NAB Calls For End of ATSC 1.0 (broadbandtvnews.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Broadband TV News: The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the agency to establish a clear, industry-wide transition plan for the full deployment of Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0). The proposal outlines a two-phased transition while modernizing regulatory requirements to support consumer access and innovation. [...] Under the plan, stations in the top 55 markets, covering 70% of the US population, would transition by February 2028, with all remaining full-power and Class A stations following in or before February 2030. The petition also calls for updates to FCC rules to ensure television reception devices support Next Gen TV, maintain existing MVPD carriage obligations and eliminate regulatory hurdles that could slow adoption. To clarify, ATSC 1.0 is the current standard for free over-the-air (OTA) TV. While ATSC 3.0 (also called NextGen TV) is its intended replacement, it's not backward-compatible, meaning consumers need new equipment to receive it. NAB's petition is to allow a complete shutdown of ATSC 1.0 to accelerate the transition to ATSC 3.0, meaning older TV setups relying on free OTA signals would stop working unless consumers upgrade their equipment. Their argument is that ATSC 3.0 adoption has been slow, and networks would benefit more from shifting away from OTA broadcasting entirely.
Reddit user bshensky argues that shutting down OTA TV would benefit large media corporations and harm independent stations. It's also worth noting that OTA TV operates on valuable spectrum, which could be repurposed for mobile broadband (this has happened before), benefiting cellular providers.
Reddit user bshensky argues that shutting down OTA TV would benefit large media corporations and harm independent stations. It's also worth noting that OTA TV operates on valuable spectrum, which could be repurposed for mobile broadband (this has happened before), benefiting cellular providers.
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all about adding DRM and paid content. This is horrible for consumers. It's an end to the model of being able to watch TV for free with an antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
In favor with another Alaska Permananet Fund (Score:2)
I'm in favor of this given that each and every entity licensing some part of the radio/TV/etc airways going forward is leasing the bandwidth spectrum and pays the federal government a yearly rent.
That rent will get paid to US citizens on a yearly basis in the form of a direct untaxable check or money transfer.
Refer: Wikipedia - Alaska Permanent Fund - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) is a constitutionally established permanent fund managed by a state-owned corporation, the Al
Not yet another way to fund government / states (Score:3)
Who benefits from closing down free TV for a newer broadcast standard
- States who get tax revenue from all of the new TV/devices sold
- Manufacturers of TVs
- Logistics companies transporting the TVs
- Manufacturing countries having TV production plants
- Federal government selling the airways for profit
- Large corporations who get to drive out of business many smaller media companies who cannot afford the switch
- Big Tech for new metrics, new engagement 'news stories' new services to sell
- Media for something
Re: (Score:1)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Free, as long as you have an internet connection to receive certificate updates to allow you to decrypt it. That's the bit that's driving this.
Re: DRM (Score:3)
I have a 4k TV, but refuse to connect it to the internet, as I did it once (so I could share a video from my phone), and it decided to update its software and showing me ads on the settings screens
I'd rather stick with my xbox or a roku for the streaming content, and keep my TV off the internet.
(iOS won't stream to a TV if you have them both connected on a wifi network that's not connected to the internet... I suspect that Android is the same)
Re: DRM (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
ATSC 3.0 DRM is already active in many US markets - it is quite different from the NTSC->ATSC 1.0 transition. Stations transition to ATSC 3.0, get everybody comfortable, and then flip the DRM flag. It's the end of antenna DVRs - it's basically reimplementing cable over the public airwaves, with no Cable Card-like mandate (since the Cable Card mandate is also dead).
Re:DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, there's been DRM in the various TV standards before 3.0, and the FCC has always banned its use. ATSC 1.0 had the "broadcast flag [wikipedia.org]" which prevented recording of a show, the FCC banned it. The FCC can approve ATSC 3.0 while banning the use of DRM, and it would be atypical for it not to given ATSC 3.0's DRM actually involves encryption, and traditionally the FCC has banned encryption on the public airwaves except under for some specific obvious applications (ISM bands and point to point radio links for private parties)
Conversely of course the current administration's decisions are essentially unpredictable, so it's possible the FCC will let this one through, especially as previous FCCs have not enforced the no-encryption mandate on those stations that were testing DRM.
