ATSC2.0 (H.265) & ATSC3.0 (UHDTV 4K) Discussion
161 - 180 of 182 Posts
Joined
·
56,638 Posts
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.
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
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.
As mentioned in several posts here, the days of offering something for free to draw in an audience to sell to advertisers aren't going to last forever.
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
While it's true that UK residents must pay a broadcast tax for OTA it's not a subscription model like NA. The benefits of the UK model are substantial when compared the NA subscription model. They receive what amounts to one of our low tier (~$70) cable package through OTA or satellite at a fraction of the cost, under $25/mo.
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.
Ad revenues for the broadcasters is for one. They can tell those who they sell ads to that they have a much wider broadcast of viewers, so Im going to charge you more for ads. Usually OTA channels have more viewers in general as well, because they are free OTA, and they are included in basic cable packages, so more people have access to it - unlike specialty channels like WildTV, BookTV, A.Side or BBC Earth, that require premium tv service packages, which results in less people watch. Those who put ads on these channels will be like, well we have less viewers, we are not going to pay much for the ads, and the channel isnt going to get much money; unlike the OTA channels with much higher viewers.
Also, I believe as a result of broadcasting OTA, I believe the government also provides these broadcasters with other incentives or more lenient accesses to licenses for other channels (like specialty channels) that the broadcaster can benefit from, as a result of them providing OTA channels free to the public, as a public good. If this was not the case, why have broadcasters provided OTA for the past 60 years for free? They had benefits for themselves.
The same is true for the internet. You have billions of websites online. Wikipedia for example. You pay for your internet service provider, but not a cent ever goes to the sites that your access or use. You benefit off of wikipedia, or google, or facebook, etc.. for free but they are getting a benefit from you getting access to their site, otherwise why would they spend the capital and the servers, the people, etc... for you to access these for free? They have an incentive right? They gain benefits and even make billions in profit. Same is true with OTA.
ATSC 3.0 will need to be free as well as how OTA has been free for 60 years. The broadcasters will make their money, dont you worry.
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
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.
How could ATSC 3.0 be geo blocked?
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.
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 Ads
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
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.
If geo blocking is implemented in Canada it will be done based on your IP address and without your TV or receiver being connected to the internet, that is impossible.
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
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.
Sony could force copy protection on certain technology because they owned the technology. The same is not true with ATSC 3.0 technology, the Sony's of this world have no ownership in this technology. Also Sony could make Netflix successfully enforce geoblocking because you need an internet connection to stream Netflix, thus making geo-blocking quite straight forward and easy to do, the same is not true with ATSC 3.0, where currently an internet connection is not needed just to receive the channel.
Sure, the FCC "might, maybe, could" force copy protection on OTA possibly perhaps maybe who knows when someday in the future, but if ATSC 3.0 is ever encrypted or restricted in anyway, my guess is that it is possibly perhaps maybe initiated from the broadcasters looking to increase their revenue streams.
Even if you could successfully restrict people from watching ATSC 3.0 channels, IMO most of these people would just go back to watching free 1.0 which will be around for quite a few more years. So what will have been accomplished from all this? Only if ATSC 3.0 becomes really successful in the USA, and the studios and content maker are losing significant money, will you see much effort to restrict, control, geo-block ATSC 3.0 viewership.
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
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.
You are correct though that the studios can enforce copy protection by refusing to sell their content, that is also obvious. The broadcasters currently "PAY" the studios to broadcast their content OTA, including via ATSC 3.0, If the studios are unhappy with this arrangement, they can either charge more for the content, or stop selling their content to broadcasters. That is why I do not believe that the FCC will get involved in forcing copy protection onto ATSC 3.0, they will merely tell the studios to grow up, either charge more for their content or stop selling it to broadcasters for ATSC 3.0 broadcasting. In other words, the FCC will allow the market place to steer this ship.
Canada will have basically zero impact on the ATSC 3.0 market, unless Canadian broadcasters also convert to ATSC 3.0, and given that the Canadian broadcasters also own the Cable TV networks, that is highly unlikely. As it currently sits there are just so few Canadians getting their TV content via antenna from America, that unless the Canadian broadcasters convert to ATSC 3.0, Canada will remain a spectator only in the ATSC 3.0 world. If not for CRTC mandate, most of the Canadian broadcasters would probably have already shut down most, if not all, of their OTA transmission towers
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
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.
161 - 180 of 182 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!