1Remarks of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Luncheon Meeting of the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers
September 16, 2016
Good afternoon and thank you so much for hosting me today, with a fine lunch as well.  
Discussions at the Commission often have the tendency to focus on rhetorical arguments, so I greatly 
appreciate this organization’s function of monitoring FCC technical policy to ensure that our regulations 
coincide as closely as possible with sound engineering principles.  Your input on the many technical 
questions we encounter goes a long way toward keeping us on the right track.  So thank you for all that 
you do to engage and contribute to so many proceedings at the Commission.
A great example is the Association’s comments in the AM Revitalization proceeding, which the 
Commission moved to a First Report and Order almost a year ago.  After a lot of consternation, we were 
finally able to reach accord and provide many AM radio stations with new options to compete in the 
ever changing marketplace.  As you know, the Order provided multiple windows for AM broadcasters to 
relocate FM translator stations in order to rebroadcast AM signals, and many of the broadcasters have 
been taking advantage of the opportunity.  Meanwhile, some important questions were left to a Further 
Notice, which you have weighed in on.  For instance, I’d personally like to see us split off the relief for 
the main studio rule from the FNPRM so as to complete it before year’s end, and you are likely to hear 
more from me on this soon.  In addition, I am carefully considering the Commission’s proposal to reduce 
the protected daytime primary service contour for certain AM stations, and of course when doing so, 
the actual areas and levels of additional interference are of primary interest.  Your comments succinctly 
and fully explain the differences between areas of contour overlap and areas of interference in a very 
helpful way.  
At the end of the day, however, the ultimate future of AM radio will be decided in the market by 
stations seeking to meet the demands of listeners, as it should be.  No amount of Commission action or 
government involvement is going to save the medium from irrelevancy if listeners and advertisers 
abandon stations, although I don’t see that happening in the immediate term.  From my conversations 
with AM radio license holders, that’s exactly how they see it too: they just want the Commission to 
eliminate some of the barriers to competition so they have the tools to win the hearts and minds of 
listeners and then let the chips fall where they may.  
Most recently, the Association filed comments in the ATSC 3.0 proceeding, which I read with 
great interest.  As you noted, the Next Generation TV enabled by the new standard would offer an 
opportunity to transform over-the-air broadcast television in a number of ways.  It must be exciting for 
many of you to be on the front lines of the latest revolution in broadcasting.  And it is reassuring to hear 
that the Association does not expect ATSC 3.0 to increase interference potential over the ATSC 1 
standard – in fact, if your information is accurate, it seems that interference could be reduced in some 
instances.
Providing those interested broadcasters with the opportunity to move to this new platform 
could be a game changer for the viewer and the broadcasting business.  You know better than I do, but 
we are talking about a totally flexible structure capable of allowing broadcasters to tailor their 
transmissions to meet their particular market dynamics.  It will permit a range of features from fully 
mobile offerings to 4K Ultra-High Definition with visual qualities of high-dynamic range and a superior 
audio experience.  I’ve seen the demonstrations of the new standard, or more correctly set of standards, 
2and as a consumer, I am excited about its possibilities.  For those broadcasters not interested, the 
proposal accommodates their desire to stand pat.  
I realize that there is a long way to go to finalize the entire portfolio of standards that will make 
up the umbrella ATSC 3.0.  In fact, the physical layer was approved by ATSC just last week.  No one 
should underestimate the importance of this step, but there are still upwards of twenty other 
components subject to separate standard approval to be completed.  It’s not unlike building a new 
skyscraper.  The key is a solid foundation and first couple of floors and then construction can get easier 
from there.  So, everyone should be pleased with where the 3.0 standard is at this point in time, but 
there is much work ahead, and no one should take their eye off the ball.    
Your comments to the Commission also raised an interesting point that dovetails well with my
own focus in considering ATSC 3.0.  Namely, you noted that, “[w]ithout regulatory permission, wireless 
companies have long been able to periodically upgrade their transmission technologies to realize 
improved efficiencies and implement new services, but television broadcasters have been locked into a 
technology that is two-decades old.”  
