16 ms·

How will ATSC 3.0 transform TV advertising?

65 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago
… sports betting during games will be the killer app.
- syedkarim 3y ago
  That requires a return-channel; this is purely broadcast.
  - parl_match 3y ago
    ATSC 3.0 is not purely broadcast, it supports apps being delivered over broadcast, internet connectivity, and return channel. Did you read the article?
JoshTriplett 3y ago
What are the current statistics for how many people still 1) have broadcast/cable live TV, and 2) actually watch live TV? Hopefully those numbers will continue to go down over time.
- KingLancelot 3y ago
  [dead]
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Cable mostly uses QAM, not ATSC. ATSC is for terrestrial broadcasts in the US.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  This isn't cable TV. This is the free Over-The-Air (OTA) TV. You know, tune to ABC, channel 3 on the dial. The stuff floating around your head right now on VHF/UHF radio waves.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    I'm aware, but was using "cable" somewhat informal/colloquially. I've edited my comment for clarity; the point was really "how many people are still watching live TV".
brian_herman 3y ago
Too little too late.
- parl_match 3y ago
  >20% of American TV watchers still use broadcast TV.
  - jaywalk 3y ago
    That number just seems high. My (obviously very anecdotal) evidence from everyone I know sits at 0%. Even the ones who don't have cable aren't using OTA.
    - dsab 3y ago
      Same story. Even my mother, 50 is watching turkish soap opera online and learning turkish language, because she dont want to wait for official releases or subtitles. This ATSC standard arrived 20 years too late.
    - PhazonJim 3y ago
      IIRC OTA use is climbing. I believe a lot of the market is lower income and/or rural. New user so not sure if I can post a link but a 2022 Nielsen report: > Nielsen divides OTA home into three segments, those with no streaming subscription VOD services (and maybe no broadband); those with SVOD, but without a virtual multichannel video programming distributor, such as Hulu Plus Live TV, YouTube TV or Sling TV; and those with SVOD and vMVPDs. > The largest group uses OTA and SVOD at 9.3% of the country, up from 7.2% in 2018. The OTA homes with vMVPDs rose to 1.9% from 1.2%, while the OTA only home fell to 4.1% from 5.9%. > People in homes that go over-the-air but don’t stream have an average age of 61, only 13% of them have children and their median income is $22,800. > People in homes that combine over-the-air viewing with at least one streaming service have an average age of 45, 40% of them have kids and the median income is $49,000. In the homes that have OTA and a vMVPD, the average age is 49, 35% have children and the median household income is $77,000.
    - bityard 3y ago
graton 3y ago
Related is the fact that encryption is being turned on for ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661524
- pierat 3y ago
  Yes, because shitty-encryption-where-we-give-you-the-keys-but-dont-at-the-same-time has worked so well for.... DVDs, Blu-ray, HD-DVDs Playstation 1,2,3,4,5 games Nintendo SNES,N64,Wii,GameCube, Switch And plenty others. Oh wait, Switch is so bad, that an emulator is already superb, and had a 7 day early leak/release of Zelda, with patches that make it better on computer than Switch. So, I'm not super worried about "shitty encryption".
  - mh- 3y ago
    Encryption can simply be a strategic choice, because it will prevent devices being commercialized that rely on using "stolen" keys to function.
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      > because it will prevent devices being commercialized that rely on using "stolen" keys to function Only if all humanity collectively forgets that China exists.
nu11ptr 3y ago
Am I the only one who thought: Who still watches over-the-air TV? (yes, I know there are some, but it can't be all that many relative to the streaming market)
- jrm4 3y ago
  I do. And the last thing I want is this.
- btgeekboy 3y ago
  I just watched the MLB All-Star game OTA yesterday. We also watched the Jeopardy Masters Tournament a few weeks ago. And we do tend to pick up the local news in small doses just to see what’s up around town. We do stream more than we watch OTA, but when I’m using an antenna I bought almost a decade ago and a HDHomeRun that doesn’t have a recurring cost, it still has its uses.
- e40 3y ago
  I haven't watched over-the-air OR live TV for more than a decade, except I sometimes watch NBA games live (rarely, though, I like to skip commercials and 1/2 time) on YTTV.
- teeray 3y ago
  I wish I could watch OTA TV. Still the cheapest way to watch local market sports.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- midwestemo 3y ago
  For local live events, you can't really beat OTA. ABC/FOX/NBC/CBS is all I really need for TV.
  - jimktrains2 3y ago
    Unless you can't because they aren't broadcast for contractual reasons. E.g. hockey, blacked out football games, &c
kogus 3y ago
Answering questions from the White Clown ala Fahrenheit 451 will finally be possible...
conradfr 3y ago
> dynamic ad insertion plus things like overlays and interactive application ads > “a viewer who gets home at 6:10 pm and wants to watch the entire 6 p.m. local news will be able to ‘start over’ after watching a very short sponsorship message,” > Display ads will also occur whenever a viewer pauses their video feed under Scripps’ ‘Pause Ads’ feature Obviously who doesn't want that when watching a dying media?
toast0 3y ago
I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate, but as of now, the situation seems to be most TVs for sale don't have ATSC 3.0 tuners, Best Buy doesn't even include it as a filter. Of course, the installed base doesn't have them either. I haven't seen any external ATSC 3.0 tuner boxes for sale either. On the enthusiast front, ATSC 3.0 is hard to use, because it includes a new audio codec (AC-4) which is patent encumbered and difficult to use, so while I've got a tuner, I can't use it unless I don't want to hear the programs or I change to a proprietary software stack. Honestly and unfortunately, I think the end of OTA may happen before ATSC 3.0 has enough adoption to transform anything.
- ajross 3y ago
