LG should pull their patent(s) used in version 3 out of the mfg pool and effectively shut down the ATSC 3 standard all together....force a new standard not dependent on patents outside those in the mfg consortium....DRM should be abolished anyway
ATSC 2.0 was ratified, but ultimately never took off, remember. I suspect the way forward will be MPEG-4 formatted video over ATSC 1.0, as several markets are running test broadcasts serving either QVC2 or ShopLC.
@@techguy3236DRM ATSC 3.0 fails if no one buys DRM tuners. FCC needs many people to have DRM ATSC 3.0 tuners before TV stations are allowed to turn off ATSC 1.0 TV. IMO ATSC 1.0 TV will be here for a long time.
Corporations spend all kinds of money on products that fail all of the time. ATSC 3.0 has no government mandate. It's largely market-based adoption rather than being mandated like 1.0. If consumers don't get what they want and the patent wars over 3.0 stuff continues on, the market for 3.0 will be nada. Besides that, if it does fail, it'll be a big write-off for those involved.
Thanks for the video. You are doing a great job of bringing the news. Just as a consumer who is a OTA person, I am happy to see higher band TV such as 4k being able to be broadcasted and the better reception of the 3.0 standard. Not happy with the idea of OTA turning into a paid standard either. Most of the stuff I watch is just old TV which means 4k is really not necessary. However, I am thinking of buying a 4k TV mainly for gaming. I would like to have the 3.0 tuner on it Mainly for better reception such as what the antenna man reports. If you are like me you do not buy TVs that often. Sad that the ATSC3.0 is in such a mess.
The rest of the industry doesn’t want the patent dispute regulated because that same group doesn’t want to risk the FCC getting involved in potentially other areas i.e DRM etc.
I normally want to tell the gov. to stay out of our lives, but this is a case where the FCC for sure needs to get involved, and get things straightened out for the betterment of the public at large over the big corps.
Its time for the FCC actually do something rather than appease the industry . The communication industry has been spoiled by the corporate-controlled politicians . The cell phone industry practically gets to use the airwaves that belongs to We The People Of The America . And they've been overcharging their customers ever since . Same with the TV broadcasters . Each major network were given one more TV channel for HDTV . Instead of using that extra channel for true HDTV , the broadcasters have given us additional non HD channels instead .
NEVER rely on the government for oversight... Watch the video from the Gaming Historian re: the forming of the ESRB. The video game industry wanted nothing to do with government oversight. The SHEER threat of it made them get in line.
If ATSC 3.0 was just regulated like ATSC 1.0, then maybe we won't have DRM... And that's the reason why ATSC 3.0 commission wants the FCC to stay out of it, they want DRM and everything that comes along with it, something they assume the FCC will want to regulate if they get involved.
The FCC is controlled by big TV Corporations. DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
Corps wouldn't have even sniffed ATSC 3.0 unless they thought they could make money from it. Once again, this is something that needs government regulation.
I normally don't like a lot of government regulation, but this is one just like internet, radio, and cell phone services I think there for sure needs to be some regulation as the companies involved have shown they can't get it done themselves for betterment of the public at large.
Exactly. Business doesn't do anything that doesn't make them more money. A private business owner might do something that does not make money, only because they are willing to accept the cost penalty for their personal desires or morales. A public company simply does not operate this way, when the bonuses of the ceo and board members is dependent upon their ability to think up new ways to make more money in general and off their current customers. This gets especially brutal for the consumer as the number of competitors in the field dwindles to fewer companies and easier collusion and consensus. On the other hand, consumers are varied and many, generally stupid and shortsighted too, and easily distracted by any bling, The smart consumer is rare because they need to combine being technical, plus has a great grasp of macro economics and company motivation and company perspective. Switching perspective from the bonafide business to the bonafide consumer perspective, and visa versa, is probably impossible to fully do intellectually plus emotionally. This might explain why most smart consumers don't see how they are getting played, or often demand things that are not in their best interest.
ATSC 3.0 as a concept was brilliant. ATSC 3.0 as practiced isn’t. Better resolution and picture quality to consumers aren’t being realized but better mechanisms to remonetize OTA broadcasting are. ATSC 1.0 for the win.
With these patent issues, DRM issue, and any number of other issues that'll pop up in the near future, I'm almost doubting ATSC 3.0 will ever become the new OTA standard. I'm thinking the big media firms want to keep it off and put everything on internet-based streaming platforms for maximum revenue (streaming fees are gradually increasing and will soon match cable TV fees). They'll still have a few OTA broadcasts for news and second rate (at best) programming, but nothing of significance beyond that will be available for antenna users.
