DRM Encryption on ATSC 3.0 - Local Stations Blocked, DVR Restrictions

[@lokiva8540]

As an older broadcast engineer with studies and comments in various FCC proceedings, I could make a reasoned argument that this encryption violates the core elements of the Communications Act of 1934 and amounts to felonies, as it voids the public service elements of broadcasting as an emergency service, and one usable when other telecom may be down during emergencies. For normal use, I was hoping to install a couple of LAN based ATSC 3.0 tuners that could avoid ground loops and lightning risks by WiFi isolation from displays around the house, and enable mix and match use of various mobile, PC, and TV displays and streaming boxes. Obviously if DRM requires a stream to display link of permitted hard and software, that's not practical even with no efforts to do anything other than connect around a single home. More notably, Congress and the FCC should not have auctioned the 600 MHz band prior to a full ATSC 1 to 3 transition. As things stand, there are very few active ATSC 3 broadcasters, and most of those in most markets are placing 3-6 competing 4k channels onto a single 25 Mbps ORDFM carrier in 6 MHz bandwidth. That's absurd, when good 4k HD video with 11.1 immersive audio is using 48-130 Gbps for source to display video signals, and pushing switchers and routers that link streams, tuners, DVR's, and displays or TV sets, from HDMI to fiber, and even then, having to compress higher standards of video. It's as if corporate greed, cell industry scams, and functional illiteracy among voters, are sacrificing the former unifying social experience of linear broadcast TV as an artifact to destroy.

[@AntennaMan]

Well said. If you can make a reasoned argument that DRM violates the Communications Act of 1934, be sure to contact your representatives.

[@phobos258]

you sound more suited for the job than anyone that is currently handling it.

[@lokiva8540]

@@phobos258 I tend to rather harshly reject many of the corrupt political fraud pressures Congress imposes on FCC Commissioners. I've had face to face discussions with some of them, on and off the record, among other engineering insider and critical activist plus whistleblower interactions. Why are ScAmazon warehouses not padlocked? Why did the FCC refuse to enforce willful, repeated, harmful interference law against Verizon repeatedly? Why was American Family Association, its principles, and conspirators in what technically were serial felonies, given a time out to toll statutes of limitations, rather than prosecuted (hint: FCC lacks resources even working with Justice for that scale of crimes, on top of political biases linked to Congress and voters).

[@Dj-vt5gr]

can you draft up "letters" we can send to our representatives in congress or FCC or whoever you deem necessary?

[@scottwilkerson583]

As a fellow older broadcast engineer I 100% agree on all counts. DRM on ATSC 3.0 signals violates FCC compliance with EAS. I'm going to notify FCC of the local ABC station's non-compliance. I will update this thread if I get a reply. The muxing of 4K signals into highly compressed streams is beyond ridiculous, and a big reason OTA is going the way of the page. Streaming services are delivering a superior product.

[@tsntana]

All DRM has accomplished historically is to make it more frustrating to legally access protected content.

[@madmax2069]

Yup

[@teekay_1]

Worse, it just makes people download the stuff off the internet.

[@madmax2069]

@Michael Bishop well the thing with IPTVs is they don't pay any kind of rebroadcasting fees (where a lot of their funds come from for broadcast stations). So it is about the money.

[@thesmashtvnetwork]

@@madmax2069 hulu is iptv same way as youtube tv

[@bob_mosavo]

@Michael Bishop Exactly what I was thinking! Have television stations lost revenue from the few rebroadcasts that have happened? 🤔

[@joelglick]

WELL DONE! Thank you for educating and advocating for us cord cutters. I know the industry and FCC hear your voice. There should be NO DVR restrictions whatsoever on OTA content. As you pointed out, that was decided upon in 1982 and I’m old enough to remember when that happened! We should be able to watch, DVR, and watch outside of our homes as we can now do with ATSC 1.0 or they risk losing their audience.

[@CrossForum]

True, but I'll reference the current situation in the automotive markets. The major manufacturers are trending toward making higher-end vehicles with significantly more profit margin built into the price and not lower-end econo-box vehicles for mass marketing, which means they make more of a corporate profit with fewer vehicle sales. Similarly, if a broadcast media executives can make more profit for the corporation by charging for content, even with fewer eyeballs viewing the paid programming, the media executives and shareholders will be happy.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

I am inclined to agree. The good news is that the FCC has set back the date that the local stations have to continue to carry NTSC 1.0 until June of 2027, though they will re-examine in 2026, so we have a couple of years where we don't have to worry about it. My guess is that most of the people that watch local stations are cord cutters, but many may have a TV where they DVR and other TVs around the home with no DVR, but if they are forced to pay a subscription, they will just switch to a streaming service that carries local channels. I use a Fire TV Recast and I use Amazon Prime TV, and I am hoping that Amazon will just add a $10 a month for a local station option. I really only care about the major network, but right now, most of the services that stream local TV are essentially the same as cable TV because they force you to pay for a lot of crap that you don't watch. Congress should force the traditional able providers to let us go a la carte on what we want to pay for. The public has been urging them to do this for decades.

[@elmofeneken4364]

You're right, there's a lot to digest in this video. This video Antenna Man should be shown to every TV executive, the FCC, and consumer group that advocates for the way TV was supposed to be - FREE and over the air. Damn, you do good work on this by informing us of what's going on. This should be a top news story to consumers on what is going on. I can't think of one thing in this video that I would disagree with.

[@AntennaMan]

I agree this should be a top news story. In the long term, this will affect about 25% of Americans who use an antenna for TV. Yet no media outlet is reporting on it, likely because many are owned by the same media companies that want DRM encryption on OTA broadcasts. It makes you wonder what else they aren't covering.

[@lawrenceshadai4966]

@@AntennaMan Happy seeing you have smelled the coffee and woke up ! I learned eons ago not to trust the "leaders" in this industry.

[@mrbeastman59]

Consumer Reports magazine needs a copy, as does FCC.

[@richardbrobeck2384]

for sure !

[@DudeSoWin]

Those who trespass property without giving freely are the very Invaders attempting to steal the nation. Add them to the Public terrorist listing along with Budweiser.