This is a critical observation, and I wholeheartedly agree that the imbalance needs to be 
corrected.  For my purposes at the FCC, this means I am suggesting that the Commission not seek to just 
approve the new standard as it did twenty years ago with ATSC 1.0.  Instead, I suggest that our rules be 
rewritten to permit broadcasters to offer 3.0.  There is a difference between these approaches and 
some have critiqued my approach as not being exactly in line with what the petition before the 
Commission is requesting.  From my view, the Commission’s primary goal should be to encourage and 
enable innovation now and in the future.  We should avoid any tech mandates or overly prescriptive 
measures, taking instead a flexible approach that allows for experimentation by the industry in pursuit 
of voluntary, consensus-driven solutions.  As I have said, we should also take this opportunity to open 
the door as much as possible to future permissionless innovation of the type that has spurred such rapid 
development in the wireless world.  Let’s overhaul existing rules to make sure that the next broadcast 
standard will never be stuck in this game of “FCC, May I?”  Since both adopting the new standard and 
removing barriers to allow flexibility and choice of technologies get to the same end point, why not 
pursue the one that sets the stage for ATSC 4.0 or 5.0?      
Relatedly, it should not be overlooked that the new standard’s lack of backward compatibility 
will create some challenges in meeting the goal of minimizing consumer disruption.  Ideally, these will 
be addressed by industry participants.  Some of you may already be involved in the development of new 
equipment for broadcasters or consumers, either to take advantage of the new standard or to convert 
the programming for viewing on older devices.  I view the FCC’s role in this process as that of a 
facilitator, not a controller.  Hopefully political agendas can be left on the sidelines as creative solutions 
emerge.
So those are a few of the principles guiding my approach to the ATSC transition. As to the 
timing, this Association and many others are requesting expedited consideration.  Certainly your finding 
that there is no technical reason for delay should raise my colleagues’ confidence in moving forward.  
Ultimately, however, I am not in control of the timing.  In fact, this may be hard for you to believe, but I 
am pretty far outside of the loop when it comes to setting the Commission’s agenda.  However, you do 
have my commitment to remain fully engaged on this issue and responsive to any concerns or further 
thoughts you may have as we move forward.
3On another note, this morning I published a blog post on a new issue that might be of interest to 
Association members.  It’s an idea that has come up in my conversations with broadband and video 
network operators in rural parts of America.  They suggested that the Commission look into eliminating 
or modifying the cable signal leakage rules for companies that have deployed fiber in a given service 
area.  
These rules are meant to address the radio frequency leaks that can occur in traditional coaxial 
cable networks for a number of reasons, such as loose connections, damaged plant, or cracked cables.  
RF leaks from these systems can generate harmful interference to nearby spectrum users, such as 
aeronautical and navigation systems.  Many of you may be familiar with the Commission’s requirements 
that cable system operators regularly monitor for potential signal leakage, and test annually to ensure 
that total system leakage is below the acceptable maximum levels.  But as cable operators gradually go 
about the task of upgrading coax to fiber, an upgrade the Commission should be doing its best to 
encourage and incentivize, the obsolete signal leakage rules apply to the new fiber.  This makes 
absolutely no sense given that with most fiber deployed there is no RF being used and therefore no RF 
interference.
The impact in the scheme of things might not sound earth shattering, but can quickly become 
significant.  In order to conduct the RF testing, small providers rent a small plane and circle their 
territory with appropriate RF sensors to measure potential leakage.  The cost is around $5000, barely a 
blip on the screen in Washington-speak, but this cost multiplies into much different numbers when you 
operate multiple small systems.  One operator is spending upwards of $100,000 a year when time and 
labor are factored in, a shameful waste of precious rural communications resources when testing fiber 
systems for leakage that we all know is not there.
The Commission did look at this issue before as part of another, larger proceeding, but that 
proceeding stalled out due to substantial concerns raised regarding other proposals that were made.  
Just to be clear, I am not looking to reopen the discussions on these other proposals by any means, but 
the update to cable signal leakage rules is a good idea that could and should be separated and 
expedited.  Systems in which an extensive amount of fiber is used should not be subjected to 
Commission rules that were adopted for another very different technology.
The Commission could easily and quickly fix this problem, relieving one small and unnecessary 
burden, through a rule change, declaratory ruling, or waiver.  It seems to me a reasonable minor step we 
should be able to make without much controversy.  I would welcome any reactions or suggestions any 
of you individually, or the Association may have.  And of course I would more than welcome your 
support as I try to move the effort forward!
I am also interested in any other ideas you may have to modernize our rules and make it just a 
little bit easier for American innovators to keep bringing us the small miracles that the tech and telecom 
industries produce every day.  Given my previous remarks about my potential to impact the Commission 
agenda, the big ticket items are likely nonstarters, but I can and often do find common ground to get a 
common sense idea moving.  So, I am all ears if you have one.  
And with that, I am happy to take any questions or comments you may have.