The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) CEO, Gary Shapiro, issued a strong rebuke to Pearl TV this week. He rejected their assertion that the CTA opposes ATSC 3.0 mandates due to conflicts of interest. Shapiro accused broadcasters of prioritizing government intervention over building consumer demand for NextGen TV. This follows Pearl TV's recent meetings with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) staff, advocating for regulatory certainty regarding the ATSC 3.0 transition.
In a statement, Shapiro dismissed Pearl TV's claim that smart TVs pose a competitive threat to broadcasting as “outlandish.” He also denied that CTA members see NextGen TV as a business threat. “We oppose mandates because they hurt American consumers by forcing them to buy something they don’t want,” Shapiro stated. “More, they diminish the product or feature by removing all reasons for retailers or manufacturers to market the feature or product as a feature a competitor may not have.” The CTA represents major television manufacturers and technology companies; they’ve already produced 15 million ATSC 3.0-enabled televisions, according to Pearl TV data.
Shapiro argued that broadcasters haven't successfully driven consumer interest in the technology. “The real issue: broadcasters haven’t bothered to sell ATSC 3.0,” he said. “Their half-hearted deployment of mostly redundant content is not luring consumers to value ATSC 3.0 despite manufacturers cooperating on the standard.” He criticized broadcasters for seeking mandates instead of focusing on building demand: “Instead of building demand, broadcasters want to force manufacturers to spend millions of dollars each year to bake it in—whether or not broadcasters actually ever transmit anything compelling or even try to invest in marketing using their free spectrum,” Shapiro stated. “That’s not innovation, it’s rent-seeking.”
Shapiro questioned the lack of significant marketing investment from broadcasters for NextGen TV, asking where the “marketing blitz” and “killer apps” are to drive adoption. He noted manufacturers invested in ATSC 3.0 based on broadcaster promises of voluntary adoption. This criticism extends beyond NextGen TV to what Shapiro described as a recurring pattern of broadcasters seeking government mandates when market adoption slows, citing past efforts to mandate FM radio in phones and AM radio in cars. “This isn’t new. Broadcasters have spent years begging the government to prop up their declining business,” Shapiro said. “Declining demand isn’t market failure requiring government intervention – it’s the marketplace of consumers choosing better options.”
Pearl TV's July FCC filing stressed that manufacturers need regulatory certainty to invest in ATSC 3.0 device production, warning that delays could prolong the transition. They argued that without firm sunset dates for ATSC 1.0, manufacturers will remain hesitant. Shapiro framed the disagreement economically, noting that TV prices have remained deflationary despite inflation in other goods. He argued that mandating ATSC 3.0 would increase manufacturing costs and consumer prices. “As our national policy is to fight inflation, TVs remain the bright spot deflationary product—so broadcasters want to raise their costs,” Shapiro said.
Shapiro highlighted support from consumer advocacy groups, free market organizations, and former FCC commissioners who oppose technology mandates. He suggested broadcasters should prioritize content and services that offer value to consumers. “If the broadcasters want ATSC 3.0 to succeed, they should stop wasting money on expensive lobbying campaigns for mandates and start creating content and services consumers value,” Shapiro concluded. This dispute reflects tensions between broadcasters and technology manufacturers over NextGen TV adoption. While both generally support ATSC 3.0, they disagree on the need for government intervention.