ATSC 3.0 DRM News: Zapperbox, HDHomerun updates, no plans for in-home streaming and more

[@daveschmarder-US1950]

No DRM on the public airwaves. If the rights owners can't agree to that, kick them off the public airwaves.

[@joe10117]

Ditto in my location just want Antenna tv moved in Connecticut market

[@trisjor]

This should be a requirement by the FCC to broadcasters of TV and Radio.

[@franklinwerren7684]

Agree, DRM on off air is not the way to go. We the people have the power. Seniors and the poor with little or no internet will be the losers!!!😢😢😢😢 They need to be protected from big business.

[@alliejr]

💯💯💯

[@jeffreykoerber6595]

The FCC is supposed to regulate the public broadcast airwaves for the public interest, convenience and necessity and DRM goes against that. It should be disallowed on the broadcast bands. They can still use 5G broadcast for encrypted content.

[@AntennaMan]

Great video as always. Let's keep up the fight against DRM!

[@mplsjeffm]

antenna man, just wanted to say you gave us excellent information on choosing a new outdoor TV antenna. Highly recommend your skill set for others who are cutting the cord and want to get an outdoor antenna that will actually work.

[@joanie5812]

Lon thank you for being the voice of this community. No DRM.

[@patrickmartin4996]

And less complicated!

[@ariessilva]

Take away their right to broadcast over the public air waves if they do not remove drm

[@joe10117]

Amen

[@tkonzl6059]

It seems like the FCC is ceding control of the airwaves to the private broadcast companies and their consortium, as if the air waves belong to them.

[@RaDi0-HeAd]

How is this legal? These are public airwaves. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention!

[@kensmith5694]

It is legal because the people with the big bucks say it is legal. The FCC doesn't regulate in the public interest.

[@kalijasin]

It shouldn’t be.

[@featherpony]

Movie moguls fought the VCR. But Fred Rogers (Mr. Roger's Neighborhood) spoke before the Supreme Court about how important it is to allow people to record all broadcast content. They agreed with him. Someone needs to remind Congress. Show that testimony of the late Fred Rogers to Congress and the FCC.

[@timbo303official9]

I had no idea mr rodgers made the vcr possible. Mr rodgers was a great man. 😢😢

[@madmax2069]

Is there a recording on KZbin about that?

[@tactileslut]

It's a neighborly day in my beautywood. For now only ATSC1.0 signals reach my home. My neighbors are welcome to share it over my rather overbuilt wLAN.

[@tactileslut]

It's a neighborly day in my beautywood. For now only ATSC1.0 signals reach my home. My neighbors are welcome to share it over my rather overbuilt wLAN.

[@enriquevolio1]

No DRM. Thanks Lon for your work on this issue.

[@someoneoncesaid6978]

DRM should not be allowed on over-the-air broadcasts. Any channels that encrypt their signal should not be allowed to collect rebroadcasting fees from cable companies because they're forcing viewers to use those cable companies in order to receive those broadcasts.

[@mwjii]

It’s all a bunch of BS. They want total control of whatever you do. Great video Lon. Over the air stations should be free period.

[@schlittytube]

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this mess. No DRM is the only ideal.

[@padraightchonnaight2984]

I was about to buy a new TV for $1000.00 but I watched you latest video, and I decided to not to purchases one until they fix the DRM. Thanks for your video update.

[@MadMatty72]

One antenna per screen, in the age of networking - unbelievably short sighted.

[@timramich]

They don't mean that literally. You can distribute RF signals easily with an amplifier made to do so, and it has no idea about the underlying modulation and digital information that's buried in the actual analog carrier.

[@kensmith5694]

@@timramich An interesting thought would be, I wonder how hard it would be to build a box that receives the signal with DRM and then retransmits a copy without DRM. This way you can have rabbit ears on the other TV and watch the content.

[@duracell80]

Crazy. Hello FFMPEG, how's it going today? How's your friend over there VLC doing? Ready to defend fair use? Of course you are.

[@timramich]

@@duracell80 VLC, eww

[@duracell80]

@@timramich Heh, right? Much better that they don't restrict the technology. The tech is actually really good, an outernet of sorts which is exactly what we need for broadcast media. Internet bandwidth is saturated by video.