True...With the cost of ATSC 3.0 eventually reaching uncompetitive levels, most folks will just stick with their current subscription fees through already established providers. What's the point in switching to OTA if it cost the same or more than what they're already paying? My motivation for buying an antenna in the first place was because the broacasts were free.
This feels like the record industry raging against streaming and digital media all over again. Build Walls and the consumers will go around them and go to places without walls. Has the industry learned nothing form the fall of the recording industry? This will allow streaming companies like Aplle to replace them effectivly.
@@Budley -- You folks live in some kind of Ivory Tower and have forsaken OTA TV for the internet. But OTA TV provides 30+ TV channels to rural folks with the only cost being the reaction of a TV antenna. No internet required. No subscription required.
DRM ATSC 3.0 fails if no one buys DRM tuners. FCC needs many people to have DRM ATSC 3.0 tuners before TV stations are allowed to turn off ATSC 1.0 TV. IMO ATSC 1.0 TV will be here for a long time.
Here in Canada ATSC is dad in the water. there are a couple of experimental stations but nothing else has developed. I think its a dead fish. The cable companies have moved on to IPTV and abandoned ATSC completely. Rogers (The largest cable TV operators in Canada) went with the Xfinity product line and its stable, functional, and meet consumer's needs. IPTV has effectivly trumped the ATSC play. This explains why LG can pull the tuner out, they don't need it if they can IPTV their way to consumers. Stations are already IP networked, so ATSC isn't an issue there either. It is a product without a solution..
Yes you are correct. DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
Scrap ATSC 3.0 and start over! DRM removal is a must. Patents holding up everything. It is a NO GO and we need people who understand how the users actually use the broadcasts.
@@ericB3444 exactly. It's stupid that consumers have to pay for commercial television. Paying for premium, commercial free content is another matter and is a service.
I have a Sony "smart" TV with a built-in ATSC3.0 tuner. Is my TV at risk of receiving a software upgrade that, oh, by the way, disables its ATSC3.0 capability?
You know I was hoping maybe one day that I could get an ATSC 3 tuner for a Plex server but it looks like it's never going to happen at this point. ATSC 3 is beyond a mess.
Once again ATSC 3.0 delivers buffoon moves. No desire to buy a TV w/a 3.0 tuner. Patent fights, DRM, who knows what's next in this mess. ATSC 3.0 is the gift that keeps giving - not in a good way tho.
There should be NO voluntary element involved when participating in a public broadcast standard. Further, any action outside should result in a complete loss of their patent rights and future payments.
Future TVs will be sold without TV tuners but will be able to fully control third party external TV tuners from it's TV's remote control. ATSC 4, 5, 6 ... Etc.
I typically would say it would be good for the government to step in, and put some regulation in place, but if the election goes even more conservative, then, for sure, the government will not step in and let private corporations run the new standard. I just remember what happened when Siri satellite radio merged or bought out XM radio, they said, pricing would not radically increase, and there would be a fee structure, set aside for lower income individuals, CC said they could merge if they agreed to that policy, of course they did not do anything like they said they were going to. Prices went way up for the service, I dumped my subscription. I am blind, use dictation, forgive dictation errors. keep up the good work for us antenna users. 0:060:06
Honestly in my opinion, anything marked as a standard including ATSC should take a queue from the PC world. Specifically the open source world where they are free and open to use and contribute to. This would be the solution that would best serve end users and free market competition. The whole patent and royalties business is shady, greedy, and only serves to hurt competition. Making it so in the end patent holders win out over everyone else.
I sure hope somebody takes them back to court. If you take the TV Tuner out and then sell it as a TV that is fraud. It becomes simply a monitor if you take the TV Tuner out.
Future TVs will be sold without TV tuners but will be able to fully control third party external TV tuners from it's TV's remote control. ATSC 4, 5, 6 ... Etc.
@@AAa-qd8hb That doesn't matter. If it can't do TV without adding a tuner then it isn't a TV. I've got a 20 year old TV whose remote works other devices, that's nothing new. The fact that it can't do TV means it is not a TV. No amount of discussion can change the fact that it can't do TV without adding a TV!
Hola tengo un tv SONY bravia 75X80CX TRIMILIOS PROCESADOR X1 nexgentv atsc 3.0 y hace más d un mes dejo d sintonizar los canales ATSC3.0 nexgentv d los 7 canales que hay aquí en miami solo 3 se pueden ver el 4.1 6.1 23.1 51.1 están totalmente incriptados eso na pasaba cuando yo compre mi tv hace 8 meses ahora es imposible algunas veces los sintoniza pero después d estar más d 30 minutos dando vueltas para sintonizar
ATSC 3.0 adoption is at a standstill. Even-though they say you will be able to record and use gateway devices, we have not seen any hit the market. Also ATSC 3.0 uses proprietary technology, The EU and everyone else is using open standards. The only reason the US is using closed standards is to make it more difficult to the user.