  > I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate Unlikely. There's not enough bandwidth[1] in traditional TV spectrum to be worth the hassle[2]. At its absolute peak of value, broadcast TV is basically a bandwidth optimization on top of the already-very-acceptable streaming video delivery available to everyone at reasonable prices. Would you install a roof antenna for a few bucks a month off your Netflix or Disney bill? Me neither. [1] A quick google says 57Mbps is the maximum per-channel bandwidth in ATSC3, and you only get a dozen or so channels in a metro area without building more giant towers. [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry.
  - toast0 3y ago
    > [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry. Mobile operators can't take it all at once, in part because the TV lobby still exists, in part because it takes years to build out the network to use the spectrum they've already taken. But, at least in the US, this has happened three already: in the 80s, channels 70-83 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2008, channels 52-69 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2016, channels 38-51 were reallocated to cell phones. I'm guessing sometime in the next ten years, 19-36 will be reallocated to cell phones (37 is reserved for radio astronomy). But 2-18 will probably still be used for ATSC 3.0 at that point.
matthewmcg 3y ago
Gross. Unencrypted OTA TV is one of the last areas you can enjoy a modicum of fair use with respect to personal recordings. DVRs, skipping commercials, transcoding to watch on a different device or in a different place. Too bad this is being closed down.
pierat 3y ago
Cool. Add this to "Yet another reason why I pirate". Nobody EXCEPT the parasitic data miners/advertisement class want this. I'm certainly never going to entertain hooking up a internet connection for continual adverts and data mining to a TV tuner. Fuck that, no way. Torrents, Usenet, and DVDs have everything I could ever want. And that list is also decreasing.
- notatoad 3y ago
  >Nobody EXCEPT the parasitic data miners/advertisement class want this they might not want this specifically, but there's a whole lot of people out there who want free TV, whatever the easiest way to get it is.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Except the current standard of ATSC 2 provides free OTA TV without the datamining and personalized ads. It's not like the choices are ATSC 3 or we cannot figure anything out.
    - LocalH 3y ago
      I mean, those are effectively the choices, since the major impetus for ATSC 3 is the encryption. I'd honestly be fine with it if it were things like major sports events and other network programming that were going to be encrypted, but individual broadcasters (whether station group owned or not) are probably not likely to set things up where they can selectively encrypt, I expect most channels that broadcast any encrypted content will have the switch flipped to encryption 100% of the time. It should be illegal to encrypt OTA news and local interest programming.
      - joecool1029 3y ago
        > I'd honestly be fine with it if it were things like major sports events Why? These are heavily subsidized by taxpayer money and the broadcasters are already making money off advertising on these events. > It should be illegal to encrypt OTA news and local interest programming. It was on hybrid cable systems, (analog and digital channels). Since they went all-digital they lobbied and got the FCC to make it legal to encrypt broadcast stations: https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryption-prohibition https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryp...
lxe 3y ago
This is just combining broadcast with internet-based streaming into some weird convoluted mess for the purpose of "targeted advertisement". Which as a concept just needs to go away.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
Whats "TV"? What does it need advertising for?
deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
Sometimes I read an article and think the Amish might be the last hope for humanity.
- E39M5S62 3y ago
  If you ignore the physical and emotional abuse directed at women and children, sure.
kmeisthax 3y ago
Wait, how? I assume this is all enabled by having the tuner also connect to the Internet and then switch the viewer off of the actual video stream in favor of specific inserts. Why not just... have an Internet stream?
tgorgolione 3y ago
I see a lot of impressions on this post that antenna tv is a dying, but I think there's potential for antenna tv usage to go up. As a value proposition, you have an initial cost of $50-$300 (depending on what kind of reception you get and what features you want, like DVR), but if you consider basic cable these days being $20/mo it's a nice way to save money on the one thing you can't get fully yet - live news and sports. Also, if we are allowed by the broadcast overlords, you can DVR movies and tv shows and keep a library for yourself without another subscription. I have an antenna at home but I don't use it primarily because I get poor reception. ATSC 3.0 has been proven to fix this in many cases, so I'm hopeful this could be a great way for many people to save money.
- noahtallen 3y ago
  > As a value proposition, you have an initial cost of $50-$300 You can get a cheap antenna off Amazon for $10-$20, and even my budget-oriented TCL Roku TV has a built-in tuner. In cities, this works pretty well! I don’t think many young people realize this is just available to everyone basically for free.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    Anything that calls itself a "TV" has to have a tuner. I bought my current Vizio in the period where they were omitting them and selling as "displays" but they've since switched back to just being TVs again and including the tuners.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > In cities, this works pretty well! Not in my city. You have to be lucky enough to live in a neighborhood where the signal actually reaches. My decidedly not scientific observation is that's about 75% of the city.
- cogman10 3y ago
