As word spread of LG Electronics’ decision to suspend ATSC 3.0 as a feature in its 2024 models in the U.S. following the loss of a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Constellation Designs, ATSC responded with a bulletin to members and interested parties on the “progress and growing pains” 3.0 has experienced as of late.
In it, ATSC president Madeleine Noland sought to reassure readers that the impact of the situation “is likely very limited,” citing “one prominent electronics industry market analyst.”
At the core of the issue is how digital symbols are transmitted in ATSC 3.0. The NextGen TV standard uses non-uniform constellation (NUC) to optimize inherent channel capacity. Constellation Designs' complaint arguedsthat Maged Barsoum and Christopher Jones—two of the company’s founders—developed this technique in 2007 while at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The complaint further quotes a Samsung press release underscoring NUC as a “key component” in the A/322 Physical Layer, saying it is critical to “generating the modulated symbols and optimizing the transmission capacity for all reception conditions.”
In July, a jury in the Marshall Division of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found LG willfully infringed on four Constellation Designs NUC-related patents and awarded the company $1.68 million—some $6.75 per 3.0 unit sold.
The decision raises questions about what this might mean more broadly for the industry as it rolls out 3.0 as well as how something like this happened when ATSC has a patent policy in place.
In this interview with Noland, the ATSC president talks with TV Tech Contributing Editor Phil Kurz about this and other questions raised by these growing pains and the progress the standard is making both at home and around the world.
(An edited transcript.)
TVTech: Let's start off with the basics. What was ATSC’s reaction to LG’s filing with the FCC informing the agency it will suspend sale of NextGen TV for the 2024 model year following its loss of the patent infringement case brought by Constellation Designs?
Madeleine Noland: Well, that did not come as good news. We recognize at the launch of a major new technology, there's definitely going to be bumps on the road, and there have been with this.
But I think the thing we need to remember about this is there's not a lot of information out there right now, and the information that is out there is rather scoped to a very niched spot for what's happening. I think the other thing ATSC keeps in mind is that history suggests that the marketplace works these types of things out.
I think it's a little bit counterproductive to speculate about what might or might not happen—the good, the bad or the ugly."
Madeleine Noland
You never know what's going to happen with any given situation. But we're hopeful that the marketplace will find its way forward and pursue paths that are going to be beneficial for the whole ecosystem.
TVT: I think one major concern involves the larger implications. When I asked the representative of the legal team representing Constellation Designs whether or not Constellation Designs had filed similar suits with regard to Sony, Samsung or other companies offering ATSC 3.0 enabled receivers, the answer wasn’t yes or no. It was basically "none of these players have secured licenses for use of the company’s non-uniform constellation technology." So, I think the bigger concern for the industry is, are we going to get muddled in some sort of legal morass that ultimately will impede the broadcast industry’s ability to advance its rollout of NextGen TV?
MN: It's so hard to predict what's going to happen, and from my perspective until there's something that demonstrates that the scope of this is changing my feeling is let's keep on our path. We are expecting to have New York City launched soon. We're excited about the new set-top boxes that are coming out.
I think it's a little bit counterproductive to speculate about what might or might not happen—the good, the bad or the ugly. We just don't know yet, and we have a lot of progress being made. We're going to keep making that progress. It's too early to say what may or may not happen, and we need to go on the facts that we have today in front of us.
TVT: How does something like this happen? According to the Constellation Designs legal filing, the company’s non-uniform constellation technology is fundamental to the physical layer of ATSC 3.0. How did the industry get to this point?
MN: ATSC’s patent policy requires all the participants to disclose their patents and to either agree to RAND [reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing] or that they don't agree to RAND and disclose that. That gives the ATSC membership and board of directors an opportunity to decide whether or not a given technology should or should not be in the system.
Patent policy relies upon the compliance of the participants. So, from ATSC’s point of view, we rely on our members and all the participants to disclose the patents that they have and to include them on the website. It's always possible that one of our members or participants has not. For whatever reason, something came out of the woodwork that they didn't anticipate. It can happen. So, I think that when things like that do happen again it's just a question of working through it with the parties involved and seeking a solution that's going to work for the ecosystem.
TVT: Is Constellation Designs a member of ATSC?
MN: They are not.
TVT: Is there a provision to deal with patents that are relevant to the standard that are held by non-members?
MN: The ATSC patent policy recognizes that ATSC itself is not in a position to do deep patent searches on all the patents that are coming out for a given standard, so, the patent policy relies on its members to do this due diligence. As I say, you know, it happens that a due diligence search may or may not have turned up absolutely everything, in which case, we do look to those members who are impacted to work with the marketplace and figure out the best next steps.
TVT: Is there any movement by the ATSC working group, committee or sub-group responsible for patent policy to revisit the organization’s patent procedures to protect against a similar situation in the future?
MN: Certainly, the ATSC board of directors is watching the situation very closely. We've had conversations about the patent policy, and we would adjust the patent policy if at the end of the day, the board of directors feels it's necessary. The patent policy and other policy documents are the purview of the board. And the board is, as I say, keeping a close eye on what's happening here.
TVT: What's your message to broadcasters as they're watching all this play out when it comes to planning their future deployments and business models?
MN: Interestingly, we have found that the broadcasters are moving forward as before. I have not heard broadcasters talking about changes of plans or changing directions as a result of this.
