FEDERAL COMMUN !CATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRM AN 
The I lonorable Mike Pompeo 
U.S. House of Representatives 
1 07 Cannon I louse Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Pompeo: 
November 26, 2014 
Thank you for your letter regarding oversight of the Advanced Television Systems 
Committee (AT C) patent pool. I appreciate hearing your views on the subject. 
In 1996, the Commission adopted a DTV standard that was consistent with the standard 
developed by the ATSC, a body of entities made up of a broad cross-section of parties, including 
the broadcasting, consumer equipment manufacturing, and computer industries. At that time, the 
C'ommissi'on noted that "in order for DTV to be successfully implemented, the patents on the 
technology would have to be licensed to other manufactming companies on reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms.'' See Advanced Telt?vision Systems and Their Impact Upon the existing 
Television Broadcast Service, 11 FCC Red 17771, 17794, ~ 54 ( 1996). As you indicate in your 
letter, that same Commission decision also relied on commitments that relevant patents would be 
made available either free of charge or on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) basis. JJ 
The Commission declined to take additional action. noting that patent licensing for the DTV 
technology did not appear to be an impediment "to the development and deployment of DTV 
products for broadcasters and consumers." Jd. at~ 55. 
In January 2009, the Commi~sion received a Petition for Rulemaking and a Request for 
Declaratory Ruling regarding the licensing fees for patents related to the DTV standard. The 
Commission sought comment on ~he Petition in February 2009. At the time that the Petition was 
filed, there also were pending cases in federal courts and agencies that raised similar RAND 
issues for licensing terms. These other venues- including the Patent and Trademark Office and 
the International Trade Commission are viable options for entities seeking resolution of patent 
fee issues. 
Aduitionally, it is important to note that the ATSC patent pool licensing fees cited in your 
letter and in Mr. Christensen's May 14, 2014, Forbes opinion piece likely cover more patents 
than the royalty fees paid for "similar technologies around the world," and that fact could 
account for some of the differences in fees between the various countries. For example. the 
A TSC patent pool fees include the patent ro) alty for the MPEG-2 decoding standard, which is 
necessary technology for any TV receiver worldwide. 
Page 2- The Honorable Mike Pompeo 
As noted, the Commission's proceeding remains pending. Your letter will be made part 
of the record. I also have asked the Media Bureau to determine whether any additional action is 
warranted. 
I hope this information is helpful. 
Sincerely, 
~eler