The major impetus for ATSC 3.0 is ATSC 1 was already obsolete when it finally went live, relying on MPEG 2 and as a result only really allowing one medium quality HD channel - 720p60 or 1080i30 (seriously) per channel. Some TV stations squeezed in a couple of lower quality HD channels but most have a basic HD stream augmented by 1 to 3 low quality SD streams. ATSC 3.0 allows HEVC encoding, 4K video, 1080p (not just 1080i),
In theory, if the FCC bans DRM, it's a good idea. If the FCC doesn't ban DRM, well, there's a good chance they wouldn't if the major stations asked to add it to ATSC 1.0, so I'm not entirely sure it makes much difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also legal to make copies of media you have for personal use, but that doesn't mean that Blu-ray's BD+ and AACS, and DVD's CSS, are legal to circumvent (see "Access Control Mechanism" and the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing them.)
The only question here is, if the FCC mandates replacing ATSC 1.0 with 3.0, whether it'll allow DRM. Alas, signs are pointing to the FCC overturning its long standing prohibition on the use of encryption outside of specific non-broadcast applications here.
Re: (Score:2)
The ATSC 3.0 DRM parts were already approved and are already active in many markets. It's not a proposal, it's in use... the only proposal here is to force the end of ATSC 1.0 (probably hoping for another handout for set-top boxes for all the TVs that don't support ATSC 3.0).
LG (IIRC) included ATSC 3.0 tuners in one generation of TVs, then dropped it over the licensing fees. TV makers don't mind the Internet requirement - they'd like for you to hook that up so you can get THEIR ads, not the broadcasters'.
Re: (Score:2)
Approved by whom? The FCC hasn't approved ATSC 3.0 for anything other than experimental use - existing TV stations are still mandated to carry an ATSC 1.0 stream, so it wasn't by the FCC. Are you confusing the FCC with the ATSC?
The ATSC 1.0 broadcast flag is also approved. It's just the FCC doesn't allow it to be used. But that doesn't change that it's part of the ATSC standard.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just approved for experimental use, it's fully approved for use. It's voluntary, not mandatory, and stations must still maintain an ATSC 1.0 signal, but they can satisfy that by getting together and compressing multiple primary channels (e.g. the major broadcast networks, leaving out public and independent broadcasters) into a single ATSC 1.0 channel. Broadcasters get together, put the ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC primaries on one or two over-compressed ATSC 1.0 signals. Then they can each move all their
How about no (Score:2)
Here's an idea. Make a 3.1 version that is identical to 3.0 except all DRM is stripped out.
Re: (Score:1)
So there are people around that watches TV still?
Re: (Score:2)
People looking for "Zero Cost" entertainment.
a. Low income retirees living on social security alone.
a. The chronically unemployed.
The problem is, this entertainment isn't really "Zero Cost" because over-the-air TV needs advertising to remain profitable, and the ad loads are very high. A lot of the advertisers prey on these low income folks with ads for payday loans, bail bonds, prescription drugs etc.
Obnoxious advertising was one of the main reasons I disconnected cable TV back in the early 2000's (Along wi
Re: How about no (Score:1)
That's quite judgemental. See the other slashdot story how Gen z do not have savings equivalent to a month of spending and generally speaking most Americans can't handle a $400 emergency expense. countless dearth of people would be without any ota TV if they had to pay for it. I'm sure there could be a political discussion concerning this but large corporations need to find a way to do free ota or turn over their frequencies to others that can.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky went dark in 2004 here. The broadcaster's promise to replace the translator stations never happened. Dish raised their price unreasonably high, and so no, there is no TV to watch.
I had a Roku for awhile, but that went to crap. Netflix no longer has a DVD service, so the library is the sole source now.
Re: (Score:2)
Who still watches OTA TV and why? (Score:2)
I last watched OTA regularly in the mid-1970s because it's push content pabulum which has never been different.
Re: Who still watches OTA TV and why? (Score:5, Informative)
I still watch, but it's mostly PBS stations and NHK World... stuff like This Old House, woodworking, cooking shows, science shows, etc. WETA-UK has comedies and mystery shows. And I used to watch a couple hours of foreign news (BBC, DW, F24, NHK) each day. NHK also has some disaster preparedness type shows (and PSA type clips between shows, especially back in 2020-2023)
Of course, I'm going through long covid, so there was a year or so during 2020/2021 where Sesame Street was about the limit of my ability to follow. I tried catching up on the DVDs that I had collected, but it's exhausting not being able to follow it so taking 2 hrs to watch a 25min episode as you have to keep backing up to figure out what's going on.