[@Robert-Wilson]

Here an idea people contact every business that advertise on these DRM encrypted networks. Tell them you can’t see their ads. Once they realize people can see the ads that they pay big $$$$ to the networks for people to see. They will stop paying the networks. Watch how fast things change when the money dries up.

[@joe10117]

makes perfect sence

[@CommodoreFan64]

Yep if there is an ATSC 1.0 feed, and an ATSC 3.0 feed that's encrypted of the same channel/s in your market(none in mine yet) then I say take photos of every local business you catch advertising on there say during the 5 or 6 o'clock news, and let them know people can't see them on the ATSC 3.0 feed because of this once the ATSC 1.0 feeds go dark, and yep the money will start to dry up for the tv stations for ads!!

[@Razor2048]

Imagine what happens when these devices stop getting firmware updates, thus rendering them unable to playback content when the broadcasters periodically change their DRM keys.

[@ecwnikos]

my gess get it and grab it.

[@timramich]

They technically shouldn't need firmware updates just to grab new keys. But if that's the way they want to play it, then this technology deserves to die. No one should adopt it and it should be left to die. That's the only way they're gonna get the message that we don't want a future where ads are everywhere around us (and injected into our dreams). A petition of 10k is just going to tickle a little bit and maybe stave off the inevitable for a few years.

[@thefrener794]

@@timramich Good luck getting ordinary robots to agree to this. Our jobs are so horrible that we just want to go home and sit and stare at the screen. Most people do not have an original thought in their heads and do not read anymore so do not have any other option but watch tv. All is lost. The vast majority of people are sheep to one shepherd or another. But they think they are free because they follow a different shepherd. Just stop watching tv let us all cancel our subscriptions to whatever corporation we are now enslaved to.

[@SpynCycle57]

I'm sure that firmware updates will be readily available, as long as you continue to pay the subscription fees.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

Continue to pay? Who's paying now?

[@CommodoreFan64]

The public airwaves for OTA free TV, and Radio should be DRM FREE, period, end of story!!

[@TechnoTim]

Thanks Lon! I am glad you are here to report on this!

[@georgehamer426]

As a HDHomerun user, no DRM! I have a cablecard in my home and love it. I know this may go away too. Support what consumers want.

[@kelownatechkid]

No DRM on the public airwaves!! Thank you for covering this Lon!

[@ncstrev]

No DRM. Public airwaves need to remain open.

[@jefferysmith5921]

Thanks for the update / video... I cannot go with DRM for over the air TV. We will stay with 1.0 until it is no more then that is it.

[@bryan.anderson]

The requirement to have Internet to watch over the air signals is ridiculous. My Internet went out 11/3/23 at430am. It's expected to be on tonight (11/6) at 10pm assuming they don't push it out again. How would I watch TV? 🤷‍♂️. It was hard enough as it is with the fire stick not loading the home screen, then the siliconedust app crashing when it couldn't download the guide data. I luckily had Kodi installed with the addon for siliconedust installed and that worked.

[@patrickmartin4996]

To add to that, there are so many issues, it will be years (if ever) for 3.0 to take over. The thought of dropping 1.0 in 5 years is crazy. That is unless they want to lose millions of OTA viewers.?

[@RobHoffman83]

I'm not understanding how the FCC would allow a licensened TV station to require Internet to receive television broadcasts. There is still a large portion of our nation who doesn't have internet and they will be locked out.

[@FrickDude824]

Thanks Lon for keeping us informed. I'm only here because I started looking into the HD Home Run option to configure and use with the Plex Channels feature. So annoyed that DRM for OTA is even a thing. Doesn't seem right. Keep up the good fight and I'll be here watching ever update.

[@jdquadrider]

Consumers have been abandoning the cable companies for years. So now big corporations are following their own age-old advice: If you can't beat them, take them over. That's what DRM is all about.

[@kentpeterson8082]

A broadcast manager friend of mine thinks a big player behind DRM and A3SA and locking down any streaming etc are the large sports groups -- The NFL, the NBA etc who want to carefully control where their live sporting events can be seen.

