analysis Archives - Lon Seidman & Lon.TV Blog

Music Labels Lose a Big Piracy Case at the Supreme Court

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:35:10 +0000

A twelve year legal battle about piracy between the music industry and internet service providers has finally come to an end by the US Supreme Court. The court overturned a $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications, a decision that has significant implications for how we understand copyright liability and the responsibilities of those who provide our internet access.

See more in my latest video!

The history of this conflict dates back to the early 2000s when the music and film industries struggled to adapt to the rise of digital file sharing. Initially the music industry started suing their own customers, hitting them with federal lawsuits. One instance involved a 12-year-old girl having to cough up $2,000 for a settlement and another where a woman was held liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing 24 songs.

At the time, piracy was often driven by a lack of convenient, legal digital options. Physical media sales were declining, and digital purchases were often restricted by digital rights management, or DRM, which limited how and where consumers could listen to their music.

When the strategy of suing individual users failed to curb piracy or improve the industry’s public image, the focus shifted toward where the money is: internet service providers. Organizations representing the record and motion picture industries established the Copyright Alert System, partnering with major ISPs to issue warnings to users who were sharing copyright material.

Cox Communications did not participate in this program and that put a target on their back. A lawsuit was filed in 2014 against the ISP with music label BMG arguing that Cox should be held liable for the infringement occurring on its network. BMG claimed that because Cox did not adequately respond to infringement notices, it lost the “safe harbor” protections usually granted to service providers under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

A federal jury originally sided with BMG, awarding a billion-dollar verdict against Cox. However, the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of this decision centered on a specific interpretation of federal copyright law. Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the decision, noted that while Cox may not have met the requirements for DMCA safe harbor protection, other aspects of federal law do provide for an adequate defense. The ruling clarifies that a service provider is only liable if it intended for its service to be used for infringement or if it marketed itself specifically for that purpose. Because Cox provides a general-use internet service and did not induce its users to pirate material, the court found they could not be held responsible for the specific copyrights violated by their subscribers.

This development changes the landscape for other ISPs as well. They now have a defense beyond the safe harbor provisions, meaning they may not feel the same pressure to react to every automated infringement notice they receive. I suspect this will lead to a decrease in the haphazard distribution of warnings to account holders. While direct lawsuits against individuals may still occur, particularly in cases involving large volumes of distribution, the era of trying to hold the entire infrastructure of the internet accountable for individual user behavior seems to be shifting.

It should be noted that the music industry eventually found success not through litigation, but by listening to consumer demand. When they removed DRM from digital music purchases and embraced affordable streaming services, revenues skyrocketed. It is a reminder that market accessibility often addresses the root causes of piracy more effectively than legal threats.

As other industries, such as broadcasting, consider implementing new restrictions on content, the industry changes that have taken place since this case was filed suggests that focusing on what the customer wants is a more sustainable path than pursuing multi-billion dollar judgments against service providers. This ruling brings a level of technical and legal sanity back to the conversation regarding how we use and access the internet.

ATSC 3 Update: Dueling Surveys & Contact Your Congressperson!

admin — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 11:00:00 +0000

In my latest ATSC 3.0 update video, I take a look a dueling consumer surveys from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) opposing TV tuner mandates and another from broadcasters suggesting consumers will be more than happy to buy expensive hardware when the rug is pulled out from under us.

Pearl TV, an organization representing broadcasters, recently published a survey indicating that most viewers would be willing to purchase a low-cost converter box, estimated at around $60, rather than lose access to free television. When looking at current market behavior on platforms like Amazon, consumers are choosing tuners priced as low as $30 that include recording capabilities—a feature the proposed $60 DRM-compatible basic boxes would lack according to Pearl.

Pearl’s survey results released so far lack the “cross-tabs” that would reveal all of the questions asked and answered. Only a small amount of data appears in the Pearl TV slide deck, yet the methodology slide reveals the median time to complete the survey was 16 minutes. Clearly they are holding a lot of data back.

On the other side of the issue, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), which represents electronics manufacturers, argues against government mandates that would force the inclusion of expensive ATSC 3.0 tuners in every television. Their research suggests that while antenna usage has seen a slight uptick to about 15% of households, awareness of the NextGen TV brand remains low. Only 5% of respondents claimed to be familiar with the term, and the vast majority had never seen the official logo. This matches my own observations in retail environments, where the technology is rarely a primary concern for consumers compared to the availability of streaming applications on a particular device.

As the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) prepares for its annual trade show, the lobbying effort has intensified. Recently, 91 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter pressuring the FCC to move forward with the transition. This indicates that congressional offices are hearing primarily from broadcast interests. My review of the signers shows a bipartisan group of representatives from across the country, many of whom may not be fully briefed on the technical limitations and costs these encryption standards impose on their constituents.

My suggestion? It’s time to reach out to your member of Congress. My suggestion would be to forward along what you’ve already filed with the FCC. Short of that you can use some sample language that I put together here. If you’re looking for a one stop shop for finding and contacting your representatives, Democracy.io has a helpful utility for doing so.

The FCC remains cautious. Currently, Commissioner Olivia Trusty is the only official scheduled to appear; she is set to deliver a brief 10-minute presentation on ATSC 3.0 at the Las Vegas Convention Center.

With consumer adoption stuck in neutral, thanks to a complicated DRM encryption scheme, broadcasters are now going to rest their hopes on political pressure to try and force their private regulatory regime on the American people. That’s why it’s important for all of us to educate our representatives on what is really going on.

US Effectively Bans All New Router Products

admin — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:50:15 +0000

The U.S. government has effectively implemented a ban on most new routers entering the domestic market, a move driven by a national security determination regarding risks posed by networking equipment produced overseas. While the order is broad, it is important to note that existing models already approved by the FCC—such as those currently found on retail shelves—are not prohibited from being sold or imported. The restriction specifically targets new products that have not yet received FCC certification.

I dive into the order and what it might mean in my latest video.

This action follows long-standing concerns from both the Biden and Trump administrations regarding vulnerabilities in consumer networking hardware.

Specifically, federal authorities pointed to prior sophisticated cyberattacks, such as those the Vault, Flax, and Salt Typhoon attacks, which utilized botnets of small office and home office (SOHO) routers to conceal the origin of attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure. In many cases, these attacks exploited “end-of-life” routers that no longer received security firmware updates from their manufacturers.

To gain authorization for new products, manufacturers must now apply for a conditional approval from the DoW/DOD or DHS. This process requires an extensive disclosure of the company’s supply chain, including a detailed bill of materials, the country of origin for all components and software, and an identification of any single points of failure in the manufacturing process.

Beyond security audits, the government is requiring a commitment to domestic production. Applicants must submit a time-bound plan to establish manufacturing and assembly operations within the United States. This includes detailing planned capital expenditures and providing progress reports on onshoring efforts. Currently, the list of compliant router manufacturers remains empty, as drone makers are the only technology to have successfully navigated a similar regulatory process thus far.

The definition of a “router” under this regulation is tied to NIST standards, focusing on devices marketed for residential use and customer installation. This creates a technical distinction for hardware such as small-form-factor computers; while these devices can be configured to function as routers using open-source software like pfSense, they are not currently subject to the ban because their primary marketed purpose is as a general-use computer.

Industry reactions have been varied according to a report in PC Magazine. TP-Link, which had previously been a specific focus of government scrutiny, expressed confidence in its supply chain and stated it welcomed an evaluation that applies to the entire industry. U.S.-based Netgear commended the action, suggesting that the regulations could lead to a more secure digital future. Both companies will likely benefit from the action – TP-Link gets to survive and Netgear has the capacity to comply with the domestic onshoring when many of their competitors may not.

I will be monitoring the FCC’s exception list to see which manufacturers are the first to successfully onshore their operations and return new hardware to the pipeline. In the meantime, the focus remains on whether these requirements will effectively eliminate orphaned firmware and provide the level of transparency the government is seeking.

Did Microsoft Admit Windows 11 is Too Bloated?

admin — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 11:15:45 +0000

Microsoft is beginning to acknowledge the growing concerns regarding bloatware and performance issues within Windows 11. Windows head Pavan Davaluri recently published a blog post committing to a new standard of Windows quality. In my latest analysis piece, I dive into what Microsoft thinks the problem is and I offer some of my own experiences.

Check it out here!

While Davaluri’s official roadmap highlights specific improvements like increased taskbar customization and a more dependable File Explorer, many of the everyday frustrations experienced by power users and system reviewers remain unaddressed.

The current onboarding process for a new Windows 11 PC takes over an hour, largely due to a gauntlet of updates and forced configuration screens. Even after the initial setup, users frequently encounter a secondary wave of background updates that can lead to audible fan noise and noticeable performance degradation on a brand-new machine.

Beyond the updates, the operating system’s interface is increasingly defined by a series of prompts designed to funnel users into subscription services and cloud storage. These “upsell” screens often prioritize the “Next” or “Accept” buttons, while the options to decline or keep files stored locally are presented in smaller, less prominent text.

OneDrive integration remains a primary point of friction. Even when a user expresses a preference to store files only on their local device, the system defaults to cloud syncing and backup, requiring a manual and repetitive process to disable individual folders. This persistent nudging extends to the Start menu and taskbar, which are frequently populated with icons for features like Copilot, Recall, and the Edge browser immediately following an update. The Start menu itself has become more cluttered, making it increasingly difficult to find what you’re looking for amidst a sea of promotional icons and unhelpful recommendations.

Even basic utility applications are not immune to this expansion of features. Notepad, a tool that remained virtually unchanged for decades, now includes tabbed windows, cloud synchronization requirements tied to a Microsoft account, and integrated co-pilot AI writing assistance. These additions, while intended to modernize the app, introduce new complexities and annoyances for something that doesn’t need any features. Similarly, background processes like the Xbox overlay continue to run by default, regardless of whether the user intends to use the computer for gaming.

While Microsoft’s new commitment to quality is a positive step, the current state of the operating system has led some to rely on third-party debloating utilities to reclaim system performance. There is also a growing awareness of the increasing user-friendliness of Linux distributions, which may be placing additional pressure on Microsoft to streamline its experience. As the company moves forward with its debloating efforts, the true measure of success will be whether it can reduce the constant stream of distractions and return to a more focused, efficient production environment.

I’m curious to see if these promised updates will actually thin out the layers of advertisements and background services, or if the primary goal remains centered on revenue extraction through service nudges.

ATSC 3.0 Update: More DRM Nonsense Filed with the FCC

admin — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 04:04:37 +0000

The broadcast industry’s ongoing effort to encrypt the public airwaves is currently awaiting a decision from the Federal Communications Commission. In a recent ex-parte letter to the FCC, broadcasters cited the US Trade Representative’s 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy report to support their push for the ATSC 3.0 encryption standard. The report focuses heavily on live sports and the revenue lost to global piracy – but none of it indicates broadcast TV signals are being stolen.

See more in my latest ATSC 3.0 update video!

The report’s introduction references the NFL’s broadcasting agreements with networks like CBS, Fox, and NBC, which run through 2033. These contracts were signed without any provisions or assurances requiring future signal encryption, suggesting the league does not view over-the-air broadcasting as a primary piracy vulnerability.

The report provides three specific instances of piracy, including the FIFA World Cup, a mention of European soccer games being pirated and the 2017 Mayweather-McGregor fight. While the FIFA World Cup game was broadcast on television stations here in the USA, it is likely that it was pirated off of encrypted sources along with the other European soccer matches. And the Mayweather-McGregor fight was an encrypted Pay Per View event.

The government’s report cites data from Irdeto, a European company specializing in signal encryption for satellite and streaming providers. A review of their technical literature shows that modern piracy relies on methods like stealing session tokens, purchasing compromised account credentials on the dark web, or utilizing a technique known as CDN leeching.

These methods bypass the physical complexities of installing antennas to intercept local signals, demonstrating that for pirates encrypted content is easy to pirate than the unencrypted broadcast signals.

Furthermore, Irdeto’s guidance emphasizes the necessity of multi-DRM systems to ensure a frictionless viewing experience across different platforms. Currently, ATSC 3.0 DRM only supports Widevine, a Google technology. This single-DRM approach limits compatibility, leaving devices like Apple TV, Roku, Xbox, and standard computers unable to decode the encrypted broadcasts.

The push for encryption appears closely tied to the economics of broadcast retransmission fees. In Connecticut, for example, cable subscribers currently pay around $48.30 a month strictly for local channel access. Encrypting the over-the-air signals forces consumers to either maintain these cable subscriptions or purchase new, proprietary decoding hardware. Ahead of the upcoming NAB show, industry executives have discussed a proposed $60 tuner box. However, this device is expected to function solely as a tuner without DVR or gateway capabilities and cost three times as much as current tuning devices that do include DVR functions.

Broadcasters also point to the A3SA encoding rules, which currently permit time-shifting and recording. But these allowances apply only to content that is actively simulcast with the older ATSC 1.0 standard. Once the simulcast requirement expires, broadcasters provide are not committing to restricting or disabling recording capabilities entirely, shifting control of public airwave usage to a private entity.

The FCC is presently collecting public feedback on a separate but related sports broadcasting docket (26-45), which examines the impact of broadcasting practices on consumers and local market obligations. The comment period for this specific docket remains open for roughly another week, offering another venue for the public to submit their observations regarding how signal encryption may affect access to local sports broadcasts.

California Law to Require Age Verification on All Operating Systems (Including Linux)

admin — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 13:59:41 +0000

Recently, a new California law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom caught my attention due to its potential impact on the open-source community, specifically Linux users. The legislation mandates that operating systems for PCs and other general computing devices like tablets and phones must implement a form of age verification during the initial account setup process.

I take a look at the implications of this law in my latest video.

While California is not the only state pursuing such measures—Texas recently faced legal hurdles over a similar law—this development raises questions about how open-source organizations, rather than traditional corporate entities, will comply.

The text of the California bill, which was signed on October 13, 2025, and takes effect on January 1, 2027, calls for an interface that requires the account holder to provide their birth date or age. This information generates a signal regarding the user’s age bracket—categorized as under 13, 13 to 16, 16 to 18, or over 18—to be read and enforced by applications within a covered app store.

The legislation defines an operating system provider broadly enough to include independent developers creating Linux distributions. Furthermore, a covered application store is defined as a publicly available online service, which could encompass command-line package managers used daily by Linux administrators.

From a practical standpoint, the current requirement relies entirely on self-reporting. Users are asked to volunteer their age, meaning anyone could input inaccurate information to bypass restrictions. Despite this, the penalties for non-compliance are clearly defined. Operating system makers face civil penalties ranging from $2,500 for negligent violations to $7,500 for intentional violations per “affected child.” If a developer has internal data showing a user’s actual age differs from the self-reported signal, they are legally obligated to act on that information or face action from the California Attorney General.

The implications for Linux distributions are notable. Commercial entities with a business nexus in California, such as the organizations behind Ubuntu and Fedora, will likely implement the necessary prompts to comply.

However, smaller projects face a different reality. Many distributions are maintained by volunteer groups without the financial resources or organizational structures to shield them from liability. Midnight BSD has already modified its software license to exclude California residents, but this legal maneuver may not satisfy California regulators if the software remains accessible for download within the state’s borders.

This legislative push is not confined to the West Coast. My home state of Connecticut is currently evaluating controls for minors on the internet, and Colorado is exploring operating system-level age verification. Texas attempted to regulate app stores before a federal court blocked the law, citing First Amendment concerns regarding its broad application. The absence of a unified federal privacy law has resulted in a fragmented regulatory landscape across different regions.

Historically, some internet users have responded to localized regulations by migrating to decentralized platforms. When Discord faced scrutiny over its age verification methods that included video selfies and government IDs, users began exploring open-source alternatives like Revolt and Matrix. These self-hosted and federated platforms demonstrate how technical communities can circumvent centralized data collection and restrictive legal mandates.

As the 2027 deadline approaches, it is likely that many Linux distributions will simply integrate a birth date or age prompt into their installation screens to mitigate legal risks. The technical challenge of passing that age signal consistently to various package managers and standalone applications remains a logistical hurdle. The coming months will test how far state authorities are willing to go in enforcing these mandates on the broader open-source software ecosystem.

ATSC 3.0 TV Encryption Update: The Final Arguments are In..

admin — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 15:03:41 +0000

The final arguments regarding the encryption of over-the-air television have been filed with the FCC, and now it’s in the Commission’s hands. In my latest ATSC 3.0 analysis video, we take a look at how broadcasters responded to encryption concerns.

