ATSC 3 DRM Encryption is Worse Than We Thought!

[@SpaceJazz3K]

FCC needs to start revoking licenses for their spectrum monopoly if they don’t serve the public.

[@CantankerousDave]

Hah. Remember Ajit Pai? Regulatory capture is real.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

Chicken vs Egg. Drm nextgen-tv can not get rid of drm free version 1.0 TV until people buy nextgen-tv turners in large numbers. We have the power to stop drm by not buying drm nextgen-tv.

[@lap456]

SpaceJaxx3K that may not be easy I remanber sending an simmer requst to the FCC get may landlords contract with Cox Cable TV voided so can get an new ISP. But it truned out all is did was it made COX rise my bill and it Beeped off my landlord.

[@kakurerud7516]

sure thing! Right away! but first, there is the little matter of payment.

[@Blindowl1234]

FCC is useless. End of story

[@josephregallis3394]

The broadcasters are trying to own over-the-air broadcasts! Don't let them do it! It needs to be free and easy access!

[@TELEVISIONARCHIVES]

Well, they don't own the airwaves but they do actually own the content

[@RickPaquin]

@@TELEVISIONARCHIVES Well, they don't legally own the airwaves, BUT each licensed owner is authorized to use a portion of our limited bandwidth without any time limits, as long as they follow the rules and renew their licenses. Hmm,... Sounds like ownership to me, maybe not legally, but practically speaking. I've often wondered why any company should be able to operate on one of our limited OTA frequencies, pretty much forever? So practically speaking these companies do own a portion of our spectrum, and it's forever! I'd like to see some "use limits" set on these companies. They should basically be authorized to use a set of our limited frequency spectrum for x number of years, then be forced to give someone else an opportunity to use them. We need FCC reform.

[@Relkond]

Trying to own? Or just trying to kill? If nobody’s watching, there’s no point going to the expense to broadcast.

[@jockoharpo2622]

I don't watch any of it anymore. They'll stop it if everybody cut the cord.

[@MegaLokopo]

@@RickPaquin What would you want instead? If you want to be able to broadcast on the airwaves you can save up some money and buy permission to do so. Why should a company be forced to stop doing business because they have done business for x number of years. What are you trying to use the airwaves for now that you can't already do better with a different technology.

[@gstar7686]

The ultimate goal is for the networks to charge a monthly fee for OTA broadcasts. They absolutely hate that people can get these channels for free.

[@paulwarner5395]

They'll have to make it commercial free then just like regular pay TV ..... Oh wait.

[@polarvortex6601]

this is the idea

[@lap456]

Monthly fee for OTA broadcasts that's like no AM radio in cars. Forexpull where I live Lafayette, La we need The Emergency Alert System to work. No free TV mands we will get no threats to public safety, no severe weather situations and no civil emergenciey reports to name just an few.

[@polarvortex6601]

@@lap456 yeah you are correct. but they dont care. at least i think they really dont anyway

[@madmax2069]

They already do in a way, with the rebroadcast fees they get from streaming services that you have to pay for, they're trying to push you into those streaming services so that they can dump OTA altogether.

[@brians8664]

What the network broadcasters don’t realize is that making this intentionally inconvenient will simply force the vast majority of people to stop consuming their content. Talk about tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

[@ianbelletti6241]

No. They're actually asking by action that the government stop funding them. You have to remember that they are part of the Emergency Broadcast System and that is why they receive government funding and the signal is required to be free. When you provide an essential governmental service, free access to that service is required. In this case, the DRM would block the emergency broadcasts, or if not blocked, force the reduced effectiveness because most people don't want to watch static just waiting for the rare emergency broadcast. It's in the government's interest to keep broadcasts on these stations unencrypted.

[@MegaLokopo]

@@ianbelletti6241 Who watches tv all day just in case there is an emergency broadcast? I just do whatever I would be doing anyways, and wait for my phone to play the alert.

[@ianbelletti6241]

@@MegaLokopo that's my point. We watch TV for entertainment. If we cannot consume entertainment we will definitely not be there for the emergency broadcast. That's why the DRM is bad for the EBS broadcasts even if they don't protect the emergency broadcasts with DRM. We're not watching in case an emergency happens. The system is there so that the government can communicate to all who are watching in an emergency. It's in the government's interest to make sure that conditions remain in a way that allows and encourages as many people to view the broadcast as possible. Besides, your phone isn't entirely reliable. There's always the chance that something would happen that prevents your phone from receiving the signal. The broadcasts on TV could be a secondary or tertiary method of receiving those alerts.

[@jemmrich]

I agree with the original poster. I personally believe this might be good for everyone. Sure it takes away something free. But it will drive people away to other services that are more accessible and more personalized. It's like here in Canada, the government is trying to extort money from Google and Facebook for linking to news. So Google and Facebook just blocked news. Now, our media companies are crying because the traffic to their websites have dramatically dropped. It's great! Less tools for propaganda. TV is an archaic technology.

[@robertwynkoop68]

I already do not consume much of the over the air-content. It seems anything worth watching is not on regular over the air TV signals these days.

