6 ms·

What is even the point of a local network affiliate broadcasting an encrypted ATSC signal? Do they really think that they can monetize a local market this way?

xattt 3y ago
It’s because (1) people won’t know where to complain and (2) if they do, regulators seem somewhat inaccessible to ordinary citizens. OTA viewers won’t know what the issue is and move on.
- gorkish 3y ago
  I find it incredibly unlikely that stations are spending the money to upgrade their broadcasts to ATSC 3.0 and maintain and operate the equipment solely to broadcast an encrypted signal that nobody can use.
  - jretcfygv 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
    The big broadcasters would love to get rid of the OTA audience (and send them to subscription platforms). ATSC 3.0 encryption is the perfect way to do that.
- RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
  Complaints would also have limited impact, since the stations have the right to encrypt and are breaking no laws.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
OTA currently circumvents cable and satellite, in which the broadcaster gets re-transmission compensation; and circumvents their OTT delivery systems, in which they can chose to charge for access. OTA viewing, which is currently at about 20% in many major markets, is a threat to this model. If they drop OTA, they lose rights to re-transmission fees. But they can limit OTA if they want. So I think that's why they want to encrypt ATSC 3.0. Side Note: Only the largest broadcasters can demand re-transmission fees. Low-power, public and most independent TV operators don't have this right.
- gorkish 3y ago
  You say if they "drop OTA" but arent the regs all based on "Free to Air" language that an encrypted transmission would not satisfy? This would be like publishing GPG encrypted source code and saying that you are complying with the GPL
  - RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
    In 47 CFR 73.624(b)[1], the FCC requires that broadcasters have at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers. That one channel could be their home shopping subchannel, while the main ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX subchannels are encrypted. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624#p-73.624(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624...
    - gorkish 3y ago
      Thanks; yours is the only explanation so far that explains where there is a possible economic motivation for the broadcast stations. I find it a little hard to accept that the original intent was to allow such a thing, but that doesn't mean that subsequent changes and standards updates didn't unintentionally allow a loophole. If this is indeed what is happening, there is a very compelling argument to be made to fix it. My worry is since it doesn't appear that anyone got to the root of the problem before going full-media-circus, that all of the complaints to the FCC are now asking for the wrong solution. Honestly, I personally think it's good to get encryption into the ATSC standard; there are applications that can benefit from that. But if what you suggest is true, the stronger argument is to stop allowing a station to receive retransmission revenue for a station they are not broadcasting free-to-air.

xattt 3y ago

It’s because (1) people won’t know where to complain and (2) if they do, regulators seem somewhat inaccessible to ordinary citizens. OTA viewers won’t know what the issue is and move on.

gorkish 3y ago
I find it incredibly unlikely that stations are spending the money to upgrade their broadcasts to ATSC 3.0 and maintain and operate the equipment solely to broadcast an encrypted signal that nobody can use.
- jretcfygv 3y ago
  [flagged]
- RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
  The big broadcasters would love to get rid of the OTA audience (and send them to subscription platforms). ATSC 3.0 encryption is the perfect way to do that.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
Complaints would also have limited impact, since the stations have the right to encrypt and are breaking no laws.

RF_Enthusiast 3y ago

OTA currently circumvents cable and satellite, in which the broadcaster gets re-transmission compensation; and circumvents their OTT delivery systems, in which they can chose to charge for access. OTA viewing, which is currently at about 20% in many major markets, is a threat to this model. If they drop OTA, they lose rights to re-transmission fees. But they can limit OTA if they want. So I think that's why they want to encrypt ATSC 3.0. Side Note: Only the largest broadcasters can demand re-transmission fees. Low-power, public and most independent TV operators don't have this right.

gorkish 3y ago
You say if they "drop OTA" but arent the regs all based on "Free to Air" language that an encrypted transmission would not satisfy? This would be like publishing GPG encrypted source code and saying that you are complying with the GPL
- RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
  In 47 CFR 73.624(b)[1], the FCC requires that broadcasters have at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers. That one channel could be their home shopping subchannel, while the main ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX subchannels are encrypted. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624#p-73.624(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624...
  - gorkish 3y ago
    Thanks; yours is the only explanation so far that explains where there is a possible economic motivation for the broadcast stations. I find it a little hard to accept that the original intent was to allow such a thing, but that doesn't mean that subsequent changes and standards updates didn't unintentionally allow a loophole. If this is indeed what is happening, there is a very compelling argument to be made to fix it. My worry is since it doesn't appear that anyone got to the root of the problem before going full-media-circus, that all of the complaints to the FCC are now asking for the wrong solution. Honestly, I personally think it's good to get encryption into the ATSC standard; there are applications that can benefit from that. But if what you suggest is true, the stronger argument is to stop allowing a station to receive retransmission revenue for a station they are not broadcasting free-to-air.