I don't see how it won't be free either in the context of these discussions, however, just because there are signals "going through your house" it doesn't mean you have free access to them - for example satellite TV, cell phone, etc. It's probably possible to encrypt OTA signals, although historically they have been "free" in North America. In certain countries, like England, people have to pay for OTA.I dont know how it will not be free if it is OTA. OTA is public waves free for all. If its not free, then I dont want signals going through my house if I am unable to benefit from it if I choose.
They could save even more money but shutting the transmitters down. It's moving that way, in small, sometimes imperceptible steps. One day what's left will be a nuisance and the final plug will be pulled.The local Toronto broadcasters could all save money by going to ATSC 3.0 by channels sharing, getting rid of their own transmitters and reducing their power bills which are enormous, plus the advantage of being able to reach anyone with a smartphone because 3.0 is designed to work in moving vehicles.
It's not only possible to encrypt OTA it has been done. OTA pay TV services were available in the Detroit area and others. It use a scheme similar to analog encryption for early cable pay TV services and was susceptible to widespread pirating.It's probably possible to encrypt OTA signals, although historically they have been "free" in North America. In certain countries, like England, people have to pay for OTA.
Cj, nobody mentioned capitalism here. My understanding is that OTA waves are regulated by the government, and the broadcasters I believe are able to broadcast through the airwaves for free, if they adhere to certain standards that are set by the government regulators. The broadcasters in turn must have some incentive or benefit that they are gaining, that they putting in the capital to have their OTA channels be online without charging folks at home using the channels for free.Yes, you are "free' to receive them, but that doesn't mean you will be able to "watch" them!
It's called capitalism, someone has to pay for all that high tech. And forget about recording them.That will be gone also.
How could ATSC 3.0 be geo blocked?The most likely scenario is that ATSC 3.0 technology will be leveraged to provide "targeted" ads. The channels will be free to watch but ads will be even more creepy than they already are.
Another possibility is that broadcasters will lobby for and get laws passed to geoblock cross-border channels on ATSC 3.0 receivers. I expect Canadian broadcasters would apply first. Implementation would likely require an update to the US-Canada copyright treaty.
ATSC 3.0 has an IP based component (internet connection) which will include details about your location, it's the return path of information to the broadcaster where they get to know who you are, what your watching, and send targetted ads through the internet to sub over the actual broadcast commercials (or popup bar adds and such customized to target you). I suspect typical VPN location spoofs can circumvent this if it happens but I suspect that's above most ota users heads.How could ATSC 3.0 be geo blocked?
Would those details only be provided if your TV or tuner box is connected to the internet? ATSC 3.0 does not require internet to work, yes without it you will not get the full benefits of ATSC 3.0, but without the internet connection no targeted ads and no geo blocking. For example antenna straight into 4K TV with built in ATSC 3.0 tuner, and not connected to internet = No Geo Blocking & Targeted AdsATSC 3.0 has an IP based component (internet connection) which will include details about your location, it's the return path of information to the broadcaster where they get to know who you are, what your watching, and send targetted ads through the internet to sub over the actual broadcast commercials (or popup bar adds and such customized to target you). I suspect typical VPN location spoofs can circumvent this if it happens but I suspect that's above most ota users heads.
Are you saying hardware manufacturers would make ATSC receivers / tuners that will block reception depending on where you live? The chances of that happening is slim to none (too costly, too difficult to implement, too easy to circumvent), and with cross border internet shopping, almost impossible to control. Even if it could be done technically at the hardware level, you would need to pass a law forcing hardware manufacturers to do this, as no manufacturer will do it voluntarily.What is technically feasible and what will be done are different issues. It is technically feasible to make ATSC 3.0 receivers block reception or substitute content based on location or internet availability. We will see how broadcasters act. If such measures are taken, it will be to increase broadcaster revenue. It also raises the possibility of black market devices to bypass broadcasters actions that block or modify reception.
Never underestimate the power of the studios to force copy protection and other restrictions on hardware manufacturers. Sometimes they are one and the same company, like Sony, and can enforce licensing restrictions on the technology they own. They did it with DVD and Blu-ray, plus they made Netflix enforce geoblocking on their streaming service. So far, the FCC has prevented OTA broadcasters from putting copy protection on their broadcasts but that could change. Cross border shopping won't make any difference either. Most hardware for the North American market is almost identical apart from a few firmware tweaks for localization and apps.The chances of that happening is slim to none (too costly, too difficult to implement, too easy to circumvent), and with cross border internet shopping, almost impossible to control.
You can not compare studios wanting to enforce copy protection with Canadians that "might, maybe, could" get ATSC 3.0 from America, totally different animals. The former is about preventing HUGE financial loss to studios, the latter is pocket change, lunch money, in comparison. Most Canadians have ZERO chance of receiving reliable ATSC 3.0 reception from the USA even if they wanted, they just live too far away, or in locations prohibitive to OTA from the USA. If the studios ever did try to enforce some kind of copy protection / geo-blocking on ATSC 3.0 that would be done across the board, not just in small potatoes Canada, but that is a whole different story.Never underestimate the power of the studios to force copy protection and other restrictions on hardware manufacturers. Sometimes they are one and the same company, like Sony, and can enforce licensing restrictions on the technology they own. They did it with DVD and Blu-ray, plus they made Netflix enforce geoblocking on their streaming service. So far, the FCC has prevented OTA broadcasters from putting copy protection on their broadcasts but that could change. Cross border shopping won't make any difference either. Most hardware for the North American market is almost identical apart from a few firmware tweaks for localization and apps.
Yes it is, but you originally stated that studios / content creators could force hardware manufacturers to enforce ATSC 3.0 copy protection. I disagreed because obviously that is legally impossible, unless the FCC steps in and changes some laws. You say it is possible, I say it is highly unlikely, and the studios would have to show significant financial loss before the FCC does something so drastic.It's not about the equipment, it's about content which is mostly owned by the big studios. They enforce copy protection and other restrictions by refusing to sell content to distributors and broadcasters that refuse to impose their will on consumers. We already went through this once with ATSC 1.0. Some OTA broadcasters tried to put copy protection flags on their signals. The FCC stepped in and prohibited it. That could change if studios and broadcasters lobby politicians to enact laws that treat OTA broadcasting like other sources under the DMCA. You are correct in Canada being a minor market but it is very lucrative due to the high prices Canadians are willing to pay for copyrighted material. The studios have already tried and were partially successful at getting Canada and many other countries to implement DMCA-like laws. It could happen again. Any OTA scheme would be international in nature, at least in NA.
TiVo forced cable companies to change their hardware with a patent lawsuit so it's definitely not impossible. Large corporations like Sony have lots of patents and lots of resources to enforce them. That's in addition to market leverage. The FCC does not create or change laws. They create and enforce regulations. The government creates and changes laws.Yes it is, but you originally stated that studios / content creators could force hardware manufacturers to enforce ATSC 3.0 copy protection. I disagreed because obviously that is legally impossible, unless the FCC steps in and changes some laws.