[@JamesSmith-sw3nk]

“One thing that we have learned is that piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue. The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.” - Gabe Newell This is why piracy will always exists and torrents will never die. Most corporate greed is never satisfied. Consumers have limits.

[@kaasmeester5903]

Exactly, and it has been true for a long time. Games that didn't run until you entered a word from the manual that was printed black on dark red paper so it'd be hard to photocopy. DVDs with FBI warnings and unskippable ads. And I still get the occasional "HDCP error" that only goes away after I randomly turn some equipment off and on. The pirated product just offers a much better experience, to the point where you might obtain a pirated copy even if you already own a legitimate one. "Pirates are just underserved customers"

[@kensmith5694]

I use bit-torrent for perfectly legit stuff. It is great for distributing stuff that is public domain because then no one person has to pay for server space and internet to do it. All those who care about that bit of public domain stuff can share the costs.

[@ai4px]

You are on to something. I remember dvds got to the point where you couldn’t skip the trailers. I used to get music from tpb but when the iPhone came out I gladly went legit. But a song I purchase got lost. I couldn’t down load it again and I couldn’t even pay for it again either. Piracy is a usability issue.

[@MegaLokopo]

What do they need to do to convince you to pay for a service they provide? If you refuse to pay money and refuse to watch or interact with ads, why do you expect them to provide you with a service for free?

[@jockoharpo2622]

Such Hypiracy.

[@PatrickWagstrom]

We had a real challenging moment the other night here in Connecticut. We received a notice that there was a tornado in the area. The only way to get good real-time information about a tornado is over television. But what if that television is in an unsafe location of the home? If all those channels were encrypted then we would've been unable to pick up real time information. Although WFSB and WVIT are both DRM encrypted, thankfully WCCT, WTNH, and WTIC are not yet encrypted and we could watch it through Channels on my iPad. That's a serious health and safety problem.

[@carolea7158]

Wow that's messed up

[@jeffreykoerber6595]

I agree. Even if they drop the encryption during emergencies, the fact they are encrypting will limit acceptance of ATSC 3.0, devices won’t be manufactured and ATSC 3.0 will be useless in an emergency.

[@SithLordDarthBane]

As an emergency manager in the past this is how my petition was written!

[@TheRasta4ri]

cellular handsets have a fm modulator allowing the user to get FM radio world-wide some handsets need activation other are deliberately deactivated but its their. Compared to wifi or data the fm modulator in your phone uses minimal power. Most if not all carriers & manufacturers today prefer you not be aware the modulator exsist.

[@RickPaquin]

Where were WFSB and WVIT's unencrypted ATSC 1.0 signals?? I'm confused. And yes, being able to stream signals from your antenna to a closet or safe area of your home is VERY good safety consideration. I can do it as well but I don't think many in the general public are aware.

[@zachronspees6432]

As one of my former teachers use to say "Follow the money". This comes as no surprise, glad it was confirmed.

[@MrTheinfoman]

Reality "The only difference between the government and the mafia is that the mafia turns a profit" meanwhile legacy media is getting more air time while reagitating US state propaganda.

[@timothystevenhoward]

Effectively each network wants their own Netflix but using taxpayer dollars and our airspace. It's not theirs, but they operate like it is. Me, personally. I don't think re-selling transmission of free over the air TV should be legal. I don't care who does it. You wouldn't allow the government to park their vehicles in your driveway and garage and also pay a fee for them to do so. We are losing the war for freedom a little every day.

[@polarvortex6601]

yup

[@andreamitchell4758]

just wait till manifest v3 takes over the web, it will be more than little jump in freedom loss

[@tux_the_astronaut]

Another step forward in the you will own nothing and be happy future

[@YouTube_User-9]

Funny how it's illegal according to the FCC to send encrypted transmission in amateur radio.

[@markarca6360]

DMR: Am I a joke to you?

[@Darklor_WCF]

@markarca6360 dmrs legal for licensed amateur operator use are encoded, not encrypted, and are expressly authorized via fcc rules. Therr are even portions of the amateur spectrum specifically reserved for digital modes

[@xr500t]

It's the reason the Boston area, which was one of the "First Markets" to start broadcasting atsc 3.0 (now going back at least 2 years) was delayed until this year, and immediately went to DRM. I'm LIVID! Just like you, I'm in the twilight zone of reception and the improved tech would have been a life saver. I've been on antenna for several years after getting no better service from the likes of comcast. They tried to fight for that box rental fee along with their poor service. We just had a Tornado touch down in our area and having a reliable broadcast of an emergency warning is critical. I've signed the petition and I hope more people sign on to support OTA. Thank You for keeping this on the forefront.

[@SuperFlashDriver]

That's why it's always great to keep a radio with ya if necessary, this way contact with emergency services is still viable.

[@donaldhoudek2889]

I am not sure if they can do this, but I fear that the Broadcasters will LOWER the ATSC 1 signal strength and maintain a HIGHER ATSC 3 signal strength to in a way force those on ATSC 1 to move to ATSC 3. I hope the FCC forces them maintain and keep a strong signal. Time will tell!

