Encryption

[vandyman]

In the end the local stations will lose out.

Years ago when I had a cable subscription.
I rarely ever watched local TV, except for some sports.

Streaming services are also killing local programming. Besides, there really isn't anything interesting to watch on local TV anyway. Reruns, reruns. Game shows, talk shows, are not for me.

[Frank Hagan]

In the end the local stations will lose out.

Years ago when I had a cable subscription.
I rarely ever watched local TV, except for some sports.

Streaming services are also killing local programming. Besides, there really isn't anything interesting to watch on local TV anyway. Reruns, reruns. Game shows, talk shows, are not for me.

In big media markets, like Los Angeles, there's a ton of local news and what they used to call "human interest" stories ... restaurant reviews, upcoming festivals, high school events, etc. I'd hate to see all of that go away. I think we need to go back to requiring local stations to be locally owned and operated, and curtail the Sinclair-type media conglomerates.

[NatHillIV]

I think this is HUGE. I would love for some SiliconDust folks to respond to what happened yesterday,

https://www.newscaststudio.com/2025/10/ ... framework/

from the meeting............

“support and accelerate the nation’s ongoing voluntary market-based broadcast television transition to NextGen TV,” as described by FCC Secretary Marlene Dortch when introducing the meeting’s nine-item agenda.

[zippy]

And there are additional thorny questions that the Commission is going to have to address.
Consumers are clearly concerned about the use of encryption technologies also referred to as digital rights
management. This impacts both whether audiences will be able to continue to enjoy free over the air
television as they do today and the impact of privately established standards on the equipment market.
Technology should not be a bottleneck to innovation

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments ... 5133A3.pdf

[petelombardo]

Maybe the happy compromise solution is if the FCC requires a primary non-DRM encumbered "channel" from every major network. Then they can have their way with DRM on secondary channels and do what we all know will eventually happen if DRM remains a requirement, which is to monetize content in the same way they do with streaming (with non-skippable commercials - or paid subscriptions to bypass them). I don't think anyone would walk away from that feeling like a true winner. But at least a compromise like that would not guarantee the failure of broadcast TV, which seems to be the direction we're headed in at the moment.

[theseer2]

No comprimises, ban the DRM, it does not belong on the our free airwaves. If you want to drm something, do it on the net and dont air it.

[foxvalleyal]

And there are additional thorny questions that the Commission is going to have to address.
Consumers are clearly concerned about the use of encryption technologies also referred to as digital rights
management. This impacts both whether audiences will be able to continue to enjoy free over the air
television as they do today and the impact of privately established standards on the equipment market.
Technology should not be a bottleneck to innovation

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments ... 5133A3.pdf

Thanks for sharing this. I'd like to know where the data "Consumers have purchased over 14 million ATSC 3.0-capable sets and 300,000
external 3.0 converters that will allow them to receive NextGen TV signals" comes from in her statement. Yes we all have skin in the game here, consumers and manufacturers and we need a clear path without additional costs to both consumers and manufacturers. I'm glad she identified encryption as one of the bottlenecks in her statement. Time for all of us consumers to chime in again to the FCC with comments. I can clearly show them the 2 NextGen ATSC 3.0 Channels that I'm currently able to view and the 4 others that show the message Unable to play channel: The broadcaster has applied usage restrictions message I receive.