[@LonSeidman]

This effort is all about making it difficult for consumers to exercise their choices. Especially now that broadcast TV’s bread and butter is coming from retransmission fees charged to cable companies and streamers.

[@AntennaMan]

No doubt DRM encryption is really impacting the choices consumers have in terms of equipment. It's a serious concern of mine that I hope the FCC hears before they let broadcasters shut down ATSC 1.0.

[@NorthcoasterHobby]

All this considered, to many consumers a cable or paid satellite subscription may seem much simpler and more enticing. And yes, broadcasters, who own television stations are already making money hand over fist with retransmission fees, not to mention ad and commercial revenue.

[@arbutuswatcher]

It's safe to say, that those of us who still rely upon over-the-air Broadcast TV, were not thrilled with the Analog to Digital Conversion back in 2009, and how it affected weak signal areas. Now they're (i.e. the Broadcasters) wanting to place more restrictions on us, when trying to watch OTA TV? Are they single-handedly trying to drive us away, & into the hands of the Streaming Services? I personally enjoy not being tethered to a wired network, and not having to rely on the Internet, for basic television. This trend in our society of coercing people to become dependent on a network for everything is just too much. It's bad enough most of the intelligent periodicals (i.e. magazines) either migrated to a digital format, or simply shuttered their doors & went out of production. Most of the Public Safety Agencies, who are funded by our tax dollars, have moved to a digital radio system, usually with encryption, effectively locking-out those who pay their salary, from following their activities on a radio scanner. In the past, for the sensitive stuff, there was always a means of exchanging that info, without the masses hearing them. However the day-to day stuff was in the clear. Now, they placed a wall between 'Joe Public', and the Public Safety Agencies, with addition of encryption to all of their radio communications. It seems that with the evolution of technology, people are becoming increasingly disconnected with one another. This is not a good path for our society, in my opinion. I'll drop down from my soapbox now. Tyler, keep up the good work. I feel like you are one of the few advocates, that speaks about these issues, that concern & affect so many of us. Thank You! :)

[@PsRohrbaugh]

It's time to start getting our pitchforks ready

[@DudeSoWin]

Even if you don't rely on it. The fact they have overstayed their welcome on our airwaves and could create a "War of the Worlds" type situation by degrading their reliability so as to pose a national threat. But they also have intent to do so with the current bullshit being put out by the FBI about information "mi's property and di's property" to put it in plain english about the Latin equivocation going on: "su casa no su casa, tu caca tu caca. Mi property. Misinformation"

[@forestpagan4813]

Actually I can see this being pushed by streaming services as a means to eliminate free broadcasts from competition. I base this on the number of traditionally free broadcasters moving to partnering with, and creating their own streaming services.. the thing is that if you find yourself in a low signal area, you are also likely to be in a no digital (internet) area as well 😡

[@manicmarauder]

The answer is yes, they are trying to drive you to streaming services. Whether you pay a subscription to them or pay a subscription to a middle man, they want money per channel for that 'free' TV since the advertisers don't pay them anymore. They really don't care who you pay, just as long as you are paying. If you go online then they can collect that targeted ad money as gravy also.

[@Dratchev241]

@@manicmarauder I just advocate more people sailing the high seas around the bay of pirates.

[@wow_horac4663]

adding DRM to over the air broadcasts sounds like a good way to kill off over the air broadcasts. It's not really free if they hold keys that could stop you from viewing it.

[@NorthcoasterHobby]

An internet connection allows tracking of viewer habits, targeted ads, hyperlocal content; there’s also the privacy issue that goes along with it. Broadcasters are only obligated to providing a main ‘dot one’ signal. DRM is deeply concerning in terms of what signals will remain free. Piracy is going to be an ongoing issue no matter what; look at FTA satellite for example. Though I understood the need for some type of framework in regards to content protection, shutting out early adopters of the new standard is hardly a savvy move, especially with the price of tuners. The whole rollout has been nebulous at best. Let’s hope for more clarity and transparency from the NAB so loyal OTA viewers don’t get left in the dark.

[@polarvortex6601]

yep its all about control.

[@scottlarson1548]

@@polarvortex6601 Because an OTA broadcaster has absolutely no control of their broadcasts.

[@penultimatename6677]

Nextgen allows for two way communication. In time the internet connection won't be necessary for spying.

[@madmax2069]

​@@penultimatename6677 no, ATSC 3.0 is only one way, it can't receive. It requires an internet connection for your TV to communicate back to whoever's collecting the data.

[@polarvortex6601]

@@scottlarson1548 no with a digital signal they do. what are you talking about

[@ricoma6037]

Thank you for your persistence and knowledge and for keeping us informed!

[@JayRCela]

I live in Detroit Michigan area / recently we have been bombarded with NextGen TV adds / it's coming and get ready. All I can say is Phhttt, I will await until it happens.

[@tomtheplummer7322]

Beta and VHS...the OG DVR 🤷‍♂️😎🙏🏻👍🏻😏🤫🤭💪👌🏻🖖

[@tomtheplummer7322]

Yes when I travel, I want to know what’s goin on at home 🤷‍♂️

[@tomtheplummer7322]

FCC will be “bought” by big business. Who want$$ bandwidth a frequency 🤷‍♂️. Show me the money 😡👎🏻

[@brianoconnor2668]

Thanks for your leadership on ATSC 3.0 and appreciate all your great information on how to cut the cord. It has helped me a lot.

[@AntennaMan]

Thanks so much for the contribution Brian!

[@StraightThruTheHeart]

Great video. I'm affected here in Pittsburgh by Hearst encrypting WTAE and it stinks. You nailed it when you said it was sneaky. Keep on top of it Tyler, this threatens the entire OTA landscape forever.

[@Bbabybear02]

I'm also In Pittsburgh market Glenn and I worry about the same thing. Even with a good antenna, WTAE is very difficult to pick up in many places outside of Allegheny County in the Pittsburgh Market. I wonder how/if WPNT's ATSC 3.0 tower fixes this problem and by how much. That is one thing I will focus on during my testing.

[@StraightThruTheHeart]

@@Bbabybear02 I had my Flex 4k for a month and then Hearst started encryption. My ATSC 1.0 WTAE pixelates no matter what I do and I'm in the South Hills.