  This is certainly not going to help the industry. It was already hard enough to kill off NTSC. Now, with ATSC 3.0 they want anyone that's still watching OTA to also need to provide internet access to their receiver so it can give them advertisements? Have you watched the ads for OTA content? They are all geared towards geriatrics. That's because almost nobody under 60 is watching OTA (except maybe exceptions like you and I that don't mind older TV shows and are willing to DVR it). So, for a media format primarily consumed by geriatric people the new standard proposes they now need a functional internet connection hooked up just to watch M*A*S*H. The previous standards just needed a coax cable hooked up to an antenna. I love that ATSC 3.0 uses better codecs. But, it's really dumb that they added the internet backend requirement. The entire point of OTA is you don't want to stream stuff over the internet.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
I would be more ok with this if copyright was still in the realm of reason (they probably got it right with the original 14 year term). This just seems like yet another abuse of government mandated monopoly to milk yet more unjust profit out of everyone at the expense of the public good.
xur17 3y ago
> “When TV stations broadcast in ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 3.0-enabled TV sets connected to the web, all of this interactivity becomes available over the air for live linear broadcasts.” So we're going to straddle both OTA and internet streaming.. At what point will OTA content providers give up and just allow users to stream the content over the internet for free? I imagine the vast majority of people have internet at this point, it would likely get your more people watching your ads, it frees up spectrum for other uses, and arguably would be cheaper (since bandwidth is cheap and antennas are expensive).
- water9 3y ago
  Its unique design allows broadcasters to send data to several users concurrently through a single signal. To transmit 1 GB of data to 1 million consumers with ATSC 3.0, broadcasters only need one-millionth of the capacity required by broadband.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bob-09 3y ago
  In my market, most local TV stations stream through their own app. OTA serves the users that struggle to understand how to get a TV antenna working properly, let alone an app or IPTV device. Local advertisers also like the assurance that their ad dollars aren’t being wasted on out-of-market viewers. OTA provides that naturally.
- teeray 3y ago
  > it frees up spectrum for other uses Right now, even though this spectrum is commercial, it still serves as more-or-less a public service that can be consumed for only the cost of a tuner and a TV. Streaming that same content over the Internet then incurs monthly costs for the connection that previously weren't present. Beyond the added monthly OPEX to consume that content, chances are good that spectrum would be snatched up by telcos for 8G to resell to you rather than for a similar semi-public benefit.
vvpan 3y ago
I am blown away that we, as human species, drive our world with advertising. It feels like cromagnon stuff.
- usrnm 3y ago
  But we are the same species as cromagnons, not sure what you mean
  - geodel 3y ago
    I think it just means that cromagnons were real tech-bros.
CamperBob2 3y ago
NTSC, 1950: "Hey, it looks like we can create a compatible color broadcast standard by modulating the carrier phase relative to an initial subcarrier burst at the beginning of each scanline. Nifty!" ATSC, 2023: "Hey, it looks like we can sell more crap by force-feeding each viewer a targeted ad break for their specific targeting profile. Kewl beanz!" And people wonder why I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords...
gwbas1c 3y ago
This just doesn't make sense. If a broadcast is telling a TV to redirect to an internet stream; why not just go straight to the internet stream? That OTA spectrum is valuable... Also: It seems like whoever's pushing this forgot that people are really, really getting sick of ads. A major part of the rise of online streaming is... Lack of ads. The whole article looks like one of those "pie in the sky" tech utopia visions that never pans out.
- bityard 3y ago
  > A major part of the rise of online streaming is... Lack of ads. Sorry but ads are the new normal when subscribing to most streaming services. Netflix CEO in 2019: "Netflix will never have ads." Three years later, Netflix is "excited" to launch an ad-supported tier. This came shortly after a price jump on all of its plans, of course. We pay for Amazon Prime ($140/yr) more for the streaming than the "free" shipping or other perks. But increasingly, more and more content in the Prime library can only be "rented" or "bought", or watched "free with ads." The quality of the content that is available to watch "with Prime" (i.e. without paying even more) is going steadily downhill. The bargain DVD bin at my local grocery store has a better selection. We also have occasional access to Hulu, Disney, Peacock and whatever else through friends and family and it seems like the shows on all of these have ads on them. (Or at least most of them do?) I was quite happy to pay a monthly fee to watch stuff ad-free. Now since that is quickly not becoming an option, I may have to pull my wooden leg and eye patch out of storage.
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    > I was quite happy to pay a monthly fee to watch stuff ad-free. Now since that is quickly not becoming an option, I may have to pull my wooden leg and eye patch out of storage. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't deal with ads on Amazon, Netflix, Disney+, or YouTube. The thing is, there is significantly more content that I want to watch than I have time to watch. So, if something requires ads, or another subscription, I just watch something else. I totally understand going back to piracy.
- dylan604 3y ago
defparam 3y ago
These lobbyists who drive specifications for OTA TV and CableTV are basically at the point of being a hammer looking for a nail. Cable/OTA TV is a dying medium (especially with newer generations) and with these tone-deaf advertisement solutions the only nails they are hammering are the ones to their coffin.
pizzalife 3y ago
This sounds like a security nightmare.
jdofaz 3y ago
