News atsc 3.0 standard at risk due to decoder patent trolling

[gorobei]

atsc 1.0 used a federally mandated patent pool to prevent individual patent holders from sabotaging the standard. the 3.0 patent pool had a similar mix but a new DRM requirement from broadcasters required a decoder and patent lic fee. the increase in costs more or less poisoned the well for LG after the lost a case challenging the licensing fee and they are no longer supporting 3.0. if the challenge to the lawsuit isnt overturned there will likely only be a few makers of decoder boxes at much higher cost vs the more or less open market for 1.0 decoders with tons of manufacturers at commodity pricing.
also the broadcasters representative PERL tv is talking out both sides of their mouth, by saying one thing to the FCC and another thing to the court.

you can comment on a filling at the FCC webpage to oppose the decoder requirement.
might save you 30$ for a decoder box for your older non-premium tv in 3 or 4 years when they start trying to require more DRM.

The FCC Responds to my ATSC 3 Encryption Complaint - They Want To Hear From You! - Lon Seidman & Lon.TV Blog

The FCC reached out to me and is asking all of you who signed the petition to also file a comment in their docketing system for the ATSC 3 petition. This is very easy to do and will just take a few minutes. So far there are only about a dozen or so complaints filed. … Continue reading The FCC...

blog.lon.tv

ECFS

Federal Communication Commission Electronic Comment Filing System

www.fcc.gov

 

[sdifox]

It sounds like the feds should eminent domain the DRM

 

[VirtualLarry]

It sounds like the feds should eminent domain the DRM

As it should, and (at such) time that it mandates standard (that utilize said DRM/related patents), that are covered by patents that benefit private parties. They should just nationalize the patent.

 

[Ken g6]

No, they should forbid the DRM so we can continue to watch and record TV as easily as we can now.