Encryption

[freway01]

It seems broadcasters want to play like cable networks. So what's the difference between a cable network and a broadcast network? Is there some advantage to being a broadcaster? I know they have some legal obligations such as EAS, E/I requirements, etc. that I'm sure they'd rather not have to deal with, but what edge does broadcasting give them?

This is information I'd like to have for an FCC complaint.

'Cable Networks' usually refers to the TV channels that are usually only available over cable TV systems, or the new 'Live TV' streaming services like YouTube TV, Fubo, Sling TV, etc. The Fox News channel, the Food Network channel, and the different ESPN channels are a few examples of these channels you'd find on cable TV or live TV streaming services. Because people are cutting the cord and dropping cable TV, some of the parent networks of some of channels are bundling their channels and making them available via the internet as a package. A couple of examples of these subscriptions services would be Max, Peacock, and Paramount+.

OTA broadcast TV is supposed to be free. Your local ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CW channels broadcast their content over the 'free' and 'public' airwaves that the American citizens are supposed to own. During the day, most of the programming is local, especially the news, and in the evening, it is the program feeds from their affiliated network. With the use of some type of TV antenna that is connected to your TV, your TV should be able to receive the OTA TV broadcast in your are. This is supposed to be free to watch, and is not supposed to have any restrictions. The FCC is supposed to control the 'public' airwaves, but based on the fact that local broadcasters are encrypting their ATSC 3.0 signal, many think the FCC isn't doing their job.

Most Cable TV and live TV streaming services will also deliver some or all of your local channels, but they have to pay a 'retransmission fee' to the stations to do so. When you add this fee to the fees some of the other channels fees the services have to pay for channels like Fox News, the Food Network, and all the different ESPN channels, and for channels people don't really want, it gets expensive.

A lot of consumers are cutting the cord and signing up for a couple of the streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV, Max, Peacock, or Paramount+, and installing a gateway device like the HDHR or Tab*o so they can watch and record free OTA broadcast TV. Currently, with the current ATSC 1.0 broadcast signal, all of the gateway devices allow the user to watch and record OTA broadcast TV. One of the reasons for this thread is that these same OTA broadcasters who provide their content unencrypted over the ATSA 1.0 signal, are transmitting the same content over the ATSC 3.0 signal in an encrypted format that none of the current gateway devices can decrypt. That technically isn't a problem today, but if the FCC doesn't make the broadcasters transmit an unencrypted signal and the gateway manufactures aren't able to build a reasonably priced gateway device that can, when the FCC forces the shutdown of the ATSC 1.0 signals (currently scheduled for some time in 2027), some people will lose access to 'free' OTA TV unless they buy a new 'NEXTGEN TV'. More importantly they could lose the ability to record OTA TV, and watch it like the do today.

If you are a cord cutter and want to continue to be able to watch and record OTA TV like you do today, you need to contact your members in Congress and tell them that the FCC isn't doing their job and are letting the big TV networks control the 'public' airwaves instead of protecting the 'public' airwaves that is in the best interest of the consumer & taxpayer. Go out to the FCC (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express) and file a comment. Just fill in the 'Proceeding(s):' box with 16-142, then the rest of the boxes with your information, and leave a comment letting them know that allowing the TV networks to 'encrypt' their content and distribute it over the 'public' airways is wrong and an abuse of the privilege to use our 'public' airways.

[freway01]

Does subscription free OTA broadcast only apply to the primary channels that a broadcaster submits to the FCC for a license. Does it apply to sub-channels?


https://www.streamtvinsider.com/video/s ... w-revenues

I may be wrong, to be able to broadcast over the 'Public' airwaves you need the FCC's approval, and a radio spectrum to broadcast on. Most on the local channels are made up of local owners, owned by a major network, or owned by a large conglomerate, and usually are associated with one of the major TV networks for evening programing and sporting events.

Under ATSC 3.0, the A3SA group which is made up of members from the large TV network (Fox, ABC, NBC,CBS, etc.) are trying to kill the personal recording of their content unless DVR manufactures pay a fee for the key to decode the encrypted programming. If the FCC allows them to do this, we will know they are on 'the take'. These are supposed to be 'Free' and 'Public' airwaves. Consumers of the 'public' airwaves already pay for the content in the form of commercials.

[kyl416]

The article hints at what direction sinclair might want for the future- going forward. Not what it is currently doing. When a major NAB talks about a new business model for ATSC 3.0 what do you think it means.

The bulk of the article was interactive streaming focused where FAST platforms like STIRR can sell targetted dynamic ads

For the future they're talking about the ability to sell localized ads if the simulcast requirement ever goes away. Like they would be able to attract a lot more advertisers if local businesses can buy hyper local ad spots for the areas where they operate instead of having to buy an ad for the entire DMA, which in the larger markets with 1 Million+ people can get real expensive.

[kyl416]

I may be wrong, to be able to broadcast over the 'Public' airwaves you need the FCC's approval, and a radio spectrum to broadcast on. Most on the local channels are made up of local owners, owned by a major network, or owned by a large conglomerate, and usually are associated with one of the major TV networks for evening programing and sporting events.

