Team Behind NextGen ATSC 3.0 OTA TV Explains Why DRM Is Needed for Free OTA TV(cordcuttersnews.com)
cordcuttersnews.com
Team Behind NextGen ATSC 3.0 OTA TV Explains Why DRM Is Needed for Free OTA TV
https://cordcuttersnews.com/the-team-behind-nextgen-atsc-3-0-ota-tv-explains-why-drm-is-needed-for-free-ota-tv/
8 comments
"The browser is integral to the operating system; it cannot be removed."
I'd rather they open the spectrum up for unlicensed use than do this.
If they’re going to require an Internet connection to watch broadcast TV, the 500-608 MHz spectrum might as well be turned over to broadband (likely 5G NR). Broadcasters now make the majority of their revenue from retransmission fees from cable TV. They have been divesting from antenna TV by focusing content production on their cable TV channels and leaving reruns for antenna TV channels.
It should be illegal to use this for news, local interest, and educational programming. Have you seen any channels that have enabled encryption that haven't done it wholesale?
There should also be a maximum amount of time per day that can be encrypted.
I hope ATSC 3.0 fails miserably, and those responsible lose heaps of money. I also hope someone cracks the key derivation process.
There should also be a maximum amount of time per day that can be encrypted.
I hope ATSC 3.0 fails miserably, and those responsible lose heaps of money. I also hope someone cracks the key derivation process.
> Along with improved reception, interactivity and advanced emergency information capability comes a security mechanism to prevent disruptions and content theft.
So it's not Free OTA TV that needs this. It's the industry that wants to control Free OTA TV like cable companies do.
I would have been more likely persuaded with a good faith argument along the lines of broadcasts of non-DRM content will decrease vs DRM delivery. So to keep Free OTA TV in the running, also implement DRM. That frames it as a want (by all parties) rather than a bogus technical need.
So it's not Free OTA TV that needs this. It's the industry that wants to control Free OTA TV like cable companies do.
I would have been more likely persuaded with a good faith argument along the lines of broadcasts of non-DRM content will decrease vs DRM delivery. So to keep Free OTA TV in the running, also implement DRM. That frames it as a want (by all parties) rather than a bogus technical need.
Get in the frakking sea you villains. Literally millions? So you are going to force some shitty Internet connected DRM scheme on the public airwaves, over something so so so cheap to the industry?
> This security upgrade for television broadcasters is important since unprotected signals can easily be intercepted, “deep faked” and redistributed without permission. Courts have shut down these illegal schemes but it took years and cost the industry millions.
Find a real problem, you awful crooks.
> This security upgrade for television broadcasters is important since unprotected signals can easily be intercepted, “deep faked” and redistributed without permission. Courts have shut down these illegal schemes but it took years and cost the industry millions.
Find a real problem, you awful crooks.
I love that they glommed onto the new terror of the week with "deep faked".
Maybe if people would rather watch the deep fake than what you're showing, you have bad programming.
Hell, given the trajectory from "TV Star" to "legitimate threat to the Republic" (see Kari Lake as well as the leading national brand), maybe deepfaking celebrities is an effective way to scramble dangerous political ambitions.
I actually splashed out good money on an ATSC 3.0 box (the first Kickstarter-style HDHomerun product). I live in a target market. And I've tuned ATSC 3.0 programs like 5 times. The service is still a hairball; Even aside from any DRM shadow, because it uses AC-4 audio, support is spotty. I've been able to watch the ATSC1 broadcasts on scenarios as exotic as "Haiku OS via a web browser" or "Hacked together homebrew software that's a Python/Tk GUI atop mpv", but 3.0 seems to only work with Windows and only if you install a commercial codec... if you want sound.
Right now, there are (checks EPG) 11 ATSC3 offerings available here. Two are marked as "DRM", and all appear to be just ATSC1 channels re-encoded. There has yet to be a killer event or novel channel-- no real "We'll show IMAX movies or the Super Bowl" offering to showcase the promise of ATSC3, which I suspect will mostly be sold to consumers as "Finally broadcast TV in 4K".
All the DRM/connection/internet stuff is going to be very difficult to sell to customers. Even if you ignore that it's creepy or controlling, it's simply not compelling. There's been hacky, clunky interactive TV offerings since the days of Teletext. Prove to a pre-jaded audience this will be better!
Maybe if people would rather watch the deep fake than what you're showing, you have bad programming.
Hell, given the trajectory from "TV Star" to "legitimate threat to the Republic" (see Kari Lake as well as the leading national brand), maybe deepfaking celebrities is an effective way to scramble dangerous political ambitions.
I actually splashed out good money on an ATSC 3.0 box (the first Kickstarter-style HDHomerun product). I live in a target market. And I've tuned ATSC 3.0 programs like 5 times. The service is still a hairball; Even aside from any DRM shadow, because it uses AC-4 audio, support is spotty. I've been able to watch the ATSC1 broadcasts on scenarios as exotic as "Haiku OS via a web browser" or "Hacked together homebrew software that's a Python/Tk GUI atop mpv", but 3.0 seems to only work with Windows and only if you install a commercial codec... if you want sound.
Right now, there are (checks EPG) 11 ATSC3 offerings available here. Two are marked as "DRM", and all appear to be just ATSC1 channels re-encoded. There has yet to be a killer event or novel channel-- no real "We'll show IMAX movies or the Super Bowl" offering to showcase the promise of ATSC3, which I suspect will mostly be sold to consumers as "Finally broadcast TV in 4K".
All the DRM/connection/internet stuff is going to be very difficult to sell to customers. Even if you ignore that it's creepy or controlling, it's simply not compelling. There's been hacky, clunky interactive TV offerings since the days of Teletext. Prove to a pre-jaded audience this will be better!
There is no explanation of need here. Broadcasters want the security feature regardless of effectiveness and consumers will be forced to "upgrade" to devices with hostile features just to receive public airway broadcasts as they do now. No one welcomes more targeted ads with mute disabled. The standard should be shunned on general computing grounds.