They lied? The Zinwell ATSC 3 Nextgen TV Box Needs Internet for DRM Channels..

[@LonSeidman]

I just heard from a viewer in Colorado who also found his box could not decrypt channels without an Internet connection. What a continued mess this is turning out to be. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p5bdd5eAaN94d6M

[@CantankerousDave]

No DRM on public airwaves, period.

[@charlesdoesmore5488]

Broadcasters want to avoid having a locast-type issue here.

[@CommodoreFan64]

@@charlesdoesmore5488 Then they should just keep going after those types of companies instead of punishing the end consumer who just wants to say watch the local news, or a college football game. I'm glad my area does not have any ATSC 3.0 channel yet.

[@christophervanzetta]

Ban the trash and give us our taxes back. No more theft of income!!!

[@charlesdoesmore5488]

@@CommodoreFan64 What I said is about someone asking about Mexico having DVB-T rather than ATSC.

[@CommodoreFan64]

@@charlesdoesmore5488 I see nothing about that in the comments, but my point stands DRM on public airwaves is BS!!!

[@JustinProvost]

Not only FCC, we should also be reporting to FTC for false statements and lies said by A3SA.

[@davedumond9268]

Thanks Lon. I wouldn't buy this incomplete product, and I agree the whole DRM requirement for OTA TV is a sham. The FCC needs to get some b***s and stand up for consumers.

[@bmiller949]

Thank you Lon for "kicking the tires" on this product. I don't think it's something I want to buy.

[@josephregallis3394]

DRM is going to be the downfall of ATSC 3!

[@EweToobUsername]

It’s what the broadcasters ultimately want - why pay millions a year in giving something away when they can charge us $5 or $10 a month for it?

[@atm94404]

Didn't LG basically say they couldn't make a "real" ATSC 3.0 tuner right now because the current spec is unfinished an unimplementable (at least for offline DRM)? So any device claiming such may as well say "And we can pull electricity from the air (just like Nicola Tesla promised!) and eliminate your power bills".

[@LonSeidman]

LG dropped support due to patent issues surrounding the signal used for transmission: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aGiWepR9oNlkfZo

[@jasonfarmer7672]

I think that if they want to require internet connection to encrypt our public airwaves, they should take those airwaves away and find better uses for them. It should not require a internet connection at any point to watch OTA TV, especially as you pointed out if the security is 3 years out of date

[@matthewjbauer1990]

I wish we just went to IPTV and had an app on our smart TV to get our local channels. This would avoid all this mess.

[@jjones2582]

@@matthewjbauer1990 - Does IPTV work over the air?

[@matthewjbauer1990]

@@jjones2582 No. I said that you'd need an app on a smart TV. Or you'd need some set top box. Back when DTV came about and we transitioned away from CRTs and analog to digital and 720p, they were giving away set top boxes for free. It'd be cheaper just to have an app for this but hey, if the government wants to give out another set top box, I'll take 1 or 2 for this. I was meaning that we should just do away with OTA entirely and move to a mostly internet based TV distribution model (cable is mostly internet based already) for our local TV stations. Local TV would actually reach a wider audience via internet to the TV than it does today.

[@jasonfarmer7672]

s2582 no iptv is over the internet. I was able to use an iptv service to get local channels while I was overseas in the Army. It seemed like a grey area back then, I don't know if it is still available.

[@matthewjbauer1990]

@@jasonfarmer7672 I guarantee its not. The best you can get is Hulu or YT TV or Fubo or something like that, and its not really the same thing. IPTV should be the wave of the future.

[@mistermac56]

Thanks for calling out Zinwell. I agree with you that there is shadiness regarding their advertising that says their box doesn't require an Ethernet connection to receive DRM encrypted stations. And the box's features are woeful compared to the much cheaper ADTH box. And I find it bizarre that the DRM encryption standard is tied to one vendor, Google. And it is troubling that we are dealing with shell games from A3SA regarding DRM. No concrete explanation why DRM is needed. I live in the Nashville TN TV market, and we've had ATSC 3.0 for several years now and have five stations broadcasting ATSC 3.0. I have two Sony Bravia XR TV's with 'ATSC 3.0 tuners and a ADTH ATSC 3.0 tuner box. I have great signal reception for ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 There has been nothing but technical issues regarding the ATSC 3.0 broadcasting here. Things will go well for a couple of weeks and all of a sudden, there will be slow tuning, especially with the CBS and NBC affiliates, which use DRM. Those stations could take five or more seconds to tune. Then there is the issue of consistent signal dropouts or off the air entirely for all stations. Then things will be be great for a couple of weeks, and then it is rinse and repeat. And unless you contact the stations to let them know they are having issues, they don't get taken care of. It is as if they don't even monitor their ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. I realize there are going to be growing pains along the line, but it gets totally frustrating. Thank goodness the TV stations have rock solid ATSC 1.0. I filed an FCC complaint concerning the issues and the chief engineer for the CBS affiliate has reached out to me. He's been great to work with. Except for one technical issue that was at his station, the other technical issues have been with the ATSC 3.0 'motherships' operated by Sinclair Broadcasting affiliates. He has been nice enough to ask me to email him if there is an issue that lingers on for a couple of days and he checks if there is a problem on his stations end or contacts the Sinclair affiliates engineers to get the issues resolved. His station has several brands of ATSC 3.0 capable TV sets and a ADTH box, so he has been far more proactive monitoring his station's ATSC 3.0. But I shouldn't have to contact him. It makes me wonder if the Sinclair affiliates even monitor the ATSC 3.0 transmissions. So, it is a mess here with ATSC 3.0 broadcasting. I find that I view the ATSC 3.0 broadcasts less and less because of the issues.

