Encryption

[howardc1243]

Which is why I asked a while back why the HD Homerun could not be modified so it could at least tune and receive encrypted ATSC 3.0 stations so they could be at least viewed on the TV but not record them until the legal stuff is resolved. Seems like an easy change to me.

Making that change would be a big plus and I know I would buy one. Maybe many others too.

as i have mentioned before that idea may not be as secure and the a3sa is high on security. and nickk and crew will not stup that low.

[howardc1243]

Which is why I asked a while back why the HD Homerun could not be modified so it could at least tune and receive encrypted ATSC 3.0 stations so they could be at least viewed on the TV but not record them until the legal stuff is resolved. Seems like an easy change to me.

Making that change would be a big plus and I know I would buy one. Maybe many others too.

the fly in the ointment is it may not be as secure and the a3sa is high on security.

High enough on security to the point that no one can watch any of the content at all. Stations are spending millions on ATSC 3.0 equipment and utilities to run that equipment and no one is able to watch it. I am amazed that after this amount of time that some stations haven't just shut it off to wait the months or years that were suggested that it will take to work this ridiculous situation out. Right now it's just a money sink.

Having worked in the cable TV industry for many years, I totally understand that this all goes back to the date when the FCC first allowed TV stations to charge viewers (cable TV viewers) for the ability to watch the reliable signals that cable systems were providing when they were unable to get a solid signal using a TV antenna at their homes. The stations claimed that cable systems were "modifying" the signal even though it was quite obvious that we were doing nothing of the kind, we were only putting up a tall tower and commercial antennas so that we could put out, without any modification, a solid signal our customers could watch. But it was what it was, and those fees went from cheap to ridiculous in just a few years and now stations are making millions from those retransmission fees and are desperate to keep that revenue stream going, even if it means no one can actually watch those signals right now. The revenue stream was also expanded to include satellite TV providers such as Dish and DirecTV. The stations have always been working on a way to expand that revenue stream from just cable TV users and satellite TV viewers to anyone who wants to watch their signals with just a regular TV antenna or rabbit ears at their home, and this is the result of that effort. Obviously the FCC has no desire or will to step into the fray and say enough is enough, which is a very sad situation.

[removed by user]

[howardc1243]

It looks like it! Frustrating that SD would rather censor messages then offer an honest reply on the subject. It was originally intended to stop competitive products from appearing in search results but now they seem to be blocking even obscure abbreviations.

[removed by moderator - see forum rules]

Not sure how some off-brand company beat SD when SD already has the hardware to support this it's just a licensing issue, but let's hope this means we see it on SD hardware quite soon now that the software side has worked out apparently.

just hope the broadcasters that are using drm can survive the slide when they turn-off the atsc 1.0 signal.

[nickk]

Which is why I asked a while back why the HD Homerun could not be modified so it could at least tune and receive encrypted ATSC 3.0 stations so they could be at least viewed on the TV but not record them until the legal stuff is resolved. Seems like an easy change to me.

Making that change would be a big plus and I know I would buy one. Maybe many others too.

Not allowed because criminals might use a VPN to connect their TV to their HDHomeRun at different locations. I am told that would be theft.

[DrSmith]

I thought I read in the previous encryption thread that SD had implemented a round-trip-timer to limit SD viewing to within the LAN of the installation? That is what A3SA required. So, it would seem that A3SA could approve SD devices for viewing only, if recording is actually the delaying factor. (Suspect the real issue is playing anything out over ethernet is scary to A3SA, whether it's to be recorded or not. SD needs an HDMI port to ship a non-recording solution)

[techpro2004]

I sent a message to one of those manufacturers from google and they confirm their atsc 3.0 gateway product supports drm. [removed by moderator - see forum rules]


edit: that other company stat starts in z and ends in box is saying their product is now a gateway device.

[zaytar]

I sent a message to one of those manufacturers from google and they confirm their atsc 3.0 gateway product supports drm. [removed by moderator - see forum rules]


edit: that other company stat starts in z and ends in box is saying their product is now a gateway device.

It isn’t one according to their own FAQ - it must be directly connected to a TV. Not a gateway product.

[signcarver]

In my opinion until there is app support it isn't a gateway... best one can hope for right now when it comes to drm is to connect to the same manufacturer's device making it more of the extender model than a gateway model. Once apps on android, roku, webos and tizen become practical then it can be considered a gateway... all that is coming but it will probably be another year.

For some of those platforms SD may need to think about recording in hls to support drm and I can see potential issues with live on those platforms without recording.

As for that device it is still 3 months on the roadmap for unencrypted live tv to another of their own device and even longer for streaming encrypted recordings and longer yet for streaming encrypted live tv and even longer for apps and longer for encrypted in apps... they are currently using the term gateway to say the devices can see one another and that their dvr can serve unencrypted content to the other... something I've done for over 2 decades, possibly closer to 4 for unencrypted recordings (my first box captured tv signals around 220x160

Edit: by the way i did expect such by now this time last year but there were many ripples in the timelines I was previously given by broadcasters and other manufacturers caused by a few YouTube videos pointing out some STB's didn't require/enforce hdcp which caused compounding delays for each step getting approval from what I've been told.

[Phoenixfury]

Great news! WNDU channel 16 is now broadcasting in HDR!

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/nextg ... os%20sound

However a few days after their channel became available on ATSC 3, they turned on DRM. I emailed them telling them that DRM hurts no one but the consumer. Basically the reply I got back was that the decision to turn on DRM lies with their parent company, it's out of their hands. Now that they enabled HDR, this response now comes off to me as a big FU to me.