After reviewing hundreds of pages of documents, it appears the industry’s rebuttal to consumer concerns relies heavily on dismissing documented technical failures as mere anecdotes while asserting that encryption is necessary for the future of broadcast media.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has characterized reports of DRM failure—such as devices refusing to tune channels—as “early deployment friction” that does not justify stalling a national transition. They argue that individual complaints do not reflect systemic flaws. Yet, this stance contradicts the experience of users who have found that encryption often breaks the basic functionality of a television.

For instance, the A3SA, the body managing the encryption keys, argues that software-based devices require internet-based updates for bug fixes. This requirement introduces a significant dependency on internet connectivity for a medium that is marketed as being free and accessible over the air.

I recently demonstrated this vulnerability when an ADTH set-top box, which marketing materials claimed did not require an internet connection, failed to tune encrypted channels during a snowstorm. This inability to access weather information during an emergency challenges the industry’s assurance that content protection does not impede public safety messaging.

Beyond technical reliability, the industry posits that DRM is essential to combat piracy and secure content for sports broadcasting. The A3SA cited a media report claiming billions in losses due to piracy, yet the article in question focused on cable and streaming theft rather than the unauthorized capture of over-the-air signals.

Historically, DRM has been less about stopping piracy—which remains rampant despite encryption—and more about siloing users into specific hardware and software platforms. By making free over-the-air reception more difficult, broadcasters may be incentivizing consumers to stick with paid cable or streaming packages. Furthermore, claims that major sports leagues will withhold content without encryption are not supported by the current landscape, where broadcast contracts are being renewed for extended periods without such mandates being public.

There is also a significant question regarding the neutrality of the A3SA, which acts as the sole gatekeeper for approving tuning devices. While the organization claims to be neutral, it is comprised of major broadcast entities. This structure effectively allows the industry to pick winners and losers in the hardware market.

Manufacturers of popular gateway devices, such as Silicon Dust’s HDHomeRun, have been unable to secure certification under the current regime. The A3SA’s standards remain opaque and protected by non-disclosure agreements, preventing independent verification by even the FCC and effectively locking out devices that distribute signals across a home network to non-Android devices.

Ironically, while the industry argues that DRM protects consumers from the security risks of illicit streaming, the approved hardware itself presents security concerns. The ADTH box mentioned earlier was found to be running an Android security patch level from 2021, leaving it vulnerable to years of known exploits.

It seems unlikely the FCC will mandate a hard transition to ATSC 3.0 in the near term given the abysmal consumer adoption rates. The current ecosystem is too fragmented, and the cost and complexity of encryption have slowed adoption to a crawl.

And ultimately for consumers, they’re really not getting as much as they did during the prior transition. Back in the early 2000s TV viewers went from analog standard definition signals to digital high definition ones – a huge jump in visual fidelity. While ATSC 3.0’s HEVC video encoding is certainly noticeable for enthusiasts, I doubt most mainstream consumers will notice much of change.

I believe a probable outcome is a “frozen conflict” where the FCC ends the simulcast mandate, allowing stations to voluntarily switch to 3.0 if they choose, while potentially authorizing more efficient video codecs like MPEG-4 for the existing ATSC 1.0 standard.

This would allow the legacy standard to improve and remain viable, effectively leaving ATSC 3.0 to succeed or fail on its own merits without a government mandate forcing consumers to upgrade. We may end up with a better-looking version of the television service we already have, while the next-generation standard struggles to find its footing.

Your ISP Is Spying On You..

admin — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:38:38 +0000

Recently, I reviewed a 2021 Federal Trade Commission report detailing the data collection practices of six internet service providers. The report examined AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Google Fiber, Comcast Xfinity, and Charter Spectrum Communications. It found that standard consumer privacy measures, such as web browser tracking protections, are ineffective against ISPs because many utilize a “supercookie” to persistently track network activity.

In my latest video, I dive into this topic and look at what you can do to stop this data collection.

Because households share a single internet connection, this tracking encompasses all users on the network, including children. ISPs gather information by observing the websites a household visits, the frequency and duration of those visits, and the amount of data transferred. Providers can send a user’s IP address to an ad affiliate, who then passes it to a data broker to build an informational profile. This data extends beyond basic demographics, categorizing users by religious affiliation, ethnicity, and political leanings.

The sale of this information presents distinct privacy risks. Beyond targeted advertising, the FTC report indicates that scammers can purchase access to these profiles. Additionally, a 2019 Motherboard report revealed that bounty hunters were able to buy customer location data originating from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint phones. Despite these practices, consumer engagement with ISP privacy policies remains low. The FTC found that the provider with the highest engagement saw only 6.7 percent of subscribers look at their privacy pages.

I examined my own provider, Comcast Xfinity, to understand their specific policies. Comcast stated in a 2017 blog post and on their current privacy pages that they do not sell personal information without affirmative opt-in consent. However, agreeing to their terms of service during the initial account sign-up functions as that consent.

Navigating Comcast’s privacy section reveals numerous documents and a complex process for managing data disclosures. Users can opt out of certain disclosures, such as participation in audience measurement or personalized ads, but the application of these settings to broader tracking methods is ambiguous.

The ability to view, change, or delete the specific data an ISP holds depends heavily on state laws. For residents in states with applicable laws, Comcast provides a form to request a download of stored data, which includes account information, behavioral inferences, and details about telecommunication usage.

I submitted a data download request over a week ago, a process Comcast notes can take up to 30 days to fulfill. Until comprehensive federal regulations are established, the responsibility remains on the individual subscriber to navigate these varied settings and actively opt out of data collection.

I will be back with an update once Comcast hands over my data. Stay tuned!

ATSC 3.0 DRM Opponents Make Their Case to the FCC

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:52:16 +0000

The transition from the current over-the-air television standard to NextGenTV, or ATSC 3.0, continues to generate significant debate, particularly regarding the decision by many broadcasters to encrypt their signals.

In my latest video, I take a look at the filings from organizations and individuals opposing the implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) on the public airwaves.

This issue moved from theoretical to practical for me recently during the Super Bowl. I was unable to tune into the game over the air because my local NBC affiliate had encrypted their channel, and the legacy ATSC 1.0 signal was unreliable at my location, forcing me to stream the event instead.

I submitted my own filing to the FCC docket, effectively mirroring the arguments I raised in my prior video on this topic regarding the industry’s justification for encryption. To circumvent file size limitations on the docket, I attached a PowerPoint presentation with embedded video evidence, a method that allows for the submission of multimedia documentation under the 100-megabyte limit. This approach is useful for anyone wishing to demonstrate the real-world impact of these restrictions, such as devices failing to decrypt channels they are theoretically certified to receive.

One of the most comprehensive filings came from Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group. They commended the FCC for scrutinizing the issue but raised substantial concerns about the A3SA, the authority managing the encryption program. Public Knowledge argued that the A3SA operates without meaningful external oversight, maintaining confidential licensing terms and opaque decision-making processes. They contend this entity acts as a private gatekeeper to the public airwaves without accountability to consumers or public interest stakeholders.

Public Knowledge also highlighted the potential for consumer confusion arising from the current certification regime. There are now two distinct logos for consumers to navigate: the NextGenTV logo and the A3SA logo. A device might carry the NextGen TV certification, like the HDHomeRun gateway I use, yet lack the ability to decrypt content. Conversely, a device like the Zapperbox may have A3SA certification for decryption but lack the NextGenTV designation. During a recent visit to a major electronics retailer, I observed that neither logo was displayed on television sets that support the new standard, suggesting that this certification system has yet to effectively reach the consumer marketplace.

Furthermore, Public Knowledge drew a parallel between the current situation and the “broadcast flag” rule from the previous digital transition. They argued that the A3SA certification requirements essentially function as a new, more sophisticated broadcast flag, allowing broadcasters to dictate which devices can receive programming and potentially restricting recording capabilities. They also reminded the Commission that the FCC’s 2017 order to begin the ATSC 3.0 transition emphasized that encrypted programming should not require special equipment supplied by the broadcaster, a standard the current regime may be failing to meet.

Opposition also came from within the broadcast industry itself. Weigel Broadcasting, which operates stations reaching a vast majority of US households, filed comments expressing concern over the direction taken by larger broadcasting consortiums. Weigel presented evidence suggesting that some competitors view the new standard primarily as a vehicle for monetization, such as integrating gambling platforms or treating the spectrum as a financial asset rather than a public service. They acknowledged that the current implementation of DRM has created adoption hurdles and suggested that if encryption must exist, it should not require a persistent internet connection—a requirement that has already caused functionality issues with some commercially available tuners as noted in my prior video.

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), which represents device manufacturers, also weighed in. While their filing focused largely on opposing a mandate for ATSC 3.0 tuners in all televisions, they acknowledged the friction caused by DRM. This is a complex position for the CTA, as the encryption technology being used is owned by Google, a major industry player and CTA member, yet the implementation is harming member companies like SiliconDust (also a member). Their filing recommends that the Commission continue to monitor the intersection of DRM and the new standard, a notable admission from an organization that typically advocates against government intervention in their industry.

Similarly, the NCTA, representing cable and internet providers, cited encryption as a complicating factor that adds cost and technical challenges to the transition. They argued that these complexities support their stance against a forced transition to the new standard, noting that the need to support new audio and interactive formats is already a heavy burden without the additional layer of decryption requirements.

For those who have experienced issues with encrypted channels or malfunctioning hardware, the opportunity to place these experiences on the record is closing. The reply deadline for this docket is February 18. Under FCC rules, new filings at this stage must be in direct response to arguments already present in the record. This provides a narrow window for consumers to submit evidence countering the claims made by broadcasters, such as documenting instances where “offline” DRM failed to function as advertised. The record is currently being shaped by these final arguments, and the volume and specificity of these replies may influence the Commission’s next steps.

You can get more information about how to file here. I also did a video on the topic here.

ADTH’s ATSC 3.0 Box Woes Kill the Industry’s Arguments Regarding Over the Air TV Encryption

admin — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 13:16:22 +0000

I’ve been spending the last few days reading through the filings in the FCC’s ATSC 3.0 docket now that the comment period has closed, trying to understand how broadcasters, device makers, and industry groups are framing the next phase of the over-the-air television transition.

While I was doing that, I went upstairs to check on my own ADTH tuner, a device that’s supposed to handle encrypted ATSC 3.0 channels without needing an internet connection. It wasn’t working. Encrypted channels wouldn’t tune at all, and the box was throwing content protection errors that hadn’t been there before.

In my latest analysis piece, I talk about how widespread problems with this box tuning encrypted channels popped up just as the industry was saying there were no concerns with DRM.

That problem sent me down a familiar path. ATSC 3.0 is the planned successor to today’s ATSC 1.0 broadcast standard, and on paper it brings technical improvements. In practice, the transition has been complicated by broadcasters choosing to encrypt free, over-the-air signals. That decision has narrowed consumer choice and added layers of complexity that simply didn’t exist before. The industry’s assurances that this system is mature and reliable don’t line up with what I’m seeing in my own home.

One of the filings I reviewed came from ADTH itself. The company strongly supports the transition and argues that there are no real technical barriers to consumer devices receiving encrypted broadcasts. Encryption and digital rights management, they say, are routine in modern electronics.

That’s hard to square with my experience. After repeated errors, I tried a factory reset. Instead of fixing anything, the device dropped into a boot loop, endlessly scanning channels and rebooting. Even with an internet connection restored, it refused to recover. At that point it stopped being a TV tuner and effectively became a brick.

What made this more than a minor inconvenience was timing. We were in the middle of a significant snowstorm, the kind of situation where over-the-air television has historically been a reliable source of local information. Because the encrypted channels wouldn’t tune, that information simply wasn’t available on this device. And this doesn’t appear to be an isolated issue. I’ve heard from viewers and seen reports on Reddit and AVS Forum from people around the country whose boxes stopped working around the same time. Some even reported that disconnecting the internet made their tuners work again, which raises uncomfortable questions about how these systems are actually operating.

At the same moment consumer devices were failing, the group that oversees the encryption system, the A3SA, told the FCC it has seen no evidence of approved devices failing to work with encryption. They also suggested that any reported issues are generally resolved with firmware updates. That response glosses over a basic problem: firmware updates require an internet connection. Requiring internet access just to watch free, over-the-air television undermines one of broadcast TV’s core purposes, while adding cost and fragility.

The A3SA also describes itself as a “neutral, standards-based administrator.” From what I’ve seen, that neutrality is questionable. The group is made up of major broadcasters and has effectively decided which manufacturers can and can’t participate. SiliconDust’s HDHomeRun, a widely used network tuner, has been denied approval, while other devices with similar technical characteristics have been cleared.

Another theme running through the filings is piracy. Broadcasters cite tens of billions of dollars in losses and argue that encryption is necessary to protect their content. When you dig into the examples they reference, though, the picture changes. One high-profile piracy case they cite involved stealing encrypted signals from cable and satellite providers, not rebroadcasting free over-the-air signals.

Encryption, it appears, inconveniences only those who are viewing content lawfully – not the pirates.

Broadcasters also warn that without encryption they risk losing premium sports programming. Yet recent rights deals tell a different story. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, and major college conferences have all committed to long-term agreements that keep marquee events on broadcast television for years to come. These deals were struck without any guarantee that over-the-air signals would be encrypted, which undercuts the argument that encryption is essential to retaining top-tier content.

The FCC has also raised questions in this filing round about consumer rights, particularly the long-standing right for consumers to record broadcasts at home for personal use. That right was established decades ago, but encryption complicates it. Circumventing DRM, even for lawful personal recording, can be illegal. The A3SA argues that internal rules already protect home recording, but those assurances are tied to current simulcasting requirements that may disappear. Once they do, the only remaining safeguards would be voluntary commitments from broadcasters whose financial incentives don’t necessarily align with consumer flexibility.

Underlying all of this is a business reality that the National Association of Broadcasters acknowledged more directly in its own filing. Encryption is about protecting retransmission fees, the charges cable and streaming providers pay to carry broadcast channels. Those fees have risen sharply over the years, and making free reception less convenient creates pressure to return to paid services. That strategy may make sense from an industry perspective, but it runs counter to the idea of broadcast spectrum as a public resource.

There’s also nothing in the current framework that limits encryption to a single system. The ATSC admits in their filing that multiple, incompatible schemes could emerge, adding yet another layer of confusion for viewers and device makers alike. At that point, the promise of ATSC 3.0 as a straightforward upgrade starts to look like something else entirely.

After reading the docket and dealing with a tuner that worked one day and failed the next, I’m left with the sense that encryption over the public airwaves is creating problems faster than it’s solving them. Broadcasters were granted access to spectrum at no cost, with the understanding that they would serve the public interest. Turning free television into a fragile, tightly controlled experience doesn’t seem consistent with that mission. I plan to file a reply in the FCC proceeding during the response window, and there’s more in these filings worth unpacking.

Stay tuned for more and see my full ATSC playlist here!

The RAM Crisis Explained: An Interview with Framework’s Nirav Patel

admin — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 03:29:19 +0000

The price of memory is climbing, and it’s not just a problem for people building a new PC. RAM for laptops, desktops, phones, and tablets is getting more expensive as AI data centers absorb an increasing share of global supply. To better understand what’s happening behind the scenes, I called up Nirav Patel, CEO of PC maker Framework, to talk through how this shortage developed and what it means for consumers over the next several months.

Check out the interview in my latest video!

Patel described the current situation as a classic supply-and-demand imbalance, but on a scale the consumer market hasn’t seen before. Only a handful of companies—Micron, SK hynix, and Samsung—manufacture most of the world’s DRAM, and expanding capacity requires massive capital investment.

“What we’re seeing right now is just a massive excess of demand relative to the supply available,” Patel said.

With AI servers commanding higher margins, manufacturers are prioritizing those customers, leaving consumer products with tighter allocations. That imbalance has been building quietly for years, but it became much more visible when Micron announced it was shutting down its Crucial consumer memory brand last month. For PC builders, Crucial had long been a reliable option. Patel said the decision made sense given current conditions.

“When memory is in allocation, it doesn’t make sense to compete with your own customers,” he explained, noting that Micron supplies chips not only to large OEMs like Dell and HP, but also to other consumer memory brands.

One reason Framework has been able to navigate repeated supply disruptions—from pandemic shortages to GPU crunches and now memory—is its modular design philosophy. Patel credited flexibility as a survival tool.

“We built the product to be modular, and that gives us a lot of flexibility to navigate these kinds of environments,” he said.

Because many Framework systems are sold as DIY editions, customers can source their own memory and storage when shortages hit, sharing some of the burden rather than leaving the company entirely exposed.

The uncertainty isn’t limited to pricing. Patel described a market filled with overlapping orders, canceled allocations, and even hoarding.