I've had an HD Homerun with ATSC3 for a couple years now, but I haven't yet seen an ATSC3 TV in person. This sounds complicated to implement compared to "ordinary" digital broadcasts, what is the incentive for TV manufacturers to implement it? It seems like every tv maker has their own plans for streaming and ad tracking, I would think they would view implementing ATSC3 as helping the competition.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
Historically, I've been a huge fan of OTA TV, but I just can't watch it anymore, because it's primarily an ad delivery platform. Even newscasts have home shopping segments now. The only exception is Public TV, as they are prohibited from interrupting a program for sponsor underwriting acknowledgement [1]. The major broadcasters (meaning full power commercial licensees with network affiliations only) have the legal ability to charge cable and satellite retransmission fees [2]. That means that they can monetize (1) cable, (2) satellite, and (3) their own OTT services beyond advertising. However, 20 percent still watch free OTA TV, which is a wrench in the spokes of their funding model. The major broadcasters lose their statutory right to retransmission fees if they drop OTA broadcasts. So they next best thing they can do is switch to ATSC 3.0, and enable encryption, which would effectively kill off that 20%, who they would hope go to cable, satellite, or their own OTT service that they can charge for at their discretion. It's my opinion that, in cases involving the major broadcasters, ATSC 3.0 has the upside of killing off OTA viewing and that is the reason why the major broadcasters like it. [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621#p-73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621... [2] https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/retransmission-consent https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/retransmission-consent
ralph84 3y ago
OTA would die overnight if it had to pay market rate for the spectrum it occupies. I’m sure their lobbyists paint the sad picture of a blaring TV being the only connection to society for lonely seniors, but maybe there are better ways to solve the lonely seniors problem?
joewrong 3y ago
I'd like to see open source solutions for blocking OTA TV ads
Dwedit 3y ago
Over the Air broadcasts are not worth watching, unless your goal is to watch a bunch of commercials with the occasional program.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kmbfjr 3y ago
I worked on the original NTSC to ATSC conversion at three stations. ATSC 3.0 is dead. There are no market incentives for uptake like the original conversion, no deadlines and zero incentive for broadcasters to produce or pay for compelling content. The standard is written so broadcasters can compete with big tech, but what are they going to show, local news and M*A*S*H?
- nikanj 3y ago
  OTA TV is for old people, so they're going to show what old people want to watch: Fox Newsian "democrats bad, kids lazy, black people criminals" drivel 24/7
  - rootbear 3y ago
    I am an old person and your notions of what we watch are insultingly uninformed. I have played around with OTA on my upstairs TV, where the signal is better, and it's fine for local news, PBS, etc., but I rarely watch much else on it. And I never, ever, watch Fox "News".
    - tasty_freeze 3y ago
      I'm at the very tail end of the "boomer" generation, 1964. I laugh at the people who blame everything on boomers and things will be a lot better when they all die off. What that fail to recognize is that in time, their generation will have power and the types of people attracted to power will be the same as with the boomers. There will still be racists (Nick Fuentes); there will still be greedy corporate overlords who profit off of sick people (Martin Shkreli); there will still be scam peddlers dressed up in sheep's clothing (Sam Bankman-Fried); there will still be political grifters making life worse for everyone (have your pick).
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  Thankfully, outside of the US and a few neighbours nobody took up ATSC.
zac23or 3y ago
I tried watching some American talk shows. On some talk shows, every minute is an advertisement. In addition to the normal commercials, the interviewee is usually selling something. And the host (Jimmy Fallon is the worst) is always trying to be funny, sympathetic to the excruciating point, being kind of a AD himself. It's unwatchable. I can't imagine talk shows with ATSC 3.0...
charonn0 3y ago
> The arrival of ATSC 3.0/NextGen TV—and its ability to combine broadcast with IP—has the potential to transform TV commercials from one-way mass-market blasts to two-way personalized interactive experiences. Why would anyone want this? Why would anyone purchase a television with this ability?
FounderBurr 3y ago
I won’t be having any ‘interactive two way interactions’ with advertisers. If I wanted to talk to them I would contact them. Go away.
wkat4242 3y ago
Live TV has already been transformed to no longer exist for me. I haven't seen any point in subscribing to a channel package for that ad-ridden slush they provide. I get my news from the internet and I stream or download my entertainment. There's nothing left on live TV to even tune in for. I know some of my friends keep it to watch sports which I have zero interest in. I guess that's a bit harder to replace TV services for if you're into that. In fact because I block ads (+sponsorblock) on the internet without exception, use almost no social media, don't watch live TV and download everything else, my life is pretty much ad-free which is really relaxing <3
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
What a sickening betrayal of the idea of broadcasting. This morphs a pure & simple public thing into a closed infernal machine, another demented tool of control. Prescriptivism & control all the way down. For shame. It's so sad to see infinite endless stories of humanity being overrun by select groups of scum, who will use technology to hold us all hostage forever. This is not the way. We need to teach some modern technical civics in schools. The technological society just being forever more exploited needs push back. Let's get some Ursala Franklin in our schoolbooks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_prescriptive_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_p...
constantcrying 3y ago
>two-way personalized interactive experiences. Thank you for another reason I will never watch TV.