You have a point with the recording restrictions as there's zero reason why stations should be using the copy-never flag that on cable is only used for certain PPV events when previous rulings established the right to record.

But if you want the FCC to pay attention to your comments and not dismiss them with a boiler plate response, you should go to the FCC's site and read their definitions of what broadcasters are required to do to meet their public interest obligations. The FCC actually had a lot more requirements of stations in the past, but some of them were overturned by the courts or by congressional legislation.

but if the FCC doesn't make the broadcasters transmit an unencrypted signal and the gateway manufactures aren't able to build a reasonably priced gateway device

Widevine is far from the only thing that needs to be licensed by tuner manufacturers, heck even ATSC 1.0 requires licenses. Just look towards the end of a user manual for a TV or tuner to see how many they reference. (Spoiler: it's a lot more than just the obvious things like the Dolby Audio license)

Also, many devices including Roku already have support for Widevine, but the A3SA is imposing a bunch of restrictions that not even studio screener apps have to follow on those same platforms.

when the FCC forces the shutdown of the ATSC 1.0 signals (currently scheduled for some time in 2027)

There is no ATSC 1.0 shutdown scheduled for 2027. That's just the next time they're going to reconvene to see how the deployment is going and nothing has been decided either way what will happen after that. But considering that there are zero plans for congress to fund a coupon converter program and zero plans for a manufacturer mandate so the market is still being flooded with new ATSC 1.0 only models, there's 0% chance of them reaching the threshold for ATSC 3.0 tuner penetration by then.

Any 2027 end dates you see in your local stations' NextGen filings are not set in stone and are meaningless. Most of them just put a date 4 or 5 years from the launch date because something needed to be entered into the intend/estimate field for the form to be accepted. The FOX O&Os like WTXF and WFLD have more realistic dates in 2030s, while the ABC O&Os like WPVI and WABC just put their 2023 NextGen launch dates in the field.

Even if they gave stations the greenlight to discontinue ATSC 1.0, there are numerous financial, contractual and competitive reasons why no one will do it until the vast majority of viewers have the ability to view ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. i.e. only 1 of the top 5 DMAs have all of their Big 4 networks in ATSC 3.0, and those network O&Os will never switch to ATSC 3.0 only operations if any of their competitors are still broadcasting in ATSC 1.0. Subchannels would also be a roadblock as most diginets pay their affiliates to carry them and they would not pay nearly as much as they do now for ATSC 3.0 only clearance.

[zippy]

Would sinclair be in an ATSC 3.0 business relationship with onemedia.

https://onemediallc.com/

[kyl416]

That deal is for datacasting services.

Also, anything Sinclair said in articles from several years ago should be taken with a grain of salt. (i.e. that 2023 simulcasting sunset didn't happen and the can was kicked to 2027 with no decision made either way what will happen after that) The company is not in the same place they were then. Not only did the FCC start cracking down on their bogus shell companies after they were found to be negotiating in bad faith with providers, they are also still dealing with the ripple effects from the ransomware attack and the financial fallout of their idiotic decision to outbid the MLB for the Fox Sports RSNs that Disney had to divest. So a lot of plans they previously had ended up being put on the back burner or cancelled. Like in the past year they've eliminated local news entirely in a bunch of their smaller markets in favor of The National Desk, they sold their stake in Stadium and replaced it with TheNest, and they just sold STIRR.

[zippy]

connect ATSC 3.0 broadcast stations into advanced/enhanced features.

The news release is from October 30, 2023


Commenting on the agreement, Del Parks, President of Technology at Sinclair said, “Soon we will have 30 of our initial NextGen Broadcast stations connected to our DDaaS platform[/b] so we anticipate playing a leading role in accelerating the adoption of the DDaaS business model and the continued transformation of local broadcast capabilities and our ability to serve the public, not only in Korea and the United States, but globally.”

[kyl416]

Again, that's specifically talking about datacasting services. It's not talking about video programming, and has nothing to do with DRM or Subscription OTA.

Even datacasting isn't unique to ATSC 3.0. Like right now many PBS stations have a hidden datacast stream on their ATSC 1.0 feed delivering learn at home content. During the analog era datacasting was how TV Guide On Screen was delivered along with some of the failed services from before the .com bubble burst like Intel intercast.

[gtb]

What features will we offer broadcasters that use DRM?
....

One thing I can think does not seem to be explicitly addressed in all the stated constraints:

Will the "bound" tuner need to be in a location where it can continue to receive a signal from the transmitter (aka geo-fencing of playback of content). In a simple example of what someone might wish to do, would one be able to record a show to the storage attached to a 4K Flex, and then take that tuner/storage unit (and a playback device) along with you on a trip (in your RV?) and play back the show in some remote (from the transmitter) location? Yes, someone with a really tall tower, highly directional antenna and a high quality RF amp (or, I suppose, a RFoIP solution) might be able "receive" signals from a long way away, but for most, those are not practical.