[@mrbeastman59]

Nexstar owned KXAN is guilty of DRM. The problem is the TV stations are owned by mega companies and not local.

[@ajshell2]

@@StraightThruTheHeart At least you can even get it in pixelated form! I haven't even managed to pick up WTAE with my antenna since a windstorm a few months ago.

[@jcilley97]

Same. My range with ATSC 1.0 in central NH was severely affected after the Analog-to-Digital switchover. I haven't tried ATSC 3.0 before, the problem is I can't get my in-market stations because I live in a fringe area. i could've gotten WCVB (Boston) and WBTS (NBC) WHY AM I STILL IN THE BOSTON DMA AND NOT THE VERMONT OR MAINE ONE??? THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANNNELS I CAN GET!!! Ironically, the person running ATSC 3.0 lives in the Boston DMA. So Yeah. they don't give 2f's. What's even worse they moved WGBH to a TRASH LOW BAND VHF frequency due to The FCC Repack. Used to be on UHF 19. but had to move due to there being little-to-no RF channels left. sneaky fucking cunts.

[@zmaxx21]

Great video Tyler! You explained this issue well. The fact that some broadcasters are already encrypting their signals even though there are only two tuners out there shows how greedy these broadcasters really are. They license to broadcast as a public service and if that trust is broken, these broadcasters should loose their license.

[@JohnMacMullen]

Thanks so much for this video and all you did to get answers and to clearly explain the issues and challenges. Amazing job getting the industry people on a Zoom call to provide their answers. Thank you for being an advocate for us, the viewing public. If Plex DVR/remote service is off the table, I will be extremely disappointed. These are public airwaves and restrictions on viewing should not be allowed by the FCC. Thanks again for all you do!

[@kleverich]

I could really benefit from ATSC 3.0 to improve my signal reception, and I almost bought the HDHomeRun until I heard about the DRM issue. Tyler, please keep fighting the fight. You are one of the few advocates for over-the-air TV. I hope you become a major force in the broadcasting industry.

[@stuarthirsch]

Why not just increase the power of ATSC1.0 and/or install enough repeaters to insure good local reception?

[@matrixtech29]

I bought my HDHomerun Quatro 4K Connect DEV during the Kickstart campaign and have had no complaints. If future firmware needs to pull DRM keys from SiliconDust, I have a Gigabit fiber to allow that to happen. I understand it not being ideal for Internet cord cutters, but I already use mine with Channels DVR, which combines OTA content with TV Everywhere streams from the Internet. So requiring Internet access to enable early-adopter tuner access is not a big deal to me.

[@kleverich]

@@stuarthirsch One of the big advantages of ATSC 3.0 is the OFDM modulation, which is much less susceptible to multi-path interference. More power would not necessarily fix that, and multiple repeaters would probably make multi-path interference even worse.

[@stuarthirsch]

@@kleverich Even though, it isn't worth the switch. I'm sure the same people who brought us ATSC can make ATSC 1.0 perform a lot better. It should be the by law standard until at least 2059. I'm not against ATSC 3.0 but it can't replace ATSC 1.0 provided that works on par with ATSC 3.0 as far as reception is concerned.The FCC could allocate certain frequencies to ATSC 1.0 only and ATSC 3.0 only. However the broadcast TV industry would need to buy and pay a broadcast tax on ATSC 3.0 frequencies. Consumers may also not be willing to pay the extra money for new tuners or new TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners. Let the consumers have their choice not the broadcasters. Never mind 4K.

[@Tiger2Tone]

@@matrixtech29 Good thing you have Gigabit fiber to receive a 256-bit key.

[@johngallagher912]

The expense is a huge issue. The ATSC 1.0 tuners can be bought for less than $40. Spending over $200 to $250 for a 3.0 tuner is insane. You can buy a new TV for a little more. It is obvious that they want to make OTA so expensive that people buy their cable packages. Both the cable and broadcast industries are using 3.0 in an attempt to eliminate cord cutters.

[@jerryspann8713]

There is a new ATSC3.0 tuner available for pre-order for $80

[@techguy3236]

@@jerryspann8713 That is still to expensive especially if you have multiple TV's.

[@writerpatrick]

The expense has more to do with the technology being new. It's common with all new technology. Over time the price will drop.

[@johngallagher912]

@@writerpatrick When the first 1.0 tuners came out they were $30.

[@Burgh15071]

My first ATSC 1.0 tuner was a Samsung SIR-T151and if I remember correctly it cost around $250 in 2003.

[@blakepace]

Thanks for keeping such a keen eye on this, Tyler!

[@bloqk16]

Interesting and good of Antenna Man bringing up the subject of NBC's blocking of two TV shows many years ago, as I can recall in a handful of situations going back years ago where the DVR I had appeared to be recording a network primetime TV show. Yet, when reviewing the contents in the USB external storage device it was recorded on, the video file was missing. However, the shows prior to, and after, the primetime TV show did show up on the storage device.

[@G.S.Holland]

If people in the government say they aren't going to do something, I'd be leery and pretty much prepare for them doing just what they said they won't do. And the idea of privately recorded DVR shows deleting after a period of time on a DVR I own is beyond the pale.

[@danle4261]

Great Video Tyler. Thanks for updating. I was about to buy the "zapper", but when I saw your previous video reviewing the Zapper and DRM issue I stop immediately. I believe the main reason the network put in DRM is to force consumer to pay extra fees through their local cable provider to watch these channels. Some people do not want to see "rabbit ears" behind their TV for decorative reasons.

[@jamesheartney9546]

I completely agree with everything Tyler said here. I'd like to emphasize a couple of points, which bear repeating. 1.DRM isn't going to stop people who want to pirate video data. The sort of DRM being implemented here will be defeated very easily by knowledgeable hackers. (Just as happened in previous attempts to encrypt commercially valuable content, such as CDs and DVDs.) All it will do is frustrate the intended customer base. Worst case? It may cause the failure of ATSC 3.0. 2. Broadcasters have just one shot at getting ATSC updated. If ATSC 3.0 flops (a very very real possibility), they're not getting another bite at it. Instead, ATSC 1.0 will slowly fade into irrelevance, till its valuable broadcast bandwidth gets taken away and used for something else. (I think this will eventually happen anyway, though a successful update to ATSC 3.0 could stave that off for a decade or two.) Foolish attempts at DRM are the best way to make ATSC 3.0 flop.