65 points by 1970-01-01 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago

… sports betting during games will be the killer app.

syedkarim 3y ago
That requires a return-channel; this is purely broadcast.
- parl_match 3y ago
  ATSC 3.0 is not purely broadcast, it supports apps being delivered over broadcast, internet connectivity, and return channel. Did you read the article?

JoshTriplett 3y ago

What are the current statistics for how many people still 1) have broadcast/cable live TV, and 2) actually watch live TV? Hopefully those numbers will continue to go down over time.

KingLancelot 3y ago
[dead]
aidenn0 3y ago
Cable mostly uses QAM, not ATSC. ATSC is for terrestrial broadcasts in the US.
HWR_14 3y ago
This isn't cable TV. This is the free Over-The-Air (OTA) TV. You know, tune to ABC, channel 3 on the dial. The stuff floating around your head right now on VHF/UHF radio waves.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  I'm aware, but was using "cable" somewhat informal/colloquially. I've edited my comment for clarity; the point was really "how many people are still watching live TV".

brian_herman 3y ago

Too little too late.

parl_match 3y ago
>20% of American TV watchers still use broadcast TV.
- jaywalk 3y ago
  That number just seems high. My (obviously very anecdotal) evidence from everyone I know sits at 0%. Even the ones who don't have cable aren't using OTA.
  - dsab 3y ago
    Same story. Even my mother, 50 is watching turkish soap opera online and learning turkish language, because she dont want to wait for official releases or subtitles. This ATSC standard arrived 20 years too late.
  - PhazonJim 3y ago
    IIRC OTA use is climbing. I believe a lot of the market is lower income and/or rural. New user so not sure if I can post a link but a 2022 Nielsen report: > Nielsen divides OTA home into three segments, those with no streaming subscription VOD services (and maybe no broadband); those with SVOD, but without a virtual multichannel video programming distributor, such as Hulu Plus Live TV, YouTube TV or Sling TV; and those with SVOD and vMVPDs. > The largest group uses OTA and SVOD at 9.3% of the country, up from 7.2% in 2018. The OTA homes with vMVPDs rose to 1.9% from 1.2%, while the OTA only home fell to 4.1% from 5.9%. > People in homes that go over-the-air but don’t stream have an average age of 61, only 13% of them have children and their median income is $22,800. > People in homes that combine over-the-air viewing with at least one streaming service have an average age of 45, 40% of them have kids and the median income is $49,000. In the homes that have OTA and a vMVPD, the average age is 49, 35% have children and the median household income is $77,000.
  - bityard 3y ago

graton 3y ago

Related is the fact that encryption is being turned on for ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661524

pierat 3y ago
Yes, because shitty-encryption-where-we-give-you-the-keys-but-dont-at-the-same-time has worked so well for.... DVDs, Blu-ray, HD-DVDs Playstation 1,2,3,4,5 games Nintendo SNES,N64,Wii,GameCube, Switch And plenty others. Oh wait, Switch is so bad, that an emulator is already superb, and had a 7 day early leak/release of Zelda, with patches that make it better on computer than Switch. So, I'm not super worried about "shitty encryption".
- mh- 3y ago
  Encryption can simply be a strategic choice, because it will prevent devices being commercialized that rely on using "stolen" keys to function.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    > because it will prevent devices being commercialized that rely on using "stolen" keys to function Only if all humanity collectively forgets that China exists.

nu11ptr 3y ago

Am I the only one who thought: Who still watches over-the-air TV? (yes, I know there are some, but it can't be all that many relative to the streaming market)

jrm4 3y ago
I do. And the last thing I want is this.
btgeekboy 3y ago
I just watched the MLB All-Star game OTA yesterday. We also watched the Jeopardy Masters Tournament a few weeks ago. And we do tend to pick up the local news in small doses just to see what’s up around town. We do stream more than we watch OTA, but when I’m using an antenna I bought almost a decade ago and a HDHomeRun that doesn’t have a recurring cost, it still has its uses.
e40 3y ago
I haven't watched over-the-air OR live TV for more than a decade, except I sometimes watch NBA games live (rarely, though, I like to skip commercials and 1/2 time) on YTTV.
teeray 3y ago
I wish I could watch OTA TV. Still the cheapest way to watch local market sports.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
midwestemo 3y ago
For local live events, you can't really beat OTA. ABC/FOX/NBC/CBS is all I really need for TV.
- jimktrains2 3y ago
  Unless you can't because they aren't broadcast for contractual reasons. E.g. hockey, blacked out football games, &c

kogus 3y ago

Answering questions from the White Clown ala Fahrenheit 451 will finally be possible...

conradfr 3y ago

> dynamic ad insertion plus things like overlays and interactive application ads > “a viewer who gets home at 6:10 pm and wants to watch the entire 6 p.m. local news will be able to ‘start over’ after watching a very short sponsorship message,” > Display ads will also occur whenever a viewer pauses their video feed under Scripps’ ‘Pause Ads’ feature Obviously who doesn't want that when watching a dying media?

