• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

industry opposition to ATSC 3.0 mandate, requested by NAB

kevtronics said:
They're arguing about which way to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I think OTA TV will hold its spot for awhile longer, they just got to move on stuff and stop sitting around.

I heard the streaming services owned by TV networks, like at Paramount+ (CBS), Peacock (NBC), Hulu+Live TV, (ABC & FOX) have their local OTA affiliates on their streams, beside the programming they provide.
So if you live in an area and subscribe to say Peacock, you can also get the NBC affiliate in your area on Peacock.
The one thing I found odd is, you have to pay afew bucks extra to get the local affiliates???
 
Last edited:
Tyler the Antenna Man and Lon Seidman of Lon.TV gave a presentation to the FCC as consumer advocates opposing ATSC 3.0. I find it amazing they were able to land the opportunity to do this considering the lack of lobbying money behind them, and the fact that YouTube influencers and reviewers rarely get to do anything like this in front of the FCC. Huge congratulations and thanks to them for standing up for the little guys, a.k.a. the public.


 
I wonder when, if ever, the NAB and the television stations are going to realize that pushing this will essentially make the viewership disappear by their own actions. If the consumer equipment can't decode their precious content, then the viewers can no longer watch ... and that means whatever business model they are using will collapse for lack of revenue.
 
K.M. Richards said:
I wonder when, if ever, the NAB and the television stations are going to realize that pushing this will essentially make the viewership disappear by their own actions.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong way to frame it. This sort of behavior always comes down to one key executive who stands to make a large personal financial gain by pushing a scheme like this through, and an entitled group of collaborators riding his coattails to the same end. Do you think guys like that really take a longterm view of the consequences of their actions? Do they care about the public or doing the right thing? Or are they singularly focused on how big a personal windfall they can rake in if they can succeed in putting a paywall on over-the-air broadcasts, to the extent that nothing will stop them?
 
Theater of My Mind said:
That's the wrong way to frame it. This sort of behavior always comes down to one key executive who stands to make a large personal financial gain by pushing a scheme like this through, and an entitled group of collaborators riding his coattails to the same end. Do you think guys like that really take a longterm view of the consequences of their actions? Do they care about the public or doing the right thing? Or are they singularly focused on how big a personal windfall they can rake in if they can succeed in putting a paywall on over-the-air broadcasts, to the extent that nothing will stop them?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how you frame it. My point is still more rational than the NAB, et al, are seeing it.

There's a forest, and they just see a bunch of trees.
 
In a letter just submitted to FCC by Weigel Broadcasting, they reveal that the A3SA plans to shut down and the display a message that a TV Station is a risk to watch on certified ATSC 3 NextGen TV's Tuners for TV Stations that are not certified by and not paying the A3SA to broadcast. This is even if the TV Stations don't want to use DRM, the A3SA is requiring them to be certified by A3SA and broadcast an A3SA signing certificate. Those who do not by a certain date that Weigel says was June 30, 2025, but has now been moved to a later date TBD. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/108272632722025
1000011412.jpg1000011414.jpg1000011416.jpg1000011418.jpg
 
This sounds like it may also become a FTC concern, as it essentially defines a collusion of ATSC 3.0 stations to create a scheme in which they are the only source of OTA television reception.

And I would bet Weigel's attorneys are already researching that.
 
The implications of High Noon and A3SA’s role for the future of broadcasting warrant
attention. Unlike certificate concepts used for the Internet that can be purchased from more than
100 established certificate authorities, for certificates to work properly on A3SA certified
receivers there is only one practical source for certificates: A3SA. Those certificates must be
renewed annually, currently at a cost of $998 per station. src
Click to expand...
Very nice... So in effect we now have major broadcasters acting as gatekeepers of the airwaves for anyone else not part of A3SA. That's one hell of a conflict of interest. FCC needs to either strike down DRM requirement or let ATSC1 remain indefinitely. Also with internet https certificate example, you can still deliver content to browsers without https unlike what A3SA wants. This is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom