DRM Protected ATSC 3.0 Channels

#86

I'm fairly certain none of these other things will come to fruition. In the era of internet, none of this makes a whole lot of sense.

I said it months ago, this was a wolf in sheeps clothing. The goal here was to neuter the free OTA experience and satisfy the broadcast requirements in the most minimal way possible.

Nothing else makes any sense as to why they'd even want to do this. This was all a long time coming once media consolidation happened in the US. The station owners only begrudgingly support OTA as it is. I had channel that pixelated for months. There's nobody to contact, there's no support. I tried three antennas and spent countless hours troubleshooting. I gave up and 6 weeks later it magically fixed itself. It was on the station's side. Do you think that would happen with their feeds to cable providers? They are no doubt happy when the 1.0 OTA experience is less than optimal so frustrated viewers will just opt to paying. This is the biggest bait and switch in the history of broadcast television.

1 Like
#87

Not that It matters but if a channel is being broadcast for free OTA, it should be free via any means. Cable companies should not charge for it and there should be no retransmission fees charged to cable companies.

1 Like
#88

I'm not sure where you got that from, that ship sailed long ago and they have sued all the other retrans options into oblivion. Free OTA does not mean free however you want it, according to the FCC and courts.

The issue here is that free no longer means free if they encrypt and you have to buy special devices that restrict what you can do with it if you do get it for free OTA.

#89

I know, I get it as it's been legislated and protected by congress and broadcasters etc to ensure they get paid...And by free, I mean within the local geo market.
Just like when they went all digital, they made older TV's obsolete and started shipping out digital boxes and really confused grandma...

#90

Fun isn't it!!!!!! :poop:

#91

Let's not forget the main point here... the airwaves belong to us, meaning U.S. citizens. What the media cartels do with it should be up to us, the U.S. citizens.

Period.

They can go elsewhere for their shareholder needs.

#92

Yeah of course they had to DRM the 112.1 that I was recording because sometimes 12.1 is weak.

1 Like
#93

South Bend, Indiana went live with ATSC 3.0 less than a month ago. After being initially unencrypted, 2 of their 6 subchannels are encrypted already (NBC and H&I). One can only speculate how long it will take for the other major networks active on the lighthouse (CBS, FOX, PBS) to follow suit.

2 Likes
#94

I am confident....very confident...that all ATSC 3.0 signals will be encrypted via DRM.

1 Like
#95

This tuner states that it will do DRM ... Silicondust better get Moving.. .

ADTH NEXTGEN TV Box - ADTH

1 Like
#96

Apples and Oranges:

  • Will it allow the recording of ATSC 3.0 content onto an attached USB storage? Does it have DVR capabilities?

    At the time of release, the box will not support USB storage or DVR capabilities, but we hope to add those capabilities in an automatic software update.

  • Can the box be used for multiple TVs simultaneously?

    No, the TV box supports 1 TV at a time.

  • How many tuners does the TV Box have?

    The TV Box has 1 tuner that supports both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN TV

1 Like
#97

Can we use 2 with Channels DVR for the ability of having 2 tuners available to watch content Live only?

#98

no local streaming

2 Likes
#99

lol, no. Do you not understand what DRM is?

#100

I have a TV that can do everything that box can do. Since I don't need ATSC3.0 for four more years, I can wait for Silicon Dust to get their solution completed. Since I like Channels DVR, I hope they can utilize Silicon Dust's solution. But since that seems more and more unlikely, I will make do. Unlikely I will be spending $500 to $1000 and many hours of time on HDMI or Chrome Capture for Channels. Could be a great hobby, but not for me.

2 Likes
#101

Luckily, right now I'm okay without DRM since the local ABC affiliate fixed the problem with their 1.0 signal. However my local FOX affiliate is iffy on 1.0 so I'm currently using their non-encrypted 3.0 signal. I'll have a problem if that changes so hoping SD comes up with support so I can at least watch football were that to happen.

The silence on this issue from the Channels developers is pretty disappointing, to be honest. I know they can't commit with 100% certainty to something that isn't completely defined, but the fact that they haven't even stated that they anticipate doing everything they can to support DRM (SD says they should be able to) is strange to me.

Same here. I'm not going down this hokey path. My goal is cheap TV, so worst case scenario I'll have to use multiple programs for my viewing instead of just Channels.

#102

Them getting involved in this topic can only result in users quote mining them years later when stuff does not work. There are times devs are silent that pisses me off. But on thos topic I would be surprised if they joined any speculative topics.

The devs have also been making great strives to CDVR being more of a content management system and less of a linear tv platform. Especially as things like plex have become more streaming oriented.

The devs seem to have a lot of irons in fire as far as content integration. I think they are trying to figure out what pans out.
TVE, M3U, *.strm, *.strmlnk, hdmi & chrome capture, youtube (m3u), docker stuff (sports stuff and vlc bridges)

So Channels seems to be embracing everything. Then putting there attention where users seem most interested.

#103

I do not use them to manage or watch my Content. Lacking Profiles and too much manual intervention is just not worth it. I only use to Record (Advance Passes) or Watch Remote. So not being able to record or watch DRM is a showstopper.

And with no new Content on Linear TV I am using CDVR less.

#104

I guess it all depends on your viewing habits. I still record to timeshift plenty of stuff. Lots of news for starters and OTA content and Philo content, etc.

That said, if Channels at some point becomes unusable as a DVR for OTA, I'll probably have to move back to HDHR.

#105

The lacking profiles is definitely a huge one. You cannot have multiple watch states of a show. Also seperate profiles would allow you to change sidebar items. Etc.

Since I am talking about lack of features. This has gotten 100% of topic. After this I will go back on topic I promise.

Lack of auto-retrieving missing subtitles. Lack of ability to mix Movies & TV into a single collection. Lack of sort by ganre in TV (it exist in Movies). Lack of magical action by devs to solve drm yesterday.

Back on topic. DRM sucks. Write your congressmen. BOOOO DRM.

Idea: CDVR starts a seperate fundraiser campaign with the goal of attempting to negotiate drm rights. idk. Just spitballing.

But DRM bad. Mmmm kay.

1 Like