[@0grounded]

I have been using OTA for about 30 yrs, in the Bakersfield, CA area, with an antenna (35” boom) I bought from Radio Shack 30 yrs. ago. The tuners are now all digital and I get about 25 English and 25 Spanish channels. Most have content. Under the right weather conditions I can receive 2 Fresno channels with some pixel stuff. (Antenna pointed there) If my local stations to start encrypting their programming, and that is their choice, I will complain to the FCC and their advertisers informing them I will stop using and recommend to others to not use their products and services. That is my choice. Money talks. It’s called trickle down. And I know I can find other things to occupy my time.

[@GooglyMcDoubleface]

All of Philadelphia needs to hear this. NJ same as well. If this is what I think you're saying, this will get the message to all that have tried the loophole. Then I might get phone calls and distribute this video. This is going on my blog. ty.

[@eminence_front6043]

Excellent video. Lots of information. Always look forward to your updates.

[@curious-homebody]

Thank you for the straightforward heads up. I was about to purchase a HDHomeRun Flex 4K in the next month. I will wait.

[@donb7574]

Thanks Tyler for your informative research into this topic. I've also followed it on the AVS Forum ATSC 3.0 thread. I think its ridiculous that so many stations went ahead with enabling the encryption option before its even ready and fully supported by many of the current devices out there. Can't they wait awhile? Its not like ATSC 3.0 has fully taken over yet, so any piracy can still use ATSC 1.0 until then anyway. No rush out there for the early ATSC 3.0 broadcasters! I don't even have any ATSC 3.0 stations yet out here in the San Diego area.

[@AntennaMan]

It was a sleazy move for broadcasters to turn on DRM encryption this early. All it did was hurt consumers and slow adoption of ATSC 3.0.

[@joshj88]

I think atsc 1 will be kept on air and useful a lot longer then broadcasters want because the stupid DRM thing. i want a chinesium box to disregard all this dry hooey and just let me watch tv! sony vs nbc is still out there. i'll transcode to s-video if necessary

[@madmax2069]

​@@AntennaMan it's a sleezy move to have DRM in any way shape or form on OTA broadcast.

[@nickybjammin7629]

Thanks! How do I know what card they used and how does youtube have access to my money? LOL Did it use the one I used for the T-Shirt? Thanks for putting up with me in the comments and I hooked up that antenna, needed the power adapter pretty much everything Tyler suggested, and everything work spot on. As soon as I get a ladder, I’m going to move it up a notch to the peak…. But yeah I got like 20 something channels and the channels we already had definitely work now they come in way better 🙌🏼 The picture quality is amazing. But I’m gonna have to watch more because I want to splice off of this if there’s enough power in the amp? To push one more television.

[@bloqk16]

It's situations such as the DRM with ATSC 3.0 that has gotten me to view any new product and service, that are initially lavished with glowing praises, with an attitude of skepticism . . . as it seems every new item that comes on the market has a downside to it; which, prior to the item's proliferation to the marketplace, the consumer was never informed about.

[@jerrydemas2020]

come on Louis Rossmann

[@donaldhoudek2889]

When you mentioned that the viewer will get aggravated about the encryption and move to a streaming service, which the broadcasters get mega $$$$$ from for the right to stream their content, this is what they are hoping for. They can then go to the FCC and say that the number of OTA viewers does not support the transmission of their signal OTA and eventually shut down the transmitters and everything will be via streaming.

[@DarkStarPDX]

There are no NextGen TV certified devices or televisions affected -- this is purely set-top box manufactures that prematurely released devices that aren't fully-baked yet.

[@AntennaMan]

@DarkStarPDX According to the comments, HiSense and Sony TVs with NextGen certified tuners have issues decoding DRM encryption. Don't place the blame on SiliconDust and Zapperbox for giving viewers a choice. If it weren't for these companies, there would be ZERO external tuners available 4-5 years into this mess of a TV standard.

[@mistermac56]

@@AntennaMan before my Sony Bravia with ATSC 3.0 tuner received a firmware upgrade last month, DRM encrypted stations took 5-6 seconds longer to tune. After the firmware upgrade, that problem went away.

[@mikechilders]

I don't think that the stations want to syndicate. If they did, they would all shut down and do it. If I understand it correctly, TV stations make more money by charging for ads to their broadcasts than they would by wholesaling it out to some company who needs to make a profit from it while charging the same for ads. Syndication is what you do when you have exhzusted your other revenue options. The reason why Netflix has so little to watch anymore is that Netflix can't pay as much for shows than they can get otherwise, until there isn't another way to make more money. Today, studios that create content do not have to rely on TV networks to deliver their content. Now they have their own websites, so I imagine that TV stations aren't making as much money from studios as they used to. The real issue here is that online services put a monkey wrench into the profitability of terrestrial TV. I don't watch TV at all, mainly due to the 20 minutes of ads every hour. I stopped when TV went digital back in 2009. In fact, it might be possible that TV finally went digital because online services were taking business away from them and they needed to have HDTV to compete. I'd rather watch it online in 40 minutes at my liesure than be forced to watch 20 minutes of ads and have to be on their schedule. I believe that the TV stations had an unfair advantage over viewers for decades and now the playing field is being levelled. eventually, content producers will have no option but to accept the lower revenues for their shows. After all, what actor is really worth $1,000,000 per episode? TV really doesn't make sense anymore, unless you are a TV station trying to stay afloat. It is much better to watch on-demand anyway. More people have internet now than have access to TV broadcasts. You can take the money you spend on cable and subscribe to streaming services or buy movies. Even your local news stations are all online now and you don't have to worry about signzl strengh or fleeting technologies. And then there is another option; find something more productive to do with your time. You can learn a new language, take up an exercise routine, or whatever you like. If you get really mad when you can't watch your favorite show, then maybe you have a problem.