Feels like the record industry and digital media fight all over again. That killed DAT tapes and Mini discs until they were relegated to irrelevance and disappeared from the market.
I have a feeling the FCC is going to let the private sector regulatory approach fall on its face and then step in. The question is whether or not that it will be too late to rescue OTA television.
@@LonSeidman I hope it isn’t too late already. The engineering community seems to be divided over putting resources into this vs streaming over IP. I prefer OTA, but I’m an oddball millennial that way
This doesn't affect me at all. I haven't used the tuner in my TV in years. I live out in the country and can't pick up over the air signals anyway. It might affect the price I pay for a new television, but I don't plan to buy one for several years since I just got one a couple of years ago.
If a buyout doesn't occur, I'm worried the ATSC 3.0 standard may just flop and skip yet again to 4.0. While the market may not love it, regulation can at least enforce standards, without which nothing can proceed.
The broadcasters want FCC to stay out because they went subscription plus ad supported services over the air. The way they are going, and I am pretty sure Disney is the biggest factor in this, is for us to pay to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. With this current administration in office, I have a feeling that the broadcasters are going to get their way with subscription services Over the Air, like they did back in the 80's with satellite TV, when the Democrats ran things. That is why we are paying for tv channels with ads.
While I agree that politicians have no business being involved in any of this, you need to recheck your version of history - the 80's were under the control of Reagan and Bush, and while both of those gentlemen would be called RINO, at best, in this current political atmosphere, both were most assuredly Republicans.
I stand corrected on that point, but everything the Bush's did while in office was democratic policies. The entire Bush family are democrats using the republican name, hence, where we are at in the world today, they were war hungry presidents, just like the democrat party is now. Bill Clinton started the politicizations of departments like the FCC and now all of the three letter departments are politicized. Since the 90's our rights and freedoms have been disappearing. Thank you for your feedback. Take care.@@giovanipatite6943
This reminds me of when Amazon published some books they didn't have the proper copyright to. They yanked the books right off people's ereaders. The same could be done here and features could be yanked out of your TV. I think the likelihood of that happening is low but who knows.
@@420247paul It seems that "Fraud is a deliberate act or failure to act with the intention of obtaining an unauthorized benefit." This doesn't sound like fraud because it isn't "deliberate". You might make the case the Sony debacle was. At best we would get a small check from a class action and only the lawyers would really win. By the way, I never got my check from the Sony lawsuit and I did buy mine to use "other OS". Damn sure those lawyers got paid though.
@@jmr. Selling a TV with advertised features and then removing them after purchase. That definition fits the scenario your presented? You actually concede this point later on… Regardless, why would there be a reason to disable the 3.0 tuners currently in TVs, that whey would have already been forced to pay for?
@robertt9342 The point was Sony never got charged with fraud. Someone could try to make the case but couldn't prove intent. At any rate fraud was never the point of my original comment. Increasing companies disable features we paid for. With ATSC 3.0 they can completely disable your tuner even if your tuner isn't connected to the Internet by revoking your key. Why might it happen you ask. A patent dispute, someone goes out of business, they choose to not maintain a device, their DRM is compromised, and many reasons I haven't thought of.
Is there a reason why we need ATSC, when ISDB and DVB exist? Maybe we could just adopt one of the standards the rest of the world is using rather than develop our own... why we do we need an American standard that's a special snowflake again?
DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
What happening is patent rights people do not want people to go back to free better tv signal and channels. There is a lots of money to be lost from people not buying android boxes or smart tv. With younger generation being glue to youtube ,tiktok, facebook, etc., that requires internet access and computers, android boxes,iphones,or other paid prescription boxes. It all about keeping people paying for content .The older people,people on fixed incomes and anyone that can not afford it, have right to say no to paid content . The new tuner standard are not going to affect anyone as long as they are keep to no internet access .and keep to free tv upgrade like it was suppose to be in first place .Boxes without ethernet port is the way to go to keep 3.0 standard moving forward .free tv broadcaster can just upgrade the equipment like they done in the past when they got rid of most vhs band for uhf band broadcasting,in most markets .Leave the people make the decision if they want to watch computer based content by hooking into ethernet port or coaxial port with no internet access like tvs were meant to be watched and leave people with some form computer,cell phone ,etc. Make there choice how they want to spend there money .not google,cable companys.or anyone with paid content boxes.Over free airway is my support on 3.0 standard. Without paying for it.