[@RickPaquin]

They can and will do this. They will also cram all of their current HD stations into 480 dpi sub stations with heavy compression. It will be like returning to resolution of analog TV unless you pay a monthly fee. The FCC is correct, ATSC 1.0 WILL be around for a while, but they sure didn't say in what form! It's what the FCC isn't telling us that concerns me. We're the taxpayer and it seems to me we need to have full disclosure about the changes planned to our current OTA frequencies, but apparently we're not in control! The corporations enjoy a better relationship with the FCC than we enjoy. My cell phone still has robocalls. The FCC, working with cell phone companies seems to actually be allowing this, since it hasn't been corrected. It appears the cell companies are getting a free pass to continue with what I consider robocall harassment. I'm a little tired of lame excuses. They can fix that problem. It's all about catering to big business.

[@oubrioko]

@@RickPaquin You must know by now that (cell) phone companies are _never_ going to fully cooperate to eliminate robocalls because... they're in the _phone_ business. Eliminating robocalls means eliminating *robocallers,* who happen to be an important sector of phone line *customers* for phone companies. So, eliminating robocallers means fewer phone line _customers,_ and that would be _bad_ for business. If robocalls were actually causing phone companies to _lose_ money... those types of calls would have been eliminated two decades ago. Both the FCC and Congress know this, and each is at least partially complicit. Ever heard of anyone being _prosecuted_ for spoofing Caller ID? Every wondered _why not?_ Caller ID spoofing and numerous other tactics used by robocallers are _legal._ Congress wants to be certain that You and I still receive those political robocalls come election season every two years, while the FCC is _supposedly_ balancing the annoyance of robocalls against the phone companies _claims_ that they could lose business if robocalling became illegal, and that outlawing robocalls could be a 1st Amendment violation. It's just another vicious cycle of legislative and regulatory horse sh-tery

[@germanjohn5626]

They can't, and don't believe all the hype, people will still be able to receive ATSC 3.0 for free the only thing they will not be able to do is pirate the intellectual property by recording them on devices that permit unlimited reproduction.

[@thetechq]

I’ve thought that they should turn over the broadcast bands to one or more of the following: 1) Part 15 unlicensed use 2) Part 95 Personal Radio Service 3) Part 97 Amateur Radio Service Broadcasters have not operated in the public interest in a long time and they need to stop wasting valuable spectrum.

[@tabbertmj]

I like that idea. 216-222Mhz that UPS wanted then never used should also go back to the amateur radio service.

[@singletona082]

i'm partial to a tiered system: Partial Specturm: unlicensed with some heavy restrictions on transmit power and antenna types, (essentially less than a mile,) licensed equipment that can transmit further but you aren't allowed to modify it and the equipment has a broadcast ident requirement Then give everything to Amature Use with transmit restrictions in line with everything else (essentially 1500 watts peak envelope power if I remeber right.) As Amature use is on the table encryption is strictly OFF the table. No encryption and for anything other than VERY short ranged use that itself is limited in range has an ID attached to it in case someone does the stupid thing to try ensuring nobody can have nice things. Hams get... bullish when it comes to bandm isuse, and that's because we have had our band access attacked basically ever since world war one and ther'es this culture that 'if w edo not self regulate harshly they WILL take this away forever.'

[@ianbelletti6241]

Then what is the Emergency Broadcast System. The reason those signals are supposed to be free is because of the Emergency Broadcast System. It is a public service. I could see some of those frequencies being given up to amateur TV broadcasters.

[@MrTheinfoman]

More government regulation = more ways to control and DRM your rights away

[@LaurenGlenn]

If you need an internet connection to validate DRM, why not just stream the whole content? Thats what they want. They want those fees... Spot on

[@SpaceJazz3K]

Reminder this only effects people trying to operate within the bounds of the technology. DRM has never even slowed down bad actors that are doing the piracy, internet rebroadcast, etc. Shocking how backwards this is. With this kind of punishment of users and frankly quickly declining content quality it’s going to blow up in the big broadcasters faces.

[@thedude5040]

This DRM is much harder to bypass than a simple HDCP handshake as I believe new keys have to be downloaded weekly meaning even a TV that is ATSC approved could be banned from viewing atsc 3.0 content

[@Honeypot-x9s]

Actually, my current understanding of how the keys work on the diagrams and shit I’ve studied. It actually has some vulnerabilities that could probably be exploited by reverse engineers. The two-way communications only an advertised point right now it’s not enforced it’s not used and it probably would massively reduce their coverage because what is a TV or decoder box really gonna be able to output through a little rabbit, ear, and or patch and panel on your wall? Which yeah they’d have to account for people having crappy antennas in crappy places. Basically what the vulnerability means is given that they’re gonna make ATSC three boxes probably cheap or relatively affordable because they’re gonna want an adoption rate you’re gonna be able to mess around with the hardware and software and eventually figure out what triggers are valid versus invalid key check . Not only that but this does nothing to stop re-broadcasting. Yes, it will slow down re-broadcasting because someone has to pay to it but it’s never stopped if them from doing it. In fact, there’s usually a number of people re-broadcasting each channel so if someone drops out, you don’t even notice as a viewer.