[@davidgoodnow269]

@@mikechilders You are simply wrong about local news being available online. In my area, there are five local news broadcasts. Only two are available online. Those five broadcast stations offer NO free streaming of their Over-The-Air Network broadcasts at all. Those networks charge for ALL streaming of their broadcast content, though they allow later streaming of some individual episodes without paid subscriptions. There is a single (used to be two) local newspaper. It is no longer printed locally but shipped in, and has minimal local content--basically obituaries. Its online version is only available to subscribers, even obituaries. The online obituaries are a third-party service and only available if the family pays a very substantial annual fee that is FAR beyond the minimal costs of web-hosting. Indeed what they charge a single family for one obituary for one year would cover their actual hosting costs for every obituary published anywhere, ever.

[@timramich]

I don't get their fear of "piracy." If it's free to begin with, it isn't stealing to distribute it over the internet.

[@SuperMrgentleman]

Yeah but strip the ads out and who is watching the local channel?

[@TheRedStarman]

It's free the same way terrestrial radio is free. They don't want people recording their content and then sharing it online with their own ads replacing the broadcaster's ads.

[@polarvortex6601]

its a convenient excuse for control

[@ricksvideos4883]

Bravo Tyler you knocked it out of the park with this video! Thank you for bringing this important message to the OTA viewing public. Hopefully the reach of your channel will convince those decision makers to take a closer look at what’s going on behind the scenes!

[@timramich]

@SuperMrgentleman What's it really matter? If the ads are meant to be viewed by people in the broadcast range, what's it matter if those ads aren't reaching people who aren't even in that market? Advertisers aren't trying to reach OTA viewers. There are probably more RVs/campers with antenna use than there are homes that use antennas anymore. It's all supported by the notion that it's mostly gonna be seen on cable, which isn't free. If enough people unplug, then OTA will go away.

[@mistermac56]

In the Nashville TV market: WTVF-CBS affiliate and WSMV-NBC affiliate just began DRM encryption on their ATSC 3.0 channels. What I have read is that PBS affiliate stations will NOT be using DRM encryption with their ATSC 3.0 channels.

[@DIYDaveOK]

Local TV is practically on life support as it is. DRM on top may be the death blow.

[@marclessard9569]

Thanks!

[@ronstallcup]

This is going to be a mess ...

[@AudiophileTommy]

ANYTHING the government sticks its fingers turns into a mess !!!😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

[@madmax2069]

I knew ATSC 3.0 was going to be a mess when I seen that they're going to use the internet in conjunction to deliver customized ads.

[@clintmatthews3500]

It’s never about piracy. It’s always about squeezing more out of the consumer and direct them to pay providers.

[@brucelipsitz7545]

This is one of the bezt videos you have ever made. Keep up the good work.

[@AntennaMan]

Thanks for watching it!

[@joepublic6256]

Great content. He's a lone soldier on the atsc free tv for all battlefield. Gods work 🙏

[@markbost9874]

I just don't get it either. Did the content all of a sudden become more valuable? It wasn't encrypted with ATSC 1.0 and it most certainly wasn't with analog TV, but now it has to be encrypted? Just another frustration with the new ATSC 3.0, and one more reason for me to hope support for ATSC 1.0 continues for decades more. Sorry to complain. Your presentation was very good and got me thinking, thank you!

[@MrRikkiRocket]

Thanks for this info and please keep us up-to-date. Who knew OTA TV would get so complicated? I use a TiVO Bolt OTA DVR which uses ATSC 1.0. I don’t mind upgrading tuner/DVR ONCE more in the future once all of this ATSC 3.0 direction/noise is resolved. TiVO is a smaller player in the DVR market these days, but I’m hoping they will continue to have a great user interface and remote both of which their competition continuously seems to ignore.

[@coreybabcock2023]

Your so right about the broadcasters they pulled a sleazy move !

[@ronjr831]

Thanks for the updates on ATSC 3.0. I have a indoor antenna and Tablo DVR. I look forward to upgrading to the new 3.0 soon.

[@bobriemersma]

The ATSC 3.0 motto is "All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

[@melindaearly7594]

Thanks for your priceless service to all of your fellow American TV Viewers 😊

[@StuffOfInterest]

I hope a way is found for Plex to store DRM protected recordings. It may end up requiring Plex to adhere to the 7ms round trip rule for any receiving device to prevent viewing out side of the home, but it would still at least allow people to record and then view their own recorded content.

[@AntennaMan]

Plex would have to go through the red tape of the A3SA in order to do so

[@kbytesofjax8628]

Thank you so much for keeping us all informed.

[@cityguyusa]

Once they have DRM it won't be long until they're telling the 16:07 FCC that they need to charge a fee.

[@TheHGN2001]

Here in central Florida, I'm still using an older Sony television with an ATSC 1 tuner from around 2005 or so. We have an outdoor antenna that picks up both Tampa and Orlando signals. After the recent "repacks" I've noticed a hesitation in this tuner to pick up 2.1 WESH and 32.1 WMOR. The link shows both of those using encryption and I'm wondering if this new technology is causing my TV tuner to choke. The other battle we face is RF channels 8 and 9. NBC in Tampa is PSIP 8.1, RF 9. In Orlando, there's a low-power channel 8, Digital 8, RF 8. On that older tuner, these two battle it out whenever I do a scan. Sometimes the Orlando 8 takes hold of 8.1 and shoves the Tampa 8's up to 9. When this happens, if I change channels in the up direction, I'll get Orlando's 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 - then 9.4 is giving me Tampa's 8.2, 9.5 gives me 8.3. If I change channels in the down direction, when I get to 9.3, I finally can get it to be Tampa's 8.1 . If I do a scan when the low-power 8 isn't visible, then Tampa's 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 show up where they belong, relegating space for 8.1 Orlando on 8.4, 8.2 on 8.5 and so on. It's really a confusing mess. Now this DRM monkey wrench could really screw things up. And maybe that's what's in the back of their minds - screw up over-the-air and get everyone back to paying for cable.

[@AntennaMan]

No doubt the FCC repack messed up reception for a lot of people. There are consequences to selling 1/3 of the TV spectrum to cell phone companies.

