In the context of the Communications Act and the FCC's mandate that broadcasters serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," the primary focus has traditionally been on ensuring that broadcast content is accessible to the widest possible audience without any special equipment or subscriptions. DRM limits that and is detrimental to serving the public.
I can see DRM on one subchannel for 'special events and first run movies" like ON-TV and Spectrum was in the 1980s OTA. That being said,most channels should be free and clear
Lon, you should include petitions, to the FTC and Congress! I have already summited your form to the FCC, but we should be pressuring others in the Government. More pressure on the Government can mean a better and quicker solution.
Zinwell sells an OTA ATSC 3.0 single tuner that in most situations shouldn't require the internet to decrypt ATSC 3.0. Just plug it in and it should work if the firmware is the correct one. If it isn't the correct one, WNY over the Air says you can try to get your DRM protected station to fix their DRM so its compatible with the Zinwell. Otherwise I think Lon did a video on the Zinwell also and he did like a 1 time update and is good no longer needing to connect it to the internet.
The DRM really sucks. I have that Zapperbox thing. The firmware updated and I could not receive some channels because the Zapperbox would not resolve the DRM, even though it was connected to the internet. I had to factory reset the thing and then I shut off auto-updates. Also I'm noticing that ATSC 3 looks no better than ATSC 1. It even has the same compression breakup and artifacts. One channel is broadcasting in HDR but it's fake injected HDR since no TV shows have real HDR applied.
This should’ve been created in a free manner just like the original over the air. The only benefit to providers is that they have targeted ads, which should be huge enough.
One of the carrots the FCC dangled before the broadcasters to get digital TV going was right to encrypt one or more sub-channels. Few, if any, broadcasters too advantage of this. I suspect that consumers will decide that if I have to pay for OTA TV I might as well pay for a dish or cable and get a zillion channels.
I'm the opposite, I think if I have to pay for ota, I'm going to get rid of every tv in my house and find other things to do. This makes me want to get my sailor hat out again.
the FCC shouldn't dongle anything, Broadcasters can easily be left in the dust by FCC yanking our licenses back and giving to content creators that are ethical for public use.
ATSC 3 basically does not exist in the real world - it is a technical demo. It doesn't appear that it will ever actually be useful to normal people. So I don't see why it gets so much press. It's the new AM Stereo.
So ATSC 3.0 looks beautiful even if the source is 1080p. Just the bump from 720p/1080i to 1080P looks amazing on my new TV and significantly better than any atsc 1.0
@@thedude5040 The miracle of 30-year better compression algorithms. The truth is ATSC 1.0 could use the same compression algothims if the broadcasters wanted to. Many modern TVs support these better codecs (but not all ATSC 1.0 tuners do, so they design for the lowest common denomiator).
@@thedude5040 - It probably also has to do with the h.265 video codec. 1080i to 1080p isn't a huge jump on it's own, but 10 years ago a recording from my NBC and CBS stations would consume about 7 GB per hour on the drive. Today a one hour recording is only about 3 GB. So they've drastically reduced the bitrate of the MPEG-2 video by more than half.
@LonSeidman keep up the great work. I am so disheartened by the DRM on ATSC 3. I've been looking forward to this new more robust signal for almost 7 years now, and maybe being able to switch to indoor antennas. For the most part, the ATSC 1 signal is fine, but there are a few channels that are prone to interference, and that is not an issue on the ATSC 3 channels. The problem is the few devices that can decrypt the DRM stink. As I write this I am in the process of returning the Zinwell box I just purchased on sale, because the IR remote control conflicts with the TVs remote control and there is some freezing happening when I watch--maybe not coincidentally I saw quite a bit of freezing when watching encrypted channels. I already purchased and returned the ADTH box when it first came out. Zapperbox is too much money for a non-network tuner, and I'm not buying new TVs, so I guess I will live with a little interference on ATSC 1 and give up the dream of all clear TV. This DRM thing is the pits.
All the ATSC3 broadcasters here in central Florida DID NOT turn off encryption before, during and after the last 2 hurricanes. One of the arguments these people made was that during emergencies, encryption would be turned off. If a hurricane is not an emergency, what the heck is?