[@christeague6681]

They've already won that battle. In my home market (San Diego) there are zero Padres/MLB games on OTA networks - they all moved to the RSN. There are also zero NBA or NHL games - they all moved to cable. We still get NFL - but those games are slowly migrating to private streaming networks (NFLN, Amazon Prime) and I suspect will be gone from OTA after the next couple of TV agreements.

[@kensmith5694]

I have a great solution: Go watch the local high school games. The skill level may be lower but the teams are evenly matched making for an interesting contest.

[@timbo303official9]

​@@christeague6681in arizona, las vegas, and utah their teams are available over the air due to the fallout of rsns.

[@impossiblescissors]

Imagine DRM when the TV broadcasts are being used for Emergency Alert System. Yet another reason to require unencrypted television broadcast.

[@LenLynch]

Removing DRM from ATSC 3.0 would be best for the general public, especially the economically challenged. Today it's early adopters and those that have bad ATSC 1.0 stations that are impacted. So if you are in both those categories, it really sucks.

[@CLTGeek]

DRM... At least the primary channel on the licensed broadcast frequency should legally be required to be free-and-clear, unencumbered by DRM. I could see some flexibility to allow subchannels to be encrypted in order to offer additional services. The primary channel however needs to serve the public interest and the strings that come with the broadcast license.

[@mistermac56]

I have often thought that the whole DRM mess was to force external tuner box and TV set manufacturers to pay the Nextgen conglomerate big bucks for licenses rather than the content protection mantra they keep parroting.

[@jerryspann8713]

Shitty TiVo been charging monthly fees for years for the use of your personal DVR. NO ONE SAID SHIT ABOUT THAT.

[@johnmoyer2849]

More money to be made for crap for content.This is why I dumped fish.Cut channels And put nothing in it's place.They would also churn programs

[@g10101010101]

Thank you and the antenna man for helping us fight against DRM which is very bad for us who love to watch ota antenna TV stations recorded watch later. I do have gateway sling TV tuner so I can ota on my cellphone and my fire stick. It's going very bad future when a disaster like hurricanes, tornadoes, fires earthquakes and etc. No way the reaching out to people about important information with no internet and cell service how the DRM going to work? Anyway no DRM please!!!

[@junker15]

This is a reason I don't watch TV anymore. (I cut the cord in 2004, before cord-cutting was cool.) I say that FCC should revoke the broadcast license of any broadcaster who encrypts OTA broadcasts. The broadcaster either broadcasts in the clear, without encryption, scrambling, or DRM, or they lose their privilege to broadcast over the public airwaves.

[@kensmith5694]

I agree. In many places there are not enough open channels for all the broadcasters so weeding a few out would be fine.

[@dbenedict357]

14:11 What happens to those of us who REFUSE to connect TV to Internet because it only seems to make the TV less helpful? We don’t want ads in our TV menus so we don’t connect it to the Internet.

[@CrimsonTideGuy]

they can NOT force citizens to do commerce to enable tv airwaves. People own it and see constitutional lawsuit from that

[@SpynCycle57]

The OTA broadcasters realized that the real money is in the cable/streaming rebroadcast fees. The ATSC 3.0 transition is an opportunity to force viewers to get their signal through cable/streaming if they want to be able to use DVR capability. ABC, NBC, Fox, and CBS can afford to spend millions on lobbying, while the individual viewers can't compete with that.

[@beitie]

DRM is a non starter. It's only there to completely kill the product to force more people to subscription streaming services.

[@chasjeff]

Thanks Lon! NO DRM is the best outcome.

[@wmentzer58]

Public airwaves are just that "public". If "we" cannot view them, then take their license to broadcast away. NO DRM. Cable is different as you "subscribe" to view certain channels and your cable box controls everything. You don't get anything if "they" don't have your cable box "number". NO DRM.

[@Mike-ly1or]

What I don't understand is that DRM has been defeated on HDMI/HDCP so any devices, even being a non gateway atsc 3 device, can have its output captured. So why spend so much resources on something you can't protect anyway.

[@djthereplay]

They have to learn that lesson the hard way. They have always had a stick up them about program recording ever since the VCR and it never worked.

[@sweepingdenver]

Some of it is legal maneuvering. It’s easier to sue people for violating IP rights if they bypass DRM, even if it is easy to actually do so.

