ATSC 3.0 DRM Encryption

[TNGuy84]

Everyone's talking about the whole DRM thing while the patent wars are cranking up over 3.0. That alone could be enough to kill off the standard without considering DRM. If that one company can take advantage of LG and others, I'm sure other patent holders of 3.0 tech are talking with their lawyers on what to act on themselves. We could all be looking back on this realizing that greed killed 3.0. It seems that ATSC is standing back and doing nothing about it.

 

[RONZ]

Everyone's talking about the whole DRM thing while the patent wars are cranking up over 3.0. That alone could be enough to kill off the standard without considering DRM. If that one company can take advantage of LG and others, I'm sure other patent holders of 3.0 tech are talking with their lawyers on what to act on themselves. We could all be looking back on this realizing that greed killed 3.0. It seems that ATSC is standing back and doing nothing about it.

Actually it looks like the company that has that patent will be bought out and that would resolve the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FTA4PA]

Actually it looks like the company that has that patent will be bought out and that would resolve the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where did you read this? The most I saw was Lon Seidman mentioning in his blog it would be good if another company developing ATSC 3.0 would buy out Constellation Designs but had not seen any word of an actual offer or buyer yet.

 

[navychop]

Actually it looks like the company that has that patent will be bought out and that would resolve the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until the next guy husbanding some obscure patent pops out of the woodwork.

 

[peanut1985]

Why not promote ATSC3.0 first and then try to add DRM? The current situation is bad and it is difficult for me to make the decision to buy an expensive DRM machine without clear information.

 

[navychop]

Simple. Don’t buy anything ATSC 3 until the dust settles. If it ever does. Anything bought today could become useless in a few years.

 

[primestar31]

Why not promote ATSC3.0 first and then try to add DRM? The current situation is bad and it is difficult for me to make the decision to buy an expensive DRM machine without clear information.

Because the providers are trying to get DRM entrenched really early, before anybody can stop them and cause them to stop encrypting.

I think they miscalculated...

 

[navychop]

Oh, I hope so!

 

[TNGuy84]

Simple. Don’t buy anything ATSC 3 until the dust settles. If it ever does. Anything bought today could become useless in a few years.

Yep, 3D TVs were all the rage in the early 2010s. Then, they ended up getting ditched for 4K. ATSC 3.0 tuners could become another door stop if the mess doesn't work itself out.

 

[moonwink]

What I'm hearing here is that I screwed-up buying the ADHT Nextgen TV box.
ADTH NEXTGEN TV BOX - ADTH
When I looked at TVs, the cheapest one Costco had with Nextgen was in the $1300 neighborhood. I wanted to see if the new signals were any better than what I've been getting with the older ATSC technology in my TV and Dish Vip 211k receiver. While I'm only about 30 miles from the transmitters in St Louis, I get lots of drop-outs because of the hills between me and those transmitters. I've tried LTE filters with hardly any improvements. If an airplane flies between the transmitter and my rooftop antenna, the signal reflects off it and causes longer drop-outs till it clears the area. Sometimes, it only takes a car going past the house cause problems.

 

[peanut1985]

What I'm hearing here is that I screwed-up buying the ADHT Nextgen TV box.
ADTH NEXTGEN TV BOX - ADTH
When I looked at TVs, the cheapest one Costco had with Nextgen was in the $1300 neighborhood. I wanted to see if the new signals were any better than what I've been getting with the older ATSC technology in my TV and Dish Vip 211k receiver. While I'm only about 30 miles from the transmitters in St Louis, I get lots of drop-outs because of the hills between me and those transmitters. I've tried LTE filters with hardly any improvements. If an airplane flies between the transmitter and my rooftop antenna, the signal reflects off it and causes longer drop-outs till it clears the area. Sometimes, it only takes a car going past the house cause problems.

My understanding is that the signal reception for atsc3.0 will be better, but the signal reception for atsc1.0 may not be improved.

 

[Comptech]

Anybody heard if silicone dust has come up with a solution for the encrypted ATSC? I have two open that work great but two that have been encrypted and can not receive.

 

[primestar31]

Anybody heard if silicone dust has come up with a solution for the encrypted ATSC? I have two open that work great but two that have been encrypted and can not receive.

A3SA isn't going to allow SD to release a solution with their present tuner. I'm pretty positive of that.

There's something about them being a gateway, that A3SA doesn't like. Maybe it's not secure enough for them, at least that's what I was told by an insider.

 

[navychop]

They certainly know how to make enemies. At a time when their need for friends is growing rapidly.

 

[Comptech]

It just sucks that they got us moving this way only to pull the rug out from under us. I agree with capitalism, but not flat out greed.

 

[Comptech]

At least our local ABC affiliate, is still clear, their normal signal does not even begin to cover their market. At least for now I can get it of the lighthouse and still clear.

 

[primestar31]

Only 19 more signatures to reach 10,000. PLEASE sign right away, if you haven't already. You never know, it may work. It's worked every other time since the early '80's when they first tried encryption.

