I’ve been following the fight over the encryption of broadcast television for a while now, and the past couple of weeks have revealed some meaningful shifts in how parts of the industry are talking about it. What began as an effort by the largest broadcasters to impose full encryption on their signals—making it harder for people to watch and record over-the-air television the way they do now—has moved into a phase where even some of the people who helped build the system are beginning to question whether it’s the right path forward.
You can learn more in my latest ATSC 3.0 update.
The FCC’s pending public comment period is still waiting on publication in the Federal Register, but in the meantime I’ve been watching the trade press. One notable development is SiliconDust becoming an official ATSC 3.0 certificate authority. This isn’t a replacement for A3SA’s DRM system, but it does give broadcasters an alternative for the broadcast identification certificates that 3.0 will eventually require. It’s another sign of how fragmented and privatized the standard has become—functions that once sat squarely with the FCC now depend on private bodies asserting control, and smaller stations are looking for options that don’t leave them answerable to a handful of major corporations.
Then there’s the more direct crack in the wall: an op-ed from Fred Baumgartner, a former Sinclair executive who helped lead their NextGen TV implementation. He’s now arguing that encryption should be paused. He describes the rollout as abrupt, poorly communicated, and alienating to early adopters—many of whom discovered their new TVs and receivers couldn’t display encrypted 3.0 broadcasts at all. He also points out that encryption shifts broadcasting away from what it has been for decades, turning it into something closer to narrowcasting. Coming from someone who helped architect the system, it’s a notable departure.
Sinclair’s current leadership didn’t let that stand unanswered. Sinclair VP Mark Aitken responded in a follow-up piece, insisting that encryption doesn’t hinder access when “properly implemented,” a phrase that glosses over the very real fact that devices already in people’s homes cannot tune these encrypted broadcasts. Aitken also frames “free unencumbered access” as applying only to a single primary channel—essentially signaling that everything else could move behind a paywall. It’s hard to see how that squares with why people use antennas in the first place, especially those who cut the cord to avoid paying retransmission fees.
Baumgartner doubled down in a second response, saying he has tried and failed to articulate a scenario where the benefits of encryption outweighed the downsides. He also warned that the approach invites regulation, a point the FCC itself has raised as it asks broadcasters to justify why encrypted over-the-air signals are appropriate in a system designed to serve the public. That debate will continue once the comment window opens, but it’s already clear that consensus is faltering inside the industry itself.
As for what happens next, I’m planning to submit my own filing once the comment period officially begins, including photos of the devices in my home that can no longer tune freely available broadcast channels because of encryption. Many people submit only text, but showing the real-world impact could help contextualize what’s happening. These public airwaves belong to everyone, and documentation from the people affected is part of what keeps the process grounded.
There’s still a long way to go, but seeing industry veterans rethink their stance—and watching the FCC press for answers we’ve been asking for—feels like a shift. It’s not final, and it’s not enough on its own, but it’s movement.
I’ll keep an eye on the Federal Register and on the broadcasters who seem to be discovering that the path they set may not be as defensible as they once thought.