Sometimes I'll watch ION (Bones, NCIS), MeTV (old school shows), Grit (westerns), but I miss when ION used to have cooking shows instead of just 'we'll show a full day of the same stuff' trying to appeal to binge watchers but forgetting that we'd prefer to be able to set our own schedule for that.
TV? What is that? (Score:2)
I am surprised that there are people that still care...
I don't swear on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you.
I recently saw a baseball game on a big TV and couldn't understand why I couldn't see the batter's face very well--he looked so far away. I wondered why they weren't zooming in as has been normal for decades. Then I realized the batter was surrounded by large ADS on the wall behind him, 4 or 5 of them, that were all readily viewable. Lots of pixels for more advertising; is this the future they're pushing? Whether it's a boot or an ad stomping on my face...
Re: (Score:3)
Baseball is the one sport out of the Big Four that was affected negatively by the move to 16:9, and only benefits moderately from the increased resolution. Basketball is somewhat neutral, although the modern trend of jacking up 30+ threes per game from each side would look really bad in the old 4:3 aspect ratio as it would be nearly impossible to show both the basket and the areas behind the 3-point line with potato-sized pixels. Football and hockey both benefit enormously from 720p60.
I'm still amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
ATSC 3 is pure evil /w DRM and senseless switch to an incompatible IP encumbered audio codec (AC4). It is at least heartening to see chorus of thousands of anti-DRM comments is still going.
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/searc... [fcc.gov]
There is an increasingly popular alternative in broadcasting h264 over ATSC 1 that at least doubles channel capacity over mpeg2 in a mostly compatible way.
At least people got something dramatically beneficial in return for their troubles moving to ATSC 1 and converter boxes were at least subsidized. Here the benefits of ATSC 3 are not worth either the disruption associated with another round of forklift upgrades or evil fuckery associated with imposing DRM which has already caused previously working kit to break.
Is there even equipment for that? (Score:2)
I've just looked at my usual supplier of TV tuner cards... and those don't seem to support ATSC 3.0 only 1.0.
I mean from a technical standpoint I can understand getting rid of ATSC 1.0, it's not well suited for broadcast applications, but the sensible solution would be to go to something normal like DVB-T2 or something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is there even equipment for that? (Score:4, Interesting)
That'll work right up until the broadcasters in your market flip the ATSC 3.0 DRM flag, at which point you'll lose all DVR functionality. SiliconDust has said they're "working on" DRM support... for several years.
Re: (Score:2)
And TiVo *still* refuses to support any kind of satellite TV. Their massive lawsuit win against DiSH Network saved their company but at great cost to TiVo subscribers.
I'm done (Score:3)
We watch a decent amount of OTA TV, partly because it is free. Local news, regular broadcast shows, that sort of thing.
But I've already invested in tuners and infrastructure for watching it. I'm not going to re-invest in stuff yet again only to be ridiculously saddled with DRM.
OTA DRM can go to hell and never come back.
Terrible idea (Score:2)
ATSC 1.0 was an absurdly bad design (Score:3)
ATSC 1.0 is an absurdly bad design.
They didn't use COFDM, so the signal is very sensitive to radio interference and multipath, and, more importantly, two transmitters can't possibly share the same frequency. SiriusXM, HD Radio, and DVB use COFDM mode and it works better than expected. ATSC 1.0 use 8VSB mode for "rural transmission reasons." Even cable television doesn't use 8VSB--it uses QAM and achieves DOUBLE the bandwidth on the same channel at ATSC 1.0.
In addition, Doppler shift damages the data stream which means it literally cannot used for mobile reception. The so-called "mobile ATSC-M/H" standard uses an unused part of the ATSC stream to create a duplicate Dopper-resistant stream of the same content, wasting valuable bandwidth.
Atsc obsolete (Score:2)
FCC ? (Score:2)
"We're sorry, the agency you have reached is not in serv...CHAINSAW!! CHAINSAW!1!! ...beep"
-DOGE
Consumers call for end of DRM and AC4 on ATSC3 (Score:2)
Three big problems with ATSC3: DRM, AC4, and Cost. DRM and AC4 add cost and restrictions so manufactures are not building in ATSC3 tuners to OTA TVs.
DRM limits/disables free viewing of free OTA TV and AC4 removes the audio because the codec is not free.
While ATSC3 offers better OTA signal quality and picture, no one is watching it, because you can't for free...