Remember when over the air digital TV came in and unless you had a new TV you needed a converter box to watch the digital channels as analog channels went dark? Did you know it's happening again? But worse.
While the FCC just recently extended (to 2026 I believe) the required time for the existing (ATSC 1.0) system to stay operational, the new ATSC 3.0 system is loaded with encrypted DRM even on basic channels in many cases.
And get this, it appears that the external converter boxes currently available for this that can actually deal with that DRM reportedly require an Internet connection to work!
You read that right. To receive an over the air ATSC encrypted channel -- even a basic broadcast channel -- reportedly appears to currently require an Internet connection.
Now you might be asking, what the bloody hell is the point of over the air TV if you need a damned Internet connection to watch it?
And the answer is: I don't have a clue.
I'm trying to learn more. Stay tuned. No pun intended.
@lauren From what I've heard they want attribution and targeted advertising in broadcast TV, which requires a backchannel.
Ostensibly the DRM is there to prevent retransmission (e.g. the next time an Aereo or Locast shows up they can go for a 1201 violation). I've heard something about a location check being involved but this also forces you to provide the backchannel the ad tracking needs in order to operate.
@kmeisthax Targeted advertising OTA is technically very difficult, unless you have a way to quickly change subchannels to push individual viewers or groups of viewers to specific ad streams on those subchannels.
@kmeisthax Of course in theory you could quickly switch to ads served from the Net and then back to OTA, but there are a bunch of issues in making that actually work robustly. And supposedly standalone TVs don't require an ongoing Internet connection. Maybe. Not sure. It's all a mess.
@lauren I suspect targeted advertising is going to be Internet-based, and they're just banking on Smart TVs being 'good enough' to multiplex ATSC 3.0 and HLS/DASH. Subchannels are already in use to carry multiple programs and I doubt broadcasters will be able to sync ad breaks across multiple networks to facilitate channel swaps. Hell, remember when they started programs a few minutes early/late to frustrate DVR users?
@kmeisthax Yeah I don't see how subchannels would work in practice. I only mention it as a theoretical. But if it's true that ATSC 3.0 TVs don't need an ongoing Internet connection (only the standalone converters), then that ad channel vanishes without the connection. However, they're probably banking on most people wanting to have the Internet connection for the "smart" TVs anyway and just piggyback off of that. Though more and more people are using dongles on HDMI that bypass the TV "smarts".
@lauren Ah the idiocy of the FCC. And I should know too. I am a licensed amateur radio operator at the extra class. The FCC is constantly trying to destroy us in favor of giving radio frequencies and bandwidth to corporations.
@lauren That is bad. So many people got generators to watch over the air TV for emergency updates after the hurricane when I was in Texas. If you need Internet for it to work, it ceases to be effective for emergency communications purposes. (Yes, all cables tend to go down in a disaster, along with cellphones/wireless Internet--radio & TV signals travel further & are usually not affected).
@Laplantgenetics Yes, mobile and Internet almost always go down first. Landlines and radio are often all that's left. Another reason to fight attempts to marginalize AM, by the way, which is far more useful in emergencies than FM.
From what I've read, only certain features like on-demand content requires an Internet connection. Anyone can receive an ATSC 3.0 broadcast without it.
@mango_lacroix Wrong. The available external converter boxes appear to require a continuous Internet connection to function at all, including decrypting the free channels.
@lauren in that video, the person says they were able to get unencrypted channels OTA without an Internet connection. He says certain channels required an Internet connection and continued to work after disconnecting the antenna, which to me suggests those channels are streaming via the Internet connection, not that they are OTA and encrypted.
@mango_lacroix You apparently misunderstood. He said he could disconnect the Internet connection after starting an encrypted channel, but then had to reconnect it to tune to a different encrypted channel. Unencrypted channels didn't need the Internet connection to start, but most stations had all their channels encrypted.
@lauren My understanding is that there is no mandate to switch to ATSC3 at all. Also, I have a Tv with an ATSC3 tuner, which doesn’t require any internet connection to function. As for DRM, that always concerns me but I very much doubt that the FCC is going to allow broadcasters on public frequencies to encrypt their signals (at least their main feed) nor would advertisers look favorably on having their ads locked away. We’ve seen pay-tv over broadcast before. It failed miserably.
@genecowan There is no mandate but they're all going to switch. The stampede is the reason the FCC pushed back the year for ATSC 1.0 simulcasting to 2026. External converters that currently exist reportedly require an Internet connection to function at all. Many stations are encrypting all of their 3.0 feeds (including main feeds).
I would take exception to your premise that pay-tv over broadcast failed miserably. It did quite well until CATV was more built out. Here in L.A. we had two of them for many years sharing UHF stations.