“In the interest of full disclosure” I would like to know who these organizations represent and what their funding sources are. Do they represent manufacturers, broadcasters, content owners, or consumers?
@@LonSeidmanso consumers have no champion since the FCC refuses to enforce 3.0 like they did 1.0 and our elected officials are in the pockets of industry lobbyists. 😢
Sadly, if DRM is to be the future of broadcast TV, I see no better solution than to end broadcast TV and let our screens become monitors for the streaming devices of our choice.
That's what happens when you take matters out of the government hands and put it in the hands of greedy corporations, Greed destroys everything. I don't see ATSC going anywhere, mark my word.
I wouldnt be suprised if the broadcasters eventually give up the drm just to get atsc 3.0 going a patent suit is the last thing they need in the landscape.
At this point I have zero interest in this. Unknown DRM standards. Can i watch it. Can i record it . Can i keep it. They're already getting sued over patents. Lol what else could go wrong. I have enough trouble helping older people with tv problems now. Lets add more complexity to over the air TV please.
theres enough technology out there that the 3.0 standard should be merely voluntary. if the market will bear it it will survive but we'll keep the old 1.0
all i would like to see is my location antenna TV fox 61 wpix 11 wtnh owned by next star so they should be able to add antenna tv I would like to see my local 9 antenna TV MOVED relocated rrrrr
This greed fueled slap fight is the reason I have zero interest as a consumer for OTA solutions. Congratulations industry, you’ve shot yourselves in the foot. No one wants to participate in your shortsighted games. Go off into obscurity. I have zero time for this.
If the industry does not want the FCC to look into this then that's a strong indicator that the FCC should definitely look into this.
The many benefits of ATSC 3.0 are outweighed by the fact that I may not live long enough to actually experience them.
At this rate no one will see those benefits. 😂 /teasing
DITTO IM 60 LOL MOM 85
Wwiii imminent
@@joe1011746 for me. I'm sure this'll get ironed out in my 60's.
You know an idea is good if Sinclair opposes it, so the FCC should definitely step in.
LG should pull their patent(s) used in version 3 out of the mfg pool and effectively shut down the ATSC 3 standard all together....force a new standard not dependent on patents outside those in the mfg consortium....DRM should be abolished anyway
Works for me! I do IPTV now so it makes no difference. OTA is like 78 speed records.
@@PWingert1966 . More like you went from cds to cassette tape.
We are never gonna see ATSC 3.0 it is gonna die before it ever takes off.
ATSC 2.0 was ratified, but ultimately never took off, remember.
I suspect the way forward will be MPEG-4 formatted video over ATSC 1.0, as several markets are running test broadcasts serving either QVC2 or ShopLC.
Too much money has been spent on the standard ATSC 3.0 it is going to be the standard going forward for OTA TV.
@@techguy3236 Not if more TV manufacturers dispute like LG's doing.
@@techguy3236DRM ATSC 3.0 fails if no one buys DRM tuners. FCC needs many people to have DRM ATSC 3.0 tuners before TV stations are allowed to turn off ATSC 1.0 TV. IMO ATSC 1.0 TV will be here for a long time.
Corporations spend all kinds of money on products that fail all of the time. ATSC 3.0 has no government mandate. It's largely market-based adoption rather than being mandated like 1.0. If consumers don't get what they want and the patent wars over 3.0 stuff continues on, the market for 3.0 will be nada. Besides that, if it does fail, it'll be a big write-off for those involved.
Thanks for the video. You are doing a great job of bringing the news. Just as a consumer who is a OTA person, I am happy to see higher band TV such as 4k being able to be broadcasted and the better reception of the 3.0 standard. Not happy with the idea of OTA turning into a paid standard either. Most of the stuff I watch is just old TV which means 4k is really not necessary. However, I am thinking of buying a 4k TV mainly for gaming. I would like to have the 3.0 tuner on it Mainly for better reception such as what the antenna man reports. If you are like me you do not buy TVs that often. Sad that the ATSC3.0 is in such a mess.
The rest of the industry doesn’t want the patent dispute regulated because that same group doesn’t want to risk the FCC getting involved in potentially other areas i.e DRM etc.
Exactly
I normally want to tell the gov. to stay out of our lives, but this is a case where the FCC for sure needs to get involved, and get things straightened out for the betterment of the public at large over the big corps.