[@richarddeese1991]

Thanks. It doesn't matter one bit what I'm okay with. This is the beginning of the death of free TV. I will bet you money that the industry already has people in Washington, D.C. lobbying to chip away at free TV (and probably has had for some time). Whenever the consumer comes last, it's a clear sign that an industry is making a power play. Here we go. tavi.

[@stuarthirsch]

Agree. I don't see why the ATSC 1.0 standard can't be made better and/or better broadcast equipment installed so that everyone in an area can clearly receive it without changing the actual standard and obsoleting their equipment.

[@almckimmey8898]

good questions, professional info. "Death of a thousand cuts (fees)."

[@StephenMatrese]

Adding DRM, blocking network DVR, sounds like a recipe for CAUSING, not preventing piracy. My house says my local broadcast channels are available (they aren't), so this doesn't directly affect me. I do fine with free services. The FCC should never allow them to block free OTA broadcasting. Pirates will get around DRM, this is only a headache for consumers, that's why even iTunes dropped DRM.

[@dwmca1620]

I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH ALL THAT YOU POINTED OUT HERE. TO ADD TO THAT, MY INTEREST IS NOT SPORTS, BUT OLDER PROGRAMS, BASICALLY OLD SCI-FI, HORROR RERUNS ! HERE IN BALTIMORE, METV IS ONE SUB-CHANNEL UNDER THE CHANNEL 11 VHF STATION - THAT BROADCAST IS UNDER DRM... WHICH MY HOMERUN EXTERNAL WILL NOT SHOW ! THIS IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE.

[@bleebu5448]

We had the NTSC standard since 1941. When NTSC was updated to add color in 1953, the signal was still backwards compatible with old B&W tv's. (my parents didn't spring for a color TV until 1972). When we tossed NTSC for ATSC, everybody (well probably almost everybody) went out and bought big new FP TV's and tossed tens of millions of old CRT's. Now they want to redo the standard again, less than 15 years later, and we have by a new tuner box, for each TV. Please no.

[@stuarthirsch]

What's in it for the average TV viewer. Why if we could get a good OTA signal on all area TV stations would we even want ATSC 3.0? Unlike ATSC 3.0 which was a fundamental technology shift, this is really about broadcasters wanting rebroadcast fees, not improving TV or freeing up more space for cell phones and essential government services.

[@zapperbox]

Thanks for a very informative video highlighting the concerns for viewers and tuner manufacturers.

[@STB-jh7od]

I agree with Tyler, DRM encryption without the only tuners available having the ability to decrypt is a bad idea.

[@danlah1303]

Very thorough analysis and opinion!

[@ATSCNTSC]

It has come to light that Scripps purchased Tablo for $14 Million in January of 2022. This was recently reported by The Verge and MSN

[@jackphilly338]

Well said Tyler thank you for the information .👍👍

[@scottjohnson5449]

i smell a big money grab coming along with a lot of circular double talk and a lot of rabbit holes to look out for!!

[@thomaspizzey4549]

I live in Canada 🇨🇦 where restrictions are applied to over the air channels. The most channels we get is CTV ,Global, and French over the air. Some places Global TV is hard to get in most places. There have been talks of bringing over the air channels America 🇺🇸 off and on for years. What's stopping it is FCC and CRTV regulations. There is a big market here that people want over the air channels for free. There is another option is mic wave TV 📺 that broadcasts 20 channels, but you need a place to send the Stanton to receive . With micwave TV stations in the summer, the sun affects the stations and loses most of the stations. People here want to choose and cut ✂️ cable out and save money. Thank you

[@arizonalurps5150]

Reminds me of suns home games on PPV looks like the end of digital DXing. And thank you Tyler for covering this topic I've seen nothing but how wonderful 3.0 will be . I think canned national news fed out to network locals has watered down local news so much nobody cares anymore. So having encryption on certain channels is monetary drivin till FCC auctions off more spectrum where networks make the big $$$

[@mariogarcia5973]

The Trusted Platform modules (TPM) in our computers are also used for DRM. I wonder if they will become another hurdle for our media server/DVR machines.

[@zeroone8800]

Reading between the lines, it sounds like while a reliable internet connect is not required, some internet connectivity may be needed for mandatory updates (key distribution).

[@DarkStarPDX]

No, an internet connection is NOT required to watch NextGen TV.

[@Kw1161]

@@DarkStarPDX Don’t lie it will, just like Blue Ray players to watch a movie with new cyber keys.

[@4Lights.5Liights]

Great report Antenna man; that is a true sleazy move by Comcast.

[@NIVO1972]

I knew this would happen. Its already following the same pattern as back in the day when cable became a thing and descrambler boxes showed up.

[@pmscalisi]

Same happened to me with satellite dish. Everything was viewable and everyone started scrambling signals about 8 months after I bought my dish set up. Sucks

[@Code7Unltd]

@@pmscalisi Fast forward to the 2010s, and those with big dishes that are still working have the entirety of PBS and a lot of semi-major multicasters to pick from

[@pmscalisi]

@@Code7Unltd interesting. I sold my dish and the equipment with my house in 1994.

[@dathyr1]

Interesting. I guess Time shall Tell if my somewhat older tuners I have to watch the current OTA local channels will be affected by ACSC-3.0 encryptions. As I say to my friends, nothing ever stays the same in this world. And I definitely do not want to go back to Cable TV at 280.00 dollars a month. Thanks for your outstanding video information.

[@tlebryk]

So, if they make "timeshifting" a DVR recording difficult or more costly, then I won't bother watching TV. Too busy to know when I can get to view something.

[@CARLiCON]

Great info, thanks for sharing. Haven't gotten any in years, but I just tried scanning for free OTA channels, & amazingly picked up 4. My smart TV tuner detected the stations & OTA connection info, then asked me if I wanted to add them to my presets. Since my TV is wifi enabled, you know that they're tracking when I'm viewing these channels, as opposed to streaming. Since these are all commercial stations, I don't think they'll ever charge for these, but I do think the TV manufacturer is selling the viewing/history info back to the networks. Resistance is futile...

[@Rick_Foley]

How is keeping your advertisers from their target audience going to lead to long term profit?

[@MikeBear1231]

They want to force people into buying channels through a streaming provider, so they can charge RETRANS fees.