Again, my feeling is both for broadcasters as well as others need to take it for what it is at face value right now. We simply don't know what may or may not happen in the future. And the plans that the broadcasters had to launch in New York and a few other markets, including Chicago, hopefully soon, seem to be rolling forward as before, to my knowledge.
So, in a way, I think that we can all follow suit with the broadcasters rather than us trying to send a message to the broadcasters. We can watch what the broadcasters do, and they're just going forward. I think that they see that this is going to ultimately have a solution that's going to work and that their plans are going ahead.
TVT: What can you tell me about the New York launch of NextGen TV?
MN: I'm excited about New York because we are going to have our public broadcast station WNET up and running. What's also exciting about New York is that a second transmitter is scheduled as well. So, the first transmitter coming online will be the public broadcaster, and then later on there's another transmitter that's scheduled. I think both are supposed to be lit up this year.
TVT: What’s the latest developments from Brazil?
MN: I’m very excited about Brazil. Brazil started their process of defining their second generation, what they are calling their "TV 3.0" digital system. They started that process back in 2020, and since then they've gone through a development of requirements, a call for proposals, combing through the responses to all the proposals. ATSC 3.0 was among them.
(Read: Where in the World is ATSC 3.0?)
Basically, they are selecting layer by layer which technology that they're going to use. They weren't sort of doing one-stop shopping. They were saying: “Let's pick the best video.” “Let's pick the best audio.” “Let's pick the best transport.”
We're pretty excited that they have so far chosen almost all ATSC 3.0 technologies. There are two exceptions. So far, they've chosen ROUTE/DASH for transport, MPEG-H audio, ISMC1 caption and ATSC emergency messaging.
The one that they are going to do is have VVC instead of HEVC, which is logical because they're coming a little bit after ATSC. But we're going to catch up to them. We're adding VVC, too, to the 3.0 standards. So, it'll all be one, pretty soon. Then the other one is their interactive system. They are keeping their homegrown system that they've been using for years. So that was never really on the table for a new proponent to come in.
So, the last piece is the physical layer. There were four proponents for that. At one point earlier this year, one of the proponents withdrew, which took it down to three. Three proponents were in lab testing. Their plan was that when the lab tests concluded that they would take two of the three proponents to testing in the field.
I'm very pleased to announce that ATSC 3.0 is one of the two systems that's advancing to the field. So, we will be undergoing field testing with one other system. The expectation is field testing will conclude late in Q1 next year.
By then, they will have recommended their full suite of layer technologies, and we'll be moving forward from there. So, we're excited by what's happening.
TVT: Is there any concern that this whole patent issue related to non-uniform constellation modulation, which is an integral part of the physical layer, will have a negative effect on Brazil’s decision about what to choose?
MN: Interesting question. By no means is ATSC a patent attorney, and we are not in a position to predict what is or isn't going to happen. However, we have researched the matter.
There are a couple of data points I think are worth mentioning. One is that looking at an international patent search for Constellation Designs, and not having done a completely deep dive, but at least looking at a reasonable level, it appears that the patent is granted in five countries. Brazil is not one of those countries.
What that exactly means, I'm not 100% sure. But ATSC is working with its counsel to try to understand the nuances.
I think the other thing that's worth mentioning is that one of the countries that they do have it in is Japan, which is the source of the other physical layer standard that's being tested [in Brazil]. Presumably, and I can't say this, for sure, but I would think that it's entirely possible that that standard also has non-uniform constellations in it.
So, when you look at the landscape as it stands right now, it would seem that a couple of things are happening: If non-uniform court constellations are in the other system, which is originating out of Japan, there may be a similar situation. I don't know.
The other thing is that the patents don't appear, at least not at this moment, to exist in Brazil. So, I don't know how it's going to impact things. But these are the things we've been able to uncover so far, and we're communicating transparently with the Brazilians about what we're finding.
TVT: Finally, what’s the update on ATSC 3.0 in India?
MN: Funny you should ask. I was up at 3:00 in the morning Pacific Time today to do a webinar at a TSDSI [Telecommunications Standards Development Society, India] technical deep dive conference talking about converged networks.
In India, what's happening is the TSDSI, which is their telecommunication standards development organization and a partner of the 3GPP [mobile broadband standards group] have adopted or transposed –I forget which terminology they exactly use—ATSC 3.0 as their own.
Currently, the Indian regulatory authorities are in a comment period to help decide whether or not to make ATSC 3.0, as adopted by TSDSI an Indian national standard. If they do that, that paves the way for ATSC 3.0 to be deployed in India.
Right now, it is deployed on an experimental basis. There's a major proof of concept field trial going on in Delhi. But I think that if the Indian regulator were to permit 3.0 as an Indian national standard that would open up some doors. That said, unlike Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, South Korea and Brazil, there's no government mandate within India to make a change at all, let alone to ATSC 3.0 or any other system.
So right now, they're very much in the testing phase, understanding and paving the way for what they may or may not do in the future. But I think that it is important to note with India, that they really are highly motivated to have a direct-to-mobile broadcasting solution. And that's pretty exciting.
TVT: Is it reasonable to think that with India’s direct-to-mobile strategy and its population of more than 1 billion people, that if 3.0 is permitted as a national standard that 3.0 mobile reception—that is in cell phones—will get a big boost?
MN: Certainly, I think that what's interesting about India is, as you point out, it's such a large market, that you could argue they can create scale, unilaterally within the country. That certainly is pretty exciting if that were to come to pass.