[@christophervanzetta]

Sounds like no one even use OTA garbage to begin with 😂

[@bikeny]

Your 'are they even monitoring their broadcasts' reminds of the radio station in Alabama that says their AM antenna was stolen and they didn't discover it until the work crew was there to do some work.

[@bikeny]

@@christophervanzetta I'm using OTA but it's Elon's Starlink internet plan. Yes, I know, it's not the real OTA, but the boonies I'm in don't even have cable or fibre. But, yes, I haven't watched any regular channel in years. Even 'regular cable' channels aren't worth it what with all the commercial breaks in their shows as well as their on-screen logos and on-screen text like hashtags and the snipes at the bottom of the screen (those are so large at times, that you can't see what the videographer recorded because the folks back at the station put those info blocks up on the screen all through the program). Of course, channels that used to be premium channels, like hbo and showtime, already put their logos on the screen, so they aren't premium any more. They are just as bad as the commercial channels.

[@mistermac56]

@@bikeny there is more and more evidence coming out that the AM station hasn't been on the air for a long time and people are going through satellite images and it appears the tower has been gone for a long time. Totally fishy.

[@tomgeriak3757]

Thank you for saving me $150.

[@matthewjbauer1990]

The days where people actually watched shows and talked at the water cooler at work or kids talking about their show at school are long over. The days of exciting and engaging TV content are over because people stopped watching TV and as a result of people stopping watching TV, it became boring and mostly reality content, unscripted content, or really really fake crime dramas, or lots and lots of sports to fill in the gaps. With the exception of NFL, local news, and the occasional video game, I have no real reason to use my TVs. I do have a HDHR Flex 4k, and that's only because my 55" Vizio 4k "TV" doesn't have a tuner. Yes, everyone says that cable rebroadcasting fees make up a significant portion of the revenue for a local station, but I can't fathom that considering that everyone is ditching TVs all together and doing without. If you know what you're getting into, this Zinwell box seems OK. I'm still OK with my purchase of the HDHR Flex 4k even though I'm pretty sure that it will never get DRM support. I'm pretty sure that no ATSC 3.0 gateway DVR will ever get DRM support because broadcasters don't want you running an IPTV service or doing something like Plex (they want you to pay for Cable, YT Live or Hulu + Live to do on demand or on-the-go live). This sucks but its the reality we live in. Broadcasters wanting all our $$$ for something that was supposed to be free by design.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

Severe ATSC 3.0 DVR restrictions could Include No recording allowed, No DVR controls, No skipping TV Ads, Auto delete after time, only play on same device, No HDMI recording, etc. IMO.

[@fearlessfreep]

Man - I ALMOST bought one after your last review but SO GLAD I did not.

[@venw6811]

What about people like me that cannot afford internet? Guess I have to watch TV down at the coffee shop.

[@christophergraeme2346]

Thanks so much Lon. Have been waiting for the Zimwell box since December when they first promised to ship. Seems to me they have the best solution to date over ADTH and Zapperbox. Hopefully Hd home run and tablo will be entering the market. Just waiting for the dust(silicon) settles

[@atm94404]

Historically, DRM and HDHomerun haven't been a winning combo. Just ask any HDHomeRun Prime owner...

[@jmr]

Dang it @Lon! I was excited about this one. Thank you for letting us know before I bought one! I was actually waiting for you or Antenna man to review it and now I'm glad I did.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

Not bad if you only have to connect once, might be because every market has their own security keys.

[@jmr]

@@Michael-Joseph123 We don't know if it only has to be connected once. What if you can't connect it once at the location you plan to install it? What happens when a rescan is needed? Do we need new keys after a power failure?

[@fearlessfreep]

TV Industry: "Boy, I don't understand why we can't get more adoption of ATSC 3 protocols." Consumers: "See video above."

[@AAa-qd8hb]

ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV OTA DRM Encrypted TV is dead on arrival because of DRM.

[@Anothertominohio]

So much for the days when you just turned on the tv and it worked. It will be the eventual death of local television. Who wants to keep buying boxes you have to attach to your tv to get it to work. They should be making it easier, not more difficult to be a consumer. Didn't anyone learn anything from HD Radio?

[@dennisud]

Yes, keep the pressure on the FCC to make them ask Congress to establish laws and codes, as when you let an industry regulate itself, there's no true accountability. The government has to step in and regulate it! Watch as soon as that is starting to happen all this rigamarole will suddenly right itself just before the government steps in with new regulations!!!

[@polarvortex6601]

FCC DOESNT GIVE A DAMN, THEY CREATED THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE COMCAST AND ATT OWNS THEM

[@XMguy]

I did a full android factory reset on it and the DRM kept working. But it shouldn’t be there period.

[@CapriciousBibekk]

isn't that worse? If you get infected with a backdoor, there is no way to remove it, just like there is no way to remove the drm certificate.

[@metroidreadzen8438]

According to the Manual, you need a ENTHERNET Cable. That's your problem right there, lol...

[@Orionshield1948]

Well I read some of descriptors of this unit on the Channel Master site and I think this quote is key for the moment: "the Zinwell ZAT-600B will be security verified to operate without needing an internet connection." Will be could indicate at a later date, with the USB port available perhaps firmware updates will gradually add additional features to this unit. Also " This receiver is designed to be upgradeable, ensuring that your TV stays relevant and equipped with the latest advancements for years to come." -- Personally I am in no hurry to condemn this unit at this stage and will monitor it's development before purchase.