Sign the Petition

Save Free TV! Tell the FCC to END DRM Encryption of ATSC 3â.â0 Broadcasts

www.change.org

 

[thomasjk]

Only 19 more signatures to reach 10,000. PLEASE sign right away, if you haven't already. You never know, it may work. It's worked every other time since the early '80's when they first tried encryption.

Sign the Petition

Save Free TV! Tell the FCC to END DRM Encryption of ATSC 3â.â0 Broadcasts

www.change.org

I signed. Only 18 more to go.

This campaign needs you now

Save Free TV! Tell the FCC to END DRM Encryption of ATSC 3.0 Broadcasts

chng.it

 

[KyL416]

You never know, it may work. It's worked every other time since the early '80's when they first tried encryption.

Subscription OTA networks like Wometco, SelecTV, Z Channel and ONTV died in the 1980s because they faced direct competition from HBO and Showtime once cable became widely available in major cities. HBO vs the FCC also helped their demise as it overturned the anti-siphoning law that prevented cable channels from signing exclusive deals for movie libraries and sporting events.

Also, I highly doubt there was any widespread demand for those stations to drop subscription OTA as in most cases they previously carried content no one was watching and were on the verge of folding before the subscription networks gave them a lifeline. i.e. before Wometco Home Theater launched in NYC, what was WBTB/68 already suspended operations for a few months and the only show people cared about was Uncle Floyd, which still aired unencrypted on WWHT until it found a new home at WNBC and NJN, the rest of the pre-Wometco content was stuff that NYC's 3 VHF independents passed on, and after Wometco shutdown it quickly became a HSN O&O.


Stations are still allowed to carry encrypted subscription OTA services, but that's nothing to panic over as each time one was attempted, the free market led to them failing. Like USDTV out west in the 2000s, AirBox on most Ion stations in the 2010s, and most recently Evoca on ATSC 3.0 LPTV signals in Boise and Phoenix.

Hopefully the legitimate concerns about DRM people are submitting involving DVR restrictions, being able to get emergency severe weather information via a converter box without an internet connection, or the A3SA taking forever to approve support for external tuners, isn't drowned out by comments from people incorrectly conflating DRM encryption with conditional access encryption for subscription content or "what if" scenarios that FCC rules already forbid. i.e. under the current rules stations that use DRM cannot charge viewers to decrypt them or require a broadcaster supplied decoder box, so any comments to the FCC falsely claiming that you need to pay stations to view DRM content will be dismissed.

 

[RONZ]

Subscription OTA networks like Wometco, SelecTV, Z Channel and ONTV died in the 1980s because they faced direct competition from HBO and Showtime once cable became widely available in major cities. HBO vs the FCC also helped their demise as it overturned the anti-siphoning law that prevented cable channels from signing exclusive deals for movie libraries and sporting events.

Also, I highly doubt there was any widespread demand for those stations to drop subscription OTA as in most cases they previously carried content no one was watching and were on the verge of folding before the subscription networks gave them a lifeline. i.e. before Wometco Home Theater launched in NYC, what was WBTB/68 already suspended operations for a few months and the only show people cared about was Uncle Floyd, which still aired unencrypted on WWHT until it found a new home at WNBC and NJN, the rest of the pre-Wometco content was stuff that NYC's 3 VHF independents passed on, and after Wometco shutdown it quickly became a HSN O&O.


Stations are still allowed to carry encrypted subscription OTA services, but that's nothing to panic over as each time one was attempted, the free market led to them failing. Like USDTV out west in the 2000s, AirBox on most Ion stations in the 2010s, and most recently Evoca on ATSC 3.0 LPTV signals in Boise and Phoenix.

Hopefully the legitimate concerns about DRM people are submitting involving DVR restrictions, being able to get emergency severe weather information via a converter box without an internet connection, or the A3SA taking forever to approve support for external tuners, isn't drowned out by comments from people incorrectly conflating DRM encryption with conditional access encryption for subscription content or "what if" scenarios that FCC rules already forbid. i.e. under the current rules stations that use DRM cannot charge viewers to decrypt them or require a broadcaster supplied decoder box, so any comments to the FCC falsely claiming that you need to pay stations to view DRM content will be dismissed.

Hello,

I don’t think DRM is set up to be a subscription TV service. The concern is copyrights For example if I DVR’ed a moving say on CBS. Then the local station has the right to delete it at any time. DRM is also used for copyrighted game and music. For example if you read the terms and conditions it say to a game you purchased the game company has a right to delete even though you paid for it. And they have the right to do this without notification. For music you see that Vinyl is making a come back 17% of music sales to prevent the removal of a song you downloaded Apple has opened up their music library so you can copy it to your own personal hard drive so you can keep a copy.
With cord cutters the station owners have lost a lot of revenue and could possibly add a license fee for your viewing of a program. The is especially important since the failure for Balley Sports. I know that some station owners are looking to network local market games. This would require a special DRM license to view your over the air channel. In Detroit ON-TV aired home team sports. Once they shut down the service became PASS sports which was a channel on cable initially it was treated like HBO and required a subscription but this was removed and it became part of basic cable. Then purchased by FOX the cost from programming skyrocketed and it became a bad business model as it is today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk