310.
91 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334310, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334310&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
92 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. We also note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms 
that operated for the entire year and the number of firms that operated with 5 to 9 employees, to avoid disclosing 
data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for “Firms operated for the entire year” and “Firms operated for the 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
60E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
29. The Order modifies our Next Gen TV licensing processes to include additional reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance for small entities that seek to include hosted multicast streams 
within their license. While the Commission is not in a position to determine whether small entities will 
have to hire professionals to comply with our decisions and cannot quantify the cost of compliance for 
small entities, as discussed in the Order, the approaches we have taken to implement the requirements for 
Next Gen TV multicasting have minimal cost implications for impacted entities. 
30. As discussed in section A of this FRFA, this Order establishes a licensing regime for 
Next Gen TV stations’ multicast streams that are aired on host stations (as guest streams) during the 
transition period.  The Order applies the licensing process for primary simulcast streams to guest 
multicast streams.  Thus, Next Gen TV broadcasters that choose to deploy ATSC 3.0 service and seek to 
license guest multicast streams aired on a host station are subject to certain reporting, recordkeeping, or 
other compliance requirements.  
31. A Next Gen TV broadcaster seeking to license one or more guest multicast streams aired 
on a host station (multicast license applicant) is subject to the host capacity limit (discussed in section 
III.D. of this Order).  That is, a Next Gen TV station may not use more 1.0 host capacity than it could 
have used if it were still broadcasting in 1.0 on its own facilities.  A multicast license applicant is also 
subject to most requirements applicable to primary streams, including rules concerning signal coverage, 
simulcast agreements, MVPD notice and on-air consumer notice requirements for each guest multicast 
stream (discussed in section III.H. of this Order).93  
32. All multicast license applicants, including small entities, must file an application (Form 
2100) to modify its license with the Commission and receive prior Commission approval.  This requires 
the applicant must prepare an exhibit identifying each guest stream and provide the following information 
about each stream, as broadcast: the host station; channel number (RF and virtual); network affiliation (or 
type of programming if unaffiliated); resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); the predicted 
percentage of population within the noise limited service contour served by the station’s original ATSC 
1.0 signal that will be served by the host, with a contour overlay map identifying areas of service loss and, 
in the case of 1.0 streams, coverage of the originating station’s community of license; and whether the 
stream will be simulcast, and if so, the “paired” stream in the other service.  Finally, the exhibit must 
either state that the applicant will be airing the same programming that it is airing in 1.0 at the time of the 
application or identify the station that has aired or is airing the same or a similar programming lineup at 
the same resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared), as well as that station’s lineup 
(with resolutions).  This exhibit must be placed on the applicant’s public website, with a link provided in 
the application.
(Continued from previous page)  
entire year with 5 to 9 employees”).  Therefore, the number of firms with employees that meet the SBA size 
standard would be higher that noted herein.  
93 See 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(a) and (e), 73.6029(a) and (e), 74.782(a) and (f) (simulcast arrangements and 
agreements); 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 73.6029(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 74.782(e) and (g)(5)-(6) ( DMA and 
community of license coverage requirements); 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(h), 73.6029(h), 74.782(i) ( MVPD notice 
requirements); 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), 74.782(h) (on-air viewer notices); and 47 CFR §§ 73.3801(f)(2), 
73.6029(f)(2), 74.782(g)(2) (licensing procedures).  Regarding coverage, a Next Gen TV station’s 1.0 guest 
multicast streams aired on a host must continue to cover its (the guest station’s) entire community of license and the 
host and guest stations must be assigned to the same DMA.  For 3.0 multicast streams aired on a host channel, only 
the DMA requirement applies.  When determining whether a station seeking to transition is eligible for expedited 
processing, the Commission will consider only whether the primary stream will remain available in 1.0 to at least 
95% of a station’s current OTA audience.  A multicast license applicant generally must enter into a written simulcast 
agreement and provide such agreement to the Commission upon request.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
6133. The Order also retains for another four years two existing compliance requirements for 
all stations, including small entities, and eliminates the sunset dates for these requirements.  The Order 
retains the “substantially similar” rule (see section III.I. of this Order).  This rule requires that the 
programming aired on a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel be “substantially similar” to 
that of the primary video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.   This means that the 
programming must be the same, except for programming features that are based on the enhanced 
capabilities of ATSC 3.0, including targeted advertisements, and promotions for upcoming programs.  
This rule will now expire in 2027absent Commission action.  The Order retains the requirement to 
comply with the ATSC A/322 standard (“Physical Layer Protocol”) (A/322) (see section III.J of this 
Order), which is the standard that defines the waveforms that ATSC 3.0 signals may take.  The 
requirement to comply with A/322 will now expire in 2027 absent Commission action.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
34. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than 
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”94 
35. The Commission has authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV (ATSC 
3.0) standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis.  As observed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis of the 2017 First Next Gen TV Report and Order,95 this means that broadcasters decide whether 
(and if so when) to deploy ATSC 3.0 service and bear the costs associated with such deployment.  All 
broadcasters, including small entities, will need to undertake any costs or burdens associated with ATSC 
3.0 service should they choose to do so.  
