It really is a shame that ATSC-3 has been made such a mess by all the DRM and encryption nonsense. The fact it makes it so people need the internet to get over the air tv and other bs like that has made it practically worthless to many people.
12:44 No. Non existent on one isn’t acceptable. DRM simply needs to go away. All the $$ being spent to encrypt everything is making the hardware more expensive. Which hurts consumers and is interfering with innovation (same innovations being mentioned in this video). They should be focusing that $$ on fighting those pirate companies directly. The hardware isn’t going to prevent the pirate companies as can be seen with DVD and Blu-ray. There are STILL people ripping Blu-rays for personal use. They are literally throwing money away and only making things more difficult and more expensive for the law abiding people.
@@mistermac56 just look at how it has slowed HDHR from being able to get certified. On top of that.. there are “certified” boxes which don’t prevent what they are saying is the reason for needing to encrypt.. so it is utter BS to move forward with this encryption.
8:50 well… they need to stop wasting their time trying to encrypt the signal. FCC needs to bring the ban hammer down on encryption so we can just move forward with ATSC 3.. or force the broadcasters back to ATSC 1.
That's all well and good if it weren't for all of this A3SA Encrypting in ATSC 3.0. There's even interference with satellite television when a good storm happens but at least with ATSC 1.0 without all of that encrypting at least there is something coming in even though you will need a super good antenna and thick RG6 Cable. It is easier to need and acquire that over them having to remake and certify every digital tv tuner to be A3SA encryption certified on top of being nextgen tv compliant just so that people can continue to watch TV free over the air without the need for an internet connection.
The problems with ATSC 3 aren’t technical, they’re political. Advocating for using modern codecs to deliver the same content and features over ATSC 1, and thus in a way that the NextGen cartel can’t control and slap encryption all over, will encourage them to be reasonable-and if not, eff ‘em, we’ve got this option regardless. Besides, we still have AM radio, so maybe RF modulation isn’t all that important, ultimately.
ATSC 1.0 had in the specs from the Grand Alliance that developed the standard to use a 30ft antenna as the basis for reception. They didn't even consider mobile or indoor reception. So all the real world performance were focused on that, a holdover from the 50's when everyone was willing to put up a 30ft antenna on their roof; never mind apartment dwellers. Great video explaining all the different layers within the spec. Your right, you can do 4k Dolby Atmos all you want with ATSC 1.0, but it does nothing for reception. The impacts of a moving truck or tree or airplane overhead will still cause glitching, and probably even worse for advanced codecs.
Excellent video, hitting on how much potential is still left on 1.0, and what 3.0 offers. It should be mentioned that by not sending null packets on 3.0, it makes FrankenFM possible. It's hard to see 3.0 succeeding in the current environment, and broadcasters will probably view new codecs over 1.0 as the way to go.
Zapperbox is the only ATSC 3.0 box that doesn’t support broadcast apps at the moment. The HDHomeRun is capable of having client apps support broadcast apps but client app developers haven’t added support to their apps. The ADTH Box, Zinwell ZAT-600B, and GTMedia HDTV Mate should all work with WMSN’s broadcast app.
I'm one of those people who are only holding out for ATSC 3.0 because of the possibility of tuners built into phones, just like those cheap GSM phones from China.
If ATSC 1.0 is capable of all that stuff, Then the only reason ATSC 3.0 exist, Is just for the encryption because the broadcasters only care about protecting there content, and aren't in the best interest of the consumer who watches this content over the air for free.
This is why I believe we need a well rounded FCC that imposes rules to benefit the average antenna user. The government is supposed to be by the people for the people. These airwaves are supposed to be the public’s, and the FCC is supposed to be the intermediary that operates on the taxpayer’s behalf.
I just created another UA-cam channel discussing other technology topics! Check it out here: www.youtube.com/@djrUnicast
It really is a shame that ATSC-3 has been made such a mess by all the DRM and encryption nonsense. The fact it makes it so people need the internet to get over the air tv and other bs like that has made it practically worthless to many people.
@@kensmith5694 *worthless to all people
I am one of the ones that want ATSC 3 to succeed, but DRM should not be allowed on the public airwaves. period.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ☝️
12:44 No. Non existent on one isn’t acceptable. DRM simply needs to go away. All the $$ being spent to encrypt everything is making the hardware more expensive. Which hurts consumers and is interfering with innovation (same innovations being mentioned in this video). They should be focusing that $$ on fighting those pirate companies directly. The hardware isn’t going to prevent the pirate companies as can be seen with DVD and Blu-ray. There are STILL people ripping Blu-rays for personal use. They are literally throwing money away and only making things more difficult and more expensive for the law abiding people.