[@WNYOverTheAir]

This is very interesting. There are many people who bought this and had DRM encrypted channels work, out of the box, without ever connecting it to the internet. There may be different types of DRM being implemented - some that require an initial internet connection and some that don't. What a mess!

[@LonSeidman]

Who? I'd like to know what the difference is as my box did not connect to either of my DRM channels until it was on the Internet first.

[@StraightThruTheHeart]

As Lon showed, the instructions themselves stated you need an internet connection so what you say is doubtful.

[@WNYOverTheAir]

@@StraightThruTheHeart All I'm saying is there have been reports from people on the AVS Forum that have gotten DRM encrypted channels to work without an initial internet connection.

[@xr500t]

@@WNYOverTheAir WHO? you've been asked twice! Where's your back up? I'm willing to listen, but I need more than " I've heard it through the grapevine" \:>{

[@WNYOverTheAir]

@@xr500t As I mentioned before (my comment isn't showing up for some reason), there are multiple reports on the AVS Forum's Zinwell ZAT-600B thread. The latest post is from a user "Chut Mingy" who stated that Lon's experience was not the same as his. According to him and others on that thread, they were able to watch DRM encrypted channels without ever connecting the box to the internet.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

BAD NEWS new "Secure DVR" ATSC 3.0 TV DRM rules say (severe TV recordings restrictions) go into effect after Simulcast testing is over and ATSC 1.0 TV is turned off = no more TV recordings.

[@richh650]

Thank you for this update. DRM will be the death of ATSC 3.0 and the FCC needs to slam this!!!

[@donbest5024]

Most people that i know where i live don't have no internet access and depends on over the air tv,and in most cases has to go out side their home just to use a cellphone.What are these companies thinking must have internet to work.

[@cryptickcryptick2241]

They are thinking there is more money in having customized streaming ads. The real end game for broadcasters is more revenue. My understanding of the technology is they will be able to control which ads you see, so they will curtail the ads to you (like the internet does). When Google became the main ad platform on the web, they were 2 to 3 times more profitable than the competition; because they streamed ads to users that users were more likely to buy. Since users were more likely to buy, they could charge more. With just a little information on your viewing habits; one can optimize advertising to you. This is why they want an internet connection; then they can know everything you watch, and report it back every day. This "attempt" is just to try to get it approved.

[@Minimelkav]

Thanks for the upload! I just bought one of these, but was still waiting for the mail.

[@reticularimus]

Some of the marketing materials could be taken as misleading, or at least vague. But if this device can ever work without an internet connection, even if it needed a prior internet connection, that could be useful. Depends how long it can go before needing another internet connection. And whenever it does need another internet connection, it probably would only need to be a very brief one. That's better than always having it connected. Sure, no DRM at all is always better, but the chances of the FCC forcing that are probably not very high. Is the glass half full or half empty? It's half empty if we can get the FCC to force no DRM. It's half full if having DRM is the reality and an intermittent internet connection requirement is the best we can get.

[@danblankenship5744]

I got this box a week ago, and not happy with its performance. List of pluses: Remote: The remote is easy to figure out and the learn feature is nice. Guide: The "guide" is okay for seeing what's on (limited time frame). issues: Scanning Channel Memory: Since I live in a valley, I need to use a rotator to precisely point the antenna at each transmitter to get mediocre signal strength even though they are 10 miles away. This makes scanning the channels very hard while swinging the mast around to the correct spot for the next channel in the list. I gave up trying, and as a result, I wasn't able to program 10 local channels. Too bad there isn't an "Add channels" option instead of erasing all channel memory every time you restart the scan. You can select the "Manual Scan" option, but it still erases all of the other channels. I haven't unplugged the power for fear it resets. Audio: The volume level is low from the box. Crank the TV volume up so you can hear the TV show. Tumer performance: I hooked up my ethernet cable, scanned the channels, and saw I had some local NextGenTV channels. I only saw a "No Signal" message when I tuned those channels. I was forced to switch to the ATSC-1.0 channel. The ATSC-3.0 tuner (if it has DRM) must require a better signal strength. I suspect this is so Channel Master can sell more amplifiers. There is one local 3.0 station without DRM, and this tuner shows it without issue even though it breaks up from time to time (not a very high signal strength channel). Ease of operation: I had to go to the Zinwell website to figure out how to update the S/W. Even with the owner's manual, it wasn't easy. If you don't fully back out of the menus, I found the device will time out and send you back to the menu pages. Power Indicator: I had to tape a piece of paper over the power indicator to reduce its brightness. Worth the money: I already have a $30 HomeWorx Mediasonic box that gives everything this Zinwell box offers, plus it has a built-in DVR. I hope I will not lose money when I sell it.

[@PhotoJohn80]

You should really think about getting at least a 8 bay antenna that can be split into two different directions. I have the issue where I have to have part of the antenna pointed in a completely different direction for some channels. That with the combination of the televes amp that gives each channel the appropriate levels I no longer need a rotor to constantly adjust the antenna. Just a thought to maybe help.

[@XMguy]

If you choose Delete Channels / no. Then it will scan and add. I am in the very same situation. But I’m 68-72 miles away. I have multiple antennas, and A-B switches. I went to manual scan, then NO to delete channels and it scanned the chosen channel. I did the same for the bright as the sun LED. The update process is crazy I agree. I too am still unsure. The remote without setup still controls the box audio.