@lauren Well, it's interesting that you mention that broadcast pay tv did well until cable was built out, because we are talking about broadcast tv post cable, post-internet and post-OTT. Also, the pay-tv services weren't instead of the regular channel, they were in addition to them.
I can count on one hand the number of people I know who even watch ATSC-1 broadcasts. Even those with limited incomes. I think broadcast tv is desperate for some relevance, and ATSC3 isn't it.
@genecowan Then add one to your list. Because I watch OTA here in L.A., along with streaming. Lots of great stuff on the OTA subchannels. And I know lots of people in the same slot.
@lauren Interesting that in my experience, people I know that actually watch OTA tv are in the higher income brackets while the ones who struggle all have cable. (I watch OTA for live local news when there is something going on like weather.)
@genecowan There's all kinds of combinations. Stats show OTA-only viewers are clearly on the increase though. There are high income people who live in areas where they can't get cable or even mobile service, even here in the L.A. area. Even getting OTA can be a challenge sometimes in some spots, but at least it can usually be done to some extent.
@genecowan Actually, the pay-tv services SHARED channels. The channels ran their regular programming during the day, then in the evening and night switched over to the encrypted pay programming.
@lauren NBC encrypted their broadcast signal in 2014, had to have Comcast Cable to watch Sochi Winter Olympics, 2 years before NBC sold to Comcast. Every world feed’s coverage was better.
@lauren We've had the same in Europe (minus the "needs Internet" thing. which is extremely stupid), with analog sat going to DVB-S to DVB-S2 and analog terrestrial going to DVB-T and DVB-T2 with encryption, so that every 10 years you have to throw out all your gear and buy new stuff. Just thinking about all the e-waste this generates...
@lauren Playing devil's advocate here: Maybe the connection needed is very low bandwidth so it is marginally better than IPTV.
But I'm thankful I'm on the other side of the pod where SD MPEG2 based channels are going to be deprecated and HD h264 based ones have an optional connected functionality that most of standalone decoders don't implement.
@lauren Data is money, so surveillance and subscription enforcement would be my bet. Squeezing out the last dime and controlling the masses. Conspiracy? Look at history and don't behave like another frog in hot water 😷
We use OTA despite having Internet, but you are absolutely 💯% correct to object to DRM on OTA broadcasts as well as the ridiculous of needing an Internet connection for OTA broadcasts.
My understanding is that any broadcaster currently broadcasting ATSC 1.0 will have to keep doing so for at least 3 years from when they started ATSC 3.0 broadcasts, but some stations already meet that requirement (hence the 2026 requirement, they have to keep ATSC 1.0 until then even if 3 years has +
@lauren This is fucked up, but sadly in line with the destruction of public access to television. You knew things were bad when Sesame Street, the very model of right-to-use TV, was being sold on HBO, the very model of TV-as-a-service.
I suspect part of this process is to harvest information from the viewers. The data collected reinforces the ad revenue stream of OTA content.
Once the technology is in place, the data can be used for more than revenue purposes. Just pressure (corrupt) some courts and politicians to create the next monstrosity.
@lauren I guess I'm a cynic b/c I'm sure they have a profit plan buried in there somewhere.
Starting with (reading between the lines) OTA will require a persistent internet connection so they can data mine your viewing habits and serve ads if not in broadcast, elsewhere on the internets.
They know piracy costs are pretty low, and even with encryption someone's gonna dvdcss the series the second it's released to DVD.
Sinclair already has this in a lot of markets, but OTA is currently only in the transmit direction so they can't make you a product.
By this I mean Nielsen is insanely intrusive, but opt in. What if every broadcaster could know what you're watching, when, and possibly how many people in you're household are watching that programme. The dollar signs are staggering
Basically FCC and all can claim internet isn't required for any unencrypted broadcast channels. Except most if not all are going to encrypt. Per the video NBC and other local affiliates are encrypting in their area already.
So just like the mythical $35K Tesla that they never built but claimed you could buy...the result is it's going to be required and ugh.
I probably live in a bubble but I do live in a very rural state. It would be interesting to know how many people (%) still watch OTA. I personally don’t know anyone who does, even amongst the olds (like myself)
@wa7iut Yes, that's a bubble. Vast numbers of people don't have Internet or even mobile service. All they have is OTA. In fact, I also watch OTA along with the alternatives like streaming. Some fascinating stuff on the subchannels, and the local L.A. stations are significant.
@wa7iut They can only guess, since trying to gets stats on OTA is very difficult. Many people refuse to respond to their surveys, and surveys are usually the only way to capture current OTA viewing.
Add comment