“It is actually very unclear to anyone what the true ground truth is in the market when it comes to the supply and the demand,” he said.

Companies are placing duplicate orders with multiple suppliers, unsure which ones will be fulfilled. That behavior, he noted, can make shortages appear worse than they ultimately are, at least until reality catches up.

Geopolitics are also playing a role. Chinese memory maker CXMT has historically been avoided by many U.S. companies due to sanctions and long-term sourcing concerns, but Patel said that’s starting to change. “If you’re not sure where you’re going to be able to get your memory in two months, you better go and qualify every possible source,” he said, adding that some major OEMs are now testing and approving parts they previously wouldn’t have considered.

For consumers, the immediate concern is quality as prices rise and supply tightens. Patel’s advice was straightforward: stick with established brands. He doesn’t expect major manufacturers to compromise their reputations to chase short-term gains.

“Those brands are not going to torch all of their credibility in this short window of time,” he said, though he acknowledged that lesser-known vendors may try to take advantage of the situation.

While memory is the biggest constraint right now, Patel doesn’t believe every component will remain scarce long term. If memory remains the bottleneck, other parts like GPUs and storage should eventually stabilize because they can’t be deployed without sufficient RAM. In the near term, however, he expects continued volatility as the market works through excess orders and misaligned expectations.

Looking further ahead, Patel pushed back on the idea that soldered or unified memory is a solution to shortages. Even systems that place memory on the same package as the processor often rely on separately sourced components. For Framework, modular memory remains central to its roadmap, especially during periods like this. “Buy what you can afford today,” he said, “and buy solutions that let you upgrade in the future.”

Patel emphasized uncertainty as the defining market feature of the moment. AI demand has reshaped how memory is allocated, and the consumer market is now competing in a space it no longer dominates.

Curious about Framework? Check out my Framework videos here and my other interviews here!

My First Cord Cutting / ATSC 3 Update of 2026

admin — Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:27:13 +0000

In the days leading up to the CES show and throughout the week in Las Vegas, several cord cutting news items related to the ATSC 3.0 over the air TV standard were announced. In my latest video, I provide a more in-depth overview of these developments that I touched on briefly during my CES Dispatch series.

Watch the update here!

As a recap, a central issue remains DRM encryption over the new ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard. Broadcasters are pushing to lock down over-the-air signals, limiting how viewers can receive and use content that has traditionally been freely accessible. While they say this is to prevent piracy, the real outcome is that it pushes consumers to expensive cable and streaming plans to maintain recording and time shifting features they enjoy today.

This matters because retransmission fees charged by broadcasters continue to rise at almost an exponential rate. In my area, the Broadcast TV fees are now $48.30 per month – and that’s before other cable charges. Even the most basic cable subscription will now cost consumers more than $60 monthly. Of course using an antenna to receive television is completely free.

Shortly after I began asking viewers to download and share their Comcast rate cards, Comcast removed the broadcast TV fee line item from their published rates entirely. The company says this was done to simplify pricing, but the effect is reduced transparency. The costs haven’t disappeared; they’ve simply been folded into higher base prices.

At CES, Pearl TV announced what it described as an affordable ATSC 3.0 converter box program. This is positioned as a way to lower the barrier to entry for consumers and manufacturers, but it closely resembles a similar failed effort announced in 2022 that never materialized.

The underlying root cause of Pearl’s troubles with consumer adoption hasn’t changed. Encryption and certification requirements add cost and complexity in a market that is already small. Even the proposed “affordable” devices are expected to cost under sixty dollars, still roughly double the price of many ATSC 1.0 tuners (compensated affiliate link) that include DVR functionality.

The certification process itself remains a problem. Pearl TV and the A3SA encryption body are private entities made up of the same major broadcasters, effectively controlling which devices are allowed to receive encrypted signals and ultimately be sold to consumers. This introduces a layer of private regulation on top of what has traditionally been governed by FCC standards alone.

Another announcement hinted at some movement on gateway devices, which take an antenna signal and distribute it across a home network. After years of delays, A3SA says encrypted gateway functionality is now working on a limited number of products, including the ZapperBox and an upcoming ADTH device. These solutions, however, are expensive and tightly constrained. ZapperBox requires multiple expensive proprietary devices for multi-TV households, and the ADTH approach is limited to Android and Fire TV platforms, excluding market leader Roku.

Visiting the ATSC booth at the CES show made it clear how confusing this ecosystem has become. Devices carried different combinations of NextGen TV and A3SA certifications, each with different implications for compatibility and functionality. By contrast, current ATSC 1.0 devices work simply because they can receive the signal, without needing approval from a private consortium.

There may be signs of easing tensions. An interview with SiliconDust CEO Nick Kelsey suggested that support for encrypted ATSC 3.0 signals could eventually come to HDHomeRun devices without additional hardware. That would be a meaningful shift, though it still leaves unanswered questions about support on non-Android platforms and the broader role of DRM on public airwaves.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr addressed these issues during a CES discussion, emphasizing the public interest obligations tied to broadcast licenses. He noted that broadcasters unwilling to meet those obligations have other distribution options, from cable to online platforms, and raised the possibility of revisiting how spectrum is allocated if public interest standards are not upheld. Those comments echo questions raised by the FCC in its current ATSC 3.0 docket, particularly around whether encryption serves consumers or primarily protects broadcaster revenue.

That docket remains open for public comment, with additional opportunities to respond once broadcasters file their answers. The outcome is still uncertain, but it’s clear the FCC has heard our concerns and is waiting for the broadcasters to make their case as to why restricting access to the public airwaves will better serve the public.

Texas Files Suit Against Smart TV Makers Over Spying Features

admin — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:24:45 +0000

Back in October, I started a video series looking at “Automatic Content Recognition” (ACR) which is a technology that modern smart televisions use to collect data about what people are watching. The televisions take actual visual and audio snapshots of what is on the screen several times a second.

In my latest video on this topic, I look at a new set of lawsuits filed by the Texas Attorney General against five major TV manufacturers—Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense, and TCL—over their use of this technology. The Texas AG even scored an early victory, requiring Hisense to turn off their ACR systems for Texas residents.

The lawsuits were all filed in a Texas state court, which means any outcomes would apply only to Texas residents. Still, they offer a detailed look at how this technology works and how aggressively it is being deployed.

The frequency of ACR sampling varies by manufacturer and model, but in some cases the sampling happens multiple times per second. That information is converted into a digital fingerprint and sent to a remote server, where it is matched against a massive database of media. Once identified, the viewing data can be sold to advertisers and data brokers.

As I noted in my earlier videos, ACR can also analyze anything coming into the television through HDMI, including cable boxes, streaming devices, and video game consoles. The lawsuits allege that video games are a big area of data collection for TV manufacturers and data brokers, which raises questions about whether they are illegally capturing data from children under the age of 13.

Marketing materials cited by the Texas Attorney General in the lawsuits suggest that some companies use this data to track users across devices and platforms, following them from their TV screens to social media sites and other parts of the internet. In one example cited in the filings, LG is accused of collecting screen data as frequently as every 10 milliseconds and building detailed consumer profiles that may include political interests, religious viewing habits, and other personal characteristics.

Another major issue raised in the lawsuits is informed consent when users are asked to opt into these features. While most smart TVs technically require users to opt in before data collection begins, the Attorney General argues that the process is designed to push users toward agreement. Opting in is often a single click, while opting out can require navigating dozens of menu options spread across multiple screens. In some cases, declining data collection disables core smart TV features altogether, effectively forcing users to choose between privacy and functionality. Screens shown in the lawsuits for brands like TCL and Hisense often lack a clear “disagree” option, while others rely on confusing layouts that make refusal unintuitive.

Samsung is also accused of misleading customers by claiming it does not collect video or screen content. The state argues that even if the company only transmits hashed fingerprints rather than raw images, the end result is the same because the system can still identify exactly what is being watched.

The Attorney General is seeking jury trials, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, and additional restraining orders against the manufacturers. Beyond the legal details, the lawsuits highlight how valuable viewing data has become. It helps explain how large televisions can be sold so cheaply: the hardware is often subsidized by ongoing data collection.

For viewers who are concerned about this practice, the most reliable option remains disconnecting the television from the internet entirely and using an Apple TV that has stronger privacy controls. Even then, avoiding tracking altogether is difficult, but these cases shed light on just how much data smart TVs can collect—and how little most users may realize about what is happening in the background.

I’ll continue watching how these lawsuits develop, since they may signal whether other states are willing to challenge an industry practice that has largely operated out of public view until now.

2025 Toyota Sienna Recall : A Tale of Betrayal by a Once Trusted Brand..

admin — Sat, 13 Dec 2025 13:55:13 +0000

I bought a new Toyota Sienna with my wife in January of 2025, a Woodland Edition that replaced our 2019 Sienna. It was our third Toyota, following a Highlander and a previous 2019 Sienna. Until recently I had no reason to question the brand. The vehicle itself has been solid, and nothing about the driving experience suggested there was a serious issue lurking beneath the surface.

That changed when a recall notice arrived in the mail in mid-December. The letter explained that Siennas manufactured between January and July of 2025 may have defective middle-row seat rails. In certain high-speed collisions, those seats could lose structural integrity if occupied, increasing the risk of injury. Toyota’s guidance was blunt: no one should sit in the second-row seats while the vehicle is moving until a fix is implemented. At the time of the notice, no remedy had been defined.

Explore more in my most recent commentary video.

What troubled me was not just the defect, but the timeline. According to Toyota’s own filings, the company became aware by September that the seats could dislodge in a crash. A voluntary safety campaign decision was made on October 1, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was notified shortly thereafter. Dealers were also informed at that time and instructed not to sell affected vehicles. Yet as a customer, I did not learn about the issue until roughly two months later, despite continuing to drive my family in a vehicle Toyota already knew had a potentially serious safety problem.

Toyota did issue a press release when the recall was filed, but it was easy to miss if you are not actively following automotive news. When I asked Toyota’s PR department why customers were not contacted sooner, I was told that assembling mailing lists takes time and that federal regulations allow up to 60 days for notification by first-class mail. I was also told there is no comprehensive digital database of owner contact information. That explanation rang hollow, especially after customer service was able to pull up my details immediately using the VIN when I called them.

There is also the role of the dealership. I purchased this vehicle locally, from a dealer that has sold me multiple cars over the years. They had the same information Toyota had in early October, yet there was no proactive outreach to customers who had recently driven off the lot in affected vehicles. A phone call warning families about a seating restriction would not have required a regulatory mandate, only a basic sense of responsibility and duty of care for customers.

Seeking a workaround introduced a second layer of frustration. The service bulletin indicated that impacted customers were eligible for a loaner or a rental vehicle with a daily allowance. When I contacted the dealer, I was told there were no loaners available and that any replacement vehicle would be “whatever was on hand.” The option of a rental was initially dismissed, despite being clearly outlined in Toyota’s own documentation. It took several calls between the dealership and corporate support before a rental was finally arranged.

For now, we will be driving a rented minivan on Toyota’s dime while waiting for the company to determine how it will address the defect. The inconvenience is manageable, but the experience has shaken my confidence.

This was not a minor oversight or a cosmetic issue. It involved seating where children ride, and it carried acknowledged safety risks. Knowing that both the manufacturer and dealers were aware of the problem months before customers were directly notified is difficult to reconcile with the trust that brand loyalty is built on.

I still like the vehicle, and I still want this to be resolved properly. But this episode raises broader questions about how companies communicate with customers when safety is at stake, and whether meeting the minimum regulatory requirement is an adequate substitute for timely, direct warnings.

The FCC Vote on ATSC 3.0 Opens a New Comment Period on DRM, Tuner Mandates

admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 11:59:01 +0000

For the past couple of years, viewers like us have been urging the FCC to rein in broadcasters who want to lock down free antenna signals with encryption. These broadcasters would prefer you watch through paid services that generate retransmission fees, but many of us have been pushing back to preserve the ability to view and record free local TV as we always have.

In my latest video, I talk about a recent vote the FCC took on moving to the next step of the process which includes a significant focus on DRM.

Back in August, Tyler the Antenna Man and I visited the FCC to deliver those concerns in person. A few weeks ago, the commission released a draft order that reflected much of what we presented. The document included serious questions for the industry about how they’ve been handling DRM under ATSC 3.0 and whether their current encryption practices even comply with the Communications Act. The FCC also asked whether regulation of DRM should fall under their authority rather than a private group like A3SA as it does now, and if privacy protections and fair-use rights need to be written into formal rules rather than left to voluntary standards.

Two commissioners, Republican Olivia Trusty and Democrat Anna Gomez, acknowledged the discontent members of the general public are feeling about the ATSC 3.0 transition and committed to ensuring the public interest is a priority in future decision making.

The commissioners voted unanimously to move the process forward. While no new rules are in place yet, the order proposes ending the simulcast requirement that forces stations to broadcast in both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0, and it opens another round of public comment. Once it’s published in the Federal Register, there will be 60 days to file comments and another 30 for replies. That’s our opportunity to make sure the record reflects real-world experience—what it’s actually like trying to tune encrypted 3.0 channels when current devices can’t play them back.

I plan to continue submitting evidence that counters misleading claims from the broadcast lobby. For example, a Sinclair executive recently asserted on LinkedIn that ATSC 3.0 works on phones, tablets, and gateway devices. It doesn’t. I tested every configuration he mentioned—USB-C tuners, set-top boxes, network gateways—and none could decrypt the DRM-protected broadcasts. SiliconDust’s HDHomeRun, which he cited as compatible, has been locked out entirely from A3SA’s system. The president of Silicondust even appealed directly to the FCC for relief. When industry talking points like that appear, I post photographic proof of what consumers actually encounter: a black screen where free TV used to be.

One other example occurred on the official docket. In a filing, broadcasters reversed their position on tuner mandates. Just a few years ago they told the FCC to stay out of hardware requirements. Now they’re asking for mandatory ATSC 3.0 tuners, even though DRM complexity has made manufacturing affordable devices nearly impossible.

As the next comment window opens, I’ll share updates through an email list at lon.tv/rapidresponse and a set of instructions at lon.tv/fccinstructions for anyone who wants to participate. This FCC seems more receptive to the public than prior FCC’s, but the chairman is moving quickly, so timing will matter. When broadcasters spread misinformation, the best response is data—photos, test results, and honest firsthand accounts. That’s how we keep the record straight and make sure free, open access to local TV doesn’t quietly disappear behind a paywall.

The Disney vs. YouTube / Google Dispute Gets Even Worse..

admin — Sat, 08 Nov 2025 17:27:57 +0000

I’ve been following the latest corporate clash between Disney and YouTube, and what’s striking is how much it mirrors the cable disputes of the past—except now it’s happening in the streaming world.

I dive into what’s going on in my latest video.

If you subscribe to YouTube TV, you’ve likely noticed the fallout firsthand. Disney’s channels—including ESPN and local ABC affiliates—have vanished due to a carriage dispute. In addition to losing live television, anything recorded on the YouTube DVR has disappeared too. Those recordings were effectively part of the licensing agreement, not owned by the user doing the recording, and that license is now suspended.

The tension doesn’t stop at television. Disney has also pulled all of its movies from Google’s digital stores, including YouTube and Google Play. That means you can’t buy or rent new Disney titles there anymore. Meanwhile, Google has withdrawn from the Movies Anywhere service, a consumer-friendly platform that let users sync digital movie purchases across multiple services like Apple TV, Prime Video, and (formerly) Google Play. I’ve always appreciated that system—it offered rare flexibility in a digital landscape full of restrictions—but now, for Google users at least, it’s no longer working the way it used to.

Underneath these disputes is a deeper problem: the TV industry’s outdated economic model. There was a time when networks competed on content quality and ad revenue. Now, they rely heavily on retransmission fees—payments from cable or streaming services that carry their channels. As customers cut the cord to escape rising costs, networks have responded by hiking prices even more, a cycle that keeps pushing people away.

I saw it myself before I canceled cable; I was paying $35 a month just for local TV channels. Those fees have crept into streaming too—YouTube TV’s base plan has climbed from $35 in 2017 to $83 last year, and more increases are likely if these negotiations continue to go badly for streamers.

Broadcasters, rather than adapting, are lobbying for rule changes that would let them negotiate retransmission deals station by station instead of through national networks. That would almost certainly mean higher prices and more blackouts, similar to what legacy cable customers face. They’ve packaged the effort under the guise of supporting local news, but the real motive is to extract more revenue from platforms like YouTube TV. Consumers end up paying the price, both figuratively and literally.