[@teachusteacher1]

Hey Lon thanks for all you do. Im over in Ledyard CT. Which cant be too far from you. My channel scan picks up the exact same channels.

[@LonSeidman]

Not far at all! I think you might get a few more of the Providence stations if you point your antenna in that direction.

[@bikeny]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and think that not only would you want to drop those staticy (for lack of a better word) channels, but I saw some channels that looked like they came in ok but subject-wise looked kinda, let's just say, not so good.

[@TECHNOGEEK20000]

This DRM is going to be a freaking nightmare I can see it now. Even with this petition I hope they dont choose to just simply ignore it because "they can" It really scares me that we are heading down a possible road where OTA tv could no longer be free. With the cost of everything going up -- Internet being one of them, this poses a serious problem. I know some people who do NOT have internet and cant afford it and just dont need it and why should they have to get it just to watch a few channels on tv? Over the years I have been steadily hearing more and more about this DRM bullshit they are actually going to be doing more harm than good if this gets finalized. I dont know I guess time will tell how this plays out.

[@TheShospitali]

No DVR then what's the USB Jack used for?

[@TotoFrancey]

The "Antenna Man" is going to take his sledgehammer to this device.

[@PhrontDoor]

You'd covered all the points I'd have asked.. well done.

[@spillsndebris]

I've never seen Lon so agitated about anything.

[@LonSeidman]

This whole thing has me so aggravated. It bothers me that so many companies that used to be acting in the public interest now only care about their bottom line. Customers be damned.

[@PhrontDoor]

WAIT.. just realized. another question.. Where does the hardware get the keys FROM? Are they hitting Zinwell's web-sites, so that if Zinwell goes down then we lose viewing ability OR is it getting the key information from another site?

[@matthewjbauer1990]

From what I understand, the key comes from the local station(could also be their parent corporation like scrips or NBC/Universal or Comcast or ABC/Disney etc.). Zinwell doesn't manage keys/tokens. Manufacturers only have hardware certified for receiving and using said keys/tokens.

[@jeffreykoerber6595]

Why couldn’t they periodically broadcast the certificate in the clear?

[@matthewjbauer1990]

​@@jeffreykoerber6595 That would be nice. But its less secure.

[@antikommunistischaktion]

At this point what's the purpose of even having public broadcast TV? Might as well refarm the spectrum for cellular use and/or unlicensed use. If we're going to have everything DRM'd down and internet connected might as well use those airwaves to get the Internet to more people.

[@kevinh96]

In the UK standard off air broadcasts are not encrypted, at least not in the way it is implemented in the US. Any modern smart TV, tuner box or DVR can receive off air broadcasts via antenna without requiring an internet connection. DRM is of course implemented in the HDMI standard and for apps such as Netflix as you would expect. I have a couple of old BluRay recorders, one for off air via the antenna (Freeview we call it here) and the other for satellite (Freesat). While the extra apps no longer work the main features of recording off air TV still work perfectly, as do the EPGs on both and neither are internet connected. ATSC3 in the US seems to be a bit of a convoluted mess at the minute. The way DRM IS implemented is on the machines themselves, any HD broadcasts you record ARE encrypted by the recorder to the DVB-T2 or DVB-S2 standard and can only be played back on that recorder, but again no internet connection is required to decrypt them as everything is built into the unit itself. That's not say things wont change here in the future, especially as the UK are planning to move to internet streamed TV over the coming years.

[@rorysalarms8110]

Lon TV DRM should be not be allowed and it should be illegal by the FCC for doing this on public airwaves.

[@borgranta61103]

This sounds like lawyers will be having fun filing dozens of class actions against this company for deceptive advertising.

[@JerrySpann-fn4kw]

If the FCC doesn't crack down on this DRM mess, and if broadcasters insist on putting DRM on their signals that need internet to decrypt maybe these boxes should have some type of celuar or wifi connection that could access the internet for free just long enough to decrypt the signal. Xfinity Mobile offers phones with free unlimited and limited data for just the cost of the phone. Data is free if connected to Xfinity hot-spots. If Xfinity can do this, maybe less than a megabyte of free data to decrypt would be fair. That could be the compromise if broadcasters refuse to remove DRM.

[@rahkuaschount]

Two questions: 1) How many hours does the tuner stay authorized after disconnecting from the internet? 2) Do encrypted channels authorize if you do initial router setup with an IP outside of the local channel area?

[@LonSeidman]

That is a good set of questions- I’ll keep it off the internet and see how long it can decrypt the channels

[@AAa-qd8hb]

All OTA DRM encrypted ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV tuner boxes are preprogrammed to stop working for DRM depending on which certification program (5, 10 or 30 years) they have. IMO. Why?

[@rahkuaschount]

@@AAa-qd8hb That's not what I am asking. I am asking how long you can watch programming after the first authorization "hit", not about the certs.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

DRM (Lock Out Time) may also depend on the DRM TV Station you are watching. Each DRM TV Station can have it's own DRM rules because the FCC is letting TV Stations experiment at this time.

[@igeekone]

By design, DRM will require a constant internet connection for daily tokens. So, there is no possible way to go offline.

[@robertmason7013]

Antenna man said he won't review this device because of DRM encryption.i responded back don't blame the manufacturer of these receivers because some TV stations are using DRM encryption.