[@DaveBukowski]

@@Honeypot-x9s No system is unhackable.

[@DaveBukowski]

It's just the same as it is with firearms laws. The only people it affects are those who follow the law. Those who break the law, aren't affected. All this will do is just lose viewership, decrease trust in public broadcast, and in general piss off the population. Hope the ads these broadcasters use have deep pockets, as eventually that will be their only source of income and once the companies behind the ads find out they are losing viewers, less likely to give funding to those networks to run their ads. If no viewers, then it would not make sense to push money towards ads.

[@timbo303official9]

​​​​@@thedude5040all it takes is one external tuner and its bye bye drm. Thats because you can use a video encoder or a capture card. Granted its on 24/7. External tuners are needed regardless since many people will not replace tvs or upgrade tvs if they already have a good one. Not to mention parts can break.

[@lowbar77]

Its never going to change. Those in control will always do whatever they want at the expense of the masses. FTC as I understand it, has no elected officials, so we can petition all we want, they only listen to their buddies with lots of money and power. I am glad that Lon is sharing this info and helping to present the petitions. It is just unfortunate what the world has become. I have weened myself off all broadcast or buy what I want outright. (Which is very little) I am just sick of all their games. Keep up the great work Lon.

[@kensmith5694]

Contact the folks you did elect. Remember that the FCC's budget gets done each year. There is leverage.

[@robertmason7013]

Lets file a class auction lawsuit that will stop DRM inception.are you could ask a federal judge to put a stop to DRM inscription.this would force TV stations to spend a lot of time and money fighting this.

[@polarvortex6601]

it costs a lot of money but either way a class action could unravel all of this

[@bobblair2682]

You hit the nail right on the head. The freedom to consume free over the air content as you choose.

[@WoodwardSystems]

When you factor in EAS, how is this allowed? If your TV or streaming device (HDHomeRun) isn’t ATSC 3.0 certified, etc. you can’t view the signal and in turn miss life saving information from EAS alerts or even local news broadcast during severe weather. Over the air isn’t cable or satellite. It’s public airwaves. That was the entire argument for keeping AM radio in EV cars. EAS.

[@kevinmarion7386]

Thanks for all you do Lon. I cut the cord back in 2017 with major help from you and Luke over at Cord Cutters News. I’ve tried almost every streaming service, streaming box and everything in between. Settled on Plex with an antenna on my roof in 2020. I subscribe to services as I need when I want to watch something that isn’t on local TV. I’m hoping the FCC listens to us and get this straightened out. This seems so unfair to consumers.

[@caelestigladii]

How to make sure "piracy" as defined by holywood exists: Make the paying customer experience worse service than the "pirate".

[@larrysmith2608]

Major networks are paying major lobbying to require subscriptions.

[@Jordanpgates1]

I really appreciate you bringing this important topic to our attention. Although I can afford to see all these channels myself, I do not appreciate the fact that they are restricting those who cannot afford cable!

[@kensmith5694]

There is also a "I can currently afford" element to this. They may notice that you have some money left.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

Do not buy nextgen-tv equipment until this drm issue is fixed. Stay on version 1.0 tv forever until drm is gone.

[@PapaSorin954]

1.0 won't last forever. not buying ATSC 3.0 now won't hurt the broadcaster's pockets.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

The USA government can not force you to buy an electric car or to buy government controlled drm nextgen-tv. Do not buy drm nextgen-tv. Stay on free version 1.0 tv forever. Just say no is your vote on this drm issue.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

Chicken vs Egg. Drm nextgen-tv can not get rid of drm free version 1.0 TV until people buy nextgen-tv turners in large numbers. We have the power to stop drm by not buying drm nextgen-tv.

[@timbo303official9]

Drm can be defeated with just one external tuner able to decrypt the content. But at the same time no one can watch the content. Once that gets resolved just buy a video encoder to bypass the stupid drm.

[@CommodoreFan64]

The big broadcasters keep this up, as more, and more people cut/shave the cord, and can't access their content OTA, as cable like streaming services get more, and more expensive then they will have no viewers whatsoever!! I'll just get my news, and weather forecast from independent sources online, or just weather radio in emergencies, which I hope never shuts down.

[@JessicaFEREM]

I think that updating antenna standards for longer reach is not a bad thing. encryption of over the air signals is a horrible thing. we have to share the air waves together and they're stealing airspace if we'd have to pay for something people could get for free a few years ago

[@LarryKapp1]

I just filed a comment with the FCC for docket 16-142. Thanks for providing the information about this.

[@pranavmishra5541]

Excellent video, will be submitting an FCC comment. Really the last part of your video was the most important. This is not about IP protection, it’s about loss of subscribers prevention. We (the people, taxpayers) own the airwaves. I’m curious (read: it’s obvious) what would happen to their bottom line if they lost cable subscribers and OTA customers -> less advertiser revenue.