[@khbeefarm478]

Thank you for the quick reply. I know that TiVo has been cutting back on their OTA options and I think they will end their OTA options in time. They are mainly working with cable systems. Thank you. I will keep watching to know what I will have to turn too.

[@AntennaMan]

I was told that Tivo has given up on their DVR. I don't see them making an ATSC 3.0 version.

[@alexdhall]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the TiVo product is on life support these days....

[@robertangell981]

Hi Tyler! Yes I am concerned. Can you provide a link or address to write the FCC to voice our objections? Also, we just love your channel! My wife and I often imitate you saying the word "TRASH!" LOL Thanks for helping us with our future antenna plans and just being YOU!

[@AntennaMan]

Writing to the FCC won't do anything because they aren't taking public comment on this issue right now. Contact your elected officials!

[@Steve44036]

Thank you for your informative information. Had to watch the clip after reading the title which made me wonder if the US will be paying for OTA TV.

[@cysjunk]

I'm going to Florida soon and WESH has everything except a PBS channel on it's ATSC 3.0 signal encrypted. Add that to the expensive prices of the tuners and I think I'll stick with 1.0 for now until 3.0 develops a bit more.

[@megacap55]

it's ridiculous that PBS uses encryption

[@writerpatrick]

With DRM, will those outside the US be unable to receive US ATSC 3.0 signals? Region blocking is common for cable and satellite so that Canadians are forced to watch the Canadian signal of a program.

[@AntennaMan]

There won't be any geo-restrictions with ATSC 3.0. As long as you have a tuner that can decode DRM encrypted with a good antenna, you'll get the signal. I'm not sure where the rumor about redirecting out of market viewing is coming from.

[@Pyrolonn]

"Sleazy Move" you got that right, broadcasters are also showing their hand and terrible poker face. The reason for 3.0 has always been about DRM and making it so you can't time shift or make a recording for personal use. Rebroadcasting is not a problem, you can see how quickly they shut down Locast, even if they have an antenna for every customer it won't fly. So no company can rebroadcast for profit or "tips". So what's left? It's me and you and our DVR. Let me reiterate : no broadcaster is going to broadcast in UHD. Most don't go over 720p right now. The only 3.0 protocol that will actually be used is DRM. Why do you think Ajit Pai (Trump's FCC chair) wanted it so much?

[@Dj-vt5gr]

can you draft up "letters" we can send to our representatives in congress or FCC or whoever you deem necessary?

[@advlandvideo]

The fact no one wanted to go on the record suggests to me they were not being entirely honest with you. For example, I would bet their lobbyists are working to end free OTA TV right now.

[@AntennaMan]

I actually understand why they didn't want to go on record. My KZbin channel reaches a lot of people. It's not far fetched if a viewer misinterprets the video as broadcasters using DRM to charge for local TV (many already are) and go after the people I spoke to.

[@KageShi]

I was not aware that there was an encryption allowed on "broadcast" bands. It is not permitted in FM/AM use far as I know.

[@ShiftGolf]

Any station that encrypts their content should not be allowed to say they are a public broadcast station and their content must be labeled as a controlled broadcast product. Also their content should not be considered a public broadcast product with their self imposed restrictions - all news shows should not be labeled as local news!

[@kamhouse7754]

You said they only have one shot to get this right. In addition to lack of encryption support, the Dolby shenanigans with patents seems to be the other big hang up. Can we demand that the NTSC 3.0 broadcasts include an AAC audio channel as the primary and AC-4 only as a secondary enhanced channel? Who would we petition for that?

[@jfwfreo]

ALL over-the-air free TV broadcasts (and radio for that matter) should be made using a format where all the specs are open. I am fairly sure the specs for ATSC 1.0 are totally open and I could download them and build a fully working tuner capable of picking up and decoding/playing any ATSC 1.0 signal. I suspect the TV networks are less concerned about someone recording something and watching it later and more concerned about both live-streams (where someone takes the signal off the air and streams it over the internet without permission) and regular piracy (I have seen plenty of videos online of TV shows where you can clearly see the logo of some OTA network in the corner)

[@AntennaMan]

I agree that over the air broadcasts should be open without encryption. If the big media companies don't like it, they can give their broadcast license to local interests that care more about the community rather than shareholders.

[@daniele.markle6428]

For me this cements that getting an ATSC 3 tuner is pointless, it's all going to be restricted into uselessness anyway. Thanks for the heads up.

[@Growla]

This is exactly what I anticipated with all the hoopla surrounding the release of ATSC 3.0. "You ain't getting somethin' for nothin' ". Exactly what the broadcasters have been wanting. Sticking with ATSC 1.0 until this game plays out.

[@AudiophileTommy]

Right ! They all promise you the sun,moon and stars ALL while reaching around you to get your wallet 🎉 IT IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE ABOUT MONEY !!!

[@Jean0987654321]

It is pure insanity that the FCC would allow broadcasters to make FREE OTA TV tough to watch. If you want to get a new standard to people, you have to make sure that they could watch it first. Just pure insanity and it shows how out of touch with reality these people are

[@DarkStarPDX]

It won't be tough to watch as long as the set-top box developers make their devices NextGen TV compliant. Once they get their software updated the viewers won't know the difference.

[@ninocervini7867]

Until the broadcasters decide to make certain content ppv.

[@megacap55]

no, the devices that can't decode the encrypted signal are products that don't meet the requirements of the signal implemented in other words are half baked products, in the ATSC 3.0 book that all manufacturers must follow is all even the conditional access and encryption of the signal too and the manufacturer of those devices should have the firmware fully compliant with ATSC 3.0 system.

[@jamesheartney9546]

@@megacap55 The process of deciding what and what isn't compliant is dragging on and on, and delaying the one thing that could allow the the new standard to succeed, namely affordable decoders being widely available. It also may eliminate one of the most valuable use cases for ATSC 3.0 - video on mobile devices.

