16 NCS | NEWSCASTSTUDIO.COM
toward software-defined workflows that
allow them to scale production, reach new
distribution partners and respond much
more quickly to changing audience de-
mand.”
What is different this time
The first C-band repack was financially
and technically manageable. The auction,
completed in early 2021, raised $81.17 bil-
lion from wireless carriers including Veri-
zon and AT&T. Part of that windfall funded
$3 billion in relocation costs for program-
mers and incumbent earth station opera-
tors, covering new encoders and integrat-
ed receiver/decoders, as well as filters to
eliminate interference from 5G signals. An
additional $9.3 billion in accelerated relo-
cation payments to satellite operators —
SES and Intelsat, which have since merged
— is widely credited with completing the
spectrum-clearing process more than two
years ahead of its original December 2025
deadline.
Broadcasters managed that transition
by replacing legacy MPEG-4 encoders
with more efficient HEVC gear, adopting
advanced modulation technology and
compressing more programming into less
spectrum. The capital expenditure was
reimbursable. The second transition does
not offer the same path.
No amount of encoding efficiency will
sustain current distribution loads if the
upper end of the auction range is real-
ized. Some broadcasters will have to move
off the C-band entirely, and the financial
model will shift with them. Where the first
transition was largely a capital investment,
new hardware with a defined, reimburs-
able cost, the second involves ongoing
operational expenses for managed IP de-
livery services, occasional Ku-band capac-
ity and wireless backup links. Reimburse-
ment for operating expenses is expected
to be more complicated and harder to ob-
tain than the hardware reimbursements
that covered the first transition.
The
urgency
is
sharpening
deci-
sion-making that might otherwise move
slowly.
“The well-known satellite distribution
method using C-band frequencies simply
won’t be a viable long-term option, and
2026 is the year when broadcasters need
to shift to alternative models,” said Roger
Franklin, chief strategy officer at LTN.
“The FCC’s upcoming C-band decisions
will intensify pressure to simplify distribu-
tion architectures and accelerate the shift
toward end-to-end IP workflows,” said
Alan Young, vice president of strategic
business development at Zixi. “The oppor-
tunity is to rebuild distribution around sys-
tems that deliver reliability, transparency,
and scalability without adding complexity.”
Hybrid as the working answer
No major broadcaster is currently plan-
ning a clean switch from C-band to a single
replacement. The working model is hybrid:
combining two or more delivery paths to
replicate the reliability that C-band has his-
torically provided.
Ku-band satellite is the most direct sub-
stitute, sharing the same basic infrastruc-
ture and operational familiarity.
NBC is currently the only major broad-
cast network using Ku-band as its primary
distribution path, maintaining C-band as a
backup, a real-world data point for an ap-
proach other networks are now evaluating.
But Ku-band is susceptible to rain fade, sig-
nal loss in heavy weather, which limits its
viability as a standalone replacement for
mission-critical distribution. Cross-strap-
ping technology, which allows a satellite
to receive a C-band uplink and retransmit
it as a Ku-band downlink, offers a practical
bridge for broadcasters who want to avoid
modifying their existing uplink facilities.
SES has new satellites with that capability in
development.
One capability that IP has not fully repli-
cated is what broadcasters call determin-
istic switching — the ability for a network to
simultaneously cue hundreds of affiliates to
cut to local programming at the exact same
moment. It is a specific operational require-
ment for live network television that C-band
satellite handles reliably and that any re-
placement architecture needs to account
for.
IP terrestrial delivery has been gaining
ground as the costs of managed networks
have declined and real-world deployments
have addressed reliability concerns.
Several major networks, such as the
Tennis Channel, TelevisaUnivision, MSG
Networks and Scripps, have already tran-
sitioned primary linear feeds to managed
IP distribution in advance of the spectrum
transition. The challenge is not perfor-
mance in major markets but reaching every
affiliate a network needs to serve, including
those in smaller markets with limited or
non-diverse internet connectivity.
Physical path diversity is a related con-
cern.
Most stations are served by a single fiber
duct regardless of how many internet ser-
vice providers they use, meaning a severed
cable can take down multiple redundant
IP paths simultaneously. A wireless back-
up, Ku-band, 5G or low earth orbit satel-
lite, provides the physical separation that
purely terrestrial IP cannot. The emerging
consensus is that full reliability for primary
program distribution requires at least two
delivery technologies, providing both net-
work and physical diversity.
“Broadcasters want to reduce tech debt
and operate hybrid infrastructure with
far more predictability, which makes soft-
ware-defined, verifiable IP delivery increas-
ingly attractive,” Young said.
Format requirements
and the operational case for IP
The transition away from C-band coin-
cides with growing demand for higher-qual-
ity distribution formats. IP-based infra-
structure offers capacity advantages over
satellite multiplexes that are relevant to
broadcasters planning for next-generation
feeds.
“Broadcasters will be required to distrib-
ute different versions of individual chan-
nels, with the most popular being 1080p60
HDR — offering twice as many video frames
per second as HD, and significantly bet-
ter color gradients and contrast,” Franklin
said. “These will be distributed to affiliates,
especially virtual pay-TV services like You-
Tube TV and Hulu, using terrestrial, broad-
cast-grade IP that supports a far higher ca-
pacity than satellite.”
The transition also creates an opportu-
nity to shed infrastructure complexity that
has accumulated over decades of satel-
lite-based distribution.
“Part of the simplification will be moving
to IP — using transport stream over internet
protocol technologies, and shedding com-
plicated legacy ground infrastructure, such
as satellite antennas, outdoor cabling, pow-
er, heaters, snow clearance procedures,
physical real estate, muxes, conditional ac-
cess systems and amplifiers,” Franklin said.
“Broadcasters are moving beyond simply
replacing satellite circuits with IP transport,”
said Marc Aldrich, chief executive of Zixi.
“They are rebuilding live operations around
flexible, cloud-based workflows that allow
them to scale events, reach new distribu-
tion partners and maintain broadcast-grade
reliability across global networks.”
IP delivery and the protocol layer
It is worth drawing a clear distinction be-
tween IP terrestrial delivery as a distribu-
tion model and the transport protocols that
make it viable. They are related but not the
same thing.
IP terrestrial delivery, whether over man-
aged networks or the public internet, is what
Continued from Page 15
Continued on Page 17