[@DaveBukowski]

same form of "malicious compliance" I was thinking of for the same purpose. LOL

[@ken830]

In all forms of digital content (music, television, movies, books, games, SW applications) it is always the industry and their anti-consumer practices that feed and drive piracy.

[@koilamaoh4238]

this is why i have a media pc that runs wind0ws 7 with 20tb worth of tv/music/games/books, no need netflix, it always work without the internet. no commericials, no need isp or ads constantly monitoring habits.

[@ken830]

@@koilamaoh4238 yup. A media PC and I'm just over 60TB on my NAS.

[@modeltfordman]

I cant even get Ota channels in my area since dtv took over. I'd have to have a huge antenna way up in the air to even pick up PBS. I Remember when I could use a portable TV and get my local TV. Those were the days.

[@nonamejoe]

You're right in every sense about public broadcasting & cable providers. We need to tell the FCC & every egency in the government to take action & do something about it for the benefit of the consumers & the public!!!

[@ehondo88]

Nice video. The spectrum that the broadcast are using is worth billions of dollars, if they don't want to offer a public service that everyone can use, then the FCC should find other uses for it.

[@marcus_cole_2]

What is the point of having a supposedly "free" over-the-air broadcast system for antennas with DRM, where they restrict essential features and prevent you from using it like a traditional antenna with a VCR? Now they want to add DRM to something they provide for free and control how you use it, pushing more and more people to piracy where DRM does not exist. All you need is a freaking server and a program that does encoding and decoding and know how to download with a VPN or a downloaded manager; screw their bullshit. They're literally pushing us in the wrong direction. Don't even broadcast Free TV if you're going to do this; it's counterproductive. It's better to have no TV than deal with such complicated hoops to jump through that are made out of fire, lightning, and a black hole. No one's going to jump through those hoops, and no one's going to pay you for your TV on cable once they learn how the internet works.

[@andreamitchell4758]

"pushing more and more people to piracy where DRM does not exist" Yeah about that... they are attacking 2 fronts at the same time, while theyare pushign for atsc3 they are also pushing for manifest v3 to lock down the web at the same time, they best thing to do is to 100% boycott them, do not buy ANY Google product or service and do not buy ANY Disney product or service for starters,do not pay for any hollywood content , pay only for minimal ISP service and nothing more

[@jmr]

These are all the things I was ranting about on the Tablo forums back in September.

[@SuperBigDog2U]

Isn't it amazing when television was solely over the air, the stations made their money solely from advertisers sponsoring their channels shows, and those shows were far better than the shows we have today. Case in point probably most people here prefer to watch you Lon than the garbage that's broadcast on local networks these days. Yet still these networks not only want money from their advertisers, but now want money from the viewers that are making advertisers pay them for their ads on their networks....didn't we have a tea party over such double dipping of fees????? Aren't we already paying by watching the ads the advertisers are paying the networks to put on their network????

[@johnmoyer2849]

It's called greed.bye bye tv.

[@glennesavage7443]

Broadcasters are supposed to make their money from advertisers...not "consumers". If I have to sit through 13-17 minutes of commercials for every hour I watch, you can bet you *ss I'm not paying.

[@hawaiifiles]

This is terrible. Totally nixes the main reason why I cut my cord years ago... I don't want to pay for content that is legally FREE! Ugh!!!!!!!!!!

[@jeffchisamore1556]

This was... the whole point of the DRM feature tied in with internet access. Doesn't matter what they've said in the past. I'm more surprised this is suddenly a big deal.

[@brandonjohnson2255]

Thanks for the links to the FCC. This is what I wrote. "Broadcasters are turning on Digital Rights Management encryption on free over the air broadcasts. Not only does that immediately break the compatibility of some current televisions and tuners that have already been sold into the market for the last few years to work with ATSC 3.0 , it will severely restrict access to record and play back broadcasts for later viewing on DVRs. In home recording / streaming technology provides an affordable option for those that can not pay for cable, satellite, or the other plethora of individual streaming apps. This has become an essential feature of consuming content for most Americans. As it let's them see programming they might otherwise miss or not be able to watch live. This can include public television like educational programs for children that air during the day, when your average person might be at work from networks like PBS. Open, not encrypted, standardized signals, on free over the air broadcasts, are essential to give consumers choices in an ever changing landscape of increasing media content pricing. Walled gardens of individual streaming services with limited content, blackout restrictions, large media company mergers and acquisitions, regional sports networks discontinuing service, etc."

[@rricci]

I have a question. In the video, you said that receivingthe ATSC 1.0 was iffy. How was it before? If it was better, perhaps the station is lowering the power on purpose?

[@clintmatthews3500]

I think the usable range of ATSC 1.0 is shorter than analog and stations have been intentionally fudging their signals. Digital switch was never for the end user’s benefit.

[@4ryan42]

Does anyone remember those old sketchy cable descrambler boxes? We're gonna need those again for FREE OTA television.