[@TheShospitali]

I think it's a bunch of crap & I hate it. They're destroying free television that's been around for years. Why can't we have 3.0 without an Internet 🛜 connection. Thanks for saving me $150.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

All OTA DRM encrypted ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV tuner boxes are preprogrammed to stop working for DRM depending on which certification program (5, 10 or 30 years) they have. IMO. Why?

[@XMguy]

I have the Zinwell too. My Nashville market does support the App.

[@cysjunkextra]

Seems like the minimum price for watching ATSC 3.0 channels is still a monthly/yearly internet plan. Unfair.

[@robertmason7013]

ADTH receiver can record with the new update .it's only 89$.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

How large are the video files? Can you play the files only from the ADTH turner box? Thanks in advance.

[@game_master_rukia]

they need to make a barebones 3.0 tuner that doesn't need internet for the drm to work

[@jcurnutte2007]

Not going to happen because the broadcasters don't want it to happen because they get way too much money from retransmission fees from cable and satellite providers to lose that revenue stream so they are going to get in bed with the ISP's to make sure that they still keep that money coming in one way or another

[@cryptickcryptick2241]

Can you talk about internet privacy and why we care? I believe the reason they want to encrypt is that they want user data on which programs you watch. With that info, they can cater advertising to the users. Let me explain. 15 to 20 years ago google took over all internet advertising. They were able to more effectively sell ads, because they knew who was coming to the webpage. If two diffferent users went to the same webpage; one might get cat food ads while another got car ads. Who is buying a car, who is dating, who is having a kid, this data is worth a lot to advertisers. Most people on the internet have given up on all privacy. This made all internet advertising about three times more effective. Now compared to bill board advertising, go down the road, news paper advertising where they still print newspapers or putting ads on the radio there is limited effect. Users though when listening to the radio, all hear the same thing. This has certain good effects, like in a democracy, we all hear the same news, the same way, with the same political bias. As people get in echo chambers various biased news sources has "interpret" news differently. This is one example of a bad side effect of "customized" news feeds. Back to TV... TV channels want to customize the ads in ATSC 3.0. It allows "it will enable dynamic ad insertion capabilities." Ok so lets talk about that. By requiring encryption, and internet access, it can report back, what you watch and when you watch it. Let me explain how this could lead to ads. Whether you watch Fox news (conservative) or CNN (liberal) will tell your political leanings. If you watch the Democratic Presidential Debate you are (obviously) more likely to be a democrat. If you are watching programs like Duck Dynasty you fall on one end of the spectrum. As a result, TV's could have two sets of commercials. If you are a conservative, play the Chick-Fil-li commercial; if you are liberal play the Ben and Jerry's commercial. I do not think this is good for society as a whole. We become more divided. This already done based on program of the TV. (Home improvement programs sponsered by Lowes or Home Depot.) I think we need overall less advertising. People spend too much money as is. We need to take care of what we have invest in people and relationships. Aka happiness is not going to come by you having 103 pairs of shoes instead 102 pairs of shoes. But that is another story. The broadcasters really need internet connected devices to harvest all our data; but no one is talking about this. This is the real game! While Americans have proven they don't care about privacy and all our personal data is out there for everyone to see already; TV still holds a way where we can anonymously watch entertainment. In the George Orwells book 1984, the TV's could know exactly what you are watching, and watch you. This is what they want. It could only be a manner of time before the government, for our benefit will dictate that you must watch the evening speech by politicians "for our own benefit." The best way to keep this power from being misused is by not going them the power to do it at all!

[@AAa-qd8hb]

ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV OTA DRM Encrypted TV is dead on arrival because of DRM.

[@cryptickcryptick2241]

@@AAa-qd8hb I would like to believe that; but it might be years before we know. Specifically, given the potentially huge money incentives the companies are facing. I think they will push it really far.

[@kensmith5694]

The encryption makes a nonsense of "the public airwaves". If the internet is needed, I am not a customer for that TV programming. I think when all the stations are changed over, my TV goes out to the curb. For less money than a TV, I can buy something like a Raspberry PI and a monitor.

[@mindfreak2121]

There is no NextGen ATSC 3.0 TV channels in my city anyways. So it looks like I will not need to upgrade from ATSC 1.0 any time soon.

[@curtisbme]

Still years out from anyone 'having to'. Even if you have 3.0 currently, there is currently no reason to and a number of reasons not to.

[@markdupont6060]

Thanks for the info on how to update the Zinwell.

[@0LoneTech]

Are we to be surprised the people who designate their customers as hostiles are dishonest to them?

[@peteratkin3788]

of course, it does! why would you think differently? DRM is individual to the source.

[@mikecarrington4297]

I would not buy that. Keep hammering them!

[@robertmason7013]

I'm still amazed at the GT media device I can record and take it on the go.

[@AAa-qd8hb]

GT Media device can not decode DRM TV Stations.

[@robertmason7013]

@@AAa-qd8hb update soon.

[@TheDaysEnd]

@@robertmason7013 Still no update and if they do get the encryption, they will charge a lot more for the device,

[@robertmason7013]

@@TheDaysEnd no I called them price will stay the same.

[@timbo303official9]

I should point out the adth box allows sideloading apps they added an apps page on the app.

[@eagleal]

Why exactly do free to air American channels require DRM encryption anyway? Most of the TV tuner boxes you've reviewed Lon seem to have very poor build and interface quality. Certainly not as good as the Freeview boxes you'd see here in the UK.