Yes and they haven’t been sued (yet) only LG has…but it’s only a matter of time. Constellation Design are potentially sitting on a gold mine,
@@CommodoreFan64, so only when it benefits you personally it is for “public good”, but not any of the other times it’s for public good?
Its time for the FCC actually do something rather than appease the industry . The communication industry has been spoiled by the corporate-controlled politicians . The cell phone industry practically gets to use the airwaves that belongs to We The People Of The America . And they've been overcharging their customers ever since . Same with the TV broadcasters . Each major network were given one more TV channel for HDTV . Instead of using that extra channel for true HDTV , the broadcasters have given us additional non HD channels instead .
The government should make a law that says patents don’t apply for over-the-air transmissions. They apply elsewhere, but not to the public airwaves.
That is a great idea. The people's DRM Free TV airwaves.
NEVER rely on the government for oversight... Watch the video from the Gaming Historian re: the forming of the ESRB. The video game industry wanted nothing to do with government oversight. The SHEER threat of it made them get in line.
better still a small global tax on everything and avoid all the copyright and patent mess altogether.
If ATSC 3.0 was just regulated like ATSC 1.0, then maybe we won't have DRM... And that's the reason why ATSC 3.0 commission wants the FCC to stay out of it, they want DRM and everything that comes along with it, something they assume the FCC will want to regulate if they get involved.
The FCC is controlled by big TV Corporations. DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
Corps wouldn't have even sniffed ATSC 3.0 unless they thought they could make money from it. Once again, this is something that needs government regulation.
I normally don't like a lot of government regulation, but this is one just like internet, radio, and cell phone services I think there for sure needs to be some regulation as the companies involved have shown they can't get it done themselves for betterment of the public at large.
Exactly. Business doesn't do anything that doesn't make them more money.
A private business owner might do something that does not make money, only because they are willing to accept the cost penalty for their personal desires or morales. A public company simply does not operate this way, when the bonuses of the ceo and board members is dependent upon their ability to think up new ways to make more money in general and off their current customers. This gets especially brutal for the consumer as the number of competitors in the field dwindles to fewer companies and easier collusion and consensus.
On the other hand, consumers are varied and many, generally stupid and shortsighted too, and easily distracted by any bling, The smart consumer is rare because they need to combine being technical, plus has a great grasp of macro economics and company motivation and company perspective. Switching perspective from the bonafide business to the bonafide consumer perspective, and visa versa, is probably impossible to fully do intellectually plus emotionally. This might explain why most smart consumers don't see how they are getting played, or often demand things that are not in their best interest.
ATSC 3.0 as a concept was brilliant. ATSC 3.0 as practiced isn’t. Better resolution and picture quality to consumers aren’t being realized but better mechanisms to remonetize OTA broadcasting are. ATSC 1.0 for the win.
With these patent issues, DRM issue, and any number of other issues that'll pop up in the near future, I'm almost doubting ATSC 3.0 will ever become the new OTA standard. I'm thinking the big media firms want to keep it off and put everything on internet-based streaming platforms for maximum revenue (streaming fees are gradually increasing and will soon match cable TV fees). They'll still have a few OTA broadcasts for news and second rate (at best) programming, but nothing of significance beyond that will be available for antenna users.
Maybe so; maybe no. Most stuff ends up on the "little" channels.
True...With the cost of ATSC 3.0 eventually reaching uncompetitive levels, most folks will just stick with their current subscription fees through already established providers. What's the point in switching to OTA if it cost the same or more than what they're already paying? My motivation for buying an antenna in the first place was because the broacasts were free.
@@Budley@Budley Free FAST OTA TV? What happened to Free public TV airwaves without DRM? Big TV Corporations control the FCC. Money. Money. Money.
This feels like the record industry raging against streaming and digital media all over again. Build Walls and the consumers will go around them and go to places without walls. Has the industry learned nothing form the fall of the recording industry? This will allow streaming companies like Aplle to replace them effectivly.
@@Budley -- You folks live in some kind of Ivory Tower and have forsaken OTA TV for the internet. But OTA TV provides 30+ TV channels to rural folks with the only cost being the reaction of a TV antenna. No internet required. No subscription required.
DRM ATSC 3.0 fails if no one buys DRM tuners. FCC needs many people to have DRM ATSC 3.0 tuners before TV stations are allowed to turn off ATSC 1.0 TV. IMO ATSC 1.0 TV will be here for a long time.
tv station won't turn off 1.0 if tv's supporting 3.0 aren't being produced which is what should happen right now.