Last I was aware, "place" shifting is not a right currently automatically granted in the US, and explicitly illegal in Japan.

[hokietima]

I agree that ATSC 3.0 DRM sucks and forces SiliconDust implement a lot of limitations to be compliant so we can just view DRM ATSC 3.0 channels on a Flex 4K. I think the main problem is that we are in the minority of ATSC 3.0 consumers with our "gateway" devices. Being on various AV forums over the years, many of the comments about HDHomeRun products center around people not understanding what a gateway device does or works. In my experience, a lot of people understand the Set Top Box use case better - Hooking up your tuner box to a TV with coax and a HDMI cable like we've done with cable and satellite boxes since the beginning of time. This is probably why the DRM rule set is focused on set top boxes. Everyone should sign Lons petition and contact thier representatives, but I bet most ATSC 3.0 users don't care because they are going to buy a set top box or a TV with a built in tuner.

Luckily, my Sony TV has a built in ATSC 3.0 tuner that gives me access to ATSC 3.0 DRM channels, but guess what, ATSC 3.0 sucks on the TV. It takes a long time to tune a ATSC 3.0 channel, the signal seems to drop out frequently even though the signal strength and quality meters are pegged at 100%, and I experience a bunch of random problems that cause me to revert to ATSC 1.0 channels since they are solid on my antenna and the same TV. It could be a problem with my setup, but the Flex 4K is much better with the ATSC 3.0 signal than my Sony on non DRM channels (perhaps the DRM makes it flakey?). FYI - In DC all the ATSC 3.0 channels are broadcast on one frequency.

I want to use ATSC 3.0 since it gets rid of MPEG2, is on UHF frequencies in DC (LED lights kill my VHF reception), and supposedly has better reception; but it kind of sucks for me given the problems I have even with my DRM enabled ATSC 3.0 TV. Basically even if/when SiliconDust gets DRM working on their products, I may not be tuning into ATSC 3.0 channels given my experience so far with my "DRM Compliant" TV, unless someone actually broadcasts something in 4K (not holding my breath) or the HDHomeRun performs much better than my Sony but all the DRM crap may make that impossible.

In my mind this is what needs to happen to get everyone in an uproar about ATSC 3.0 DRM: Broadcast the Super Bowl in 4K HDR on a DRM channel and watch the flood of complaints come from people who can't get it to work on their TV or Set Top Box due to internet accessibility, certificate problems, or any of the other DRM constraints. Perhaps the DRM will be so transparent nobody will notice, but this could be the more likely scenario given the apparent complexity of the DRM.

My to centos...

[howardc1243]

How is A3SA able to prevent the recording of any of the OTA (free public airwaves) programming if the courts have already ruled that consumers can record content for personal use? Isn't this the same reason we have DVR's today?

https://legalbeagle.com/6696968-tv-reco ... -laws.html

That's what I don't clearly understand about this ...

I mean, unless the broadcasters legally define (and are granted permission) ATSC 3.0 or "NextgenTV" as an OTA pay TV service. I don't really understand how they can legally get away with what they're doing over the publicly owned airways like this.

I certainly understand "WHY" the broadcasters are doing it as they've always been angry and had their nose out of joint since their great defeat in the '76 Betamax case. And are still determined to prohibit private video recording. But don't get why they're allowed to finally do it now. ....

simply because ATSC 3.0 is a new technology that has more leeway for broadcasters to add more content, even though the pipeline is more compressed.

there is no court-case pertaining to what broadcasters can and cannot do, so until the broadcasters get their nose burned we the viewers and users are stuck in a rut.

[howardc1243]

It seems broadcasters want to play like cable networks. So what's the difference between a cable network and a broadcast network? Is there some advantage to being a broadcaster? I know they have some legal obligations such as EAS, E/I requirements, etc. that I'm sure they'd rather not have to deal with, but what edge does broadcasting give them?

This is information I'd like to have for an FCC complaint.

with the signal of the ATSC 3.0 channel being encrypted the broadcasters are in violation of both the emergency alert system and educational/informational rules established by the FCC.

[howardc1243]

Does subscription free OTA broadcast only apply to the primary channels that a broadcaster submits to the FCC for a license. Does it apply to sub-channels?


https://www.streamtvinsider.com/video/s ... w-revenues

it applies to both the main as well as the subs that a broadcaster is broadcasting.

[ericdsa]

“We plan to offer broadcasters the ability to block the user from viewing the channel via their home network.”


This is the current situation, mission accomplished! If I can’t view it, none of the rest even matters.Why waste the electrons?

[emveepee]

with the signal of the ATSC 3.0 channel being encrypted the broadcasters are in violation of both the emergency alert system and educational/informational rules established by the FCC.

Old analog TV's and capture cards don't receive ATSC 1.0 so that rule would apply to compatible TV receivers not any generic electronic device capable of receiving the signal. DRM can likely be toggled off in an extreme emergency on one channel.