Ditto on the signal quality. 3.0 may very well be the standard that everyone, even with a little indoor antenna will be able to get these channels. It's important that these channels are not locked down because of an archaic business model.
I live in Tucson. All the channels are encrypted. My HDHomeRun is basically a paper weight. My Zapperbox works, but as you said, it needs an internet connection, rendering it useless in times of an emergency.
My gut feeling is that ATSC 3.0 DRM will turn the way of HD Radio. Basically what I'm envisioning is that manufacturers will either pay to have ATSC 3.0 in their TV or they won't include a tuner at all. Also, I'm envisioning no more external tuners/DVR tuners after the transition phase that we're in now.
i wonder if the networks can be sued for this because what they are doing goes agaisnt the public interest at large. we had a couple of storms here in florida and i bet that ppl arent pleased to find out that they were put out of the loop because of encryption shenanigans besides the public is paying taxes to the FCC to give licenses to these corps to implement this
ATSC 3.0 is dead to me. I'll stick with 1.0 forever. It works just fine and isn't crippled, I have an HDHomerun with 2 3.0 tuners, and this encryption has made it worthless. DRM sucks!!!
I wonder how the economic breakdown of withholding free OTA ATSC 3.0 long enough to make the spectrum much more valuable to sell off when no one is watching due to the DRM works out.
Everybody needs to send a letter yes a physical letter to your local station that has DRM activated and state that they are not serving the local community by employing such practices. In order for the stations to keep their FCC license they must be serving the community. They get inspected every few years to see if they are upholding this mandate. They must keep all letters that they get from the community on file so the FCC can inspect them. You must make sure that in the letter that you state that they are not serving the local community.
WNC here. Lon is right about broadband internet (and, towers), after the violent destruction--it was the last thing finally enabled--before water--which is not yet, even now, potable. Given that this was enabled then, emergency info would have proven still impossible. USB should not be part of the "solution," at all: A stupid and hasty makeshift add-on.... Besides, as for copying content, remember "kinescope?!" (Actually filming TV.) Is their content really worth all this hassle and anger?: I like one sub-channel, an:yway.. ("Grit.") Could the clueless broadcasters really prevent determined piracy, anyway? This is akin to pirating a container ship--with only a few empty containers, aboard.....
I fully expect to carry my TV set out to the curb in 2027. The internet is not getting connected to it. This whole DRM thing makes a nonsense of "the public's airwaves" and also "in the public's interest". It looks to me like the FCC is just going to take away the rest of the TV band at some point in the future because nobody will be watching other than perhaps a few poor folks watching PBS and we all know they don't matter.
OTA bandwidth has been cut down over and over again. OTA TV broadcasting is a privilege and not a right. If these broadcasters don't want to broadcast in a manor that the vast majority of consumers want to view the content, then revoke their privilege and open it up to someone who will!
DRM is killing a great standard that would make OTA broadcasting far more attractive. By the time broadcasters come around they’ll have lost even more viewers to streaming
I expect everyone is waiting to see who gets elected like Lon said. There's little point in spending any money building new products until you know how the election turns out.
Can someone explain to me how broadcasters, who rely on advertising that needs to reach viewers, want to limit who can view? This only makes sense if we were finally going to move away from ad riddled TV. There's a reason many of us don't watch live TV, preferring, instead, to view and removed versions after the fact.
Only have two of them encrypted. Fox 5 and ABC 13 in Las Vegas. Proplem is, if i had offline deciding of encryption; fox 5 is broadcast over the Internet. So you will need to be online to watch that channel anyways. Where is the fancy grafics they can do with atsc 3.0,? Take you back 16 years. During election day 2008, they had the congress seat layout on the sides of the broadcast. Before they had HD cameras in the news rooms. I would like to see them do that again. Atsc 3.0 they can. Look at what zapper box had to fix last week. Encryption update. That should have been in the video on your encryption complain.
