Encryption

[Freekick123]

I think Silicon Dust needs to hit every office at the FCC in person, with a meeting like the AWARN guy did.

[nickk]

I think Silicon Dust needs to hit every office at the FCC in person, with a meeting like the AWARN guy did.

Currently in Washington DC, had a good meeting with the team at FCC HQ...

[NatHillIV]

Again I ask which is easier/cheaper a redesign or being dragged through the muck.

Because, the chip they use doesn't matter ultimately. They are just going to complain about something else and move the goalposts. Pearl's assertions are wrong and they are trying to play it up to force a ATSC 3.0 deadline and ultimately hurt consumers.

Please explain how getting in a big fight with the producer of the best selling ATSC 3.0 device is in any way helpful in "forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline"

[DrSmith]

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline will require all TV sets to include an ATSC3.0 tuner. Once all TVs have this tuner then 95% of all OTA users will have a viable ATSC 3.0 solution and the small fraction of us who prefer a gateway device can be ignored. They don't want to fight SD, they want to bypass them.

[Dxcv]

DrSmith has summed it up perfectly.

To this point, Pearl even filed an Amicus brief when LG appealed the ruling in their patent infringement case. A case which made LG reconsider including ATSC 3.0 tuners in their TVs, something they still do not include to this day.

[Freekick123]

I think Silicon Dust needs to hit every office at the FCC in person, with a meeting like the AWARN guy did.

Currently in Washington DC, had a good meeting with the team at FCC HQ...

KUDOS!!!

[jasonl]

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline will require all TV sets to include an ATSC3.0 tuner. Once all TVs have this tuner then 95% of all OTA users will have a viable ATSC 3.0 solution and the small fraction of us who prefer a gateway device can be ignored. They don't want to fight SD, they want to bypass them.

If the FCC were to try to force TV manufacturers to include 3.0 tuners, they would end up in court, and with the way the courts are right now, they'd very likely lose. If they somehow managed to win in court, one would assume that the regulations would be modeled after what they did in 2007 where they banned the manufacture, import, or interstate shipment of anything with an analog tuner unless it also had a digital tuner. ATSC 3.0 tuner chips are still extremely expensive relative to 1.0, and I can't see manufacturers adding that much more to the bill of materials on their low-end and midrange models. You're going to end up with a lot of "smart displays" that have a screen, a couple HDMI inputs, and whatever smart system and no tuners at all, and a lot of people are going to be just fine with that.

[HoTst2]

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline will require all TV sets to include an ATSC3.0 tuner. Once all TVs have this tuner then 95% of all OTA users will have a viable ATSC 3.0 solution and the small fraction of us who prefer a gateway device can be ignored. They don't want to fight SD, they want to bypass them.

A viable ATSC 3.0 solution? ...

Without an acceptable way to DVR content and still the archaic need to run individual antenna feeds to each television and/or other receiving device?

More like just a "bare-bones minimum" ATSC 3.0 solution for the 95% of OTA viewers wouldn't you say?

[Ken.F]

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline will require all TV sets to include an ATSC3.0 tuner. Once all TVs have this tuner then 95% of all OTA users will have a viable ATSC 3.0 solution and the small fraction of us who prefer a gateway device can be ignored. They don't want to fight SD, they want to bypass them.

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline now is like forcing gas stations to immediately rip out all of their fuel pumps and install electric charging stations. Don't have an electric car? Too bad. Throw away your gas powered car and go buy a new electric one.

[DrSmith]

More like just a "bare-bones minimum" ATSC 3.0 solution for the 95% of OTA viewers wouldn't you say?

Oh, for sure. I only meant "viable" in the eyes of Pearl and possibly a misinformed FCC. Not at all viable for those of us with a DVR mindset.

[Cabal]

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline will require all TV sets to include an ATSC3.0 tuner. Once all TVs have this tuner then 95% of all OTA users will have a viable ATSC 3.0 solution and the small fraction of us who prefer a gateway device can be ignored. They don't want to fight SD, they want to bypass them.

Forcing an ATSC 3.0 deadline now is like forcing gas stations to immediately rip out all of their fuel pumps and install electric charging stations. Don't have an electric car? Too bad. Throw away your gas powered car and go buy a new electric one.

I like this analogy, and I say this as a two EV household.

[nickk]

Yesterday (July 31) we met with the FCC in Washing DC.

It was a good meeting

The notice of Ex Parte we filed with the FCC regarding the meeting can be read here:
https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 31-25).pdf

[Cabal]

Yesterday (July 31) we met with the FCC in Washing DC.

It was a good meeting

The notice of Ex Parte we filed with the FCC regarding the meeting can be read here:
https://download.silicondust.com/docs/S ... 31-25).pdf

Great read, thank you!

[Timbo303]

I think solution number 2 is probably going to be the acceptable solution it would please both sides in this situation. That said they need to add apples drm too to the signal so apple devices can decode them.

[removed by moderator]

[WNYOTA]

Broadcasters can’t add Apple’s FairPlay DRM to the same channel that has Widevine DRM. DRM standards are exclusive…broadcasters would literally have to send a Google Widevine channel version and an Apple FairPlay channel version. I don’t see that happening. And if it did, it would be an incredible waste of bandwidth.

In addition, in order to use FairPlay at all, Apple would have to approve. I don’t see that happening.

In my opinion a good 3rd option would be scalable video coding (HEVC + SHVC) with the SD tier open without encryption and the HD, UHD tiers encrypted. That way all devices can get a basic version of the channel without encryption that would satisfy public interest obligations. YouTube and Netflix actually have a history of doing this with devices that don’t support DRM—they would only provide an SD version without encryption. If the studios were at least “okay” with YouTube and Netflix doing this in the past, they should be fine with this happening on the public airwaves which they have literally had their content unencrypted on this entire time.