[@LonSeidman]

Broadcasters collect retransmission fees from cable companies, youtube tv, hulu tv, etc. They make more money on that vs. advertising now so they're trying to protect that revenue path. Part of it is making OTA consumption as complicated and difficult as possible.

[@michaelreddy4697]

@@LonSeidman"Part of it is making OTA consumption as complicated and difficult as possible." Nailed it.

[@RickPaquin]

Simply because the technology allows them to, and they desire another revenue stream. It's up to us, to inform the FCC that we do not want this type of OTA television system. Pay TV- which is where DRM is going in my opinion, is not new and the FCC has licensed Pay TV broadcast channels in the past. There appears to be no current regulation to prevent stations from encoding their signals and charging us to view them. The FCC "could" provide such a regulation, but since more and more ATSC 3.0 channels are going the DRM route, there appears no interest by the FCC to stop them. Personally, I believe the train has already left the station and the FCC has no plans to stop or regulate DRM. We can say that we want the all we want the VHF and UHF band to be our "free" airwaves, but sadly FCC's interest may not be with the viewers and I see no one stopping the FCC from allowing DRM on every new channel. Enjoy ATSC 1.0 while you still can. I think it's just a matter of time when we'll have to pay for ALL television. Remember, no one asked us when huge portion of the UHF band went to the Telco's. A pay for use system. No one is asking us now about DRM. Remember also that no one forces ANY of these companies to broadcast over the air. If there's not enough revenue to make it worth doing, they will just shut down everything and we'll pay to stream their content.

[@polarvortex6601]

@@RickPaquin agreed, dont buy the boxes people, let this die because it doesnt benefit the public at large. it only benefits them. its up to you if you want to be a digital slave

[@ralphmcmahan2139]

My knee-jerk reaction is to blame government. I am rarely disappointed.

[@xr500t]

You could in a sense. The FCC should have quashed this and it shouldn't be an issue. But good o'l big business is trying to control everything by appointing former business CEO 's that surely get some kick back for looking the other way. This is why the government gets part of the blame for not appointing an impartial body.

[@swagar]

It always frustrates me how little Android TV devices prioritize security patching, including Google to an extent. The Nexus Player would get updated every single month in its heyday, where as the Chromecast only gets patched a couple times per year. Given how many accounts I log into that have payment information tied to them, not to mention how juicy a target these boxes are for botnets, the attitude of "it's a TV so it doesn't matter" never made sense to me.

[@WoollyMittens]

Since corporations can just lie without repercussions, why wouldn't they just lie and deceive the plebs to keep the shareholders are happy?

[@ocnier]

How long before a pirate/hack box that overrides the DRM? This is getting stupid. DRM should never have gone to OTA.

[@clemdye2996]

Jeez. I thought that FTA TV reception in the UK was a mess!

[@oldtimeengineer26]

do you have to use the hdmi to see the video or does it work like the hdhomerun on ethernet?

[@AAa-qd8hb]

Only HDMI.

[@dpt17]

Android 11 ... what a joke. Run from this device. It will be a security liability for you especially since it requires an internet connection.

[@XMguy]

I did a full factory reset on my Zinwell. Skipped internet. It still tuned to DRM channels. Same was not true for the ADTH, doing the same steps.

[@LonSeidman]

Yes but you needed Internet initially to tune the DRM channels. I'm interested to see how long it maintains its authorization before it needs a new key.

[@XMguy]

@@LonSeidman When I first got it. I skipped the internet setup. It still tuned DRM channels. Naturally, this DRM is nonsense. While not a bad tuner, it should just have an open signal.

[@XMguy]

@@LonSeidman I once got this error; “Unable to decrypt Error Code 105: Unable to Decrypt - Not Authorized This device is not authorized to receive this channel.” I think these are glitches. I bet originally it was going to require internet. I re-tuned and the error went away. I also think I’ve done a SW upgrade. My version is; “2.8.7. Com.zintech.android.tv”. I think all of these are half baked. They are being improved. But the improvement for this functionality should be baked in. Not be ooops.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

​@XMguy so you say you never connected your to the internet and it worked, and Lon said he had to connect to the internet, someone is mistaken.😮

[@ebullientnucleus9448]

Didn't mention any ATSC 3 audio services.

[@robertmason7013]

Send it back.

[@asan1050]

Lon Thanks for posting this video.

[@glaframb]

Programmed Obsolescence ?

[@trisjor]

Watching this whole ATSC 3.0 DRM debacle makes me really wish Mexico would have adopted DVB-T instead of ATSC for our over-the-air TV broadcasts.

[@charlesdoesmore5488]

Well the 2 countries are near anyways

[@jcurnutte2007]

The USA should have gone with DVB-T as well (in fact that should be a worldwide standard for TV anyway but even Analog TV never had a worldwide standard to begin with)

[@charlesdoesmore5488]

@jcurnutte2007 but, we have to also agree on the standard 59.95 frame rate as well

[@kumarp3074]

I guess they could say it's not a lie but a half-truth - which is also a lie.

[@Bare_Essence]

Oh well. Looks like I will not be buying 3 new $150 tuners. The tuners will cost more than the current value of the TVs. Hopefully the prices comes down, but I may just go dark or find local channels through online streaming. Though, the latter was declared illegal, so likely not. A shame! I'm less worried about the DRM, though I can see that being a huge deal for those who record shows. I just want to keep getting local news and shows OTA.