Being in Canada I can barely get the 3 major OTA TV networks. I watch one of these networks for a total of 3 hrs a week. It would have been 4 hours but that network axed local news on weekends and holidays. I can not get any of the US networks OTA. Some of the Canadian networks carry shows from the US networks but I have no interest in them. Sorry to say but I axed cable 5 yrs ago and do not miss tv. By the way, I am in my sixties and simply got fed up w TV in general.
My dad is in his 60s and mostly reads books or listens to music. He still pays for TV (Hulu Live) for mom because she refuses to do On Demand preferring to only do linear programming. I axed cable like 5 years ago too and I'm in my 30s and am happy.
I recommend not to buy any ATSC 3.0 devices or TV's as I'm going to wait until the FCC start shipping out STB that support ATSC 3.0 as I see no reason to spend $300.00 for a tuner that the FCC will have to send out anyway just like the digital converters they shipped out as I got two for free.
They could, good idea for stuff like a pay-per-view pro boxing/MMA match or a first run movie. But the big media companies want to lock down EVERYTHING to thwart 'pirate' web TV stations from copying and rebroadcasting, and you and me from recording a show to watch later at a more convenient time. they want every last penny they can wrangle out of the consumer. If they succeed my TV will just be a screen for watching DVDs/Blu-rays.
@@crosslink1493 Just as Tunerless DVD recorders became prevalent in 2008 plus,so also will tunerless "TVS" in my opinion. Just a monitor with HDMI/Display port inputs. The corporate greed here is disgusting. I am all for capitalism but not at this cost in this market.
ATSC 3.0 is the standard for how the analog channel is used, so you can't really combine ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 on the same channel. The DRM is probably what you are really wondering about. The DRM itself could be limited only to the sub channels. Everyone should probably write their congressman and let's just go ahead and pass a law for the FCC to enforce stating either no DRM on public airwaves at all or else limited only to sub channels (and for which can't be the primary source of news on the channel). That would clear up all the ambiguity real quick.
To be able to decode tv over the air they want us to have an internet connection, how dumb is this. Better just to use internet for broadcasting , why they use tv over the air then? Regardless
@@dankeifer If you want tax breaks for the rich, failing our allies, election denial and cuddling up to dictators and tyrants, then vote for the orange guy. The same guy who intimidated gutless GOP representatives to purposely derail a historic bipartisan border deal they agreed to, just so he could campaign on it. Disgraceful. I don't expect you people to understand all the nuance though, but at least some of us are paying attention.
@@McGregorMX All you need to do is look at how historically the two parties have behaved in regard to the rights of the public vs corporate rights. See "net neutrality" if you need an example. You don't actually expect them to tell you the truth do you?
both sides are at fault, I'll tell you the truth. Trump side will do nothing except to benefit billionaire owner broadcasters and the Democrats were the ones who pushed into law Intellectual property rights giving them larger copyright protections. Neither side will help this except pressuring Jessica Rosenworcel and FCC into forcing broadcasters to implement without internet required and without WIDEVINE DRM
Hi lon! I’ve been subscribed years and years. And sometimes bud it just makes my day to hear your classic intro! And seeing you do what you enjoy🎉
Thanks for sticking around!
ATSC 3.0 will never have widespread adoption or deployment with encryption
**ANY APPLICATION OF DRM IN ANY FORM IS ANTI-CONSUMER**
In the context of the Communications Act and the FCC's mandate that broadcasters serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," the primary focus has traditionally been on ensuring that broadcast content is accessible to the widest possible audience without any special equipment or subscriptions. DRM limits that and is detrimental to serving the public.
Yes but that seems to not matter to them. This seems to be purely a takeover of the "Public's airwaves" by a narrow special interest.
I can see DRM on one subchannel for 'special events and first run movies" like ON-TV and Spectrum was in the 1980s OTA. That being said,most channels should be free and clear
Can we just file a class action lawsuit to get the DRM dropped on the ATSC 3.0 Stations?
Lon, you should include petitions, to the FTC and Congress! I have already summited your form to the FCC, but we should be pressuring others in the Government. More pressure on the Government can mean a better and quicker solution.
OTA with DRM and required internet? No way no how. Ever !
Zinwell sells an OTA ATSC 3.0 single tuner that in most situations shouldn't require the internet to decrypt ATSC 3.0. Just plug it in and it should work if the firmware is the correct one. If it isn't the correct one, WNY over the Air says you can try to get your DRM protected station to fix their DRM so its compatible with the Zinwell. Otherwise I think Lon did a video on the Zinwell also and he did like a 1 time update and is good no longer needing to connect it to the internet.
The DRM really sucks. I have that Zapperbox thing. The firmware updated and I could not receive some channels because the Zapperbox would not resolve the DRM, even though it was connected to the internet. I had to factory reset the thing and then I shut off auto-updates. Also I'm noticing that ATSC 3 looks no better than ATSC 1. It even has the same compression breakup and artifacts. One channel is broadcasting in HDR but it's fake injected HDR since no TV shows have real HDR applied.
This should’ve been created in a free manner just like the original over the air. The only benefit to providers is that they have targeted ads, which should be huge enough.
One of the carrots the FCC dangled before the broadcasters to get digital TV going was right to encrypt one or more sub-channels. Few, if any, broadcasters too advantage of this. I suspect that consumers will decide that if I have to pay for OTA TV I might as well pay for a dish or cable and get a zillion channels.
I'm the opposite, I think if I have to pay for ota, I'm going to get rid of every tv in my house and find other things to do. This makes me want to get my sailor hat out again.
the FCC shouldn't dongle anything, Broadcasters can easily be left in the dust by FCC yanking our licenses back and giving to content creators that are ethical for public use.
ATSC 3 basically does not exist in the real world - it is a technical demo. It doesn't appear that it will ever actually be useful to normal people. So I don't see why it gets so much press. It's the new AM Stereo.
It exists, it is just gimped because dinosaur broadcasters are clueless. ( I worked as a broadcast engineer for 30 years).
@@workshed556 It exists as much as AM Stereo exists, which is basically only in the lab.
So ATSC 3.0 looks beautiful even if the source is 1080p. Just the bump from 720p/1080i to 1080P looks amazing on my new TV and significantly better than any atsc 1.0
@@thedude5040 The miracle of 30-year better compression algorithms. The truth is ATSC 1.0 could use the same compression algothims if the broadcasters wanted to. Many modern TVs support these better codecs (but not all ATSC 1.0 tuners do, so they design for the lowest common denomiator).
@@thedude5040 - It probably also has to do with the h.265 video codec. 1080i to 1080p isn't a huge jump on it's own, but 10 years ago a recording from my NBC and CBS stations would consume about 7 GB per hour on the drive. Today a one hour recording is only about 3 GB. So they've drastically reduced the bitrate of the MPEG-2 video by more than half.
@LonSeidman keep up the great work. I am so disheartened by the DRM on ATSC 3. I've been looking forward to this new more robust signal for almost 7 years now, and maybe being able to switch to indoor antennas. For the most part, the ATSC 1 signal is fine, but there are a few channels that are prone to interference, and that is not an issue on the ATSC 3 channels. The problem is the few devices that can decrypt the DRM stink. As I write this I am in the process of returning the Zinwell box I just purchased on sale, because the IR remote control conflicts with the TVs remote control and there is some freezing happening when I watch--maybe not coincidentally I saw quite a bit of freezing when watching encrypted channels. I already purchased and returned the ADTH box when it first came out. Zapperbox is too much money for a non-network tuner, and I'm not buying new TVs, so I guess I will live with a little interference on ATSC 1 and give up the dream of all clear TV. This DRM thing is the pits.
All the ATSC3 broadcasters here in central Florida DID NOT turn off encryption before, during and after the last 2 hurricanes. One of the arguments these people made was that during emergencies, encryption would be turned off. If a hurricane is not an emergency, what the heck is?
Ditto on the signal quality. 3.0 may very well be the standard that everyone, even with a little indoor antenna will be able to get these channels. It's important that these channels are not locked down because of an archaic business model.
Great job 👏
I live in Tucson. All the channels are encrypted. My HDHomeRun is basically a paper weight.