[@djthereplay]

Really@@sweepingdenver ? I'll put it this way. The only way that they will really sue is if you take that recording and post it on the internet for public viewing or rebroadcast it for public viewing. Otherwise recording broadcasts and tv programming whether it be encrypted or unencrypted becomes private viewing options and there is a thing called Fair Use for that. Look at Cable and Satellite Television. That's encrypted but it's still recordable and capturable and I have never heard of anyone getting sued over recording off television, etc. Now if you try to do it through the HDMI Cable and not the RCA audio video composite then it will prompt a warning screen but if you are using the RCA audio video composite to capture and record , no. I have recorded and captured from satellite television and that is DRM encrypted and I use the RCA audio video composite with My Video Capturing Device and nothing ever happened to me.

[@dominator5498]

Here's how this plays out Lon.....The BIG broadcast companies have money to pay the powers that be to side with them on this. In 5-10 years you won't be able to turn on a TV without paying, plus ads plus any upgrades such as DVR or multiple home network streams. They will keep the economically challenged quiet by subsidizing them like they currently do with cable companies. It's all about increasing profits.

[@kensmith5694]

I agree and to a degree it is also about control of the market. They will keep the little guy with the great new idea out of the market by making it expensive to do anything.

[@malcolden7788]

Eventually they will cause the decimation of all TV and its final collapse. TV WILL BE NO MORE. However, other forms of entertainment will arise.

[@deefay396]

@@malcolden7788 People will go back to reading and sewing and knitting, and churning butter, etc. etc. Anything but watching television. The future children of the world will ask, What is Television?

[@StaceyAyodele]

To the depths of the sea with DRM No DRM It's not Digital Rights Management, it's Digital Restrictions Management. All of this what you explained in the video made my head spin. I just...wow. Information Overload I guess. I don't see how normal consumers would understand this either. These broadcasters are INSANE!

[@robertmason7013]

What happens if you don't have Internet or Internet goes down.

[@CommodoreFan64]

that's what I'm thinking I have T-Mobile 5G Home Internet that's been really reliable so far, but what if a tornado hits my area, and takes out the towers, but leaves me with power, then what are we to do for information besides radio which often times is no help at all just shoving 24/7 billboard crap, or whatnot down your throat, and the one good talk radio station here 80% of their day is syndicated radio shows like Glenn Beck that are no help me on a local level.

[@kensmith5694]

My thinking is that we will find our selves listening to radio plays and the like again. They used to be a thing before there was TV. Some of them were really good.

[@ranger135]

NO DRM on broadcast TV, the encryption would only lock us OTA viewers out and encourage the broadcasters to use a pay perview model on all sporting events and first release movies. We have all cut the cord for a reason

[@JamieStuff]

I don't understand why they are bothering with DRM, as anything broadcast ends up on the Internet within a few hours... and without commercials. Are they trying to reduce their already dwindling audience even more?

[@joester4life]

And that's why they're trying to make it harder.... for it won't happen. But we know it will.. one way or another. But most people doesn't even know a difference between a WebRip and a WEB-DL for example.

[@joltdude]

Between locking content to devices , the big issue is still requiring an internet connection for television…Could also see them forcing fees on previously free to air television as well as selling content beside free to air similar to the old over the air pay tv systems… starcase, prevue,select tv,on tv….

[@patrickmartin4996]

Connecting to the internet to watch OTA TV? That is crazy. What about people that do not have access to the internet?

[@kensmith5694]

@@patrickmartin4996 Maybe renting video tapes will come back or something.

[@patrickmartin4996]

More likely streaming. I doubt many are interested in even DVDs these days. I love them, but many don't care as much.

[@Ancientreapers]

@@patrickmartin4996 Believe it or not I read a few things years ago that broadcast TV companies were mulling over of doing exactly that. Using the Dish TV method. Basically turning Broadcast TV into a cable service with a monthly fee while still serving you ads.

[@markthompson4225]

So where is the link to the petition... why would you not put it in the show notes?

[@scotts.7662]

Too many links, but Where is link to petition mentioned?

[@ericB3444]

No DRM. Put a solid state battery in it. That’s always a positive answer in tech.