36. The rules concerning multicast licensing provide increased flexibility to broadcasters 
without imposing additional obligations.  By expanding the ability of broadcasters to place licensed 
streams on additional host partners, the rules may allow small broadcast entities transitioning to ATSC 
3.0 to experience positive economic impacts through partnerships with unaffiliated third parties.  NCE 
television stations in particular, both large and small, will experience positive benefits from the rules, 
which could improve their ability to participate in the transition to Next Gen TV.  Although we intended 
to limit certain simulcast multicast stream relief only to NCE stations or commercial stations airing 
multicast streams on NCE partner hosts,96 we will instead allow any Next Gen TV station to apply for this 
relief under the non-expedited process, but emphasize that all applicants, including small entities, must 
demonstrate why this relief is in the public interest and outweighs any potential harms.  In addition, the 
multicast licensing approach minimizes administrative burdens for all broadcasters, including small 
broadcasters.  The rules streamline the current process whereby broadcasters request special temporary 
authority on a case-by-case basis.  We also considered concerns regarding the potential abuse of these 
rules in that the multicast streams may allow stations to evade local ownership rules.  Consistent with our 
previous decisions, hosting multicast streams on a temporary host station’s facility will not result in any 
94 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
95 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 10026-27, para. 32.  
96 Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 2021 WL 5182914 at *7, para. 19, n.74 (“For the purposes of this 
tentative conclusion, we consider similarly situated originating stations to be NCEs, or commercial stations working 
with NCE partner hosts, transitioning their own channel to 3.0, who are unable to find a partner 1.0 host that could, 
on its own, provide coverage of its primary stream to 95 percent of the applicant’s 1.0 service area.”).  In proposing 
this approach, we supported the Bureau’s prior decision, which found that “permitting NCE stations to participate in 
the ATSC 3.0 rollout arrangements in this manner is critical to the success of the transition.”  WNUV STA, at page 6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
62additional requirements for small entities related to television stations attribution (e.g., filing ownership 
reports).97  In finding that it is appropriate to limit a Next Gen TV station’s 1.0 host capacity to that which 
it could deploy on its own 1.0 channel, we determined that other alternatives related to proposed capacity 
limits would be overly restrictive to all stations, including small entities, and that the best metric will be 
the number and resolution of streams actually airing (or that previously actually aired) on specific 1.0 
facilities.  In retaining the rules that require stations, including small entities, to broadcast substantially 
similar programing to their primary streams, we rejected the alternatives presented by broadcasters that 
argued that market incentives would ensure OTA viewers have access to this programming. 
G. Report to Congress
37. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, in 
a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.98  In addition, the Commission 
will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA.  The Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.99
97 Next Gen TV First Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9972, n.237.  See also Promoting Broadcast Internet 
Innovation through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20-145, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 
FCC Rcd 5916, 5924, para. 15 (2020).
98 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
99 See id. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
63APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies proposed in this Fourth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Fourth FNPRM).  Written public comments are requested on 
this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the FNPRM provided on the first page of the FNPRM.  The Commission will send a copy 
of this entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 
2. In this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks 
to further its understanding of the current marketplace for ATSC 3.0 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) 
and the ability of third parties to develop products that rely upon them.  As the Commission has 
previously observed in this proceeding, the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), which 
developed the ATSC 3.0 standard, requires patent owners to disclose that they hold essential patents and 
to commit to licensing them on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.  The record developed 
in response to the Sunsets FNPRM, however, raises questions both about whether patentees are respecting 
these commitments and about the challenges faced in court by third parties seeking their enforcement.  In 
light of these concerns and the limits of the existing record, the Commission seeks additional comments 
about the general state of the market, particularly from parties that do not hold SEPs but have licensed or 
attempted to license them.  This will inform the Commission’s consideration of the need for, 
appropriateness of, and potential benefits of Commission rules governing the RAND licensing of SEPs. 
B. Legal Basis.
3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 
316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply.
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.4  The RFA generally defines 
the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” 
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”5  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as 
the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.6  A small business concern is one 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.  
4 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5 Id. § 601(6).
6 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
64which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.7  Below, we provide a description of such 
small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
5.Television Broadcasting.  This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”8  These establishments operate television broadcast 
studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.9  These 
establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may 
originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small.10  2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the 
entire year.11  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.12  Based on this data we 
estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size 
standard. 
6. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations.13  Of 
this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database (MAPro) on 
January 13, 2023,14 and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  In 
addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV 
translator stations.15  The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to 
financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many 
of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.  Nevertheless, given 
the SBA’s large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station 
licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small 
business size standard.
(Continued from previous page)  
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such 
definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
7 15 U.S.C. § 632.
8 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
9 Id.
10 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120). 
11 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
12 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
13 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022. 
14 BIA Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database, 
http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro (last visited on Jan. 13, 2023).
15 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
657.Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired communications networks.16  Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a 
combination of technologies.  Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network 
facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including 
VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet 
services.17  By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.18  Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.19 
8. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.20  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.21  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.22  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged 
in the provision of fixed local services.23  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.24  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.  
9.Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation).  The Commission has developed its 
own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, 
a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.25  Based on industry 
data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S.26  Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 
subscribers.27  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 
16 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Fixed Local Service Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax 
CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
Audio Bridge Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Local Resellers fall into another U.S. Census 
Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is not included in this industry.  
20 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
21 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
22 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
23 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/pubId.lic/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
24 Id.
25 47 CFR § 76.901(d).  
26 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited May 26, 2022).
27 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022); S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
6615,000 or fewer subscribers.28  Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in 
the U.S.29  Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers.30  Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small. 
10.Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States 
and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.”31  For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable 
system operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet 
the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public 
Notice.32  Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers.33  
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this 
size standard.  We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
million.34  Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable 
system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications 
Act.
11.Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service.  DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” 
antenna at the subscriber’s location.  DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry 
which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and 
video using wired telecommunications networks.35  Transmission facilities may be based on a single 
technology or combination of technologies.36  Establishments in this industry use the wired 
28 47 CFR § 76.901(c).  
29 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited May 26, 2022).
30 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022).
31 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).
32 FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2225 (CSB 2001) (2001 Subscriber Count PN).  In this Public Notice, the Commission determined that there were 
approximately 67.7 million cable subscribers in the United States at that time using the most reliable source publicly 
available.  Id.  We recognize that the number of cable subscribers changed since then and that the Commission has 
recently estimated the number of cable subscribers to traditional and telco cable operators to be approximately 58.1 
million.  See Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60, 2020 Communications Marketplace 
Report, 36 FCC Rcd 2945, 3049, para. 156 (2020) (2020 Communications Marketplace Report).  However, because 
the Commission has not issued a public notice subsequent to the 2001 Subscriber Count PN, the Commission still 
relies on the subscriber count threshold established by the 2001 Subscriber Count PN for purposes of this rule.  See 
47 CFR § 76.901(e)(1).
33 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited May 26, 2022); S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).
34 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(e) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR § 76.910(b).
35 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
36 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
67telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband internet services.37  By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.38  
12. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.39  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 
firms operated in this industry for the entire year.40  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.41   Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under 
the SBA small business size standard.  According to Commission data however, only two entities provide 
DBS service - DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for 
operation.42  DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a 
small business.  Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general 
DBS service is provided only by large firms.
13.Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable 
Operators (PCOs).  SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed 
transmission paths without using any public right-of-way.  They acquire video programming and 
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and 
condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings.  SMATV 
systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers’ industry which includes 
wireline telecommunications businesses.43  The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.44  U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.45  
37 See id.  Included in this industry are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone 
carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed-circuit 
television (CCTV) services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; 
direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution 
systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (MMDS).
38 Id. 
39 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
41 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
42 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eighteenth Report, Table III.A.5, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 595 (Jan. 17, 2017).  
43 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
44 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
45 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
68Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.46  Thus under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
14.Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service.  HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite 
industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of 
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency.  Unlike DBS, which uses 
small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of 
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that 
are licensed to facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video programming.  Because HSD provides subscription 
services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers.47  The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or 
fewer employees as small.48  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that 
operated for the entire year.49  Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.50  Thus, 
under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
15.Open Video Systems.  The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996 
and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local 
exchange carriers.  The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming 
other than through cable systems.  OVS operators provide subscription services and therefore fall within 
the SBA small business size standard for the cable services industry, which is “Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.”51  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.52  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.53  Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees.54  Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this industry can 
be considered small.  Additionally, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators who 
are now providing service and broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant 
holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises.  The Commission does not have financial or 
employment information for the entities authorized to provide OVS however, the Commission believes 
some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
46 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
47 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
48 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
49 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
50 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
51 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
52 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
53 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
54 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
6916.Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  Broadband Radio 
Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel 
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,”55 transmit video programming to 
subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).56  Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS 
often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable 
and other multichannel video programming distributors.  Wireless cable programming to subscribers 
resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.57    
17. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite).58  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.59  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.60  Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees.61  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
18. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 
active BRS and EBS licenses.62  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to BRS 
involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these 
services.  For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small 
businesses.  A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
55 The use of the term "wireless cable" does not imply that it constitutes cable television for statutory or regulatory 
purposes.