[@billhennigan3773]

Cable companies will just raise internet prices to get more $$$$$.mine is comcast..$119.00 so far..I cut them out when I was charged $230.00 a m

[@generalshakewell]

20 legacy television executives downvoted this video.

[@00jdadams]

I have heard for my entire life that OTA broadcasts were free to the public for many reasons but the most important of which is to serve the Publix interest, access to information. For example, severe weather. I have already stopped watching broadcast TV because of the shenanigans that are going on and this will make it worse. Broadcasters ratings are continuing to decline year-over-year because people are watching video over the internet or they're watching other content. It's only going to get worse for them.

[@luiselizondo1038]

Great work Lon! Please keep it up! I signed the petition! I have been trying to cut the cord now for like 15! Seems like every time I find a solution, and come back and try and take it away! I pretty much run everything through a Plex server and an on roof antenna! So this will impact me greatly! Is over-the-air TV really free anyway? I mean we have to sit through all the commercials! So they are collecting money! I don't see what the desired to lock things down is going to do? Thanks again!

[@BartlettTFD]

Great information but very sad that tv stations have become so desperate for money now that they willing to restrict their over-the-air signal. The old pay-to-play game is apparently live and well☹️

[@yourpalfranc]

Thanks for staying (aggressively) on top of this, Lon!! I hope it's a battle we can win, but these days I'm not so sure. I've signed the petition and filed a complaint with the FCC. So, I'm standing by for the next move in your strategy. ~Frank

[@dathyr1]

This whole thing about ATSC 3 - the bottom line is the OTA users are going to be completely screwed. Unless my current LCD TV becomes defective, I am not going to spend a single dime on ATSC 3.0 devices. If 2027 rolls around and I can't watch anything with my current antenna and LCD TV, screw the FCC. I will go back to radio to listen to news and weather.

[@Ziggy7800Pro]

Right on! I have signed the petition and filled a thing out to FCC.

[@StevefromOhio1972]

It's all about the money. Encryption should be outlawed.

[@nrnoble]

Maybe if stations enable encryption, they should be required to maintain ATSC 1.0 for those same channels at the same quality.

[@RickPaquin]

Reasonable, but NOT likely!!

[@esenterre]

I'm from Canada. Don't know the status of ATSC 3.0 here. But I follow your journey ! If I can do something, ring a bell!

[@reticularimus]

I appreciate lon's enthusiasm and gumption, but broadcast tv is in a death spiral. Local news doesn't have the funding it once did. Reporting is consolidated across stations in multiple markets such that there is less and less local reporting. And the national networks with which the local channels are affiliated don't have as much money for programming, so it is not as good. I say let it go. Cable/satellite also have their best days behind them. In the beginning I thought streaming was great, but now I think that it kind of ruined everything.

[@carolea7158]

Anne Schelle with Pearl TV is also on the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Board of Directors. That board rates charities. I doubt that's the worst out there. And apparently Pearl TV includes all the major broadcasting corporations.

[@jamesheartney9546]

It's hardly surprising to me that this new digital format, which is being led by private industry rather than as a public initiative (given that it's traveling over public airwaves), will turn out to be another parasitic rent-seeking exercise. As I've been saying, there's a good chance this scuppers the whole transition, and we'll be stuck with ATSC 1.0 for the foreseeable future. May Sinclair et al lose their shirts as a result.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

It is good news that the first official nextgen-tv Logo ADTH approved tuners are now starting to ship. Hope someone will give us a status report if it is worth the price.

[@JoeSiegler]

7:40 - this kind of stuff (prevent recording, delete recordings) have been a thing for AGES on TiVo. If you used a cable card on your TiVo, these things have ben there for years and years. Fortunately I'm antenna only with my TiVo. So that's a non issue.

[@Damariobros]

While we're protesting this, can we protest those goddamn binge schedules as well? Half the time there's nothing good on and it's all that same show for the next day and a half, followed by another 9 hours of another show that's not good! And it's ubiquitous across all channels!

[@mwjii]

This is getting ridiculous I used to get wfsb 1.0 now nothing and no more hd stations. I’ve filed and signed keep up the good job!

[@SuperFredAZ]

the broadcasters are doing all of this as cable and over the air viewing is now less than 50% and dropping every year!

[@beachbumsailordude]

The punch line here is that most of the content they are PROTECTING is very old TV shows and really bad new TV shows. They are lucky anyone watches these channels at all.

[@dlengelkes]

OTA should remain free and unencrypted. Sounds like they are moving over to a subscription model.