[@frommatorav1]

The choice doesn't have to be all or nothing. A 1.0 tuner can still be used without DRM encryption. No reason to be "going dark" just yet. I have never supported DRM. I spent $30 more for a Tablo Quad OTA DVR and I can watch live and recorded programming all over my house. Add the $70 for my 2 TB laptop HDD and it still costs less than 2 of these tuners. It requires internet, though but at least I don't need cable.

[@Bare_Essence]

@@frommatorav1 1.0 removal was 2023. Now 2027. May change again, who knows. However, at some point 1.0 will no longer be transmitted. Yes, for now, 1.0 is still available and I'm using it as well. In the near future, your DVR will record nothing. I'm concerned about OTA in 2027. This is also based on my understanding that the conversion to 3.0 will stop all 1.0 transmission.

[@frommatorav1]

@@Bare_Essence 2027 is the earliest it could be done. According to Antenna Man, ATSC 1.0 will likely last well beyond that date. The law just guarantees it can't be removed sooner.

[@Bare_Essence]

@@frommatorav1you could be correct, and many youtubers and some articles are aligned that 10+ years possibly still remain for 1.0. Though that is only speculation. I find it hard to believe that any station would support both for long due to the simple cost of it. Especially the large broadcast network entities. They are already eager to enable encryption early in 3.0 introduction to the chagrin of many. We shall see. Here's hoping!

[@frommatorav1]

@@Bare_Essence Just get something that will last the next 3+ years, then. I'm not rooting against 3.0, if they do it in a fair reasonable way. DRM is always a worse experience but if they do it wrong, it can make it unwatchable/unusable. They haven't even launched ATSC 3.0 where I live yet. The only thing technological any local channel in my area regards worth promoting is weather radar. They were probably last in the US to go HD in the 2010s

[@anguslean4058]

I wonder if you could use your phone as a Wi-Fi connection to bypass the need for an internet connection.

[@cryptickcryptick2241]

Using your phone as a wifi hotspot would be providing it an internet connection, not bypassing the need for an internet connection.

[@anguslean4058]

@@cryptickcryptick2241 I meant just to activate the channels This way you wouldn’t need internet in your home

[@rickchapman9232]

If they are 2 1/2 years behind security updates how secure are they?

[@PeterBellefleur]

Considering they can't even be bothered to sign their own APK for the tuner app itself, on their own device even, highly unlikely.

[@highlander200268]

so question, could you use a box like this to decode then port to something like a homerun or tablo?

[@LonSeidman]

Not to those two platforms but I do have something coming up where we'll try to pipe it to the Channels app.

[@andyross63]

Just curious if some devices might connect to certain open WiFi networks it can see with no user interaction.

[@mannhimself]

Damn. I honestly feel jaded with 3.0, these delays, high cost of the TVs with it included, drm, and internet connectivity. Lately I've grown a dislike for Smart Tvs Vizio is trash, Samsung is pushing their intenret channels (mine defaults to 2q Jumpstreet no matter what channel i watch and it takes over 30 seconds to change it to a local station or even adjust volume, I rather get a regular non smart tv and conenct a roku player to it. Also as a broadcast engineer I wouldn't want our channels to be encrypted, unfortunately management and content owners wants that crap.

[@jcurnutte2007]

You are correct it's corporate greed

[@arazilsongweaver]

At this point, I'm wondering why TV broadcasters are wasting their money on converting to ATSC 3. If DRM channels require an Internet connection to load properly, why not just use that same Internet connection to receive the broadcast as well? At this point, ATSC 3 feels like another FAST (free advertising supported television) streaming service (like "Pluto") delivered through a weird combination of traditional Internet and proprietary receive-only WiFi.

[@RickPaquin]

These broadcast companies don't want to rely on cable companies 100% for their core business. That's NOT a good negotiating position for any company, though many companies are doing just that. If you already have the license and transmitting capability, why not maintain your independence and negotiating position as long as you can?

[@georgeh6856]

Make DRM flop. Do not buy ATSC 3 products as long as they have DRM. ~2.5 year-old Android security update? Looks like a target for malware, possibly as part of a botnet.

[@Chris_In_Texas]

Funny, this really defeats the entire purpose of OTA. Why use OTA if you need internet, just use the darn internet then and stream. OMG.... 🤠👍 ATSC3 is turning to a waste

[@frankyvee1]

ATSC 3.0 is such a FAIL!!!

[@birdman4411]

I feel like the network's àre setting up for a motel similar to the UK TV license model and they certainly have the influence to do it

[@LonSeidman]

It's pretty much there now - my soon to be canceled cable subscription fee includes over $30 a month for local station retransmission fees.

[@birdman4411]

xfiinity i presume i canceled for the same reason @@LonSeidman

[@ltsiver]

This is going to blow up in 25 years when elderly people die due to DRM on their local weather TV channel, which won't be available due to the DRM in Podunk area with no high speed internet.

[@timothystevenhoward]

nobody non-technical will understand what the DRM is, so they are going to believe any marketing they are told. ATSC 3 will require a tech savvy person to set it up for a normie, unfortunately since it will not be a plug and play system.

[@EweToobUsername]

This particular box had so much potential as not only a tuner but also as an Android TV box with built-in tuner (Kinda like the AirTV Player that Sling made a few years ago). Instead, this is just grossly overpriced for what it is and fails on its marketing promise.

[@pinballdan]

150 bucks and it has to be connected to the internet with no DVR EZ Pass !!!

[@davidbarker5957]

Thanks for this very informative video.

