FCC Announces ATSC 1.0 Shut Down - How It Impacts Free Antenna TV

[Antenna Man]

Time for another AWESOME video from Tyler the Antenna Man!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kjj5xVZ5nY

Direct YouTube Link - FCC Announces ATSC 1.0 Shut Down - How It Impacts Free Antenna TV
AntennaMan's Website
AntennaMan on Facebook

 

[mwdxer1]

I don't see 3.0 going anywhere for years. Even if it does, with so many rules, etc, most people will not deal with it.

 

[navychop]

Until FORCED.

 

[Justin Hill]

I just hope FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel is fighting for "ATSC 3.0 neutrality" (a free and open next generation broadcast TV standard) as much as she is is fighting for "net neutrality" (a free and open internet), the stuff that people like former Verizon chairman/former Trump-era FCC chairman Ajit Pai would've hated with a passion...

 

[harshness]

I just hope FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel is fighting for "ATSC 3.0 neutrality" (a free and open next generation broadcast TV standard) as much as she is is fighting for "net neutrality" (a free and open internet), the stuff that people like former Verizon chairman/former Trump-era FCC chairman Ajit Pai would've hated with a passion...

Your definition of "free and open" isn't what the TV stations have been promised since the inception of DTV. TV stations are allowed to charge today for channels -- just not the "main" channel. The fact that the technology didn't catch on until recently is immaterial.

DRM doesn't prevent viewing of the content. It only prevents recording of the content which has had the unfortunate side-effect of supporting people's misguided belief that they somehow "own" the content in perpetuity.

 

[Justin Hill]

Your definition of "free and open" isn't what the TV stations have been promised since the inception of DTV. TV stations are allowed to charge today for channels -- just not the "main" channel. The fact that the technology didn't catch on until recently is immaterial.

DRM doesn't prevent viewing of the content. It only prevents recording of the content which has had the unfortunate side-effect of supporting people's misguided belief that they somehow "own" the content in perpetuity.

I'm not saying anyone has to 'own' the content, or that the FCC had to get rid of DRM, but instead to allow everyone to watch TV, while the broadcasters use the DRM encryption wisely...

 

[reubenray]

Before the supposed shutdown happens will all stations be switched over to ATSC 3.0?

 

[navychop]

There is no ATSC 1 shutdown. They extended out when a station COULD shutdown.

 

[harshness]

I'm not saying anyone has to 'own' the content, or that the FCC had to get rid of DRM, but instead to allow everyone to watch TV, while the broadcasters use the DRM encryption wisely...

DRM by no means prevents anyone from watching broadcast TV. It does put a kink in how many choose to consume it but that's not an issue of public safety.

 

[harshness]

Before the supposed shutdown happens will all stations be switched over to ATSC 3.0?

The sunset of DTV will happen well after everything is available via NextGen TV (or whatever replaces DTV). The FCC reserves the right to extend that sunset until they determine that the remaining DTV users are just being stubborn.

 

[Foxbat]

Doesn’t ATSC 3.0 with DRM require an Internet connection? That hardly seems like a reasonable TV standard if every TV needs Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or a cellular backhaul to be able to watch TV.

If you counter with “all TVs sold today are Smart TVs and Internet connectivity is a given” I would say that most of them will still work off-grid with an aerial to receive OTA, just minus the Smarts.

 

[harshness]

Doesn’t ATSC 3.0 with DRM require an Internet connection?

Only on devices that have a chance of being recorded (standalone tuners, network tuners, USB tuners, tuner cards).

My guess is that they're going to be keeping up to date with all of the suspicious HDMI EDIDs so they need to be able to poll a server.

 

[Justin Hill]

Some electronics manufacturers, like LG, have decided not to put ATSC 3.0 tuners in their new flatscreen TVs.
It may seem like a kamikaze move for their adoption ATSC 3.0, as it looks like they want the new standard to fail...or maybe they're waiting for the new standard to be fleshed out more, which will probably take a decade or two...

 

[Justin Hill]

Breaking up with ATSC 1.0 will be hard to do when the day comes...

Green Bay, Wisconsin still has yet to get a new broadcast affiliate for MeTV (and the other Weigel Broadcasting-owned stations) on the current ATSC 1.0 standard, as Weigel Broadcasting bought WFXS-TV 55's old tower/equipment, which broadcast on RF channel 31 in Wittenberg, Wisconsin, with the intent of moving the equipment/tower/city of license to Shawano, Wisconsin and boosting the ERP to 1,000 kilowatts (once Weigel gets the FCC's permission), close enough to Green Bay, Wisconsin for the new dual-market MeTV affiliate to rimshot the city with a Grade B signal.

I have a feeling that a repeater station at the Scray's Hill towers in the Green Bay area will alleviate the shortfalls from that Grade B signal originating in Shawano in the future...

 

[Foxbat]

Some electronics manufacturers, like LG, have decided not to put ATSC 3.0 tuners in their new flatscreen TVs.
It may seem like a kamikaze move for their adoption ATSC 3.0, as it looks like they want the new standard to fail...or maybe they're waiting for the new standard to be fleshed out more, which will probably take a decade or two...

See Tyler’s video on this subject. Or, Lon.tv’s video, both of these are available in this SatelliteGuys sub forum.

 

[harshness]

Some electronics manufacturers, like LG, have decided not to put ATSC 3.0 tuners in their new flatscreen TVs.
It may seem like a kamikaze move for their adoption ATSC 3.0, as it looks like they want the new standard to fail...or maybe they're waiting for the new standard to be fleshed out more, which will probably take a decade or two...

The issue, for those who have recently emerged from under a rock, is that LG was sued for patent infringement for something that is part of the NextGen TV standard. They were effectively forced to stop enabling tuners (I doubt they'll remove them) as it may be too late in the cycle and it would be expensive to reverse if they won on appeal. How much of this was LG's fault and how much was ATSC's is a subject of great debate. ATSC is clearly playing dumb.

 

[harshness]

Breaking up with ATSC 1.0 will be hard to do when the day comes...

NextGen TV may actually solve this problem with its more advanced modulation scheme that reportedly travels much better than that of DTV.

 

[navychop]

ATSC is clearly playing dumb.

I don’t think they’re playing.

 

[Foxbat]

The issue… …is that LG was sued for patent infringement for something that is part of the NextGen TV standard.

Seems rather odd that ATSC would rely on technology that wasn’t included with their licensing fees. There is the “Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory” (FRAND) policy that if a patent is determined to be an essential part of a standard that the patent holder is expected to make the patent available for free or a nominal price.

Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory, But Controversial: IEEE Adopts a New FRAND Policy

www.dww.com

If this is something that is “baked” into the ATSC 3.0 chip(s) then the chip maker should be the one on the hook (could be LG if they designed bespoke silicon for these new TVs). But the patent holder should be providing this patent under an agreement from NextGen.

 

[primestar31]

Seems rather odd that ATSC would rely on technology that wasn’t included with their licensing fees.

They missed this one somehow, and it's owned by a patent troll, so they are screwed because it's underlying technology, and can't be skipped apparently.