My Zapperbox works, but as you said, it needs an internet connection, rendering it useless in times of an emergency.
My gut feeling is that ATSC 3.0 DRM will turn the way of HD Radio. Basically what I'm envisioning is that manufacturers will either pay to have ATSC 3.0 in their TV or they won't include a tuner at all. Also, I'm envisioning no more external tuners/DVR tuners after the transition phase that we're in now.
I don't see how any sunset date can be put into place with the shape that it is in. Awful.
i wonder if the networks can be sued for this because what they are doing goes agaisnt the public interest at large.
we had a couple of storms here in florida and i bet that ppl arent pleased to find out that they were put out of the loop because of encryption shenanigans
besides the public is paying taxes to the FCC to give licenses to these corps to implement this
ATSC 3.0 is dead to me. I'll stick with 1.0 forever. It works just fine and isn't crippled, I have an HDHomerun with 2 3.0 tuners, and this encryption has made it worthless. DRM sucks!!!
Until they shut down the 1.0 broadcasts at least...
sounds illegal encrypting. free to air
can we see zapperbox multiroom please
It should be illegal
I wonder how the economic breakdown of withholding free OTA ATSC 3.0 long enough to make the spectrum much more valuable to sell off when no one is watching due to the DRM works out.
Everybody needs to send a letter yes a physical letter to your local station that has DRM activated and state that they are not serving the local community by employing such practices. In order for the stations to keep their FCC license they must be serving the community. They get inspected every few years to see if they are upholding this mandate. They must keep all letters that they get from the community on file so the FCC can inspect them. You must make sure that in the letter that you state that they are not serving the local community.
WNC here.
Lon is right about broadband internet (and, towers), after the violent destruction--it was the last thing finally enabled--before water--which is not yet, even now, potable.
Given that this was enabled then, emergency info would have proven still impossible.
USB should not be part of the "solution," at all: A stupid and hasty makeshift add-on....
Besides, as for copying content, remember "kinescope?!" (Actually filming TV.)
Is their content really worth all this hassle and anger?: I like one sub-channel, an:yway.. ("Grit.")
Could the clueless broadcasters really prevent determined piracy, anyway?
This is akin to pirating a container ship--with only a few empty containers, aboard.....
Just remember this when you vote !
I'd rather have no TV than have Thump
ATSC 3.0 isn’t worth it for as long as channels are encrypted. If I wanted encrypted TV I’d just go for streaming. 🤦🏻♂️
In our country there is hd+ I don't have it, my children will not know RTL and so on
I fully expect to carry my TV set out to the curb in 2027. The internet is not getting connected to it.
This whole DRM thing makes a nonsense of "the public's airwaves" and also "in the public's interest". It looks to me like the FCC is just going to take away the rest of the TV band at some point in the future because nobody will be watching other than perhaps a few poor folks watching PBS and we all know they don't matter.
First and foremost, DRM control must be taken away from Google!
DRM needs to go away completely
No plans on buying any new tv...
Erie pa doesn't have any atsc 3 broadcast at all...
OTA bandwidth has been cut down over and over again. OTA TV broadcasting is a privilege and not a right. If these broadcasters don't want to broadcast in a manor that the vast majority of consumers want to view the content, then revoke their privilege and open it up to someone who will!
DRM is killing a great standard that would make OTA broadcasting far more attractive. By the time broadcasters come around they’ll have lost even more viewers to streaming
Soo does microsoft and apple just not care or they waiting to see what the end result turns out to be??
I expect everyone is waiting to see who gets elected like Lon said. There's little point in spending any money building new products until you know how the election turns out.
Can someone explain to me how broadcasters, who rely on advertising that needs to reach viewers, want to limit who can view?
This only makes sense if we were finally going to move away from ad riddled TV. There's a reason many of us don't watch live TV, preferring, instead, to view and removed versions after the fact.
Only have two of them encrypted. Fox 5 and ABC 13 in Las Vegas. Proplem is, if i had offline deciding of encryption; fox 5 is broadcast over the Internet. So you will need to be online to watch that channel anyways.