toast0 3y ago

I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate, but as of now, the situation seems to be most TVs for sale don't have ATSC 3.0 tuners, Best Buy doesn't even include it as a filter. Of course, the installed base doesn't have them either. I haven't seen any external ATSC 3.0 tuner boxes for sale either. On the enthusiast front, ATSC 3.0 is hard to use, because it includes a new audio codec (AC-4) which is patent encumbered and difficult to use, so while I've got a tuner, I can't use it unless I don't want to hear the programs or I change to a proprietary software stack. Honestly and unfortunately, I think the end of OTA may happen before ATSC 3.0 has enough adoption to transform anything.

ajross 3y ago
> I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate Unlikely. There's not enough bandwidth[1] in traditional TV spectrum to be worth the hassle[2]. At its absolute peak of value, broadcast TV is basically a bandwidth optimization on top of the already-very-acceptable streaming video delivery available to everyone at reasonable prices. Would you install a roof antenna for a few bucks a month off your Netflix or Disney bill? Me neither. [1] A quick google says 57Mbps is the maximum per-channel bandwidth in ATSC3, and you only get a dozen or so channels in a metro area without building more giant towers. [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry.
- toast0 3y ago
  > [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry. Mobile operators can't take it all at once, in part because the TV lobby still exists, in part because it takes years to build out the network to use the spectrum they've already taken. But, at least in the US, this has happened three already: in the 80s, channels 70-83 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2008, channels 52-69 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2016, channels 38-51 were reallocated to cell phones. I'm guessing sometime in the next ten years, 19-36 will be reallocated to cell phones (37 is reserved for radio astronomy). But 2-18 will probably still be used for ATSC 3.0 at that point.

matthewmcg 3y ago

Gross. Unencrypted OTA TV is one of the last areas you can enjoy a modicum of fair use with respect to personal recordings. DVRs, skipping commercials, transcoding to watch on a different device or in a different place. Too bad this is being closed down.

pierat 3y ago

Cool. Add this to "Yet another reason why I pirate". Nobody EXCEPT the parasitic data miners/advertisement class want this. I'm certainly never going to entertain hooking up a internet connection for continual adverts and data mining to a TV tuner. Fuck that, no way. Torrents, Usenet, and DVDs have everything I could ever want. And that list is also decreasing.

notatoad 3y ago
>Nobody EXCEPT the parasitic data miners/advertisement class want this they might not want this specifically, but there's a whole lot of people out there who want free TV, whatever the easiest way to get it is.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Except the current standard of ATSC 2 provides free OTA TV without the datamining and personalized ads. It's not like the choices are ATSC 3 or we cannot figure anything out.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    I mean, those are effectively the choices, since the major impetus for ATSC 3 is the encryption. I'd honestly be fine with it if it were things like major sports events and other network programming that were going to be encrypted, but individual broadcasters (whether station group owned or not) are probably not likely to set things up where they can selectively encrypt, I expect most channels that broadcast any encrypted content will have the switch flipped to encryption 100% of the time. It should be illegal to encrypt OTA news and local interest programming.
    - joecool1029 3y ago
      > I'd honestly be fine with it if it were things like major sports events Why? These are heavily subsidized by taxpayer money and the broadcasters are already making money off advertising on these events. > It should be illegal to encrypt OTA news and local interest programming. It was on hybrid cable systems, (analog and digital channels). Since they went all-digital they lobbied and got the FCC to make it legal to encrypt broadcast stations: https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryption-prohibition https://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryp...

lxe 3y ago

This is just combining broadcast with internet-based streaming into some weird convoluted mess for the purpose of "targeted advertisement". Which as a concept just needs to go away.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

Whats "TV"? What does it need advertising for?

deepsquirrelnet 3y ago

Sometimes I read an article and think the Amish might be the last hope for humanity.

E39M5S62 3y ago
If you ignore the physical and emotional abuse directed at women and children, sure.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Wait, how? I assume this is all enabled by having the tuner also connect to the Internet and then switch the viewer off of the actual video stream in favor of specific inserts. Why not just... have an Internet stream?

tgorgolione 3y ago

I see a lot of impressions on this post that antenna tv is a dying, but I think there's potential for antenna tv usage to go up. As a value proposition, you have an initial cost of $50-$300 (depending on what kind of reception you get and what features you want, like DVR), but if you consider basic cable these days being $20/mo it's a nice way to save money on the one thing you can't get fully yet - live news and sports. Also, if we are allowed by the broadcast overlords, you can DVR movies and tv shows and keep a library for yourself without another subscription. I have an antenna at home but I don't use it primarily because I get poor reception. ATSC 3.0 has been proven to fix this in many cases, so I'm hopeful this could be a great way for many people to save money.