[@timramich]

Even the disclaimer before NFL games that are broadcast OTA includes something along the lines of "this broadcast is for private use of its audience." Which means it can be recorded and watched freely by said viewer. They don't rely one bit on revenue from streaming. They rely on advertising live in real-time. And as far as serial programming goes, no one is pirating OTA broadcasts anymore, what with the advent of streaming services. Every single show on TV that is pirated and put up on torrent sites is done so from a streaming platform, and IS NOT from an OTA capture. What I believe this whole scenario really is is just a small investment into something that will fail. Roll out of ATSC 1.0, make everything 3.0, and get people pissed off enough to just abandon it and go back to either cable or streaming. It got people to stop buying music in physical form. Physical video media is almost dead. OTA is almost dead.

[@timramich]

Speaking of Plex, nothing would make them happier to get rid of DVR stuff and to get rid of personal media libraries. They push their stupid low-budget free content and push their stupid conglomeration/integration of third-party streaming services.

[@gnomeone]

NO DRM! I live in a high tornado prone area. We need storm tracking available from our local stations. DRM is an unreasonable burden to have imposed on everyone in these bad weather prone areas in households with multiple TVs that will all need a new add-on tuner.

[@stevenaughton9372]

BTW, Lon, two stations in San Diego owned by Nexstar have gone ATSC 3.0, but we can't receive those channels any more. Even after the switchover we could receive the channels for a few days, on the channel indicator it would say 51 1 in addition to the regular 51-1. But eventually both went away. They keep advising people to rescan their TVs, but that is not working.

[@patricknelson]

Totally agree with you, re: DRM. I think it’ll have a chilling effect on both consumers and businesses alike. It could be _yet another_ example of large profitable companies extracting more value to line their pocketbooks. IMHO, the writing is on the wall: If we can’t stop or at least dramatically improve this buggy and poorly implemented DRM, then broadcast may continue to die away. I don’t know. Maybe that’s the point?

[@rafaelperez9652]

Excellent video report on the DRM mess that's part of ATSC 3.0!! These companies seem to forget that the airwaves belong to the public and as such we are all entitled to free over-the-air content without encryption!! I believe what Lon Seidman says when he says the FCC is waiting until all of this gets played out before they do something about this fiasco. Once again, Excellent video!!!

[@polarvortex6601]

dont hold your breath for the FCC. they are bought and paid for

[@currentsitguy]

To quote Mr. Scott: "The more you complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

[@GregM]

Here in Canada the providers wanted to do away with the over the air signals but I believe the CRTC ruled against that for now. Only thing I use OTA here is 6PM news and most of the time I nod off during the news. I axed cable here 4 years ago and don't miss it. Only get 3 OTA channels with 2 being sporadic.

[@KA9DSL]

As a retired Broadcast engineer, this DRM is bad for ATSC 3.0. Watching skkimple TV is getting complicated and out of hand, same thing happening to cars.

[@glennmcgurrin8397]

No "Deceptive Revenue Maximization" (DRM for short) please on ota signals, I feel for those who need ota as cable etc isn't a functional option, but if this is the future of tv stations I'd rather we abolish ota tv, revoke all the spectrum, and put it as new unlicenced spectrum, it will grt much more better use for the PUBLIC's benefit that way

[@SuperAgentman007]

If they do this with TV the only thing they’re gonna do is encourage someone out there to develop an anti-DRM box just like they used to do for Dishnet work and DIRECTV as they usually say, if there’s a Will there’s a way

[@fencerrandy]

Thanks for championing this effort. IMHO, there should be no DRM on broadcasts over public airwaves. First, this breaks a decades old standard and second, it unnecessarily disrupts established sidecar technologies.

[@Malintent]

Thanks for keeping up with this, Lon! NO DRM!!

[@marksalamon619]

I wholeheartedly support your campaign to get the best possible deal for consumers from all the parties involved in drafting the ATSC 3.0 regulations. I'll also admit that I'm ambivalent about the status of TV in the future. There's scarce programming on TV I actually want to watch, and so much material is available through other media sources that interests me more.

[@anthonyd4309]

You should link to the petition in your updates on this topic, sir!

[@LonSeidman]

Thank you added them this morning to the description!

[@SuperBigDog2U]

We are finally away from needing rabbit ears on all tv's, and now the industry wants to drag us backwards digitally requiring separate boxes per tv again....just insane.