Where is the fancy grafics they can do with atsc 3.0,? Take you back 16 years. During election day 2008, they had the congress seat layout on the sides of the broadcast. Before they had HD cameras in the news rooms. I would like to see them do that again. Atsc 3.0 they can.
Look at what zapper box had to fix last week. Encryption update. That should have been in the video on your encryption complain.
Being in Canada I can barely get the 3 major OTA TV networks. I watch one of these networks for a total of 3 hrs a week. It would have been 4 hours but that network axed local news on weekends and holidays. I can not get any of the US networks OTA. Some of the Canadian networks carry shows from the US networks but I have no interest in them. Sorry to say but I axed cable 5 yrs ago and do not miss tv. By the way, I am in my sixties and simply got fed up w TV in general.
My dad is in his 60s and mostly reads books or listens to music. He still pays for TV (Hulu Live) for mom because she refuses to do On Demand preferring to only do linear programming. I axed cable like 5 years ago too and I'm in my 30s and am happy.
Between the HOA and geography, there's no antenna for my condo.
Your HOA should provide a centralized antenna that can feed signals to everyone if they aren't going to allow people to install their own antenna.
If they aren't providing one, they legally can't stop you from installing one.
Cant you install an antenna in the attic can you?
well this will kill off what market share TV has any ways.
conventional TV is dead.
I recommend not to buy any ATSC 3.0 devices or TV's as I'm going to wait until the FCC start shipping out STB that support ATSC 3.0 as I see no reason to spend $300.00 for a tuner that the FCC will have to send out anyway just like the digital converters they shipped out as I got two for free.
why can t sub channels be atsc 3.0
They could, good idea for stuff like a pay-per-view pro boxing/MMA match or a first run movie. But the big media companies want to lock down EVERYTHING to thwart 'pirate' web TV stations from copying and rebroadcasting, and you and me from recording a show to watch later at a more convenient time. they want every last penny they can wrangle out of the consumer. If they succeed my TV will just be a screen for watching DVDs/Blu-rays.
@@crosslink1493 Just as Tunerless DVD recorders became prevalent in 2008 plus,so also will tunerless "TVS" in my opinion. Just a monitor with HDMI/Display port inputs. The corporate greed here is disgusting. I am all for capitalism but not at this cost in this market.
ATSC 3.0 is the standard for how the analog channel is used, so you can't really combine ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 on the same channel. The DRM is probably what you are really wondering about. The DRM itself could be limited only to the sub channels.
Everyone should probably write their congressman and let's just go ahead and pass a law for the FCC to enforce stating either no DRM on public airwaves at all or else limited only to sub channels (and for which can't be the primary source of news on the channel). That would clear up all the ambiguity real quick.
To be able to decode tv over the air they want us to have an internet connection, how dumb is this. Better just to use internet for broadcasting , why they use tv over the air then? Regardless
They need to just release a app instead of these devices
No, they just need to get rid of DRM. If they did that I would watch ATSC-3 content. As it is, I expect to lug my TV out to the curb in 2027.
Don't vote GOP unless you want DRM.
Does the other side have a policy in there that removes it?
Maybe but everything else will be much better.😀
@@dankeifer If you want tax breaks for the rich, failing our allies, election denial and cuddling up to dictators and tyrants, then vote for the orange guy. The same guy who intimidated gutless GOP representatives to purposely derail a historic bipartisan border deal they agreed to, just so he could campaign on it. Disgraceful. I don't expect you people to understand all the nuance though, but at least some of us are paying attention.
@@McGregorMX All you need to do is look at how historically the two parties have behaved in regard to the rights of the public vs corporate rights. See "net neutrality" if you need an example. You don't actually expect them to tell you the truth do you?
both sides are at fault, I'll tell you the truth. Trump side will do nothing except to benefit billionaire owner broadcasters and the Democrats were the ones who pushed into law Intellectual property rights giving them larger copyright protections. Neither side will help this except pressuring Jessica Rosenworcel and FCC into forcing broadcasters to implement without internet required and without WIDEVINE DRM