56 See 47 CFR § 27.4; see also Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing 
Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and 
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
57 Generally, a wireless cable system may be described as a microwave station transmitting on a combination of 
BRS and EBS channels to numerous receivers with antennas, such as single-family residences, apartment 
complexes, hotels, educational institutions, business entities and governmental offices. The range of the transmission 
depends upon the transmitter power, the type of receiving antenna and the existence of a line-of-sight path between 
the transmitter or signal booster and the receiving antenna.
58 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
59 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
60 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
61 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
62 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR, ED; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note 
that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more 
licenses.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
70average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.63  Of the ten winning bidders for BRS 
licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very 
small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses.64  
One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has 
an active licenses as of December 2021.65   
19. The Commission’s small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very 
small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five 
(5) years.66  In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a 
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
20.Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers.  
Wired Telecommunications Carriers67 is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard.68  
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small.69  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 
in this industry that operated for the entire year.70  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.71  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring 
Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent local 
63 See 47 CFR § 27.1218(a). 
64 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 86: Broadband Radio 
Service, Summary, Reports, All Bidders, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/86/charts/86bidder.xls. 
65 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
66 See 47 CFR § 27.1219(a). 
67 See  U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
68 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
69 Id.
70 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
71 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
71exchange service providers.72  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees.73  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small 
entities.
21.Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers.74  
Wired Telecommunications Carriers75 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard.  
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small.76  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 
that operated in this industry for the entire year.77  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.78  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring 
Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers.79  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,808 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees.80  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these 
providers can be considered small entities.  
22.Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.81  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.82  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.83  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
72 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf.
73 Id.
74 Competitive Local Exchange Service Providers include the following types of providers: Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP 
Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, 
Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers.
75 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.
76 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311(as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
77 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
78 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
79 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/pubId.lic/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
80 Id.
81 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220. 
82 Id.
83 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
72firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.84  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.85  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
23.Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and 
public address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made by these establishments 
are video cassette recorders, televisions, stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video 
cameras, jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address systems.86  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies firms with 750 employees or less as small.87  According 
to 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data, 464 firms in this industry operated that year.88  Of this number, 399 
firms operated with less than 250 employees.89  Based on this data and the associated SBA size standard, 
we conclude that the majority of firms in this industry are small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements.
24. The Fourth FNPRM considers whether to adopt rules governing the RAND licensing of 
SEPs.  The Fourth FNPRM does not propose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  In 
assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, at this time the Commission cannot quantify the cost 
of compliance with any of the potential rule changes that may be adopted.  Further, the Commission is not 
in a position to determine whether, if adopted, the proposals and matters upon which we seek comment in 
the Fourth FNPRM will require small entities to hire professionals to comply.  We expect the information 
we receive in comments including where requested, cost information, to help the Commission identify 
and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, including compliance costs and other burdens 
that may result from potential changes discussed in the Fourth FNPRM.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant 
Alternatives Considered.
25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) 
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account 
84 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/31SG2//naics~334220
85 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
86 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334310&year=2017&details=334310.
87 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334310.
88 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms 
for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334310, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334310&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
89 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. We also note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms 
that operated for the entire year and the number of firms that operated with 5 to 9 employees, to avoid disclosing 
data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for “Firms operated for the entire year” and “Firms operated for the 
entire year with 5 to 9 employees”).  Therefore, the number of firms with employees that meet the SBA size 
standard would be higher that noted herein.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-53
73the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, 
rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.”90 
26. The Commission has authorized television broadcasters, including small entities, to use 
the Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis, allowing them to decide 
whether (and if so when) to deploy ATSC 3.0 service and bear the costs associated with such deployment.  
All stakeholders, including small entities, will need to undertake any costs or burdens associated with 
ATSC 3.0 service should they choose to do so.  The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), 
which developed the ATSC 3.0 standard, requires patent owners to disclose that they hold essential 
patents and to commit to licensing them on RAND terms.  In furthering our understanding of the current 
marketplace for ATSC 3.0 SEPs, we consider whether patentees, including small entities, are respecting 
these commitments and the challenges faced in court by the third parties seeking their enforcement.  
Among the alternatives we seek to consider is the degree to which the Commission should simply 
monitor the market or actively respond to license abuse and formalize RAND requirements for those who 
hold SEPs, including small entities.  Where there are problems in the SEP marketplace that could be 
improved, we consider if the Commission were to adopt rules requiring RAND licensing of SEPs, where 
such rules would facilitate licensing by equipment manufacturers.  We further consider how to minimize 
any adverse economic impact on the market, including small entities.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
27.None. 
90 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(4).