[@patrickmartin4996]

Since the fees are so lucrative for broadcasters, does anyone think that they want to keep free OTA TV? They either want it so complicated that few will bother, and they will stay with cable/satellite or down the road, they will figure a way to charge the viewer.

[@Tech_with_Loco]

Make it work like ATSC 1.0, with better quality!

[@ericcindycrowder7482]

Hi I have a zapper box with a projector home theater setup. Live in Atlanta metro. I only get half of the ATSC3.0 channels now because half of them are blocked out with DRM

[@nonstopper1410]

I live in the Bronx! and we just got aTSC 3.0 channels! I got the ATDH box! but I was getting fewer channels with it! and return it! I hope HDHomerun finally can get the DRM approval! waiting for you and Antenna Man to review "Zinwell ATCS 3.0 top box" coming in December

[@polarvortex6601]

dont buy the boxes ppl that will encourage them to do worse.

[@SolarizeYourLife]

All current atsc 3.0 tvs are screwed... what a waste of money.... We need to start boycotting all stations that have encrypted stations!!!

[@Crusader7077]

Consumer advocacy groups have to make a lot of noise about the ATSC 3.0 DRM encryption issue. If DRM becomes widely accepted among consumers over a period of years, it will only be a matter of time from then on until over-the-air PPV comes about, and that's not good.

[@LonSeidman]

Unfortunately they've all been very quiet on this .. Even the AARP which is usually vocal isn't saying anything.

[@terrycollins6673]

Okay; DRM on cable. Understandable. Satellite encoding; okay, understandable too. But over-the-air encoding? Forget it!! Enough is enough!!! Greed destroys.

[@kensmith5694]

I don't despair. I know that I am strong enough to take the TV out to the curb. When I need to connect my TV to the internet to watch OTA TV or I can't record the movies from the small hours of the morning, I will cart my TV to the curb and call it the end of an era. I can get a small computer and a big screen and put it there to play videos if I have a reason to play them. There is no reason for me to "upgrade my TV" with a new TV or even a 3.0 tuner as far as I can see.

[@Chris_In_Texas]

There is no reason at all for DRM, unless you want to make it much more complicated. If broadcasters don't want you to watch, they will encrypt, otherwise why would they do it? Encryption and decryption add processing overhead and complexity as we see now. They just need to remove it all together, there is zero reason to do this. 😵🤦‍♂

[@robertalverson3398]

Cynically, I think the broadcasters want to get/force you to stream their feed, not get it OTA. That way they are in control of your experience, no commercial skipping allowed.

[@Chris_In_Texas]

@@robertalverson3398 I think you are correct for sure. I think if it we up to them, they would just want to shut off the broadcast side and just have streaming boxes. Would save a fortune in just power costs alone. Then they can track you for sure and know exactly what your watching etc. And then force you to watch commercials and not be able to skip or anything. I really hope that the FCC steps in and stops the madness with encryption. It's free over the air broadcasts. If they want to encrypt move to cable and then charge me for it. Its suppose to be for everyone to watch who might not be able to afford new 80" top of the line TV's and special hardware. Brings me back to the days of digital TV and everyone having to get coupons for free converter boxes so they could watch TV on their older sets.

[@dbenedict357]

3:23 even direct tv connected to antenna doesn’t guarantee being able to receive the 3.0 signal.

[@drsysop]

No ATSC here & no plans to add it & glad as I am hearing there encrypting it.

[@BakerplaceComm]

HDHomerun4k flex user here. Love the quality of ATSC3.0 but am also frustrated by the DRM. I live in the Nashville market and ATSC3.0 is available for all major networks. NBC and CBS are currently DRM so can't see those channels. Lon, thanks so much for keeping us updated on progress. Maybe one day we will be able to watch and record like the days of old with VHS machines. IMO it is greed driven like everything. I just think it is terribly unfair that consumers are restricted in this manner. What about folks who can't afford pay TV services? They should be able to buy a box that allows recording and ad-skipping.

[@tigger21e]

I live in NYC and using my HDHomerun with the Freecast app I can watch the ATSC 3.0 encrypted broadcasts for CBS (102.1) and Telemundo (147.1). NBC doesn’t work, the screen remains black but for everything else Freecast works for me right now.