Here in Canada ATSC is dad in the water. there are a couple of experimental stations but nothing else has developed. I think its a dead fish. The cable companies have moved on to IPTV and abandoned ATSC completely. Rogers (The largest cable TV operators in Canada) went with the Xfinity product line and its stable, functional, and meet consumer's needs. IPTV has effectivly trumped the ATSC play. This explains why LG can pull the tuner out, they don't need it if they can IPTV their way to consumers. Stations are already IP networked, so ATSC isn't an issue there either. It is a product without a solution..
This is nuts! I am not big on bureaucracy, but something has to be done. Or will this standard go the way of ATSC 2.0?
Bureaucracy is underrated. We tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to it, forgetting the protections and services it provides despite its messes.
@@sisterspike281 . Also an underrated comment. The benefits easily exceed the costs.
Best way for the fcc to handle this is to say the air Waves belong to the public.thats fcc law.
it belongs to the public though they think that it belongs to them
Yes you are correct. DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
I 1will definitely never buy an LG tv
@@ralphcrisp2112 why? its doing everyone a favor in not adopting the new DRM FILLED standard
Exactly! Especially commercial television which used to be free because it is commercial television.
Scrap ATSC 3.0 and start over! DRM removal is a must. Patents holding up everything. It is a NO GO and we need people who understand how the users actually use the broadcasts.
This should be required to be free and unblocked. The broadcasters can already profit from more direct and purposeful ads.
@@ericB3444 exactly. It's stupid that consumers have to pay for commercial television. Paying for premium, commercial free content is another matter and is a service.
@ happy belated Halloween. Keep free tv free.
Failed DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV is dead. DRM must be removed from ATSC 3.0 before the people will except it.
Most people younger than middle-aged don’t even know that free OTA broadcasts are a thing. Some even think it’s piracy.
Restore ATSC 1.x signals to full power. People are losing OTA reception left and right because of ATSC 3 they cannot use.
I have a Sony "smart" TV with a built-in ATSC3.0 tuner. Is my TV at risk of receiving a software upgrade that, oh, by the way, disables its ATSC3.0 capability?
You know I was hoping maybe one day that I could get an ATSC 3 tuner for a Plex server but it looks like it's never going to happen at this point. ATSC 3 is beyond a mess.
Once again ATSC 3.0 delivers buffoon moves. No desire to buy a TV w/a 3.0 tuner. Patent fights, DRM, who knows what's next in this mess. ATSC 3.0 is the gift that keeps giving - not in a good way tho.
Seems that way.
There should be NO voluntary element involved when participating in a public broadcast standard. Further, any action outside should result in a complete loss of their patent rights and future payments.
Has anyone filed a re-examination request with the US Patent and Trademark Office?
9:44 Does that external LG ATSC tuner work on other TV?
As consumers we can stay out of it and shun technology that isn't guaranteed to work and ditch syndicated TV completely.
Future TVs will be sold without TV tuners but will be able to fully control third party external TV tuners from it's TV's remote control. ATSC 4, 5, 6 ... Etc.
There will never be a 4,5,6!
Any benefits this standard has are destroyed by the enshittification of it all with DRM.
I typically would say it would be good for the government to step in, and put some regulation in place, but if the election goes even more conservative, then, for sure, the government will not step in and let private corporations run the new standard.
I just remember what happened when Siri satellite radio merged or bought out XM radio, they said, pricing would not radically increase, and there would be a fee structure, set aside for lower income individuals, CC said they could merge if they agreed to that policy, of course they did not do anything like they said they were going to. Prices went way up for the service, I dumped my subscription.
I am blind, use dictation, forgive dictation errors.
keep up the good work for us antenna users. 0:06 0:06
Enjoy TV while you can afford it. But remember come 2040 TV goes byby.🖖
I'll be 63 then.
Honestly in my opinion, anything marked as a standard including ATSC should take a queue from the PC world. Specifically the open source world where they are free and open to use and contribute to. This would be the solution that would best serve end users and free market competition.
The whole patent and royalties business is shady, greedy, and only serves to hurt competition. Making it so in the end patent holders win out over everyone else.
I sure hope somebody takes them back to court. If you take the TV Tuner out and then sell it as a TV that is fraud. It becomes simply a monitor if you take the TV Tuner out.
Future TVs will be sold without TV tuners but will be able to fully control third party external TV tuners from it's TV's remote control. ATSC 4, 5, 6 ... Etc.
@@AAa-qd8hb That doesn't matter. If it can't do TV without adding a tuner then it isn't a TV. I've got a 20 year old TV whose remote works other devices, that's nothing new. The fact that it can't do TV means it is not a TV. No amount of discussion can change the fact that it can't do TV without adding a TV!