At the same time, the broadcast industry is making over-the-air viewing less accessible. With the rollout of the ATSC 3.0 standard—also called NextGen TV—broadcasters are adding encryption that limits what viewers can record or stream inside their own homes. It’s another way of nudging people back toward paid streaming, where networks can charge retransmission fees and control access.

All of this paints a bleak picture for consumers. The fight between Disney and Google is about who gets to collect your subscription dollars, not about improving the viewing experience. While they posture in the media against each other, viewers lose access to channels, movies, and services that once worked seamlessly. I still buy physical media for that reason—Blu-rays with digital codes I can redeem independently of these shifting corporate agreements. Those discs can’t be taken away from me in a dispute.

Eventually, Disney and Google will almost certainly strike a new deal. But when they do, the outcome is easy to predict: everything will return, and it will cost more. In the meantime, it’s another reminder of how little control consumers actually have in the streaming age, and how quickly “your” digital library can turn into theirs again.

Is Smart TV HDMI Spying Legal?

admin — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 04:19:58 +0000

After last week’s video about how smart TVs spy on users, I wanted to take a deeper look at the legalities around allowing TV manufacturers to spy on everything we watch – including what’s connected to our TVs via the HDMI port.

Check it out in my latest video!

As a recap, most televisions don’t just track what apps you use—they can identify what’s on the screen or what’s coming through the speakers, then send that data off to advertisers and data brokers. It’s all done through automatic content recognition, or ACR, and it’s completely legal because users consent to it, often without understanding they have.

When I factory-reset my Roku TV, the setup process gave me two options in regards to ACR: “Agree” or “Manage Preferences.” There was no simple “Yes” or “No.” Most people, eager to get started, are going to hit “Agree.”

If you do click through to “Manage Preferences,” you can then opt out, and Roku will still let you use its smart features. That’s more than I can say for my LG TV, which shut down all its smart functions when I declined a new privacy policy after a firmware update. I could still use connected devices, but the built-in apps were locked out until I accepted the new terms. Roku’s approach at least lets you continue using the interface, but I doubt many users go through the trouble to opt out. A real opt-in should offer a clear yes-or-no choice, not bury “no” under layers of menus.

Roku’s privacy policy itself is over a hundred pages long printed out, and scrolling through it takes several minutes. Buried in that text are all the details about how the company collects and sells data. The numbers make it clear why this is so central to their business—Roku’s recent quarterly report showed more than a billion dollars in gross profit from its platform, compared to only about $146 million from hardware. The TVs are just the delivery mechanism; you and your data are the product.

Apple has taken the opposite approach by asking users directly whether they want to be tracked across apps. The first choice shown is “Ask App Not to Track,” followed by “Allow.” When Apple rolled this out, 96 percent of U.S. users opted out, and even now most people still refuse tracking when given a clear choice. Reports from analytics firms put the current opt-in rate somewhere between 15 and 30 percent.

Looking ahead, I’m concerned about where this technology might go as AI becomes more powerful. Right now, companies say they’re only sending “fingerprints” of screen images, not the images themselves, but even small local models that can run on smartphones analyze photos in surprising detail. It’s easy to imagine a manufacturer deciding that full-image uploads could make targeting more precise and profitable.

Many viewers told me the simple answer is to keep TVs offline. I agree—that’s the easiest fix. Unplug the Ethernet cable, disable Wi-Fi, and use an external device like an Apple TV or a computer if you want streaming apps. But most consumers don’t do that. When I stopped by Best Buy recently, the salesperson said people mainly care whether their new TV supports the apps they use most. They’re connecting their sets because they want convenience, not because they’ve read a privacy policy.

If regulations ever catch up, maybe they’ll require true opt-in choices instead of manipulative prompts. Until then, the safest move is still to disconnect your television from the internet and think carefully about what you’re agreeing to.

For a good resource on taking back control, my friend Veronica over at Veronica Explained has a video on cutting these services out entirely and running everything with open-source tools. She’s got some solid ideas for handling your own streaming setup without giving away your data.

Your TV’s HDMI Port is Spying on You…

admin — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 11:55:32 +0000

When I bought my LG OLED TV about eight years ago, I never imagined it would one day be spying on everything I watched. Like most people, I was aware that smart TVs track viewing habits for marketing purposes, but what I didn’t realize until recently is just how deep that surveillance goes. These devices actually capture images and audio from anything connected to the TV, whether it’s a game console, a streaming box, or even a home movie streamed from your phone. That information gets packaged up and sent to data brokers or used to target ads across the web.

In my latest analysis video, we dive into this issue and see how many popular brands implement it.

This kind of tracking happens through something called Automatic Content Recognition, or ACR. It works by sampling what’s on the screen, matching it against a database, and then building a profile around what your household watches. This data is also used to help marketers see how many viewers actually see their ads.

When I went through the privacy settings on my LG set after a firmware update, I discovered the TV was monitoring all HDMI inputs, not just built-in apps. And when I tried to opt out, the TV refused to let me use any of its “smart” features unless I agreed to those terms.

Other manufacturers handle it differently, though not necessarily better. Samsung buries its ACR disclosure deep in its privacy statements, and while there’s an option to disable “SyncPlus and Interactive Functions,” it’s not clear how complete that shut-off really is.

Amazon’s Fire TV–powered televisions create digital fingerprints from the shows and ads you watch, saying the goal is to verify ad impressions and “reduce repetition,” but that still means every pixel and sound might be analyzed.

Roku is the most open about its practices – and even brags about winning an Emmy for their TV spying technology – mostly because it uses that transparency to sell advertisers on the value of its data. The company even boasts about its ability to track what games are being played on connected consoles and for how long people play them.

Google TV is the biggest mystery of the bunch. There’s little public information about whether Google itself runs ACR or leaves it to each manufacturer. HiSense, for instance, admits to collecting both audio and video data through its Google TV sets. I couldn’t find any comparable details from Sony (a larger maker of Google TV sets), which suggests the fine print may only appear on the TVs themselves, hidden behind those long on-screen agreements few people read before clicking “accept.”

For anyone worried about this kind of data collection, the best defense is to treat your TV as just a display. Disconnect it from the internet and use a separate streaming box instead. I use an Apple TV for that reason—it isn’t perfect, but it’s far less aggressive about data sharing than the others. Consumer Reports maintains a useful guide explaining how to disable tracking features across most major brands, which I’d recommend checking out.

After reading through my LG’s privacy policy line by line, I was startled to realize how much of my personal life could be analyzed simply because it passes through an HDMI cable or streamed to it over my local network. The notion of “the privacy of your own home” is quickly becoming eroded by our “smart” technologies.

See more analysis pieces on my YouTube channel!

What’s Going on With Fire TV?

admin — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:54:20 +0000

Amazon’s new “Select” 4k streaming stick with the new Vega OS has not been well received – especially by enthusiasts. In my latest video, we take a look at what’s going with the FireTV and why Amazon is moving away from the Android player we’ve come to know and mostly love over the last decade.

When I started covering tech on YouTube more than a decade ago, one of the earliest products I reviewed was the original Amazon Fire TV. It was a time when streaming boxes were still new and fragmented. Roku was around, but like today it was very limited in capabilities, and Apple’s TV box didn’t yet have apps. Amazon’s entry in 2014 was a surprise — an Android-based device with an interface built for television. It even beat Google’s Nexus Player, the first official Android TV device, to market by a few months.

Back then, the Fire TV felt like a meaningful step forward. Amazon had invested in game development studios and the box had decent graphics performance for casual play. You could sideload Android apps, and it was fast at launching video, caching streams so they started almost instantly. The platform was flexible, and the company was building a product that appealed to both mainstream users and enthusiasts.

Fast forward eleven years, and Amazon’s latest Fire TV device, the 4K Select, runs something entirely different. The operating system, called Vega OS, has replaced Android under the hood, but Amazon isn’t marketing it openly. It’s not mentioned on the box or in promotional materials. What’s more, this new system limits what the device can do. Apps now need to be rewritten for Vega OS, and many haven’t made the jump yet. In some cases, Amazon is actually streaming apps from the cloud to make them run on the new hardware, a workaround that shows how much compatibility has changed.

This move appears to be a shift in priorities. Vega OS likely helps Amazon build cheaper hardware with lower overhead, targeting the low-end streaming stick segment rather than the higher-performance devices that used to appeal to enthusiasts. Developers can build in React Native, which is cross-platform, but that still means maintaining another version of their app specifically for Vega. Whether streaming app makers will see that as worth the effort remains to be seen.

According to AFTVNews, Amazon is keeping Vega OS confined to the entry-level devices for now, while higher-end Fire TVs and smart TVs may move to a different system based on Android 14.

The timing of this change may have something to do with where Amazon stands in the streaming device market. Data from Pixalate shows Roku leading with about 36 percent of U.S. market share, far ahead of Fire TV’s 14 percent. Roku focuses almost entirely on delivering video streaming with a simple interface. Consumers seem to prefer that over devices that try to do more. Fire TV’s more advanced features don’t appear to be helping it compete.

Roku’s financials tell a similar story. They’ve been selling hardware at little or no profit but making nearly a billion dollars a quarter in gross profit from their platform business — most of it advertising. These devices aren’t meant to be powerful computers anymore; they’re ad platforms with remotes attached. Amazon seems to be trying that model, prioritizing simplicity and scale over capability.

Google is reportedly rethinking its own TV strategy as well, possibly moving away from its current Google TV platform. For users who enjoyed the flexibility of older devices like the NVIDIA Shield (compensated affiliate link), there may not be many options left. The Shield still offers features like sideloading, local media playback, and advanced home theater support with Dolby Vision and lossless ATMOS, but it’s starting to look like an artifact of a different era.

I find it telling that Amazon, a company that once encouraged experimentation on its Fire TV line, is now quietly locking it down. For people who use these boxes just to stream Netflix or Prime Video, that may not matter. But for those who like to tinker — to run emulators, custom apps, or personal media servers — this marks the end of an era. The industry seems to be moving toward simpler, more disposable devices designed to serve ads and stream content, not extend functionality.

My advice? Buy as many NVIDIA Shield devices as you can while they’re still for sale.

Windows 10 Is Dead – What Are Your Upgrade Options?

admin — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:18:57 +0000

The end of Windows 10 is coming up, with Microsoft planning to stop support on October 14, 2025. I’ve been seeing the same warnings you probably have — those pop-ups telling you to upgrade to Windows 11 — and I wanted to take a closer look at what that really means for people still using perfectly good older computers.

Check it out in my latest video!

Windows 10 has had a long run, and I’ve always liked how well it performed even on lower-end hardware. The problem now is that Windows 11 has stricter requirements, mainly the need for a TPM 2.0 security chip and newer processors. If you’ve got an Intel 8th Gen or newer, or an AMD Ryzen 2000 or newer, you’re likely ok to upgrade.

Anything older isn’t officially supported, though there are ways around it. Microsoft doesn’t recommend circumventing the TPM chip requirement, and if they make a change assuming everyone has TPM 2.0, it could cause problems later. Business and government users also have to meet compliance standards, so running an unsupported version isn’t an option for them.

To see how this plays out in the real world, I fired up one of my older PCs — a small Shuttle box with a Celeron processor — and ran Microsoft’s PC Health Check app. It said I could upgrade for free, meaning this one squeaks by. Once Windows Update offers it, I can upgrade to Windows 11 in place. As always, it’s smart to back up first, but the process should be straightforward.

If your machine doesn’t qualify or you’re not ready to move on, Microsoft has something called the Windows 10 Extended Security Update (ESU) program. It’s available to consumers for another year, through October 2026. You can join it for free if you sync your PC settings with Microsoft, trade some Microsoft reward points, or pay $30. It’s not a long-term fix, but it buys more time for hardware that’s still working fine.

For people who’d rather try something new, Linux is worth a look. I tested Linux Mint on that same Shuttle PC, running the XFCE Edition since it’s lightweight and good for older systems. It’s surprisingly easy to get going, with a “live boot” option that lets you try it out without installing anything. Everything worked on my demo machine, and once installed, Mint has most of what you’d need — a web browser, office software, and access to more apps through its software manager. It uses about 1.2 GB of RAM sitting idle, so a 4 GB system runs comfortably.

Installing Linux does mean wiping the drive, so backups are essential, but if you’re done fighting with Windows upgrades, it’s a practical way to keep an older PC useful. I’ve noticed Linux often feels faster on aging machines than Windows 11 does, and since it’s supported well past 2029 for Mint’s current version, it’s a stable alternative.

Whether you stick with Windows 10 a bit longer, move to Windows 11, or jump to Linux, you’ve still got options. It’s interesting that after all these years, some of the oldest PCs still have life left in them — they just need a new OS to keep going.

Is UPS Looking the Other Way on Fraud?

admin — Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:43:04 +0000

I recently posted a video about the “D Deng” review bribery scam where I was offered $20 to remove a negative review and replace it with a five-star one. In that first video I mentioned the letter originated from a UPS store address in California. At the time I assumed the store was just being used without its knowledge, but I’ve since learned the company actually rents a mailbox there.

In my latest video we hear from that store along with UPS Corporate.

As a recap I didn’t take the bribe, but I did report the attempt through Amazon’s review compensation reporting system, uploading the letter and details about the product. Not long after, the product is no longer available for sale, although the seller’s page remains active.

A few days later, Amazon emailed me to acknowledge the report, but also let me know my review of the product had been removed while the investigation was underway. That leaves only glowing five-star reviews on a product I found to be subpar. If the listing comes back, shoppers will see no critical feedback. Sometimes it feels like no good deed goes unpunished.

When I reached out to the UPS store where the letter originated, they said:

We are not part of any kind of services/activities that our boxholder are associated with. They are just using our mailing address so we are not responsible for anything they do.

But the terms of service agreement every UPS Store customer signs clearly prohibits unlawful, illegitimate, or fraudulent use of a mailbox. This scam is exactly that—fraudulent and against federal law. Yet this mailbox holder has operated from the same address for at least four years as it was the same one used in a brushing scam in 2021.

I also asked UPS corporate for comment. Their reply wasn’t much better:

The UPS Store network of stores provides a variety of personal and business services for our customers. All but a handful of The UPS Store locations are individually owned and operated by local franchisees. Franchise owners hire and train their staffs and are responsible to ensure they follow all required laws and regulations related to the services they provide to customers. We have no direct affiliation with the business about which you are inquiring and are not privy to their interests or operations.

Postal authorities and/or law enforcement often work with franchise owners when investigating alleged violations, and we have no reason to believe that could not occur here.

So while they absolve themselves of a franchise holder not following the terms of service, they do profit from that mailbox—5% of monthly sales for royalties plus another 3.5% for marketing according to the UPS store franchise website. That means UPS profits from mailbox rentals, including this one. While technically arms-length, it’s hard to ignore that the corporate parent benefits financially from the revenue franchisees collect, even from problematic clients that violate the terms of service all franchises must present to their mailbox customers.

This whole episode highlights how scams keep finding places to operate, and the corporate owners of those places look the other way. Whether it’s on major e-commerce platforms, social networks, or something as simple as a rented mailbox, there’s little incentive for the companies involved to intervene. They still get paid while fraudsters exploit people. For consumers, it means being extra cautious, because the protections we assume are in place from seemingly trusted corporate brands often aren’t.

A Company Tried to Bribe Their Way Out of a Negative Review – The “D Deng” Scam

admin — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 14:05:23 +0000

In my latest video, I reveal yet another brand behaving badly. This time sending out letters to bribe Amazon reviewers to delete their critical reviews of products.

I recently bought a product on Amazon (affiliate link) that looked like it could be useful for filming. It was a small display that snaps onto the back of an iPhone to mirror the front screen, which sounded ideal since the rear cameras are much better than the front-facing one.

At first, the device seemed to work, but once I hit record, I noticed the display lagged 20 to 30 seconds behind realtime. That made it useless for its intended purpose, and on top of that, the orientation button didn’t work either. I left a review describing what I found—both the good and the bad—but ultimately explained why it didn’t serve its purpose or meet its marketed claims.

After posting my review, I received multiple messages from the third-party seller offering direct refunds, though they avoided directly asking me to change my review. Their eagerness to issue a refund without going through Amazon made sense—too many returns can trigger Amazon to delist a product. But I had already started the Amazon return process so I ignored them.

Not long after that, a letter showed up at my home offering me $20 if I deleted my review. This was troubling because it showed the seller had access to my address, even though the product came from Amazon’s warehouse.

The letter asked me to not only remove my review but also replace it with a five-star positive one. It included instructions to scan a QR code that led to a Chinese website, which logged some data, and then redirected my browser to a mailto address with my order information and gift card preference.

