A major filing was submitted just before the ATSC 3.0 public comment deadline by a coalition including Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Reports, and several other organizations. Their message to the FCC is clear: DRM has no place in public broadcast spectrum. You can read the document here and watch my analysis piece here.
Their argument centers around the idea that mandatory encryption under ATSC 3.0 fundamentally conflicts with the legal and constitutional frameworks that have long governed broadcast TV.
One case they point to is American Library Association v. FCC, where a rule that would have forced devices to honor a broadcast flag was overturned. The court concluded that the FCC had no authority to regulate what happens inside consumer devices once a signal is received. That precedent is particularly relevant as we now face a situation where encryption could prevent people from exercising their long-established right to record broadcasts.
The filing emphasizes that public spectrum isn’t a private asset—it’s a shared, collectively owned resource managed under a mandate to serve the public interest. That’s different from how spectrum is handled in industries like mobile phones, where companies purchase and control allocated spectrum. Here, broadcasters are allowed to profit, but only as trustees serving the public.
What stood out in this filing was how thoroughly it outlined the risks to consumers. Many certified ATSC 3.0 devices are already showing their flaws—most require Internet access to tune televisions, others are running outdated software, and few give users any meaningful flexibility. If encryption becomes the norm, gateway devices, DIY DVRs, open-source solutions, and even basic home recording could vanish.
A central point made by the filing is that DRM turns broadcasters into gatekeepers—not just over content, but also over the devices people can use. It also creates a strange contradiction in the law. On one hand, it’s legal to record a broadcast under the American Library decision and the 1980s Sony Betamax case; on the other, it’s illegal to bypass encryption under the DMCA. So even if you have the right to record something, you will be breaking the law in practice.
They also call out the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority, or A3SA, for setting private rules that aren’t subject to public oversight. Even the encoding guidelines broadcasters have touted are limited—they only apply to ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, not future ATSC 3.0-only broadcasts.
The process by which A3SA licenses devices is also under scrutiny. Developers have to sign NDAs, the terms aren’t transparent, and consumers have no voice in the process. This kind of structure, the filing argues, runs counter to the FCC’s mandate to ensure open and nondiscriminatory access to public airwaves.
Interestingly, the document even questions whether encrypted broadcasts still qualify as “broadcasting” under the law, since they require a privately licensed decoder to access them.
So what happens next? It’s going to be a waiting game. The FCC is about to be short on commissioners, with two stepping down and replacements not yet confirmed. Until the commission has a quorum, it won’t be able to vote on anything substantial—including ATSC 3.0 rules.
On Monday we’ll have an interview with John Bergmayer from Public Knowledge, the lead author of the filing, to dive into this topic further.
Until then, this conversation around DRM is going to slow down a bit as we wait for the FCC to get back to full strength. But I’ll keep tracking the story and will have more updates when the next phase begins.