The ATSC 1.0 tuners still make it a TV.
@@jjones2582 Yes, if it has any tuner then it is a TV.
Hola tengo un tv SONY bravia 75X80CX TRIMILIOS PROCESADOR X1 nexgentv atsc 3.0 y hace más d un mes dejo d sintonizar los canales ATSC3.0 nexgentv d los 7 canales que hay aquí en miami solo 3 se pueden ver el 4.1 6.1 23.1 51.1 están totalmente incriptados eso na pasaba cuando yo compre mi tv hace 8 meses ahora es imposible algunas veces los sintoniza pero después d estar más d 30 minutos dando vueltas para sintonizar
ATSC 3.0 adoption is at a standstill. Even-though they say you will be able to record and use gateway devices, we have not seen any hit the market. Also ATSC 3.0 uses proprietary technology, The EU and everyone else is using open standards. The only reason the US is using closed standards is to make it more difficult to the user.
4:00 chart for ??
So what would happen if the fcc said we are not going to mandate 3.0 unless tv stations drop drm incription.
ATSC 3.0 Patent Wars? What the big TV Corporations should be concerned about is that the people have rejected OTA ATSC 3.0 TV over DRM.
Feels like the record industry and digital media fight all over again. That killed DAT tapes and Mini discs until they were relegated to irrelevance and disappeared from the market.
Lack of FCC involvement and no concrete transition timeline will make ATSC 3.0 the new AM Stereo…
I have a feeling the FCC is going to let the private sector regulatory approach fall on its face and then step in. The question is whether or not that it will be too late to rescue OTA television.
@@LonSeidman I hope it isn’t too late already. The engineering community seems to be divided over putting resources into this vs streaming over IP.
I prefer OTA, but I’m an oddball millennial that way
This doesn't affect me at all. I haven't used the tuner in my TV in years. I live out in the country and can't pick up over the air signals anyway. It might affect the price I pay for a new television, but I don't plan to buy one for several years since I just got one a couple of years ago.
If a buyout doesn't occur, I'm worried the ATSC 3.0 standard may just flop and skip yet again to 4.0. While the market may not love it, regulation can at least enforce standards, without which nothing can proceed.
The only ATSC 3.0 standard is big TV Corporations money.
It won't liev long enough to make it to version 4. Its effectively stillborn in the face of Streaming tech like stack TV and IPTV boxes.
The broadcasters want FCC to stay out because they went subscription plus ad supported services over the air. The way they are going, and I am pretty sure Disney is the biggest factor in this, is for us to pay to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. With this current administration in office, I have a feeling that the broadcasters are going to get their way with subscription services Over the Air, like they did back in the 80's with satellite TV, when the Democrats ran things. That is why we are paying for tv channels with ads.
While I agree that politicians have no business being involved in any of this, you need to recheck your version of history - the 80's were under the control of Reagan and Bush, and while both of those gentlemen would be called RINO, at best, in this current political atmosphere, both were most assuredly Republicans.
@@giovanipatite6943 both parties are out of touch with the needs of the american people
I stand corrected on that point, but everything the Bush's did while in office was democratic policies. The entire Bush family are democrats using the republican name, hence, where we are at in the world today, they were war hungry presidents, just like the democrat party is now. Bill Clinton started the politicizations of departments like the FCC and now all of the three letter departments are politicized. Since the 90's our rights and freedoms have been disappearing. Thank you for your feedback. Take care.@@giovanipatite6943
This reminds me of when Amazon published some books they didn't have the proper copyright to. They yanked the books right off people's ereaders. The same could be done here and features could be yanked out of your TV. I think the likelihood of that happening is low but who knows.
thats fraud ask sony what happened when they yanked other os from ps3
@@420247paul It seems that "Fraud is a deliberate act or failure to act with the intention of obtaining an unauthorized benefit." This doesn't sound like fraud because it isn't "deliberate". You might make the case the Sony debacle was. At best we would get a small check from a class action and only the lawyers would really win. By the way, I never got my check from the Sony lawsuit and I did buy mine to use "other OS". Damn sure those lawyers got paid though.
@@jmr. Selling a TV with advertised features and then removing them after purchase. That definition fits the scenario your presented? You actually concede this point later on… Regardless, why would there be a reason to disable the 3.0 tuners currently in TVs, that whey would have already been forced to pay for?
@robertt9342 The point was Sony never got charged with fraud. Someone could try to make the case but couldn't prove intent.