[@mackjay1777]

I am in the Boston area and our local channels have all been listed as having DRM. Once that happened I could not receive any of them in NextGen format. Then, a few days ago I ran a channel scan again and they came back. I have an ATSC 3.0 equipped TV and it takes a while for these channels to show up...however, running a second scan I see the non-NextGen versions are back (frankly I'm happy to live with those anyway)....Just an odd thing, in any case

[@russellfort]

I agree with all the comments. Over the Air TV should be free and available to as many people as possible in exchange for use of the airwaves. However, I also think this topic is moot. Local broadcasters are too late to the digital age. I stream 100% of my content these days. I have an outdoor antenna and Tablo DVR, which I originally used to receive local weather forecasts and prime time programming. However, I haven't used it in over a year. I find my weather coverage from the National Weather service and numerous apps is superior to the local weatherman. The quality of local news coverage isn't worth the time I spend watching it. I fear the age of broadcast television has come to an end. I personally no longer have a use for a local provider. The quality of their local programming has disappeared. Let them hide it behind a paywall. It will bring about their extension that much faster.

[@earlfleer2723]

Previous attempts at encripting commerical TV stations in Kansas City and St. Louis Missouri failed back in 1977-1980. Free over the air TV (OTA) was the preference for home viewers. Keep it free and they will watch.

[@jerrybirdsong4069]

All the talk about paying for local tv will end when politicians find out how many people are willing to pay to watch their ads and speeches.

[@leesully1669]

In 1987.. Star Trek predicted that this medium would die by 2040. Hmmm....

[@walterroche8192]

Over 60 years of little change now it's every few years it's but this or that! Freaking working together!!

[@009dustin]

Thanks!

[@LonSeidman]

Thank you for your support !

[@jamespruett2849]

Lon if wasn't for you and Tyler I would have never heard of next gen tv I haven't heard a word about it on my local channels,I've talk to my family and friends they have never heard of it

[@ronkeyes659]

Well said and very articulate!! You have certainly taken up the cause on behalf of everyday viewers throughout these United States of America, and over a short period of time motivated others to join in your efforts.

[@estusflask982]

Posting anything to the official FCC website does nothing.

[@LonSeidman]

I can’t tell you how I know but I can tell you it does make a huge difference

[@MrPC1121]

What's worse is this will just make life difficult for normal people. I'm sure a person could figure out how to curcumnavigate this if they know how.

[@DerekDominoes]

I have ZERO faith in the FCC listening to the will of the people over the corporate interests that they've previously shown fealty to. Fortunately, from my perspective, there is very little modern day television that I want to watch --- even for free.

[@jeffm8895]

All they are going to do is decrease their viewer base.

[@stanleylucas3986]

As a Cox subscriber who has been looking into an OTA DVR option for live pause functionality, I can say that my local broadcast channels can not be watched outside of my home network on my Cox Contour TV App. I have to use the channels standalone app. Doesn’t make sense. I can watch every channel I have through Cox on my phone and iPad outside of my home with the Contour App except the local OTA channels. Why would I want to watch anything on my phone at home when I can watch it on a TV.

[@warsurplus]

Its interesting to note that television service evolved from broadcast (wireless) to cable TV (wired) and telephony evolved from wired (copper pair to every home) to wireless (cellular). Complete opposite evolutions as far as how the service is delivered to the end user.

[@ShadowriverUB]

That because terrestial tv frequincy air space is very limited even with digital cable where you got entire spectrum in disposal, that said mother of all tv broudcast the satellite is wireless and has most radio space, as its not just radio frequincy but also geosync orbit angle

[@justinadams2010]

The airwaves belong to the public. They are regulated by the government because there is limited spectrum and because broadcast signals do not observe state boundaries. ATSC 1.0 was always a terrible broadcast system. This was known at the time it was selected. The system that was selected in other countries, such as the ones in Europe has better redundancy built in. Some people speculate that ATSC 1.0 was selected because it was designed by Zenith, if I recall correctly. ATSC 3.0 uses a similar method to the broadcast system chosen by other countries from the get-go. So imo, there is a lot of blame to go around. You should also complain to each station. Stations are required by law to keep all public complaints on file for review by the FCC when they renew their licenses.

[@5urg3x]

So I didn’t even know about this…I upgraded to the 4K / Atsc 3 version of the HDhomerun, and it won’t even work! There’s only ONE ATSC 3 channel in my area that is NOT encrypted…all the others won’t even work. How ridiculous.

[@AmazedStoner]

If they ever make it so that an internet connection is required to use an antenna then they have failed to truly make things over the air at that point

[@swagar]

I'm sure the inevitable end result is going to be monthly subscriptions to decrypt an OTA signal, if they aren't happening already

[@polarvortex6601]

yup the cable model OVER OTA

[@jrdavis1992]

Making us pay to watch "free" OTA broadcasts? Not good. Subscription television over the air has been tried in the past (ONTV, Spectrum (not the cable system), Preview), but it didn't catch on. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the US would be taking a page out of the UK's playbook, and forcing us into paying for a license to watch TV at all!

[@AndrewMackoul]

Nick from SD in the fourms said the latency restriction for local viewing is simply ping times (7ms) to the tuner. This is to prevent people from using a VPN and watching content outside of the home. I don't think your location is actually needed. Still stucks 😢 Also, from reading the fourms, the internet requirement is only for external tuners. Integrated tuners in TVs don't have internet requirements

[@LonSeidman]

If the internet is required for a phone tablet or non tuner device they’ll get the location. And it will be required if you don’t want to run antennas and coax to each tv.