[@tom_w67]

ok this brings up an interesting thought, now this box like the others out there has DRM for atsc 3.0 for tuning for supposed security of rebroadcasting and file sharing of encrypted content (according to the industry) but leaves the HDMI port open????? no HDR DRM at the HDMI port? that makes no sense now has anyone brought that up the the FCC? this means their claim of DRM needed to protect their content is a full out lie.all you have to do is make a script to control an ir blaster to turn on the tuner and set it to the channel you want to record (like the olden days..lol) and plug the hdmi on the box to a capture device and record (witch also can be done by some kind of scripting) to capture at it full HD range and store it on your media library and you are golden.kind of a Rube Goldberg setup, so explain to me how this is supposed to be compliant?????And don't tell me it can't be done, that's how early myth tv software worked in the early days of media center setups.

[@LonSeidman]

So far none of the DRM capable tuners I've tested implement HDCP.

[@JimmYJammA2099]

Call it Lon, over the air TV, time of death - 2024

[@green929392]

Unless it's drm free I'm not going to bother with future public broadcasts, requiring an Internet connection defeats the point, I would just stream at that point. Even if it doesnt require a constant connection.

[@dbweber2323]

Lon I love your videos but I feel you completely missed the mark on this one. I do not believe this is a bait and switch or lie by any means. The text description says that it "WILL BE" able to decode with out internet and will be means something that will happen in the FUTURE. It does not say that it "CAN" decode out of the box, and it also said that you must initially connect to the internet in the instructions. At no point does that misrepresent the product, and the company is up front about the product. I agree with you about the 2.5 year old android security updates and the non-automated updates, that is not acceptable for an average end user. I would also give this product a less than stellar rating/review because of usability and security. But to say they lied is not justified and is a misunderstanding on your part. However I am curious about any follow up on this product with regards to how long it will retain a valid certificate for the encrypted channels, I would take issue if you need to connect it to the internet weekly. But if that is the case I would dig into why the certificate needs to be updated, i.e. if it is on the broadcasters end with a short duration valid period(which would not be Zinwell's fault or if it is on Zinwell's end.

[@LonSeidman]

"will be" is on the channel master page but that language appeared when the product was in pre-order status. The industry's statement from Pearl TV says : "Certified to carry the NEXTGEN TV logo, the Zinwell ZAT-600B is also A3SA security verified to operate without needing an internet connection for tuning to channels with protected broadcast content." That's a very misleading statement and one that the rest of the media picked up without verifying the reality first.

[@dbweber2323]

@@LonSeidman that quote from Pearl TV was lifted from business wire(owned and operated by Berkshire Hathaway) and it does not appear that the article was written by the Zinwell or channel master, instead it references Dave Arland the founder of Arland Communications which appears to be the source. That is a random person from the "industry" (as you pointed out), that is not the manufacturer nor the seller. And as you pointed out "will be" IS on the channel master page which you say you purchased it from. Now if it was on the sellers page pre-release before it was being shipped that is unfortunate, but that would be the fault of channel master for not doing their homework or not getting the info directly from channel master, and just lifting the wording from a third party. The zinwell website makes no claims that it will work with out ever connecting to the internet, to the contrary Zinwell has both the quick start and manual available which both disclose the internet connection needed to initially decode. There is nothing misleading about the zinwell product and you have not show/referenced anything that shows they lied. You cannot hold zinwell responsible for what a third party says or poorly said. Again if focusing on "will be", that is not misleading, it means something that will happen in the future. When you ask Google to define it you get "Meaning. 'Will' is used as a modal verb to emphasise on actions/events that will take place in the future. 'Will be' is used to refer to actions that will be happening in the future, for which the specific time is unknown." And your have similar definitions on Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford English dictionaries.

[@StenIsaksson]

If it doesn't need internet, why does it have a network connection? For the updates I guess. But that can be done with the USB connection and a memory stick.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

Probably for extra feature, like they will be able to pin point emergency broadcast alerts, and be able while watching a sports game you will be able to check statistics at a click of a button, I read that the NFL has more nextgen chip then you know about, they have 2 on every player (3 on lineman) in the football, first down markers, ect. I see them talking about nextgen stats all the time, like this play hit the fastest speed while running for a touchdown, ect.

[@stanleybest8833]

Two strangers. A guy and a lady sitting on benches at a bar. Pick up line "I design ATSC 3.0 tuners". Answer " Drop dead, loser".

[@singletona082]

Oh look at that something that 'absolutely needs' the internet. For no reason other than phoning the mothership. Welp guess i'm just not going to bother with any ATSC 3 stations or content.

[@STB-jh7od]

With OTA TV main way of sending public alerts, DRM is a disgrace!!

[@RonGrethel]

What is the rationale of encrypting mg an OTA channel? Like isn't the point for it to be watched?

[@LonSeidman]

They are trying to prevent retransmission. Retransmission fees for cable companies now make them more money than advertising.

[@swagar]

The tinfoil hat in me thinks they're hoping it fails so they have reason to shut down their OTA signal entirely. The networks haven't been content to get by solely on ad revenue for a long time. They want you subscribed to something as well.

[@RickPaquin]

Revenue. That's the end game.

[@RonGrethel]

@@LonSeidman what's retransmission? Like from my hdhomerun to my plex server/DVR? And then I use that to watch TV on my phone somewhere else?

[@markdupont6060]

Retransmission from the OTA station to cable/sat./streaming service.@@RonGrethel

[@bizzfo]

It’s android it’ll be hacked