[@scotgranger7205]

Thank you for explaining a complex, multi-faceted issue in plain language. I'm in favor of no DRM although I'm not opposed to purchasing an ATSC 3.0 gateway device that is software/firmware updateable that offers the ability to record broadcast TV programs and a has a TV program guide.

[@davidew98]

I’m highly pissed that the ATC 3.0 in industry just not understand that the consumers do not want nor can they use DRM encryption. The requirements for an Internet connection are stupid and outrageous. In today’s world we still have a lot of non-Connected communities. These communities do not have access to the Internet as well as they are low income. this also means that they’re watching free air instead of paying for other services. This DRM encryption has nothing to do with consumers at all. It has nothing to do with piracy at all. It is only a money grab it is only design to force consumers, who cannot pay for TV to pay for free to Air television.

[@hastingb]

There's still a lot of old HDMI cables and monitors that don't support DRM and it was a pain in the butt to try and figure out why I couldn't stream Netflix to my laptop with an external monitor plugged in or even just an old HDMI cable. ATSC 3 DRM is just more of the same kind of craziness. You shouldn't have to have any kind of tech savvy to sit down and watch a TV show or a ball game..

[@lithiumpro9999]

Very good video.. My only comment is that encryption is a direct violation of public airways broadcasting. One rule of even licensed HAM operators is no encryption if I remember. So if they can let us do that then major broadcasters should not be able to do this either. It should be illegal even for cable broadcasters to do the same, but they do..

[@Shootsmith]

No DRM.

[@robertmason7013]

Class action lawsuit is needed.

[@joe10117]

Love to go with anyone to sue

[@CrimsonTideGuy]

I am low income and FORCING me to pay expensive Internet for airwaves I already own is a class action waiting to happen

[@robertmason7013]

@@CrimsonTideGuy complain to the FCC to stop DRM Incription.

[@cliftonchurch6039]

The thought I've had regarding this is in regard to the emergency broadcast system. If all channels are encrypted and something bad happens, how will the public that still uses OTA broadcasts for information receive these emergency broadcasts? Doesn't this cause a national security issue?

[@polarvortex6601]

they dont care. you will own nothing and be happy!

[@kensmith5694]

Yes, it is a major issue with disasters and the like. I expect people will rely on their phones for the warnings. This , however, can be trouble in rural places.

[@davidhollfelder9940]

No paywall or tracking on TV broadcast. No DRM, no internet.

[@Burn_In_Oled_On_Purpose]

Get rid of drm completely since there was no drm with analog tv. I miss the way things were in the 90s when it came to movies, music and video games since everything was balanced. The consumers had more options and more choices compared to how it is now with limitations and restrictions.

[@danielhall7174]

I think it needs to stay the same. No DRM. I want to plug 1 antenna into a gateway and send it to any device i want in the house. What if an antenna doesn't work inside the basement? Now I cant watch tv there? Doesn't seem right to me to have to string coax around.

[@Argyle1]

How do I tell if my local broadcast is encrypted before I buy an HDHOMERUN?

[@azzonie]

Hi Lon, I own a Samsung 4K ATSC 1.0 TV that can only play 4K movies when attached to a 4K player. So let me get this straight. As long as my TV is connected to wi-fi, will I be able to pick up DRM encrypted ATSC 3.0 TV with a Zapper Box or something similar? According to Rabbit Ears, only the CBS and NBC-owned stations in Los Angeles are encrypted and only the ABC-owned station and a sister CBS-owned sister station have not filed with the FCC.

[@LonSeidman]

No the box (zapper, ADTH, etc) needs to be connected to Wifi in order to decrypt - at least at the moment.

[@azzonie]

@@LonSeidman Thanks! Lol I took notice you had to nuance your answer with “at least at the moment!”

[@patricknelson]

Thank you for your activism on this!

[@ronjr831]

I was really looking forward to getting a 3.0 DVR. Now there are many roadblocks. I’ll stick to 1.0. It works fine.