[@GNUr000t]

I'm not sure how the FCC is okay with this, at all. The broadcast license these companies were given is a privilege, not a right. That privilege, and space on some very limited bandwidth, was given to them in exchange for them providing a public service. That public service is broadcast television content available to literally anybody with an antenna. What's the plan for when a big storm comes through and people can't get news and information about it, because their internet is out and their otherwise perfectly functional TV or set top box can't get a decryption key from somewhere? I hope master keys leaks so all of this becomes as pointless as encrypting DVDs

[@0SirGemini0]

Thank you Tyler... I see where you were told that an internet connection is NOT required to de-encrypt a DRM encrypted show. I assume that's true if the TV or Tuner device has the encryption keys hard wired in the TV or device....and that the encryption keys are the same for each station and/or program watched? From your video am I correct in believing the only current devices that can show encrypted programs are some recent TVs? (as there are no current tuners that have the keys on board?) Content protection is important... we have all seen the legal statements about "...rebroadcast is not permitted without permission..." etc. Piracy..hackers...breaking and entering have been with us forever and it won't go away will it??? So besides a better received signal and perhaps better audio with less multi-path interference...what's the benefits of this new ATSC3.0 (interactive) reception you can't watch at home or away from home without an expensive Tuner device and internet?

[@timothystevenhoward]

I would be shocked if they baked the encryption into the devices and once the engineers at the channels tell someone this they will have to require a connection to sync the decryption keys, which will also require a login, which will also allow them to track your usage data, etc. this is a slippery slope.

[@DarkStarPDX]

The broadcaster is always transmitting their public key and as long as the TV or set-top box is NextGen TV certified will be able to display the programming without an internet connection. It's just like websites that switched from http to https -- it isn't to prevent piracy but is to create a secure data connection.

[@MichaelP-ns]

More likely, the DRM will only be accessible by devices that won't allow commercial skipping

[@yourpalfranc]

Yeah, WTAE, one of the three ATSC 3.0 enabled stations in Pittsburgh began encrypting over the winter, and I have the HDHomerun Quatto that won't decode it yet. To make matters even worse for me, I'm on the fringe of the reception area so although I receive the WTAE ATSC 3.0 signal well and have a beautiful picture when it's working, I can't get the standard station signal at all. Fortunately, I do get good signals from a couple of other local stations so I haven't lost access to ABC content completely. I agree with your assessments and your position. Let's hope the broadcasters wake up. Depending on that need makes me nervous. Thanks for the info! ~Frank

[@AntennaMan]

If you lost WTAE entirely because of DRM encryption, complain directly to the TV station, FCC, and your senator.

[@Zzznorch]

While the FCC could shut this down, I seriously doubt a commission that is basically run by monied interests will do anything. Frankly, I find so little of interest on TV these days that if recording is prohibited I can skip recording. I would not be surprised to see DRM become even more onerous in the future.

[@scpatl4now]

or a commission that is deadlocked 2 to 2 because Republicans blocked Biden's pick for the 5th member of the FCC

[@Fireball409]

I just learned a few minutes ago (05/16/2023) that starting this morning Comcast is going to encrypt free over the ATSC 3.0 TV stations without an upgrade!

[@davidjernigan7576]

It will not stop piracy. The pirates will easily defeat whatever they do.

[@scpatl4now]

DRM on video games is usually cracked within hours of release

[@tc1uscg65]

Glad I seen this video. I'm pleased I didn't waste time to set it all up my OTA antenna yet, along with my HDHomerun boxes, my media PC's 4tuner card and other OTA capture devices. I think I will wait till this all settles down, or I need new hardware.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

ATSC 3.0 DOA?

[@soulnull]

Yeah, with this I've lost all excitement for the new technology. I'm in a very rural area and could've absolutely benefited from the improved robustness, but I'm *not* dealing with that BS. Horrible horrible move on their part. hevc/h264 work in ATSC1 for the most part, so I guess I'll just hope more stations start doing that instead, because I'm not going to support this poison pill trojan horse of a standard.

[@markfuller]

More "Dark Tyler," please. Kicking around $9 HD antennas (with a 5000-mile range) is fun. But, we're at a time when more activism and critical reporting is needed.

[@growingup15]

Man remember when You were able to just put an antenna up and just watch OTA TV. this is why Analog was better none of this Encryption and Subscription and Internet of things BS.

[@coondogtheman]

The moment that encryption comes to a TV near me is when I'll cut the antenna cord and just watch KZbin.

[@pmscalisi]

The sad thing for me is I really haven’t found much worth recording in over 5 years.

[@jnvivian]

It looks like looking for a built-in ATSC 3.0 tuner has become a critical feature to look for when buying a new TV. Many 4K TVs sold in the United States still only have an ATSC 1.0 tuner and will need an external ATSC 3.0 tuner to decode that signal. Tuner boxes that lack the ability to decrypt encrypted ATSC 3.0 signals suddenly feel worth far less.

[@AntennaMan]

According to comments posted on this video, some standalone TVs made by Sony and Hisense are having issues decoding DRM encryption as well.

[@journeyon1983]

I don't think DRM encryption is ever going away for the very reason of rebroadcasting over the internet. While it might not be a big deal right now, it could be down the road for watching sports or some other events tv channels deem to want to encrypt. For me, this is sad news but I expected it or as Tyler said, 'expected trade offs with new technologies.'

[@RJARRRPCGP]

WTF! I don't give a poop about "big sports". What I'm worried about, is if local channels, and weather broadcasting get locked like Knox!

[@rickharwell9154]

I bought the HD homerun for the atsc 3.0 and live in Atlanta and cannot get any of the channels. Spent a lot of money on the tuner box for nothing. I do pick up all the atsc 1.0 channels, but like I said spent a lot of money to get the 3.0 channels

[@bobclarke5913]

"Free TV is free TV" Ok, but what's to prevent having a 1mbps 240x160 resolution unencrypted subchannel to meet the FCC requirement while keeping all the HD encrypted?

[@timbo303official9]

I can see more capture cards in demand now since you would likely be able to grab the recordings that way even if it has drm. You are able to bypass restrictions like this with cable boxes and Netflix even depending on the capture card stripping hdcp

[@writerpatrick]

There are not any capture cards available yet that handle 3.0. But if you're doing screen capture and using a streaming source then you don't need one.

[@Observe-n-Learn]

Great vid as usual. DRM has kept me from going the ant route. I am not gonna pay for commercial television, period. I guess ad revenue just isn't enough anymore. Greed and power lust killed the humans.