I have been following the shifts in over-the-air television for some time, particularly the ongoing debate over the ATSC 3.0 standard. While major broadcasters continue to push for encryption and digital rights management (DRM) through NextGen TV, a different path is emerging for low-power television stations across the United States. A new proposal centered on 5G broadcast technology is currently before the FCC, offering a potential alternative that could change how signals are received on mobile devices and home tuners alike – and its backers are pledging not to encrypt the broadcast signal – but it’s important to read their fine print.
Learn more in my latest video!
Unlike traditional 5G cellular communication, which involves a two-way exchange between a phone and a tower, 5G broadcast operates as a one-to-many system. It sends data out from a single source to any device capable of receiving it, much like a traditional radio or television signal. Because it utilizes the same fundamental technology as modern smartphones, it could allow users to watch television on their devices without a cellular subscription or a data plan, provided the hardware is equipped with a compatible antenna.
One of the primary arguments for 5G broadcast is the promise of open access. HC2 Broadcasting Holdings, which owns a significant number of low-power stations, recently informed the FCC that their implementation would remain free-to-air without the use of DRM or paywalls. This stands in contrast to the current rollout of NextGen TV, where encryption has complicated the manufacturing of set-top boxes and slowed consumer adoption. Supporters of the 5G standard argue that it would be less expensive for manufacturers to integrate this technology into smartphones and boxes than it would be to comply with the complex encryption standards currently required by the major broadcasters.
The proposal includes specific limitations that warrant closer examination. While HC2 has pledged to keep signals unencrypted, they are seeking permission to broadcast at the bare minimum – only 480i—the standard definition used in the analog era. This would allow them to satisfy the legal requirement for broadcasting while leaving the majority of their spectrum available for other more profitable data services. In earlier filings, the group even suggested they might prefer to use their spectrum entirely for data casting rather than television, a move that the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has rightly criticized as failing to serve the public interest.
The tension between large and small broadcasters is evident in recent FCC filings. Sinclair Broadcast Group and the NAB have both voiced opposition to the 5G proposal, arguing that ATSC 3.0 should remain the single national standard. This creates a rift within the industry, as many low-power stations are members of the NAB yet find their interests aligned with the 5G alternative.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm has emerged as a significant ally for 5G broadcast, suggesting that the hardware required for smartphones to receive these signals is attainable and could be implemented without significant added costs to the consumer.
Beyond daily entertainment, there are potential applications for emergency services. Instead of receiving a simple text message during a crisis, a 5G broadcast signal could deliver rich media, such as live video feeds or detailed maps, to millions of devices simultaneously without straining existing cellular networks. This capability could satisfy the public benefit requirements that all broadcasters must meet in exchange for using the public airwaves.
The ATSC organization has taken a relatively neutral stance, urging the FCC to be cautious but not outright opposing the development of additional standards. As the FCC considers whether to allow further experimentation or a formal rulemaking process for 5G broadcast, the focus remains on balancing technological innovation with the public’s right to access free television.
Whether the market can support multiple standards or if the current friction will lead to a single unified path depends on how these technical and regulatory hurdles are resolved in the coming months.