[@nickedens3358]

So what do we need to do cause I have one of the new roku tvs but it still doesn't pick them up. Do we just haft to wait

[@RickAnkrum]

I think the ATSC 3.0 DRM is an attempt to preserve the retransmission fees the OTA stations get from the cable/satellite services. 3.0 may increase the range of their signals and more people will opt for an antenna. They may be killing the goose that lays their golden egg as they continue increase the fees. When will peak retransmission fees be reached? I think we are close to that point now as evidenced by the continuing loss of subscribers by the cable/satellite services. As viewing habits change the FAST may become the "new" OTA source of content.

[@OctopusAtWork]

Fantastic explainer Lon; technical but totally accessible. Great job. Also, yeah-- no DRM would be ideal, though I'm not going to hold my breath on that. I'm guessing the end game here is OTA PPV and subscription channels that function like PS+ and other gaming subscriptions do... There are so many ways in which that is certain to go wrong-- validating saved (and even purchased) content when a broadcaster goes out of business for example... oof. Nightmares man.

[@minigpracing3068]

If I can't receive a signal and stream it to my tablet, broadcast is dead to me. Ultimitely a device needs to receive more than 1 signal, record them, and then stream them to my tablet or TV.

[@aniket_S_yt]

Where is the link? I don't see any...

[@JapChinLuvr]

I watch very little over-air TV. I use the cable for phone and internet only. If a program or movie is produced that I want to watch, I wait until it is available on DVD or BluRay. I have a library of over 13,000 DVDs, and don't mind paying for the content - but then I have it "forever", and can watch it whenever I take a notion. I just got "Blue Beetle", and I loved it!

[@Chris_In_Texas]

I would never purchase a TV with ATSC3 tuner and expect the manufacture to support it for more than a year or maybe two. After that, that model won't get any more updates. Good luck with those older TV's ever to work after a year or two. Make it through the warranty period and then support will be dropped.

[@CrimsonTideGuy]

this is how we as a people really talk, REFUSE the new equipment, If nobody is watching nationwide, they will go bankrupt

[@The_Plum]

No to DRM and thanks for parsing all of the details concerning OTA. Also a little rant. I am tired of the actions of a minuscule fraction of a percentage of people causing the rest of us to be treated like untrustworthy criminals. There are certain situations where security measures are needed. This is not one of them. Plus the old greed factor. I am willing to pay my fair share and I know that number is different for everyone. But too many companies just do not have a limit on how much profit is enough.

[@rayjaysworld6852]

Apparently the broadcasters and network owners are at odds right now over who gets to make deals for the local channels with youtube tv, Hulu+live, Fubo TV ETC. Which is telling me where this ATSC 3.0 thing is going. I get this odd feeling broadcasters will charge you to watch or Record there ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. We consumers won't like that.

[@jmr]

They are renting the airwaves from the American people. At very minimum the primary channels including local news should be DRM free so we have a fallback when the DRM inevitably fails. I can't count on an internet connection or a cellular connection during an emergency and DRM has a history of epic failures since it's inception. If they want a place to host some "premium content" I can live with that but do it on a subchannel.

[@christeague6681]

They are not "renting" airwaves - they pay nothing for it. We own the spectrum and have leased it at zero cost to broadcasters in exchange for them providing a public service - namely the emergency broadcast system and one hour of news per day. They are in breach of the deal.

[@jmr]

@@christeague6681 No need to split hairs. Compensation is compensation whatever form it takes. If you pay for your house in fish don't think the taxman won't come.

[@MikeySoft]

The A3SA rules plus with a geatway should also apply after the transition! !! I aleady signed the petition. Should II singed it again stating the above? What can we do to influence the A3SA as they are not the FCC?

[@Frank-qn1xq]

Do I need to get a new Next Gen 3.0 tuner to receive broadcasting in 3.0?

[@lap456]

DRM is an resaon why I hate that my landlord makes me use Cox Cable TV. Luckly we don't have ATSC 3 here in Lafaytte, La since one of thing's I'm worried about more then the DVR is The Emergency Alert System. The EAS is also an resaon the lost of AM radio in cars is bad news.

[@MaNameizJeff]

so public broadcasters do receive some money from the gov for being a public service. I could see online DRM as grounds for lawsuits to cut these subsidies since these networks will no longer be providing a free over the air service They will need to ask if the loss of that money is worth the drm.

[@CrimsonTideGuy]

charge them 100x the current cost for licenses to fund new licenses for free OTA from stations willing to air free!