• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News atsc 3.0 standard at risk due to decoder patent trolling

gorobei

gorobei

Diamond Member
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 blog.lon.tv

ECFS

Federal Communication Commission Electronic Comment Filing System
www.fcc.gov www.fcc.gov
 
sdifox said:
It sounds like the feds should eminent domain the DRM
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
No, they should forbid the DRM so we can continue to watch and record TV as easily as we can now.
 
follow up:
antennae man and lonTV have been fighting the good fight and it looks like the fcc is pushing against the patent/drm lockdown.
nowhere near over yet so keep an eye out and let others know about this nonsense from the broadcasters.
 
Last I read about this it had some kind of internet requirement for targeted ads and/or tracking what media you were watching.
 
PingSpike said:
Last I read about this it had some kind of internet requirement for targeted ads and/or tracking what media you were watching.
Click to expand...
I think the standard may allow sending data back to the station OTA. I'm not sure, though.
 
I can't get a straight answer on it googling, but it seems like while the standard doesn't need internet access to work in general it does need it for DRM content so it is probably a distinction without a difference in practice. When I initially read about it a couple years ago it sounded like it was just required for ads but maybe I misunderstood. Given we live in an actual world where Kohler AI toilets scan your feces I probably just assumed it was for ads.
 
drm mongers are still trying to keep it in play.
they are putting out crappy minimum viable product tuners that dont work with non android services, and wont likely work with ota recording. the cable companies changed their billing to hide the local channel rebroadcast fees they charge.

there is a deadline for them to answer the fcc questions coming up and a response period to counter their lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top