The letter explicitly said not to mention the gift in the review “to protect your Amazon account.” This of course violates Federal Trade Commission guidelines and Amazon’s terms of service, leaving customers at risk of losing their accounts or worse.

The letter came from a UPS store address in San Leandro, California, which has been tied to similar scams in the past. Searching online, I found others had received almost identical letters, sometimes dressed up to look like official Amazon communication. Some even pushed people to review products they hadn’t purchased, including inappropriate ones for adult toys, raising concerns about what unsuspecting recipients—possibly even kids—might see when opening these envelopes.

What makes this situation particularly concerning is how long it seems to have been happening. Reports going back years link the same address to review manipulation and product “brushing” scams, where people receive unordered items to inflate seller ratings. Amazon has been trying to crack down, even working with Chinese authorities to pursue criminal cases, but the persistence of these letters shows how difficult it is to stop.

For anyone who gets one, Amazon has a reporting mechanism. You can submit the product details, ASIN number, and a copy of the letter through their review compensation reporting page. It’s important to do this because the more evidence Amazon has, the better they can track and take action against bad actors. For the rest of us, the takeaway is to stay vigilant. A $20 gift card isn’t worth risking your account, your reputation, or potentially landing yourself in hot water with the law.

A Retail Field Test of ATSC 3.0 / Nextgen TV availability – Are they even trying?

admin — Thu, 31 Jul 2025 15:01:42 +0000

I’ve been covering cord cutting for a while now, and lately, over-the-air television has taken up a lot of my attention. It’s a solid, free alternative to cable, but there’s a shift happening in the broadcast world that’s causing some issues. The industry is transitioning from ATSC 1.0 to a new standard called ATSC 3.0, or NextGen TV. On the surface, this new standard looked like a real improvement, but the added layer of encryption broadcasters are implementing is making things more expensive, less convenient, and a lot more complicated.

Broadcasters have insisted that plenty of devices are available to tune in to these new signals, so I decided to test that claim myself. I went out shopping to see what’s really available, visiting Best Buy, Walmart, and Target to look for NextGen TV compatible products and the logo that Pearl TV, the industry’s marketing group, has been asking consumers to look.

You can see how it went in my latest video.

Pearl claims to have reached millions of households with their marketing campaign and sold millions of compatible devices. They also maintain a website listing all the NextGen-certified products.

My first stop was Walmart, the largest seller of TVs in the United States. The store had plenty of options from brands like Samsung, LG, Hisense, and TCL, but none supported ATSC 3.0 according to the NextGen TV website. This means most people buying a TV at Walmart today are getting one that can’t receive the new signals without a separate device.

Despite that, Walmart had a decent amount of shelf space devoted to over-the-air antennas. Shelf space in a store like Walmart isn’t assigned lightly, so those antennas must be selling. Interestingly, I did find the NextGen TV logo on some of those antennas, but again, not on any TVs themselves. And if you go to Walmart’s website, there’s no option to filter TVs by NextGen compatibility.

At Best Buy, there was a wider range of TVs, including some high-end models that do support ATSC 3.0. The salesperson I spoke with was knowledgeable and pointed me toward the higher-end Sony, LG, and Samsung models. But he wasn’t aware that LG had recently stopped including ATSC 3.0 tuners due to a patent issue. Even among the TVs that did support the standard, there was no visible NextGen branding or mention on in-store signage. I asked if customers often asked about the feature, and he said almost no one does. Most people are more concerned with whether their TVs support streaming apps. Best Buy also had a few antennas with the NextGen logo and some Tablo DVRs for sale, but those only work with the older ATSC 1.0 standard, since ATSC 3.0 gateway devices are effectively locked out right now.

Target had the smallest selection of TVs, mostly mid to low-end sets, none of which supported ATSC 3.0. They also had antennas for sale, with the NextGen logo prominently featured. But like the other stores, there was no way to filter for ATSC 3.0 on their website. Even Amazon, with all its filtering options—covering things like screen mirroring tech and USB-C ports—has no option to search for NextGen TVs. It was the same story on Samsung’s own website. The only retailer I found with a NextGen TV search filter was B&H Photo (compensated affiliate link), and the models listed were all priced over $1,000, since most ATSC 3.0 TVs are still in the premium category.

This whole experience shows that despite the claims being made, most consumers are not buying Nextgen-compatible TVs as most TVs don’t have the tuner. Even if someone wanted one, it’s hard to know which models support it in-store. There’s virtually no signage, no website filtering options, and minimal awareness from retail staff.

Pearl TV may tell the FCC otherwise, but it’s clear there’s still a long way to go. What’s especially frustrating is that without DRM, this new standard could have been something to get excited about. Instead, us tech reviewers have spent years focusing on the DRM problem rather than celebrating the benefits. The broadcasters chose this path, and now they’re claiming those of us who are raising concerns are just astroturfing the issue. There’s still time to fix things, but the window is closing.

The Most Elaborate YouTube Credential Stealing Phishing Attack I’ve Ever Seen

admin — Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:30:31 +0000

I’ve been on YouTube for over a decade now, and with that comes a steady stream of emails—some from viewers, some from brands, and quite a few from scammers. Most of the scam attempts are easy to spot, but every so often, one comes through that’s far more convincing than the rest.

This most recent example caught my attention for how elaborate and well-executed it was, and I think it’s worth sharing as a cautionary tale.

These attacks attempt to get YouTube creators to download malware that steals their login credentials. You’ve probably seen this happen to other creators—big names like Linus Tech Tips have dealt with it. These attackers use social engineering tactics, many times impersonating an ad agency or brand, and send over the malware disguised as a contract.

I get messages daily that are easy to dismiss. One claimed to be from Nvidia offering an RTX 5000, but the email came from a random address in Slovakia. Another one, supposedly from Black Desert, had similar red flags. But others look much more legitimate. One scam I looked into a few weeks ago appeared to be from Corsair. The sender impersonated a real employee and used graphics and assets from Corsair’s actual website. But there were giveaways—like an email that, on reply, went to a random Gmail account and an SMTP server tied to a school in India. That one was fake, but you could spot it with a little digging.

Then came the Sony campaign email, which was on a whole different level. It started with a message from someone at “creatorpulse.org,” presenting themselves as an agency. I hadn’t heard of them before, so I checked out their website. It redirected to another agency, which looked like a social media marketing company. That wasn’t necessarily suspicious, since agencies often operate under different names for different industry verticals.

I responded, just to see where it would go. The sender said this was a major opportunity with Sony and directed me to watch a video on YouTube for more information. The video featured a very professional looking and sounding host that provides a set of instructions to the Creator for participating in the campaign. Creators were promised sizable compensation for this campaign along with up-front payments.

The YouTube channel, “Sony Partnership”, where this video lived looked authentic. It had a verified badge and 139,000 subscribers along with a lot of content taking back years. The video had been posted as unlisted and had over 4,600 views. Other creators were clearly being targeted.

But when I dug deeper, I saw that the content on the channel wasn’t original. It was made up entirely of playlists featuring official Sony videos. The channel itself hadn’t uploaded any public content—it was just borrowing legitimacy by curating the official Sony channel’s content.

I followed the link provided and logged into the associated website using a VPN and a dummy account. The site asked for access to a YouTube channel, displayed some generic YouTube stats, and then prompted users to download a password-protected archive which was supposedly an encrypted spreadsheet of products to request.

But the archive only worked on Windows, which was the biggest red flag. These types of files typically contain malware. If opened, they execute a script designed to steal Google and YouTube credentials. Once that happens, scammers can take over the channel, replace all content with crypto scam livestreams, and impersonate the original creator.

That’s likely what happened to the “Sony Partnership” channel. It was probably a legitimate account at one point—maybe even a verified one with a decent subscriber count—before it was compromised and repurposed for this phishing scheme.

The video in the scam featured a professional-looking host. Curious about who he was, I grabbed a frame and ran an image search. That led me to the portfolio of a video editor and, eventually, to a Fiverr spokesperson named Radostin Radev. He’s not involved in the scam; he was hired through Fiverr, likely thinking he was working for Sony, a past client of his. When I contacted him, he was shocked to find out how his video was being used. He hadn’t known about it until I reached out.

Others have reported receiving similar emails from fake agencies, but linking to the same video and site. Despite these reports, the scam site is still up and running, protected by Cloudflare, and the hijacked YouTube channel remains active and has been for at least a week.

The motivation here is financial. These fake crypto livestreams actually pull in money. One report from Bank Info Security detailed a scam that netted $1.6 million. The tactic is to ask viewers to send a small amount of Bitcoin in exchange for an investment opportunity or giveaway. With a hijacked, verified channel, scammers can use YouTube’s algorithm to amplify reach—sometimes with the help of fake viewers—to pull in real victims.

Bitdefender published a good deep dive last year explaining how these attacks work. It’s worth a read if you want to understand the mechanics behind it. But the bottom line is this: scammers are evolving. They’re spending money, crafting believable narratives, and using stolen or compromised infrastructure to increase their odds of success.

Staying safe means being skeptical, even when everything seems to check out on the surface. Always double-check domains, email headers, and don’t download files you weren’t expecting—especially if they’re password protected and only work on one operating system.

Congress is About to MANDATE AM Radio in Cars

admin — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:01:08 +0000

When I was a kid, my dad used to drive me to work with him during the summers. He had this 1990s-era Mercedes-Benz, and every morning we’d listen to New York AM radio on the way in. Imus in the morning on 660 WFAN, and news on WCBS 880 on the way home. It felt like everyone was tuned in. But a lot has changed, and now Congress is stepping in to keep AM radio alive.

Learn more in my latest video.

There’s a bill moving through Congress that will require all vehicles sold in the U.S.—electric, gas, whatever—to include an AM radio. It has bipartisan support, with 60 co-sponsors in the Senate and 241 in the House. All of this support across the political divide means that this actually might happen. Plus, many members of Congress appear on morning AM radio programs so they have a personal connection to their local stations.

Tesla and BMW haven’t included AM radios in their electric vehicles for over a decade. More recently, other manufacturers have removed AM radios from their EVs and hybrids. The motors in electric vehicles interfere with AM reception because they resonate on similar frequencies to AM radio broadcasts. Automakers have instead opted to offer FM or digital streaming options. In some cases, you can even get AM radio through an HD FM subchannel. That workaround seems to have satisfied most customers so far as there hasn’t been a huge consumer outcry.

Still, the bill would give the Department of Transportation a year to write rules requiring all new vehicles to receive AM broadcasts. There’s a small out for EVs: they can meet the requirement with a digital-only AM receiver, which may be easier to implement. The bill also orders a GAO study on emergency alerts and whether AM is still the best option. There’s a 10-year sunset clause too, so the mandate isn’t forever unless Congress renews it.

The National Association of Broadcasters is backing the bill. That’s not surprising—they see it as essential to preserving AM radio’s role in emergency communications. Senator Ed Markey has been a vocal supporter, citing the unreliability of the internet during emergencies. But it’s worth noting the irony here: while he defends AM as a critical emergency resource, broadcasters are encrypting over-the-air TV signals, which in many cases require an Internet connection to tune into. If emergency access is the priority, maybe it’s time to talk about over-the-air TV encryption too.

On the other side, the Consumer Technology Association is spending heavily to oppose the bill. They argue that nearly everyone now gets emergency alerts through their phones. They cite a survey showing 95% of people remembered getting an alert on their smartphones during a nationwide test, compared to just 1% who heard it on AM radio.

Industry estimates suggest it could cost $3.8 billion to reintroduce AM radios into EVs. Shielding, filters, multiple antennas—it’s not a simple fix. But the law only says a car has to have an AM radio, not that it works particularly well. So automakers may just aim for “good enough.”

AM radio’s advantage is its reach. Because it operates at lower frequencies than FM, its signals travel much farther—especially at night. A powerful AM station can broadcast 100 to 200 miles during the day and sometimes thousands of miles further after dark, thanks to atmospheric bounce. That makes it valuable in emergencies, especially if power is out and people are fleeing in their cars. FM doesn’t cover the same ground, even at similar power levels.

Still, listenership trends are hard to ignore. Back in 2009, the FCC found that just 4% of 12–24-year-olds listened to AM radio. Even among 25–34-year-olds, it was only 9%. The median AM listener back then was 57 years old. In my own YouTube poll, 72% of respondents said they don’t listen to AM radio at all. Just 5% use a streaming app to tune in. It’s anecdotal, sure, but it lines up with national trends.

Despite all that, traditional radio—AM and FM—is still surprisingly strong. A 2022 Pew/Nielsen study found that 82% of Americans tune into radio weekly, and nearly half get some news from it. But podcasting is clearly catching up. According to Edison Research, daily podcast listening has skyrocketed across every age group since 2017. That growth is particularly pronounced among older adults—radio’s core audience.

What’s striking from the Edison Research report is that people mostly listen to podcasts at home. In the car, it’s still over the air AM/FM radio. And most people still commute alone by car according to Census data. Some of the comments on my YouTube poll echoed this. Respondents who retired or no longer have a commute stopped listening to the radio.

So if the radio disappears from the dashboard and a podcast button shows up instead, that’s a major threat to broadcasters. This bill feels like an effort to hold off that transition for just a little while longer.

This mandate, if it passes, won’t turn back the clock and will likely result in interference-ridden radio buttons that EV drivers won’t tune into.

Digital Game Purchases Are Being Taken Away from Gamers – My Experience

admin — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:06:24 +0000

Have we crossed the event horizon into the digital games abyss? I think we might be there. I’ve been buying digital games since the Xbox 360 era—about 20 years now—and a recent story about SNK delisting its Neo Geo games from the Google Play Store made me reflect on just how fragile digital ownership has become. Some of these games were paid titles, and now, even if you bought them, you can’t download them again. They’re just gone.

I take a look at this issue in my latest analysis video.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Ubisoft shut down the servers for the original The Crew game—even for single-player—which rendered both the physical and digital versions unusable. In court filings, Ubisoft even argued that consumers shouldn’t expect to own games forever. That statement alone raises serious concerns about what digital ownership really means.

There’s been some pushback. A petition effort in the EU called “Stop Killing Games” has collected over 1.2 million signatures. It calls for publishers to make games playable in perpetuity if they’re sold as stand-alone purchases. It also pushes for upfront disclosure of how long server-dependent features will be supported. Some developers are fighting it, but it’s encouraging to see gamers so fiercely defending their rights. I only wish more consumers in other markets showed this level of passion and persistence.

I spent the weekend looking through my digital game purchases across various platforms to see what I still have access to. On Xbox 360, I was able to retrieve my very first digital purchase from 2005—Zuma—and get it running again. But the process was clunky. You can’t view purchases on the web, only on the original console, and it’s not clear how long Microsoft will keep those old servers running. My console frequently errored out if I scrolled my past purchases list too quickly.

Not all Xbox 360 games made the jump to modern Xbox consoles through their backwards compatibility efforts. A favorite of mine, Afterburner Climax, never made it to modern devices due to licensing complications over the aircraft featured in the game. Microsoft has stopped porting more titles over for now, citing legal and technical challenges.

On Steam, things look better. My early purchases, including Half-Life 2, are still accessible. I haven’t lost any games there yet. GOG, formerly Good Old Games, also continues to offer access to titles I bought as far back as 2011, like Wing Commander and Castles. They’ve even improved some of those games to work better on newer hardware. The best part about GOG is that the games are DRM free – so you can download them in full and archive them.

Nintendo’s 3DS platform is a mixed bag. I couldn’t test mine because of a swollen battery, but Nintendo has said 3DS downloads are still available—for the “foreseeable future.” Whatever that means.. That wording isn’t exactly reassuring.

The worst offender in my experience has been the Apple App Store. When Apple transitioned to 64-bit apps, many older 32-bit games stopped working. If developers didn’t update them, they disappeared. Big publishers like EA were among the culprits. I had purchased a $10 version of SimCity that ran great on iPhone, but it’s now gone. In its place? A freemium replacement with in-app purchases. Even if I kept an old iPhone with the app installed, it’s tough to get back in due to outdated App Store compatibility.

Other games I lost include THQ’s Star Wars Trench Run, Amateur Surgeon from Adult Swim, and a bunch of others that aren’t even visible in my purchase history anymore. I probably lost at least $30 worth of games, and I can only guess how much other gamers have lost over the years.

There is a workaround for some of these lost iOS games. The Internet Archive hosts an extensive collection of .IPA files, but to install them, you’ll need an old iPhone running iOS 10 or earlier—and you’ll need to jailbreak it. It’s not simple, but it’s one way to reclaim what was lost. I found almost all of my missing games there.