noahtallen 3y ago
> As a value proposition, you have an initial cost of $50-$300 You can get a cheap antenna off Amazon for $10-$20, and even my budget-oriented TCL Roku TV has a built-in tuner. In cities, this works pretty well! I don’t think many young people realize this is just available to everyone basically for free.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  Anything that calls itself a "TV" has to have a tuner. I bought my current Vizio in the period where they were omitting them and selling as "displays" but they've since switched back to just being TVs again and including the tuners.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > In cities, this works pretty well! Not in my city. You have to be lucky enough to live in a neighborhood where the signal actually reaches. My decidedly not scientific observation is that's about 75% of the city.
cogman10 3y ago
This is certainly not going to help the industry. It was already hard enough to kill off NTSC. Now, with ATSC 3.0 they want anyone that's still watching OTA to also need to provide internet access to their receiver so it can give them advertisements? Have you watched the ads for OTA content? They are all geared towards geriatrics. That's because almost nobody under 60 is watching OTA (except maybe exceptions like you and I that don't mind older TV shows and are willing to DVR it). So, for a media format primarily consumed by geriatric people the new standard proposes they now need a functional internet connection hooked up just to watch M*A*S*H. The previous standards just needed a coax cable hooked up to an antenna. I love that ATSC 3.0 uses better codecs. But, it's really dumb that they added the internet backend requirement. The entire point of OTA is you don't want to stream stuff over the internet.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

I would be more ok with this if copyright was still in the realm of reason (they probably got it right with the original 14 year term). This just seems like yet another abuse of government mandated monopoly to milk yet more unjust profit out of everyone at the expense of the public good.

xur17 3y ago

> “When TV stations broadcast in ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 3.0-enabled TV sets connected to the web, all of this interactivity becomes available over the air for live linear broadcasts.” So we're going to straddle both OTA and internet streaming.. At what point will OTA content providers give up and just allow users to stream the content over the internet for free? I imagine the vast majority of people have internet at this point, it would likely get your more people watching your ads, it frees up spectrum for other uses, and arguably would be cheaper (since bandwidth is cheap and antennas are expensive).

water9 3y ago
Its unique design allows broadcasters to send data to several users concurrently through a single signal. To transmit 1 GB of data to 1 million consumers with ATSC 3.0, broadcasters only need one-millionth of the capacity required by broadband.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bob-09 3y ago
In my market, most local TV stations stream through their own app. OTA serves the users that struggle to understand how to get a TV antenna working properly, let alone an app or IPTV device. Local advertisers also like the assurance that their ad dollars aren’t being wasted on out-of-market viewers. OTA provides that naturally.
teeray 3y ago
> it frees up spectrum for other uses Right now, even though this spectrum is commercial, it still serves as more-or-less a public service that can be consumed for only the cost of a tuner and a TV. Streaming that same content over the Internet then incurs monthly costs for the connection that previously weren't present. Beyond the added monthly OPEX to consume that content, chances are good that spectrum would be snatched up by telcos for 8G to resell to you rather than for a similar semi-public benefit.

vvpan 3y ago

I am blown away that we, as human species, drive our world with advertising. It feels like cromagnon stuff.

usrnm 3y ago
But we are the same species as cromagnons, not sure what you mean
- geodel 3y ago
  I think it just means that cromagnons were real tech-bros.

CamperBob2 3y ago

NTSC, 1950: "Hey, it looks like we can create a compatible color broadcast standard by modulating the carrier phase relative to an initial subcarrier burst at the beginning of each scanline. Nifty!" ATSC, 2023: "Hey, it looks like we can sell more crap by force-feeding each viewer a targeted ad break for their specific targeting profile. Kewl beanz!" And people wonder why I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords...

gwbas1c 3y ago

This just doesn't make sense. If a broadcast is telling a TV to redirect to an internet stream; why not just go straight to the internet stream? That OTA spectrum is valuable... Also: It seems like whoever's pushing this forgot that people are really, really getting sick of ads. A major part of the rise of online streaming is... Lack of ads. The whole article looks like one of those "pie in the sky" tech utopia visions that never pans out.

bityard 3y ago
> A major part of the rise of online streaming is... Lack of ads. Sorry but ads are the new normal when subscribing to most streaming services. Netflix CEO in 2019: "Netflix will never have ads." Three years later, Netflix is "excited" to launch an ad-supported tier. This came shortly after a price jump on all of its plans, of course. We pay for Amazon Prime ($140/yr) more for the streaming than the "free" shipping or other perks. But increasingly, more and more content in the Prime library can only be "rented" or "bought", or watched "free with ads." The quality of the content that is available to watch "with Prime" (i.e. without paying even more) is going steadily downhill. The bargain DVD bin at my local grocery store has a better selection. We also have occasional access to Hulu, Disney, Peacock and whatever else through friends and family and it seems like the shows on all of these have ads on them. (Or at least most of them do?) I was quite happy to pay a monthly fee to watch stuff ad-free. Now since that is quickly not becoming an option, I may have to pull my wooden leg and eye patch out of storage.
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  > I was quite happy to pay a monthly fee to watch stuff ad-free. Now since that is quickly not becoming an option, I may have to pull my wooden leg and eye patch out of storage. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't deal with ads on Amazon, Netflix, Disney+, or YouTube. The thing is, there is significantly more content that I want to watch than I have time to watch. So, if something requires ads, or another subscription, I just watch something else. I totally understand going back to piracy.
dylan604 3y ago

defparam 3y ago

These lobbyists who drive specifications for OTA TV and CableTV are basically at the point of being a hammer looking for a nail. Cable/OTA TV is a dying medium (especially with newer generations) and with these tone-deaf advertisement solutions the only nails they are hammering are the ones to their coffin.

pizzalife 3y ago

This sounds like a security nightmare.

jdofaz 3y ago

I've had an HD Homerun with ATSC3 for a couple years now, but I haven't yet seen an ATSC3 TV in person. This sounds complicated to implement compared to "ordinary" digital broadcasts, what is the incentive for TV manufacturers to implement it? It seems like every tv maker has their own plans for streaming and ad tracking, I would think they would view implementing ATSC3 as helping the competition.