[@AndrewMackoul]

​@@LonSeidmanI agree with you, and the end result is still the same = less freedom.

[@techguy3236]

The issue is most ATSC 3.0 broadcasts are going to be received by external tuners since it will take years before all TV's that do not have ATSC 3.0 tuners will be off the market and out of people's houses. Meaning the majority of people will need an active internet connection for DRM decryption with this new broadcast standard.

[@jajooby6488]

So disgusted by all these restrictive developments!

[@Flexin010]

Why dont they just encrypt FM radio too? I feel sorry for the areas that need ota for emergency services. The new generation wont even bother with this. It will fail.

[@robertmason7013]

Adth said my next gen receiver will arrive in August Do you plan on buying one .

[@TheKingOfInappropriateComments]

Submitted the comment and signed the petition. Thanks for opening my eyes to this.

[@jeromejarboe6944]

So this is the slow death of the broadcast industry! Just like cable TV they are killing the golden goose!

[@1971chadwick]

What about Madalyn Nolan telling Antenna Man that ATSC 3.0 will broadcast .1 channels free and clear and pay channels will be programs such as PPV and Special Events you can choose to pay or not watch. Is she flat out lying in the interview? She didn't mention recording or DRM one time ever.

[@polarvortex6601]

of course they lie. do you believe corporate ppl? lol

[@thearchitect4726]

i dont understand why broadcasters would want to make it harder for people to tune into free tv, i would have thought they want as many viewers as possible.

[@GeneralChangFromDanang]

I suppose I'll have to start reading a book to unwind after work then.

[@jakemadden4308]

The FCC works for the broadcasters and corporations not the citizens.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

I am pretty sure DRM will happen and that will be and that will be the end of network TV for me. I am not going to pay a subscription to watch it on cable because there are few shows on network TV that I watch and they would not be worth the cost of the subscription. I think DRM will hurt local stations more than it will benefit them, but I could be wrong. A lot of people that use DVRs are people that travel or work at night, so if they can't see their shows and have to pay $30 to someone to get the four major networks, they will instead buy NetFlix or use other streaming services, many of which are free, though they will have commercials., but at least you can watch them on demand. Essentially, this may kill broadcast TV.

[@toriless]

Mine was easy, during remodel the coaxial was upgraded for satellite TV by a previous owner. I just disconnected it a put in distribution amp and added the co-axial to the 2 antennas. They use 2.5 GB and just 1 GB wire.

[@aramb]

Just fyi, WGBH in Boston continues to broadcast their ATSC3 signal unencrypted, while all the other stations in the market are currently scrambled. For now, at least, WGBH continues to operate in the public interest.

[@rcurtiswarfield]

Lon has 340K subscribers. If you are a subscriber that means you love cord cutting and what Lon does. There is NO reason why that filing can't have 340K "signatures". It took me like 5 minutes to do. Cmon people, take 5 minutes out of you day and let's get this done!!!!!! Thanks Lon!

[@denelson83]

This is the beginning of the end of television as a medium. And it is another example of what is called "enshittification". We have the right to reduce the profits of big corporations as much as we bloody well want.

[@jakemadden4308]

Before the 90s local channels were free on cable tv and Cablivision use to provide free local channels part of their local franchise agreement.

[@ilovecatsandsynths9702]

I submitted a filing to the FCC. I hope they listen to us and not the greedy corporations.

[@Doug87969]

Lon you should put the link in the description!

[@Bare_Essence]

Bill Omar C..... was not retransmitting encrypted signals. The splitter he used removes the HDCP protection allowing recording of a display's signal. So, he was simply transmitting a copy of that display information which was not encrypted. Now, he could have encrypted it himself before he delivered to his "clients". But he basically bypassed the HDCP unit (which did the legal decryption) to display protection (not sure but I believe an illegal action) and not the encryption from the cable companies. His retransmission of that was also likely illegal based on the source.

[@singletona082]

My contribution: Vote No for ATSC 3 While any raw technical advances with the ATSC 3 standard may be of worthy consideration, the stipulation of DRM inclusion is a net negative for the public good. This would require stations to upgrade equipment, and require users to get new equipment, and the overall feel of this to me is less for the sake of signal clarity or quality or whatever fancy terms are used and is more about 'We don't want competition.' Create an encrypted signal and suddenly it is illegal for companies to make their own receivers. 'But what if there is no licensing fee?' Then why have DRM? 'Digital Rights' is an oxymoron as the term is expressly used to denote any technology meant to encroach on, if not outright remove, the end user's ability to use whatever DRM is locking away. It can't be a matter of 'but what if user-' It is already explicitly stated what people can and cannot do when receiving broadcast TV. Adding DRM does not add anything to what is, to be blunt, something that people are allowed to receive free of charge or hindrance... and DRM is nothing but a hindrance. So I propose that this 'standard' be rejected wholesale and if I had my way? Those that did the suggesting would be frog-marched out in public to explain to the public what the companies they're taking money for actually want.