All of this underscores how important digital preservation efforts are. It’s not just about nostalgia. It’s about protecting access to things we’ve paid for and preserving digital history. There’s no consistent law guaranteeing our rights to these digital purchases, and that needs to change. Even worse, gamers looking to preserve DRM protected works could be opening themselves up to legal issues as the DMCA criminalizes DRM circumvention.

If you’ve lost access to games or apps you paid for, I’d be curious to hear your story in the comment section of my video. Whether it was a suspended account or a platform shift beyond your control, you’re not alone. We may not fully realize the scale of this digital abyss until it’s too late.

Comcast Eliminates Data Caps – But You Have to Call First

admin — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 13:24:30 +0000

We’ve been following the Comcast data cap saga for years, and this week there was finally some movement worth talking about. Comcast has made a major shift in its internet plans: the dreaded data caps are gone—for now. The change isn’t automatic, though. You’ll need to call or visit Comcast’s website to make the switch yourself.

I take a look at their new Internet plans in my latest video.

For a while, Comcast’s cap was 1.2 terabytes a month, with a $10 charge for every 50GB you went over unless you paid a hefty monthly fee to bypass it entirely. It wasn’t a small issue either—many people, especially in areas without competing providers, had no choice but to deal with it.

Interestingly, in parts of the Northeast where there’s more competition, Comcast never turned on the caps. Comcast planned to roll them out during the early COVID lockdowns but backed off when the timing turned out to be especially poor. Increased competition in those regions likely kept the caps at bay.

Now Comcast is facing even more pressure. The FCC recently approved a merger between Verizon and Frontier, which means Verizon’s footprint is about to expand significantly. Frontier, after emerging from bankruptcy with a pile of copper infrastructure, managed to build out a decent fiber network using their existing poll attachments. They’ll now be part of a much bigger player, giving Comcast real competition in areas they used to dominate.

To stay competitive, Comcast has introduced new nationwide pricing tiers that eliminate data caps and includes a modem/router gateway without additional fees.

There are several tiers available, from 300 Mbps to 2 Gbps download speeds, though the upload speeds remain asymmetrical. The upstream rates will vary depending on where you live and typically range between 20 and 200 megabits per second.

But like anything with Comcast the price tiers are not cut and dry. Each data rate has three different prices: a one year lock, and five year lock, and an “every day price.” The one year rate is the least expensive, but after the year is up it will revert to the every day rate which at the moment is $30 more per month.

You can cancel service any time without a penalty, but you’ll lose that rate if you decide to come back later. My advice is for people in regions with more ISP competition to go with the one year as you’ll likely get the same or better deal after the year is up. If Comcast is your only choice, the five year is probably your best bet to maintain pricing stability.

The announced prices are assuming you opt into their $10 monthly autopay discount—and they’ll only give you that discount if they can draw directly from your checking account. Credit card autopay doesn’t qualify.

I looked at my own local rate card and confirmed that these new rates are available here in Connecticut. Comcast also offers bundling discounts if you include phone or mobile service, shaving off $10 to $40 depending on how many products you add.

Still, if you’re only looking for internet service in competitive regions, Comcast is not necessarily the cheapest option. Fiber providers like Frontier and GoNetspeed in my state offer symmetrical upload and download speeds, and at lower prices. For instance, Frontier offers 500 Mbps for $30 a month for the first year, while Comcast charges $55 with a one-year lock. But I’m finding all of these ISPs are always looking for ways to up their charges once customers have been with them for awhile.

The important takeaway here is that Comcast’s move to eliminate data caps and bundle in rental equipment is a direct response to increased pressure from fiber providers. Even in areas where Comcast still holds a monopoly, the new pricing applies—so it’s worth taking the time to switch plans.

The trick now is staying alert and ready to exercise your power as a consumer in a competitive marketplace. When your promotional rate expires, don’t let it slide. Call, negotiate, or switch to get the best price.

Here’s Why Your Cable or Streaming TV Bill is So Expensive..

admin — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 13:04:04 +0000

If you’ve ever looked at your cable or streaming TV bill and wondered why it keeps climbing, there’s a good chance it has something to do with retransmission consent disputes like the one playing out between Altafiber and Nexstar. This case gives us a rare look inside the kinds of negotiations that usually happen in private and might help explain some of the hidden costs passed along to subscribers.

I take a look at the complaint in my latest video.

Altafiber, formerly known as Cincinnati Bell, filed a complaint with the FCC accusing Nexstar of negotiating in bad faith. At the heart of the complaint is Nexstar’s demand that Altafiber carry its cable news network, NewsNation, as a condition for continuing to retransmit one of its local broadcast stations. Altafiber claims this violates FCC rules as they allege that Nexstar is not negotiating in good faith by forcing a cable channel to be bundled with a local broadcast station.

What’s more, Altafiber says that only about 900 of its 87,000 subscribers live in the market where Nexstar’s broadcast station is located. Yet they’re being asked to pay for NewsNation across their entire subscriber base. Altafiber says viewership of NewsNation is extremely low, adding that only about 30 people complained when NewsNation was dropped. They argue that the proposed increase in Newsnation’s renewal fee is 15 times the rate of inflation.

This situation is part of a larger trend. Broadcasters used to be guaranteed carriage on cable systems through must-carry rules, but those were ruled unconstitutional in the 1980s. The Cable Act of 1992 replaced that with a system where broadcasters can either demand free carriage or negotiate “retransmission consent” which requires cable operators to pay to carry the station. Most broadcasters chose the latter, and the result is a steady increase in retransmission fees as advertising revenues decline. In my area, Comcast’s local broadcast TV fee recently jumped from $32.75 to $37.50 per month at the start of 2025. And that’s on top of the regular monthly bill for cable and internet service.

This kind of cost creep was what finally pushed me to cut the cord. These fees tend to sit outside of long-term contracts, so they can be increased at any time. The added frustration is that you’re often paying for channels you don’t watch or want, but have no choice in the matter. Altafiber claims NewsNation is profitable not because of viewership, but because of these kinds of forced bundling tactics.

In 2023, Nexstar made $2.57 billion from retransmission fees—far outpacing their ad revenue. In 2024 that number rose to $2.9 billion. The business model seems less about attracting viewers and more about collecting fees from cable and streaming companies, who in turn collect them from you.

The National Association of Broadcasters is pushing for even more deregulation, including relaxed ownership rules and changes that would let them negotiate directly with streaming services like YouTube TV and Hulu in the same way they do with traditional cable companies. That means the $83 monthly bill you’re paying for streaming could go even higher if these efforts succeed.

Some people (like me) try to bypass all this nonsense with an antenna, but that’s becoming harder too. The new ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard is encrypted using DRM that relies on Google and Amazon infrastructure. To watch free over-the-air TV, you often need a “certified” Android box connected to the internet to download decryption keys. The whole system is positioned as protection from “big tech,” yet it can’t function without it.

It’s not often we get this level of detail into how the sausage is made. But based on how things are trending across the industry, the next price hike is probably already on its way.

The Switch 2 Launch Was Nintendo’s Most Successful and Most Boring..

admin — Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:11:35 +0000

I picked up a Switch 2 (compensated affiliate link) the other day—not because I had planned on it, but because I noticed GameStop had them in stock, so I grabbed one. I’ve been playing with it since, but what really stood out to me wasn’t the console itself—it was the nature of the launch. This might be the most low-key console release I’ve ever seen. My kids, who are big Nintendo fans, didn’t even know it was happening. None of their friends were talking about it either. It felt like the Switch 2 just kind of… appeared. And I think that was by design.

See more in my latest video.

That said, the launch was a success for the Big N. They manufactured enough inventory to get units into the hands of most early adopters who wanted one. Nintendo says it’s their most successful console launch to date, selling 3.5 million units in its first four days on the market. Scalpers are not making much money this cycle as a result.

The Switch 2 feels like a slightly better version of the original Switch. It feels faster while navigating the interface and it now has 4K output when docked, though most games won’t take advantage of that. The handheld now sports a larger and higher resolution 1080p screen at 120Hz with variable refresh rate.

There are some tweaks to the hardware: it now features magnetic Joy-Con attachments that attach securely (but prevent the use of non-drifting hall effect sticks), dual USB-C ports, and a sturdier kickstand. Docking works smoothly, and the whole thing feels very familiar to the original Switch. That seems intentional. Nintendo didn’t want to reinvent the wheel—they just wanted to refine it. The result is a console that’s very recognizably a Switch, just with some extra capabilities and polish.

Backward compatibility has been seamless in my experience. Some older games even seem to run a little better. Nintendo is also offering paid upgrades for certain titles—I spent $10 to upgrade my copy of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, for instance.

As for new games, there’s not much to talk about. Mario Kart World is the marquee launch title along with Fast Fusion, a sequel to an F-Zero style racing game that launched on the first Switch. There’s three remakes/remasters of older games exclusive to the Switch 2: Survival Kids, and Bravely Default HD, Yakuza 0 Director’s Cut. Aside from that, there’s Nintendo Welcome Tour, which is more of a tutorial than a game. The rest of the lineup are bunch of ports of games that have been out for awhile on other systems including Cyberpunk 2077 and No Man’s Sky.

Price-wise, it’s not cheap. $449 for the console and dock, or $499 if you want the Mario Kart World bundle (which comes as a digital download). Nintendo has also introduced a new kind of cartridge—digital key cards that don’t contain the game but rather a code to download it embedded on the chip. On the plus side, these can be resold unlike non-physical digital titles. On the downside, they rely on Nintendo’s servers, which raises questions about long-term access.

Battery life is about on par with the original Switch: two hours or so when running demanding titles like Mario Kart, and a bit more for lighter games.

What stood out to me most about this launch was how quiet it was. Nintendo made a deliberate choice to ease into this. After all, they’ve been here before. The Wii sold over 100 million units, but its successor, the Wii U, sold only 13.5 million. That was a hard lesson in how quickly things can go south when the mainstream consumer base gets confused or alienated. The Switch reversed that trend and became a runaway success. Now, Nintendo’s being cautious, and I can’t blame them.

What I think we’re seeing here is the continued commoditization of video game hardware. Consoles no longer have unique, defining traits. The PlayStation and Xbox are essentially the same inside—PCs in console shells. Microsoft isn’t even making its own handheld—it’s letting ASUS handle that with a Windows-based Xbox-branded device. Nintendo’s sticking to ARM architecture with Nvidia chips, but even that feels like a holdout against an inevitable shift.

It’s starting to feel like we’re heading into a hardware-agnostic future. Where you play might soon matter less than what you play, and the idea of console exclusivity might not hold much weight when the hardware differences vanish. That raises some big questions for Nintendo. Do they eventually pivot fully into software? They resisted that move before, but as more consumers expect access across devices, the pressure might mount again.

For now, the Switch 2 is what it looks like: a slightly nicer Switch. And that might be enough to get through the rest of this decade and into the next.

Tariff Shock Hits AliExpress and Temu Customers This Week

admin — Thu, 01 May 2025 13:56:23 +0000

A number of viewers were surprised by the steep import fees on the flash cartridge I reviewed last week for the old Nintendo 64—especially when ordering from sites like AliExpress or Temu. That’s because a major change is now underway with how tariffs are applied to small international packages, and many may be hit with taxes that amount to 145% of the item’s value.

I take a look at this in my latest video.

In the case of that flash cartridge for the Nintendo 64, while the product itself cost $40.84, the final charge ballooned to over $80 once tariffs and taxes were factored in. The bulk of that—more than $38—was tariff-related. This is due to the expiration of the so-called de minimis exemption, which used to shield low-value imports from duty charges.

The de minimis rule allowed shipments under $800 to bypass tariffs, even if the items were normally subject to import duties. It applied to direct-to-consumer shipments from overseas platforms like AliExpress, Temu, and Amazon’s new import-focused app called “Haul.” That exemption has now been eliminated for goods coming from China and Hong Kong.

To illustrate how dramatic this shift is, I recently ordered a Ugoos AM6B Plus TV box from AliExpress. I paid around $158 for it, but under the postal import rules, I would be hit with either a $100 flat fee or 120% of the product’s value whichever the postal service chooses. That flat fee increases to $200 after June 1st.

If the same item is shipped through a private courier like FedEx or DHL, the charges can be even worse. There’s a baseline 20% emergency tariff and an additional 125% reciprocal tariff on certain goods, totaling 145%, resulting in a total tariff of $229.10! Some items like computers and smartphones have been exempted from the reciprocal portion, thanks to lobbying by major tech companies.

Take for instance a mini PC with an Intel N100 chip selling for $139. If it comes via postal mail, the tariff would be around $167 or the $100 flat fee. Through FedEx or DHL, the duty is more fragmented—roughly $38 in this case—but still significant. And this exemption only applies if the item is considered a “computer” under customs definitions. A game console or a TV box would not, even if they have the same components.

It’s also worth noting that origin matters. Goods from countries like Vietnam are still eligible for the $800 de minimis threshold and may not be subject to tariffs based on how trade negotitions are going. But customs can scrutinize these claims, especially if the manufacturing process wasn’t substantial enough to qualify.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have taken interest in closing this de minimis loophole. While Biden’s team signaled support for reviewing it, the Trump administration acted quickly to close it, citing concerns over rising direct-to-consumer imports circumventing tariffs and import controls.

Right now, some platforms like Temu are starting to collect import duties upfront. AliExpress, on the other hand, may notify you of the obligation but leave collection to the post office or your shipping carrier. If duties go unpaid, the packages are considered abandoned and can be destroyed or auctioned off.

Temu does import in bulk and ships products from U.S. warehouses. In that case you won’t see a separate import charge at checkout in those cases, but the tariffs will make their way into the price of the item. Large imports are not exempt from the 145% tax and we’re starting to see companies raise their prices in response.

ASUS, for example, has announced 7% to 9% price hikes on some laptops. Anker is also reportedly raising prices by 18% or more on some items. Framework, which makes modular laptops, is also raising prices. Their situation is complicated since they sell all of their laptops’ individual components as separate products, some of which are subject to duties while others are not. That kind of business model becomes harder to manage under this kind of tariff regime, especially without the lobbying power their larger competitors enjoy.

Soon I’ll be speaking with Nick Mueller from HDRetrovision, a small business that makes high-quality cables for classic game consoles. They’ve carved out a niche in the retro gaming community, but these tariff changes could seriously impact their ability to serve U.S. customers if the costs become too high.

We’re at the start of what looks like a big shift. Prices are already moving up and will likely climb further as current inventories run out and new shipments arrive under the updated rules.

If you’re a regular buyer from international marketplaces, be very careful when shopping to ensure that you won’t get bit with enormous tariff charges when the package arrives in the USA. If the retailer doesn’t collect those fees from you at the time of purchase, you will need to pay them directly to the carrier. If you don’t, you’ll be out the item and the purchase price.

Pay up: Paramount Threatening to Pull Channels off of YouTube TV

admin — Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:51:02 +0000

Last week, negotiations between YouTube TV and Paramount broke down, with both sides announcing that if an agreement isn’t reached, Paramount’s networks—including CBS, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and local CBS affiliates—could disappear from YouTube TV. Paramount is now running an aggressive social media campaign to put pressure on the streaming service.

Learn more in my latest video!

YouTube TV has already announced that if these channels are removed, subscribers will receive an $8 discount on their monthly bill. That happens to be the same price as the base tier of Paramount Plus, which might not be a coincidence. The offer seems like a calculated move to pressure Paramount, which likely earns more from its YouTube TV carriage deal than from direct streaming subscriptions. Meanwhile, Paramount has been running ads urging viewers to petition YouTube TV to keep their channels—essentially advocating for a rate increase, since any deal in Paramount’s favor will likely result in a higher subscription costs for users.

Beyond the channels disappearing, all user DVR recordings from those channels made with the YouTube TV service would also get deleted when the deal expires. In this digital age we truly control and own nothing.

The trajectory of YouTube TV’s pricing tells a familiar story. When it launched in 2017, it was a competitively priced alternative to traditional cable. Now, at about $83 per month, it’s in the ballpark of what a cable subscription costs. Much of this increase comes from rising content costs, as networks demand higher rates during contract renewals. And the issue isn’t limited to YouTube TV—cable, satellite, and streaming providers all face similar struggles as content owners seek to maximize their revenue, even as traditional TV viewership declines.

Compounding the issue, local broadcast affiliates are currently lobbying the FCC and Congress to negotiate directly with streaming services instead of being bundled into larger deals by the national networks. If that push is successful, it could lead to even higher costs, as each local broadcaster would have the ability to demand separate fees. This mirrors the problem that led to the cord cutting movement in the first place.