[hancox]

“One of the things we are doing different is using lower thirds to say ‘HDR only available on NextGen TVs,” says Anne Schelle, managing director of Pearl TV, a business alliance of eight major TV station groups dedicated to advancing NextGen TV. “There are over 80 million HDR-enabled households in America, so those tickers will serve a purpose similar to what was done back in the days of transitioning from analog to HD.”

Total BS, false word-twisting nonsense. And from the flag bearer for DRM. How good does HDR look when you can't watch it?

[gore]

Great news! WNDU channel 16 is now broadcasting in HDR!

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/nextg ... os%20sound

However a few days after their channel became available on ATSC 3, they turned on DRM. I emailed them telling them that DRM hurts no one but the consumer. Basically the reply I got back was that the decision to turn on DRM lies with their parent company, it's out of their hands. Now that they enabled HDR, this response now comes off to me as a big FU to me.

it's not so much an FU as it is a statement that free over-the-air TV will soon be gone forever. If you want to watch a TV station's signal, you are going to have to pay for it somehow, whether it be over-the-air, via a gateway device, streaming, cable, satellite, or whatever.

Since the digital transition, vast areas of the country are now unable to receive a broadcast signal of any kind, places where solid signals used to be available. Broadcast coverage areas have shrunk significantly. And since Retransmission Consent was authorized by the FCC, any form of free broadcast television became an endangered species. And now we are in the throes of the last vestige of free, over-the-air television, the switch to ATSC 3.0. Once that switchover is completed, there will be no more free broadcast television

[nickk]

Personally I am not a fan of HDR - it seems to have a big downside with little benefit.

Operating in SDR mode will never be worse than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness and is often better than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness (ie most content).

1) There is no difference in black between SDR and HDR. However good or bad your TV is at displaying black that is black, HDR doesn't change that.
2) How bright your screen can go is determined by the panel - HDR vs SDR doesn't change that.
3) You set the brightness of the screen. If you set the brightness to 100% then the brightness is not far off the TV can do, or if less than 100% you are choosing the brightness.
4) HDR allows unusual content to push the brightness beyond the brightness setting you chose (this is the only benefit). Are you sure you want that?
5) This big problem - there is only so much headroom for brightness beyond the level you set (little if you set 100%) so the TV has to apply a response curve that dulls down brighter colors in the normal brightness range to reduce color banding on the off-chance over-bright content might occur. This messes with the normal-range colors even if nothing is over-bright! And you will likely still see color banding (it is a trade-off between the two).

I would much rather have 10-bit SDR than HDR.
If you really really want a wider color space than Rec.709 use Rec.2020.

[howardc1243]

Personally I am not a fan of HDR - it seems to have a big downside with little benefit.

Operating in SDR mode will never be worse than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness and can be better than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness.

1) There is no difference in black between SDR and HDR. However good or bad your TV is at displaying black that is black, HDR doesn't change that.
2) How bright your screen can go is determined by the panel - HDR vs SDR doesn't change that.
3) You set the brightness of the screen. If you set the brightness to 100% then the brightness is not far off the TV can do, or if less than 100% you are choosing the brightness.
4) HDR allows unusual content to push the brightness beyond the brightness setting you chose (this is the only benefit). Are you sure you want that?
5) This big problem - there is only so much headroom for brightness beyond the level you set (little if you set 100%) so the TV has to apply a response curve that dulls down brighter colors in the normal brightness range to reduce color banding on the off-chance over-bright content might occur. This messes with the normal-range colors even if nothing is over-bright! And you will likely still see color banding (it is a trade-off between the two).

I would much rather have 10-bit SDR than HDR.
If you really really want a wider color space than Rec.709 use Rec.2020.

another problem in high dynamic range is the broadcaster is using a duo-layer gamut that has a tendency to overwhelm the color scheme that results in a deep black hue.

[RickD_99]

Personally I am not a fan of HDR - it seems to have a big downside with little benefit.

Operating in SDR mode will never be worse than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness and is often better than HDR mode for content with normal range brightness (ie most content).

1) There is no difference in black between SDR and HDR. However good or bad your TV is at displaying black that is black, HDR doesn't change that.
2) How bright your screen can go is determined by the panel - HDR vs SDR doesn't change that.
3) You set the brightness of the screen. If you set the brightness to 100% then the brightness is not far off the TV can do, or if less than 100% you are choosing the brightness.
4) HDR allows unusual content to push the brightness beyond the brightness setting you chose (this is the only benefit). Are you sure you want that?
5) This big problem - there is only so much headroom for brightness beyond the level you set (little if you set 100%) so the TV has to apply a response curve that dulls down brighter colors in the normal brightness range to reduce color banding on the off-chance over-bright content might occur. This messes with the normal-range colors even if nothing is over-bright! And you will likely still see color banding (it is a trade-off between the two).

I would much rather have 10-bit SDR than HDR.
If you really really want a wider color space than Rec.709 use Rec.2020.

While I generally agree with what you are saying here I would beg to differ on one use case I.e. sports. Fox Sports upscaled 1080p in HDR is spectacular on my LG C6 OLED. I would be tickled pink to be able to get all my sports in this format going forward…

[nickk]

While I generally agree with what you are saying here I would beg to differ on one use case I.e. sports. Fox Sports upscaled 1080p in HDR is spectacular on my LG C6 OLED. I would be tickled pink to be able to get all my sports in this format going forward…

OLED makes a big difference - it has a lot more headroom to work with.