At any rate fraud was never the point of my original comment. Increasing companies disable features we paid for. With ATSC 3.0 they can completely disable your tuner even if your tuner isn't connected to the Internet by revoking your key. Why might it happen you ask. A patent dispute, someone goes out of business, they choose to not maintain a device, their DRM is compromised, and many reasons I haven't thought of.
Is there a reason why we need ATSC, when ISDB and DVB exist? Maybe we could just adopt one of the standards the rest of the world is using rather than develop our own... why we do we need an American standard that's a special snowflake again?
Be thankful we didn't follow the European model of paying a license fee to watch a TV, though we probably needed it.
DRM ATSC 3.0 TV Public Airwaves? = (Private Big TV Corporations DRM Airwaves?). IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA ATSC 1.0 TV (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
This is about control over the air tv signals and content.
Public Airwaves? IMO I think Big TV Corporations want to destroy the OTA (FAST) Free AD Supported TV model because they make more money if it is gone.
We've already lsot the content war.
What happening is patent rights people do not want people to go back to free better tv signal and channels. There is a lots of money to be lost from people not buying android boxes or smart tv. With younger generation being glue to youtube ,tiktok, facebook, etc., that requires internet access and computers, android boxes,iphones,or other paid prescription boxes. It all about keeping people paying for content .The older people,people on fixed incomes and anyone that can not afford it, have right to say no to paid content . The new tuner standard are not going to affect anyone as long as they are keep to no internet access .and keep to free tv upgrade like it was suppose to be in first place .Boxes without ethernet port is the way to go to keep 3.0 standard moving forward .free tv broadcaster can just upgrade the equipment like they done in the past when they got rid of most vhs band for uhf band broadcasting,in most markets .Leave the people make the decision if they want to watch computer based content by hooking into ethernet port or coaxial port with no internet access like tvs were meant to be watched and leave people with some form computer,cell phone ,etc. Make there choice how they want to spend there money .not google,cable companys.or anyone with paid content boxes.Over free airway is my support on 3.0 standard. Without paying for it.
“In the interest of full disclosure” I would like to know who these organizations represent and what their funding sources are. Do they represent manufacturers, broadcasters, content owners, or consumers?
All of them represent industry - NAB = Broadcasters, CTA = Television manufacturers
@@LonSeidmanso consumers have no champion since the FCC refuses to enforce 3.0 like they did 1.0 and our elected officials are in the pockets of industry lobbyists. 😢
Sadly, if DRM is to be the future of broadcast TV, I see no better solution than to end broadcast TV and let our screens become monitors for the streaming devices of our choice.
That's what happens when you take matters out of the government hands and put it in the hands of greedy corporations, Greed destroys everything. I don't see ATSC going anywhere, mark my word.
I wouldnt be suprised if the broadcasters eventually give up the drm just to get atsc 3.0 going a patent suit is the last thing they need in the landscape.
1st world problems. Solution is simple, just don't buy ATSC 3.0 devices. Your wallet actually talks to them.
If FCC is not going to change over for ten years why have any new receive....
At this point I have zero interest in this. Unknown DRM standards. Can i watch it. Can i record it . Can i keep it. They're already getting sued over patents. Lol what else could go wrong. I have enough trouble helping older people with tv problems now. Lets add more complexity to over the air TV please.
theres enough technology out there that the 3.0 standard should be merely voluntary. if the market will bear it it will survive but we'll keep the old 1.0
I’m not confident in ATSC 3.0. It’s 2023 and Fox can’t even broadcast the World Series in 1080.
DRM OTA ATSC 3.0 pay per view in 1080 is coming if big TV Corporations have their way.
ATSC 1.0 only supports 1080i
FOX and ABC/ESPN both telecast OTA in 720p.
@@Jim.Kramer Long live upscaling, the equivalent of the Emperors new clothes!
720p is better than 1080i for sports and action.
ATSC 3.0 is a garbage standard top to bottom. Problem solved.
at this point atsc is an economic political ideology, not a technicla standard.
all i would like to see is my location antenna TV fox 61 wpix 11 wtnh owned by next star
so they should be able to add antenna tv
I would like to see my local 9 antenna TV
MOVED relocated rrrrr
ATSC 3 is dead... long live ATSC 1.0 ... the non-snooping version of OTA TV...
I'm sorry but these children can't get along it's time to bring in the FCC so they can babysit them like they did with the 1.0 standard
😃👍🏻👊🏻
This greed fueled slap fight is the reason I have zero interest as a consumer for OTA solutions.
Congratulations industry, you’ve shot yourselves in the foot. No one wants to participate in your shortsighted games.
Go off into obscurity. I have zero time for this.
I hope the FCC step in soon