Of course we can't have anything nice anymore. Soon the only free OTA channels will be the bible thumping happy hour crap. We use OTA to watch the local news, and it feels like this will be another blow to our ability to hear about what's going on in our community.
You're lucky to be able to do this! Since the digital switchover, the number of OTA channels that I can receive was reduced to one. So that was effectively the death of OTA TV for me. Which admittedly wasn't the worst thing, as it got me to stop watching television entirely.
Those low power stations in NYC and Chicago are currently using it for a different reason. ATSC 3.0 technically allows for an analog FM side channel at the upper end of the channel's spectrum. In both of those cases, that lands right around 87.7 MHz, which is receivable on most FM radios. They run that as a defacto commercial radio station.
Huh, so that gives them a TV station and a radio station for the price of a TV station? I wonder if the perceived benefit translates to an actual benefit in practice.
What is even the point of a local network affiliate broadcasting an encrypted ATSC signal? Do they really think that they can monetize a local market this way?
OTA currently circumvents cable and satellite, in which the broadcaster gets re-transmission compensation; and circumvents their OTT delivery systems, in which they can chose to charge for access.
OTA viewing, which is currently at about 20% in many major markets, is a threat to this model. If they drop OTA, they lose rights to re-transmission fees. But they can limit OTA if they want.
So I think that's why they want to encrypt ATSC 3.0.
Side Note: Only the largest broadcasters can demand re-transmission fees. Low-power, public and most independent TV operators don't have this right.
You say if they "drop OTA" but arent the regs all based on "Free to Air" language that an encrypted transmission would not satisfy? This would be like publishing GPG encrypted source code and saying that you are complying with the GPL
In 47 CFR 73.624(b)[1], the FCC requires that broadcasters have at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers. That one channel could be their home shopping subchannel, while the main ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX subchannels are encrypted.
Thanks; yours is the only explanation so far that explains where there is a possible economic motivation for the broadcast stations. I find it a little hard to accept that the original intent was to allow such a thing, but that doesn't mean that subsequent changes and standards updates didn't unintentionally allow a loophole. If this is indeed what is happening, there is a very compelling argument to be made to fix it.
My worry is since it doesn't appear that anyone got to the root of the problem before going full-media-circus, that all of the complaints to the FCC are now asking for the wrong solution. Honestly, I personally think it's good to get encryption into the ATSC standard; there are applications that can benefit from that. But if what you suggest is true, the stronger argument is to stop allowing a station to receive retransmission revenue for a station they are not broadcasting free-to-air.
I find it incredibly unlikely that stations are spending the money to upgrade their broadcasts to ATSC 3.0 and maintain and operate the equipment solely to broadcast an encrypted signal that nobody can use.
The big broadcasters would love to get rid of the OTA audience (and send them to subscription platforms). ATSC 3.0 encryption is the perfect way to do that.