RF_Enthusiast 3y ago

Historically, I've been a huge fan of OTA TV, but I just can't watch it anymore, because it's primarily an ad delivery platform. Even newscasts have home shopping segments now. The only exception is Public TV, as they are prohibited from interrupting a program for sponsor underwriting acknowledgement [1]. The major broadcasters (meaning full power commercial licensees with network affiliations only) have the legal ability to charge cable and satellite retransmission fees [2]. That means that they can monetize (1) cable, (2) satellite, and (3) their own OTT services beyond advertising. However, 20 percent still watch free OTA TV, which is a wrench in the spokes of their funding model. The major broadcasters lose their statutory right to retransmission fees if they drop OTA broadcasts. So they next best thing they can do is switch to ATSC 3.0, and enable encryption, which would effectively kill off that 20%, who they would hope go to cable, satellite, or their own OTT service that they can charge for at their discretion. It's my opinion that, in cases involving the major broadcasters, ATSC 3.0 has the upside of killing off OTA viewing and that is the reason why the major broadcasters like it. [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621#p-73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621... [2] https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/retransmission-consent https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/retransmission-consent

ralph84 3y ago

OTA would die overnight if it had to pay market rate for the spectrum it occupies. I’m sure their lobbyists paint the sad picture of a blaring TV being the only connection to society for lonely seniors, but maybe there are better ways to solve the lonely seniors problem?

joewrong 3y ago

I'd like to see open source solutions for blocking OTA TV ads

Dwedit 3y ago

Over the Air broadcasts are not worth watching, unless your goal is to watch a bunch of commercials with the occasional program.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kmbfjr 3y ago

I worked on the original NTSC to ATSC conversion at three stations. ATSC 3.0 is dead. There are no market incentives for uptake like the original conversion, no deadlines and zero incentive for broadcasters to produce or pay for compelling content. The standard is written so broadcasters can compete with big tech, but what are they going to show, local news and M*A*S*H?

nikanj 3y ago
OTA TV is for old people, so they're going to show what old people want to watch: Fox Newsian "democrats bad, kids lazy, black people criminals" drivel 24/7
- rootbear 3y ago
  I am an old person and your notions of what we watch are insultingly uninformed. I have played around with OTA on my upstairs TV, where the signal is better, and it's fine for local news, PBS, etc., but I rarely watch much else on it. And I never, ever, watch Fox "News".
  - tasty_freeze 3y ago
    I'm at the very tail end of the "boomer" generation, 1964. I laugh at the people who blame everything on boomers and things will be a lot better when they all die off. What that fail to recognize is that in time, their generation will have power and the types of people attracted to power will be the same as with the boomers. There will still be racists (Nick Fuentes); there will still be greedy corporate overlords who profit off of sick people (Martin Shkreli); there will still be scam peddlers dressed up in sheep's clothing (Sam Bankman-Fried); there will still be political grifters making life worse for everyone (have your pick).
TheHappyOddish 3y ago
Thankfully, outside of the US and a few neighbours nobody took up ATSC.

zac23or 3y ago

I tried watching some American talk shows. On some talk shows, every minute is an advertisement. In addition to the normal commercials, the interviewee is usually selling something. And the host (Jimmy Fallon is the worst) is always trying to be funny, sympathetic to the excruciating point, being kind of a AD himself. It's unwatchable. I can't imagine talk shows with ATSC 3.0...

charonn0 3y ago

> The arrival of ATSC 3.0/NextGen TV—and its ability to combine broadcast with IP—has the potential to transform TV commercials from one-way mass-market blasts to two-way personalized interactive experiences. Why would anyone want this? Why would anyone purchase a television with this ability?

FounderBurr 3y ago

I won’t be having any ‘interactive two way interactions’ with advertisers. If I wanted to talk to them I would contact them. Go away.

wkat4242 3y ago

Live TV has already been transformed to no longer exist for me. I haven't seen any point in subscribing to a channel package for that ad-ridden slush they provide. I get my news from the internet and I stream or download my entertainment. There's nothing left on live TV to even tune in for. I know some of my friends keep it to watch sports which I have zero interest in. I guess that's a bit harder to replace TV services for if you're into that. In fact because I block ads (+sponsorblock) on the internet without exception, use almost no social media, don't watch live TV and download everything else, my life is pretty much ad-free which is really relaxing <3

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

What a sickening betrayal of the idea of broadcasting. This morphs a pure & simple public thing into a closed infernal machine, another demented tool of control. Prescriptivism & control all the way down. For shame. It's so sad to see infinite endless stories of humanity being overrun by select groups of scum, who will use technology to hold us all hostage forever. This is not the way. We need to teach some modern technical civics in schools. The technological society just being forever more exploited needs push back. Let's get some Ursala Franklin in our schoolbooks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_prescriptive_technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#Holistic_and_p...

constantcrying 3y ago

>two-way personalized interactive experiences. Thank you for another reason I will never watch TV.