The changes aren’t limited to streaming. Over-the-air television, which has long been a free alternative, is also undergoing a transformation. The new NextGenTV standard introduces encryption, meaning that even recordings from an antenna will require authentication to watch and retain. While NextGen\TV promises better picture quality and features, it also represents a shift toward restricting user control, pushing more viewers toward paid services.

As these disputes play out, the power ultimately lies with consumers. Cord-cutters have more options than ever, from free streaming platforms to on-demand purchases, and shifting away from expensive, restrictive services sends a clear message. While networks and providers continue their negotiations, viewers can choose where their money goes—and that choice may be the strongest leverage available.

The Honey Scandal & Lawsuit: A case that may be hard to prove..

admin — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 10:14:54 +0000

I was away on vacation when Megalag’s video exposing the Honey browser extension went bonkers in the YouTube creator space. This week a class action lawsuit was filed by Legal Eagle against the extension’s owner, Paypal. In my latest video, we dive into the controversy and the lawsuit. I’m not as bullish as some are about the potential to take Paypal to the cleaners over this.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, Honey has been accused of altering cookies associated with affiliate links. Here’s how it works: If you click on an affiliate link I’ve shared in a video description and later use Honey to check for coupons at checkout, the extension reportedly replaces my affiliate code with their own. This practice diverts commissions from creators like me to Honey.

The lawsuit alleges that Honey’s practices interfere with contractual relationships between creators and the affiliate networks they work with. For instance, I agreed to a contract with affiliate network providers that defines how the program works, rules that I need to abide by, and how I will be compensated. The lawsuit argues by replacing my affiliate cookie, Honey effectively disrupts this agreement. There are also claims of unjust enrichment, as PayPal benefits financially from this interference.

It’s worth noting that Honey has openly admitted to its cookie-swapping behavior in the past. Posts dating back to 2019 and 2022 confirm this. So the big question here is not if Honey is doing this but whether their conduct is interfering with the relationships creators have with affiliate providers.

This will be complicated by the fact that Honey has its own contractual relationships with the the same affiliate networks as creators. Because all of these agreements state the “last click” gets the sale – is it interference if everyone has a contract and agreed to how this competitive marketplace works? That will be up to the judge to decide.

Proving damages in this case is likely to be challenging. Affiliate systems rely on cookies, and tracking the origin of every redirected click often involves digging through extensive logs maintained by companies like PayPal. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit believe these records exist, but it remains to be seen whether the court will grant access during discovery. Even if the records can be accessed, it will be very difficult to match individual URLs to specific creators. You can see an example of that in my video.

For creators like me, the discrepancies between clicks recorded on my tracking system and those reported by affiliate networks have always raised questions. While Honey’s actions might be part of the issue, ad blockers, browser settings, and other factors play a role too.

As for the lawsuit, it’s still early days. Class action cases like this can take years to resolve, and even when settlements occur, they rarely offer much compensation for individuals. In most cases, the legal teams walk away with the largest share of the financial outcome. For instance, a previous class action against Apple awarded individual plaintiffs small sums, while the attorneys received tens of millions.

For now, I’ll be watching this case unfold with interest. While I’m not optimistic about the likelihood of significant outcomes for creators, the attention this issue is receiving could spark discussions about the ethical standards of affiliate marketing and the accountability of major players like Honey.

Cable Providers, Other Subscription Services Sue to Block “Click to Cancel” Rule

admin — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:23:08 +0000

Canceling internet and cable subscriptions has long been a test of patience. While signing up for service often involves just a few clicks, trying to cancel requires a phone call with retention specialists, and sometimes a lot of negotiation.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently introduced a “click-to-cancel” rule to address this issue, mandating that companies must offer an online cancellation option if they accept online sign-ups. This rule is set to take effect in about 180 days, but the industry is pushing back. The Electronic Security Association (ESA), the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), and the National Internet and Television Association (NCTA) are collectively suing the FTC, aiming to block the rule.

We take a look at their reasons for opposing the rule in my latest video.

The industry associations filing the lawsuit represent companies that would be directly impacted by the new regulation. ESA represents companies that provide home security services, IAB represents a broad range of advertising and subscription-driven businesses, and NCTA advocates for cable giants like Comcast, Cox, and Charter along with a number of cable networks. Their stance is that click-to-cancel is overly broad and doesn’t consider consumer interests or industry realities. They argue the current system benefits consumers, though evidence suggests otherwise.

For consumers, canceling a subscription can be a headache. For instance, Comcast requires either a phone call with a “retention specialist”, a trip to a local store, or even a letter in the mail to cancel. But they offer quick and easy online options for initial orders, upgrades and add-ons.

While the industry maintains that this process is straightforward, consumers tell a different story. Many consumers, like the ones who documented their difficulties on the FTC’s docket, report lengthy hold times and repeated offers instead of straightforward cancellations. Complaints and frustrations are also quite prevelant across Reddit and other social media platforms. This difficulty isn’t exclusive to Comcast; providers like Frontier follow a similar model, offering one-click purchases and upgrades but requiring a call to cancel.

There are notable exceptions, however. YouTube TV and Starlink both allow easy online cancellation, demonstrating that such policies are indeed feasible.

The real reason they are likely opposing these measures is that it makes it easier for consumers to exercise their market power. It’s a question of competition and convenience, both of which would likely improve under the click-to-cancel model.

Redbox Bankruptcy: Is Physical Media Really Worthless?

admin — Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:40:23 +0000

According to the Wall Street Journal, there are about 24,000 abandoned Redbox kiosks many still containing movies. The company, burdened with significant debt, has found that selling off the movies and scrapping the machines might actually be more expensive than doing nothing at all.

What does this mean for the future of physical media? I explore this in my latest video.

Not all of the machines are collecting dust – some individuals have been able to acquire them, mostly through deals with local junk haulers. There’s even a former Redbox software engineer who has shared backups of the vending machines’ operating systems on a subreddit, allowing people to potentially repurpose the kiosks for their own use.

Interestingly, some kiosks are still powered on and occasionally dispensing movies without charge. One individual documented this phenomenon, walking away with free movies after his credit card wasn’t charged but movies were spit out nonetheless.

Redbox’s financial troubles have also affected businesses that hosted the machines, including Walgreens, which is owed millions in unpaid commissions and operational costs. Despite these machines costing Walgreens about $184,000 a month to keep powered, many haven’t been turned off, potentially in an effort to boost their bankruptcy claim. Other chains face similar issues, as the removal of these kiosks comes with the added cost of safely disposing of their coolant systems.

The broader context here reveals that physical media sales have been in steady decline. According to the Digital Entertainment Group’s market data, sales of DVDs and Blu-rays have dropped by 25% from 2022 to 2023, and the first half of 2024 shows a continuing downward trend. Despite these numbers, there is still a glimmer of hope for physical media fans: sales of 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays have grown by 15%, driven by releases like Oppenheimer and collectible formats such as steelbooks.

This enthusiasm mirrors the rise of LaserDisc in the 1990s. While most consumers opted for the lower-quality VHS format, serious collectors flocked to LaserDisc for its superior video and audio.

The niche market for physical media may shrink, but it’s far from disappearing entirely. Even Nintendo has committed to continuing physical game releases for its new consoles, recognizing that many consumers still prefer tangible products that can be resold.

As Redbox fades, the niche market for physical media soldiers on. There’s still demand, especially from collectors and enthusiasts who value the quality and collectability that digital media just can’t offer. While the era of mass-market DVDs and Blu-rays might be ending, the story of physical media isn’t quite over yet.

FTC Cracks Down on Fake Reviews and Fake Social Media Followers

admin — Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:01:46 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has introduced a set of stringent rules aimed at curbing the spread of fake reviews and fake followers, set to take effect in October. In my latest video we dive into what the FTC claims they will now be enforcing.

These rules are intended to close the loopholes left by a recent Supreme Court decision, which limited the FTC’s ability to seek civil damages without specific regulations in place. With these new rules, the FTC aims to expand the scope of what is deemed illegal, allowing them to take civil action against violators.

One of the central elements of the new regulations is the prohibition of paid reviews. Businesses are now explicitly banned from creating or selling fake reviews or testimonials. This rule also covers the practice of paying for negative reviews, a tactic some companies have used against competitors. The FTC’s stance on this matter is clear: reviews should be authentic and based on real experiences, not monetary exchanges.

In light of these regulations, it’s worth examining the practices of some notable companies. For instance, Canon Corporation’s approach to influencer marketing raises questions about the authenticity of reviews. The company recently reached out to me, offering their V10 vlogging camera for review. However, the terms of their agreement were troubling. Canon required pre-approval of all content before publication, with the right to demand revisions. This pre-review requirement undermines the integrity of the review process, making it less about honest opinions and more about corporate approval.

Another example involves Google’s Team Pixel program, which has come under scrutiny for its recent shift in policies. Previously, the program involved sending phones to tech enthusiasts and reviewers without any obligations. However, with the release of the Pixel 9, creators were asked to agree not to feature competitor devices in their content or speak favorably about competing phones in comparison to the Pixel.

Google says that the goal of Teampixel was “is to get Pixel devices into the hands of content creators, not press and tech reviewers.” However this is just flat-out false. In my communications with the marketing company operating Teampixel they knew I was a product reviewer from day 1. Many of their communications referred to creators making reviews too.

The FTC’s new rules also target companies that set up biased review websites, where competing products receive unfavorable reviews, while the company’s own products are praised. This type of astroturfing is now explicitly banned. Moreover, businesses are no longer allowed to suppress negative reviews through intimidation or legal threats, a practice that has been reported in various industries. Additionally, if a company has a review section of their e-commerce site they cannot cherry pick positive reviews while excluding the negative ones.

I personally encountered review suppression when I tried to post a critical review on Channel Master’s website. As I noted in my review video, the player did not work as advertised with encrypted over the air content without an Internet connection. My review was never published but there are plenty of glowing ones visible on their product page. The new FTC regulations make it illegal for businesses to misrepresent the reviews on their websites, ensuring that all genuine feedback, whether positive or negative, is accounted for.

Lastly, the FTC’s crackdown extends to the purchase or sale of fake social media influence, including followers and views generated by bots or hijacked accounts. Paying for legitimate ads on social media platforms remains legal, but these platforms are now under greater pressure to ensure that the engagement they sell is genuine.

The big question now is what if any enforcement might we see from the FTC moving forward. I’ve had off the record conversations with FTC officials in the past and it was clear they lacked the resources to go after the many offenders out there. It is likely they will try to make an example out of a few big violators in the hopes that it encourages others to fall into compliance. Stay tuned!

Google Killed the Chromecast .. Four years ago!

admin — Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:53:35 +0000

Google has officially declared the Chromecast hardware as we once knew it to be dead, but in reality, the Chromecast hardware as we knew it was discontinued four years ago. I take a look back (and forward) at Google’s TV streaming devices in my latest video.

Chromecast was first introduced in 2013, and it was a game-changer at the time. For just $35, users could stream content from their phones to their televisions, an especially valuable feature in a time when most TVs were not smart and streaming boxes were expensive.

The Chromecast wasn’t just a device that mirrored content from a phone; it established a direct connection with streaming services, making the experience smoother and more reliable. The affordable price point and the functionality it offered made Chromecast a hit.

As the years passed, Google made several updates to Chromecast. In 2015, they redesigned the device, making it more user-friendly by turning it into a dongle, which was easier to connect to a television. They also introduced a Chromecast Audio device, which allowed users to stream audio to any speaker system. In 2016, the Chromecast Ultra was released, offering support for 4K streaming. Two years later Google released a third generation 1080p Chromecast.

Competing streamers, like Roku and Amazon’s Fire TV, fired back by releasing devices at or around the Chromecast price point. These offered a greater value proposition as they did not require a phone to use and had a full TV interface with remote controls.

In 2020, Google made a significant shift with the introduction of the Chromecast with Google TV. This device was more akin to an Android TV device than a traditional Chromecast. Like its low cost competitors, It came with a remote and an interface, eliminating the need to use a phone to control the device but still offered that as an option. While it still retained the Chromecast name, the core experience had changed, marking the end of Chromecast as it was originally known.

For Google, maintaining the infrastructure for these inexpensive devices became less viable, especially when other companies were willing to produce similar hardware. Devices like Walmart’s Onn boxes are examples of this shift, where Google incurs no overhead costs but still benefits from licensing fees. Additionally, many modern televisions now come with Google TV built-in, further reducing the need for a separate Chromecast device.

Despite the discontinuation of the original Chromecast hardware, the casting protocol itself is far from dead. Users can still cast content from their phones to various devices, including Google TV and other Android-based streaming boxes and smart TVs. This functionality remains a key part of the Android ecosystem, and it is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Google’s latest streaming device, the more premium Google TV Streamer (affiliate link), will soon be their only streaming box offering. It will offer better performance than the 2020 4k Chromecast dongle along with more storage and RAM. But it will still be outclassed by the the Nvidia Shield, which remains the gold standard for Android TV devices since its 2015 release.

In essence, while the Chromecast name may have been added to the list of Google’s discontinued products, the technology and principles behind it are still very much alive. Google’s strategy seems to be shifting towards licensing and partnering with other manufacturers rather than producing the hardware themselves.

Netflix Does Games? Some of them are pretty good!

admin — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:59:59 +0000

I recently explored Netflix’s venture into the gaming industry, discovering that it offers a variety of games as part of its streaming subscription plan. I take a look at their offerings on mobile, TV and the web in my latest video.

This all started with an article in Kotaku, which looked at Netflix’s plan to add 80 new games this year to its existing library of 100. Unlike many mobile games, Netflix’s offerings do not feature ads or in-app purchases, resembling the model of Apple Arcade and Google Play Pass. Existing Netflix customers can download and play the games without any additional fees.

In their second quarter earnings call last week, Netflix said they are focusing on developing games based on their popular intellectual properties (IP), such as a previously released Stranger Things game. These games tend to be narrative-driven and less reliant on quick reflexes, making them well-suited for touch screens.

Navigating Netflix’s game offerings varies between platforms. On Android, there is a dedicated games tab, while on iPhone, games are currently on a “shelf” that is mixed in with the streaming media content. Downloading a game from the Netflix app takes the user to the phone’s app store where it will install like any other app. Users can also download the games directly from each platform’s app store too.

One impressive feature is the cross-platform cloud syncing. For instance, I started playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder’s Revenge (compensated affiliate link) on an Android phone and was able to pick up my game seamlessly on an iPhone. However, it’s important to note that if a game is removed from Netflix, the save files will not be compatible with versions of these games purchased separately.

Netflix’s TV interface for games is still developing. While mobile games cannot be downloaded on TV devices, Netflix offers TV-specific games that run within the Netflix app, controlled via a phone app. These games, such as Rocket, are simpler but still enjoyable.

In the web browser, Netflix offers the same games available on TV, which are web-based and apparently streamed from Netflix’s servers. Although these games look and play well, they currently do not support game controllers. An example is Infernax, a side-scrolling platformer reminiscent of Shovel Knight (compensated affiliate link).

Overall, Netflix’s foray into gaming is diverse and still evolving. It offers a unique blend of mobile, TV, and web-based games, making it worth exploring. If you haven’t yet tried Netflix games, it might be time to dive in and see what’s available.

Billions of Dollars in Unplayed Steam Games!

admin — Sun, 07 Jul 2024 14:14:26 +0000

As I write this post we are in the middle of the “Steam Summer Sale” where the popular gaming platform offers deep discounts on thousands of PC games. Like many gamers of a certain age I find myself buying cheap games to add to my library but never get around to actually playing them.

A recent analysis by PCGamesN highlights a staggering amount of unplayed games worth billions of dollars in users’ libraries. This got me curious about my own Steam library, and I decided to delve into this issue further. This is the subject of my latest video.

PCGamesN estimates that there are approximately $1.9 billion worth of unplayed games in publicly accessible Steam profiles. This figure only accounts for about 10% of the profiles in the Steam ID database, suggesting that the actual amount of unplayed games could be significantly higher. The variability in game prices and sales makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact value of these unplayed titles, but it’s safe to assume it’s at least several hundred millions of dollars.

Curious about my own collection, I discovered that I have around $2,000 worth of unplayed games in my Steam library, accounting for just over 50% of my overall library. Many of these games were acquired through bundles or sales, often at significantly reduced prices, so I think my actual cost is much lower. Despite having played only 48% of my games, I continue to add more to my library.

You can check out your own “pile of shame” by making your Steam profile public and searching for it on SteamIDfinder.com. You can also keep track of unplayed games inside of the Steam interface by using their filtering options as demoed in my video. You can turn your filtered search into a “dynamic collection” that will automatically update the list as you work your way through the unplayed games.