In my opinion, until the lower priced TV sets include NextGen TV tuners, ATSC 3.0 will wither on the vine and eventually die.
@@mistermac56 just look at how it has slowed HDHR from being able to get certified.
On top of that.. there are “certified” boxes which don’t prevent what they are saying is the reason for needing to encrypt.. so it is utter BS to move forward with this encryption.
8:50 well… they need to stop wasting their time trying to encrypt the signal. FCC needs to bring the ban hammer down on encryption so we can just move forward with ATSC 3.. or force the broadcasters back to ATSC 1.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ☝️
That's all well and good if it weren't for all of this A3SA Encrypting in ATSC 3.0.
There's even interference with satellite television when a good storm happens but at least with ATSC 1.0 without all of that encrypting at least there is something coming in even though you will need a super good antenna and thick RG6 Cable. It is easier to need and acquire that over them having to remake and certify every digital tv tuner to be A3SA encryption certified on top of being nextgen tv compliant just so that people can continue to watch TV free over the air without the need for an internet connection.
The problems with ATSC 3 aren’t technical, they’re political. Advocating for using modern codecs to deliver the same content and features over ATSC 1, and thus in a way that the NextGen cartel can’t control and slap encryption all over, will encourage them to be reasonable-and if not, eff ‘em, we’ve got this option regardless. Besides, we still have AM radio, so maybe RF modulation isn’t all that important, ultimately.
ATSC 1.0 had in the specs from the Grand Alliance that developed the standard to use a 30ft antenna as the basis for reception. They didn't even consider mobile or indoor reception. So all the real world performance were focused on that, a holdover from the 50's when everyone was willing to put up a 30ft antenna on their roof; never mind apartment dwellers.
Great video explaining all the different layers within the spec. Your right, you can do 4k Dolby Atmos all you want with ATSC 1.0, but it does nothing for reception. The impacts of a moving truck or tree or airplane overhead will still cause glitching, and probably even worse for advanced codecs.
Excellent video, hitting on how much potential is still left on 1.0, and what 3.0 offers. It should be mentioned that by not sending null packets on 3.0, it makes FrankenFM possible. It's hard to see 3.0 succeeding in the current environment, and broadcasters will probably view new codecs over 1.0 as the way to go.
What's the app used on 1:12?
TSReader: www.tsreader.com/index.html
I receive WMSN Madison 47 OTA. I have a Zapperbox. I can't find a page like you are showing. Do you need a HD Homerun?
Zapperbox is the only ATSC 3.0 box that doesn’t support broadcast apps at the moment. The HDHomeRun is capable of having client apps support broadcast apps but client app developers haven’t added support to their apps. The ADTH Box, Zinwell ZAT-600B, and GTMedia HDTV Mate should all work with WMSN’s broadcast app.
Gotta update your screenshot of the rabbitears station info page for my station ;)
I'm one of those people who are only holding out for ATSC 3.0 because of the possibility of tuners built into phones, just like those cheap GSM phones from China.
ATSC 3.0 capabilities should be in smartphones sold in India in the near future. Hopefully that will also happen in the U.S.
I guess you were referring to WBBZ refusing to add MeTV toons because they said they don't have any more capacity on their signal.
Yep
I already knew that ATSC 1.0 was capable to use interactive programs and apps
If ATSC 1.0 is capable of all that stuff, Then the only reason ATSC 3.0 exist, Is just for the encryption because the broadcasters only care about protecting there content, and aren't in the best interest of the consumer who watches this content over the air for free.
This is why I believe we need a well rounded FCC that imposes rules to benefit the average antenna user. The government is supposed to be by the people for the people. These airwaves are supposed to be the public’s, and the FCC is supposed to be the intermediary that operates on the taxpayer’s behalf.
ATSC 1.0 uses 8VSB which makes it less robust than OFDM used in ATSC 3.0. Try tuning an ATSC 1.0 signal on a car in motion and it won’t tune.
@@WNYOverTheAir any word on a fcc change when a diff pres is installed?
@@WNYOverTheAir 💯 correct!!!!
All Television Subscription Channels (ATSC)
That's if you are talking about these same channels being also available over cable (Community Antenna) or Satellite Services then yes indeed.
Google keep that DRM