One downside of these digital libraries is a lack of true ownership. I can’t sell these unplayed games like I could with a CD or cartridge based game. What’s worse is that any issue with the account can result in losing access to all purchased content – after all you’re merely purchasing a revokable license to play the game.

No, the FCC Did Not Increase Your Internet Speed.. But they do want to regulate it.

admin — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:54:27 +0000

Recently, the FCC made headlines with an announcement that ostensibly seemed to require an imminent increase in internet speeds for American consumers. Yet, the reality is far more nuanced and requires a deeper understanding of what broadband means in a regulatory context, and how the FCC’s declaration has no teeth in a largely unregulated marketplace.

In my latest video, we dive into why the FCC made this declaration and some of the politics driving it.

In the commissions first adopted broadband assessment since 2015, they raised the standard for what should be considered high speed internet to 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream. The previous definition was 20 megabits down and 3 megabits up.

But this report is really more about tracking the rollout of broadband infrastructure in the United States, something the FCC is mandated to do per the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress set a goal of getting every American connected to broadband that year, and despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to telecommunications companies over the decades, nearly 45 million people still lack access to the minimum broadband specification in their communities. Or do they?

The FCC report excluded satellite services, even though most of the areas not covered by wireline broadband are within SpaceX Starlink’s service area. Starlink’s Internet service also meets the FCC’s newly defined minimum specifications for a broadband connection. The FCC’s two Republican commissioners voted against adopting the report because of this exclusion.

In their dissenting opinions, the Republican commissioners argue that by excluding Starlink and thus making the nation’s broadband rollout appear stalled, the Democrats on the commission are laying a foundation by which they can impose heavier regulation on Internet Service providers. This is because the 1996 telecommunication law requires the FCC to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment” if the agency issues a negative report on broadband access.

And the FCC is doing just that. On a similar 3-2 vote in November, the FCC began the process of re-classifying ISPs under Title II rules. The FCC previously moved ISPs into the Title II category during the Obama administration over net neutrality concerns which was later reversed by the Trump administration.

But Title II regulation can go far deeper than just net neutrality, including regulating pricing, requiring ISPs to provide access to remote areas, and much more. The Republicans argue that the market will take care of these things and no further regulation is needed. The Democrats say that after three decades of “light touch” regulation the broadband rollout has not achieved the 1996 goal of universal access.

But is it necessary to apply Title II everywhere? I think a more balanced approach is needed. In my area we went from one provider (Comcast) to now having five with potentially more on the way – all meeting and exceeding the minimum broadband standards with no data caps. Do we need regulation here? Likely not.

But there are parts of the country that still only have one provider that may not meet the broadband standard, applies expensive data caps on service, and holds back infrastructure investments. Perhaps regulating markets like this and lifting regulations when competitors enter those markets might be a smarter approach.

And it may not be necessary for Title II to apply either. In the 1996 law, the FCC has the ability to impose price caps, remove regulatory red-tape that prevents competitors from accessing pole attachments along with other regulatory powers to encourage competition and market choice. It is not clear how much of those powers the FCC has exercised over the years.

I’m sure there will be more to come on this topic! Stay tuned.

Recent Ace Magic / Ace Magician PCs Infected with Malware

admin — Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:14:19 +0000

A fellow tech creator Net Guy Reviews discovered that a few new mini PCs from Ace Magic were infected with malware that among other things can capture keystrokes from the user.

Having reviewed a few Ace Magic PCs in the past, I wanted to make sure the machines I still had in my possession were clean. Most of them were, although. I did find something concerning in a newer model that I haven’t yet reviewed.

Background on this situation and my findings are the subject of my latest video.

Following the Net Guy’s video, a cascade of reports and articles, including a detailed one from Tom’s Hardware, emerged, outlining the severity of the issue. The spyware, identified as Bladabindi and Redline, is particularly nefarious, capable of stealing passwords from browsers and wallets, logging keystrokes, and transmitting data to a command and control server.

I conducted scans using multiple tools including Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool, Hitman Pro from Sofos, and Microsoft Defender on the three Ace Magic PCs I had in my possession. My AM06Pro and Kamrui Gaming PC both tested clean.

However, the situation was different with a newer model, the AM20, which restricted my access to Windows Defender. One other issue I noted on multiple Ace Magic PCs is that although they have licensed and activated versions of Windows, they only have the user create a local account – it does attempt to connect to a Microsoft online account.

ACE Magic’s response to the crisis has been to assure that the issue has been resolved with their new stock and was limited mostly to the PCs tested by Net Guy Reviews and others.

For the tech-savvy, the solution might be straightforward: wipe the machine clean and install a fresh copy of Windows or a flavor of Linux. But for the average user, this spyware saga is a reminder of the risks inherit with purchasing cheap computers from relatively unknown overseas brands.

Are They Listening? Cox Media Group says they can eavesdrop on private communications..

admin — Wed, 27 Dec 2023 13:47:04 +0000

Just after Thanksgiving the Cox Media Group (CMG) began marketing an advertising product that they say targets consumers based on private conversations heard by smart devices. This bold claim generated a good amount of media scrutiny, with most outlets saying Cox’s claimed capabilities were exaggerated. CMG has since taken their “active listening” marketing page down.

In my latest video I demonstrate how it’s possible to listen in on private conversations without ever having to upload audio data – just transcriptions generated by on-device AI. Smartphone processors have had enough horsepower to do this since at least 2017 if not earlier.

I conducted an experiment to test these capabilities. Using a piece of software called MacWhisper, which utilizes OpenAI’s models for on-device transcription, I transcribed a conversation from my home. The software efficiently converted the audio into text, which was then uploaded and summarized using ChatGPT. The results were surprisingly accurate and detailed, capturing various topics from health concerns to shopping plans.

The resulting transcript uploaded to ChatGPT was only 3k in size – a file small enough to be transmitted in just a few seconds using a 1980’s 1200 baud modem and mere milliseconds on a modern broadband connection. If anyone was monitoring the network traffic coming out of a smart television a transmission that small would likely be dismissed as just some random telemetry.

And you don’t even need a powerful computer to transcribe text on device. Google Pixel phones since the Pixel 4 could do it and Apple has had this capability since the iPhone X’s release. Conceivably every TV, phone, tablet, smart speaker and just about any other device made in the last five years is fully capable of on-device transcription.

In a statement, CMG denied they were listening to conversations but did not deny somebody else might be:

“CMG businesses do not listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement.“

So it’s entirely possible they’re working with a third party vendor that is conducting this activity through apps running on smart devices. CMG could just be buying the “output” of this transcription and AI processing. As of this posting CMG did not respond to my follow-up question asking if they were doing just that.

Is it legal? Cox Media Group thinks so. From their now deleted marketing page:

While the Cox Media Group’s claim about their advertising product could have been exaggerated, I demonstrated that it is now entirely plausible to listen in on private conversations, transcribe the audio to text in real time on-device, and transmit back very small blobs of text that can be interpreted by AI for advertising targeting.

I’d like to believe that CMG’s claims were exaggerated but it’s entirely possible advertisers have found a new way to invade our privacy for profit.

Playstation Removing All Discovery Channel Media – Including Customer Purchases – on December 31st

admin — Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:49:26 +0000

Yes you read the headline correctly. Sony, in a Friday afternoon bad news dump, notified users that video content from Discovery will be removed from the Playstation store and any purchases will also be removed from user libraries. This is yet another reminder that in this digital world we own nothing. See more in my latest video.

Unlike physical media, where ownership is tangible and enduring, digital purchases are ephemeral, often subject to the whims of content providers and platform policies. Even when “purchasing” media, users are merely purchasing a license giving them access to the content. The fine print of Sony’s licensing agreement says they can revoke the license any time they want for any reason.

“Unless as otherwise stated in this Agreement, SCEA, at its sole discretion, may indefinitely suspend, or discontinue any and all online access to content at any time, including for maintenance service or upgrades, without prior notice or liability.”

So how can we safeguard access to our media? One method involves the direct capture of content using software like OBS. While this process is time-consuming, it offers one avenue to preserve access to shows and movies that you’ve paid for. However, this solution isn’t without its drawbacks, primarily the effort and technical know-how required. And also it may violate the Digital Milenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits the circumvention of encryption protecting the content which is required to do a direct capture.

The best option of course is to purchase physical copies of movies and TV shows, whether on DVD or Blu-ray, which will remain accessible regardless of the changing digital landscape. Physical discs often include special features and additional content, enriching the viewing experience. Unfortunately, the market for physical media is declining, and not all content is available in this format.

Movies Anywhere is another alternative that helps spread the risk across multiple platforms. This service allows digital media purchased on one platform (like Amazon) to be made accessible on other platforms too. Most Blu-Rays now come with a “digital code” option that is often redeemable through Movies Anywhere.

Vudu also has an affordable solution called “Disc to Digital” that allows US consumers to scan the back of a DVD or Blu-Ray movie and have the film added to their digital library for under $5. The film gets added to the user’s Vudu library but the film will show up on other services through Movies Anywhere. I reviewed the service a few years ago.

For those with physical media collections, tools like MakeMKV and Handbrake facilitate the creation of personal digital archives that can be used with personal media servers like Plex.

Another option is the use of streaming service recorders like PlayOn (compensated affiliate link). This tool enables the recording of content from streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, though it operates in a legal gray area and raises questions about compliance with service terms and the legality of retaining content after canceling a subscription to the service the content was recorded from.

Unfortunately this dust up with Sony and Discovery is only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect we will be hearing more stories about purchases of music, movies, TV shows and games disappearing from libraries in the coming years. And unfortunately there’s not much we can do about it given the terms of service that allow the companies to do it.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: The likely cause of YouTube’s Invalid Traffic problem

admin — Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:31:37 +0000

It’s been a week since my last video on YouTube’s demonetization of many small channels due to “invalid traffic” and YouTube is still silent as to why some small creators are losing anywhere from half to nearly all of their revenue. In my latest video I take a look at what is the likely cause of this problem and why YouTube isn’t talking.

My suspicion is that YouTube is currently under scrutiny from three major stakeholders, and unfortunately, creators aren’t on that list. First, there are YouTube’s advertisers. Over the summer, a company named Adalytics released two significant studies that questioned some of Google and YouTube’s advertising practices. Although YouTube and parent company Google have denied these claims, the evidence from these studies suggests that these issues might be why revenue is getting clawed back.

One of the studies by Adalytics focused on TrueView skippable in-stream ads. These are the ads you see when you start a YouTube video, which you can choose to watch or skip. If you watch the ad, the advertiser pays. However, over the past two and a half years, YouTube has been selling these ads not just on their platform but also on other websites.

Adalytics and some industry insiders believe that many of these ads aren’t even being viewed by people. They’re running in the background on a website or sometimes not displayed to a person at all. This might be because YouTube doesn’t have as much ad inventory available for advertisers on YouTube itself, making YouTube-only placements a more expensive advertising option compared to other ad supported platforms like Hulu and Netflix.

Another factor is YouTube’s restrictions on how ads can run. Videos deemed “made for kids” can’t run certain types of ads. This reduces the available inventory. Also, YouTube is stringent about which channels can run ads. Many channels and videos are deemed “not advertiser-friendly,” further limiting ad inventory that YouTube can offer advertisers. For some reason advertisers are ok with their ads appearing on platforms like Netflix and Hulu next to content that they would not be comfortable with on YouTube.

Then there’s the issue of YouTube Shorts. These short videos are drawing viewers away from the more profitable long-form content that YouTube’s advertisers want to pay for. Creators who are able to negotiate brand deals on their own are far more motivated to make low-effort Shorts vs. longer form videos that require a greater time investment.

Another concern raised by Adalytics is about the placement of ads on “made for kids” videos. The study suggests that YouTube might be bending the rules by detecting when an adult is watching one of these videos and showing them adult-targeted ads. This was likely done in an effort to increase the amount of inventory they could sell to advertisers.

But here’s the problem: what if YouTube’s adult-detecting AI gets it wrong and a kid is the one actually watching? The Adalytics report suggests this is happening and advertisers are very unhappy. One advertiser said they’d be looking for refunds:

“Google has failed advertisers, again. There is no reasonable excuse for ads running on content intended primarily for kids other than to extort advertisers through a toddler-enabled click farm. The observations around Pmax (Preschooler Max) are damning given the hard sell Google is putting on us to trust their so-called AI black box. We’re overdue real transparency and Google needs to be made accountable – refunding us for all ads on this content and explaining themselves to the FTC.”

This is problematic because kids might still end up clicking on these ads, leading to potential legal issues. It is against the law in the United States to track the online behavior of children under the age of 13.

This in turn creates a “fruit of the poisonous tree” situation. And here’s how I think this is playing out: A kid gets served an adult ad on a “made for kids” video. They click on the ad and now an advertiser is collecting data on that individual. That account then starts viewing other ads on non-kid videos and additional data is collected and additional targeted advertising is directed at that account. But the entire account is poisoned at this point – and any ad views are likely going to be deemed invalid.

If YouTube is looking to refund advertisers for this traffic they’re going to have to follow those accounts across all of the videos they watched in an effort to make these advertisers whole. And it’s likely the creators getting hit with this are appealing to younger audiences hence the great impact. The only open question is why this seems to be hitting smaller creators more than the larger ones.

All these challenges come at a time when Google, YouTube’s parent company, is facing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice accusing them of being a monopoly. This is a significant case, and Google’s entire business could be at risk.

I recently spoke with Sarah Kimmel, a fellow creator who runs a channel called Family Tech. She shared her frustrations with the current situation on YouTube. Like many, she’s seen a significant drop in her revenue with zero communication from YouTube. She emphasized the need for transparency from YouTube. All she wants, like many of us, is clarity.

In conclusion, these are challenging times for creators on YouTube. Many factors are at play, and it’s crucial for YouTube to communicate and support its creator community. They

The Silent Crisis on YouTube : Invalid Traffic Revenue Clawbacks Decimating Small channels

admin — Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:54:46 +0000

The other day I received a concerning message in my YouTube analytics. The message indicated that ads had been limited on one or more of my videos due to “invalid traffic.” The ambiguity of the message left me puzzled. Which videos were affected? What financial implications would this have for my channel? I explore this brewing crisis in my latest video.

I wasn’t alone in this. A quick search revealed that several other creators, especially smaller channels like mine, were facing similar issues. Some reported losing up to 80 and 90% of their revenue with no clear explanation from YouTube beyond the vague explanation of “invalid traffic.”

YouTube’s response to this has been, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. Their support articles mostly point fingers at creators, suggesting that the invalid traffic might be due to automated or incentivized traffic from third parties, or even friends playing videos from playlists all day long. I can confidently say that I’ve never engaged in such practices. I’ve built my channel from the ground up over a decade, always focusing on genuine content and organic growth.

What’s even more frustrating is the lack of clear communication from YouTube. When I reached out to their support, I was met with evasive answers. They wouldn’t specify which of my videos were affected or provide any clarity on the potential financial impact I can expect.

Speculating on the cause, I believe that channels like mine, which rely heavily on search traffic, might be getting penalized. About 42% of my traffic comes from people searching for specific product reviews. If YouTube’s algorithms can’t distinguish between genuine and “invalid” search traffic, channels like mine stand to lose a significant portion of their revenue.

But this issue is just the tip of the iceberg. YouTube seems to be undergoing an identity crisis. Their recent push towards “shorts” to compete with platforms like TikTok has had unintended consequences. Their usual communication discipline is appearing to break down as evidenced through a leak of their internal debates to a Financial Times reporter. The platform’s shift in focus to be more like TikTok and Instagram has affected how long-form content is recommended, leading to decreased visibility for creators like me.

The core strength of YouTube has always been its long-form content. But with the platform’s current trajectory, it feels like they’re sidelining creators who’ve been with them from the start. The lack of clear communication and support only exacerbates the feeling of being undervalued.

While I remain hopeful for the future, YouTube needs to address these issues head-on. Clear communication, better support for creators, and a re-evaluation of their current strategies are crucial. Only then can they rebuild the trust that seems to be eroding with each passing day.

YouTube Kills External Linking Because TikTok Does It?

admin — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 14:14:34 +0000

YouTube announced this weekend that they will be disabling external links in the video description and comments for YouTube Shorts videos. This is the subject of my latest video.

This change, set to take effect on August 31st, has left me concerned for small and mid-sized creators who rely on affiliate marketing links for a portion of their revenue. When I first started making videos affiliate links drove most of my channel’s income and still represent a sizable portion of my overall revenue.

Affiliate links pay the creator a commission for sales that are generated from a user clicking on the link. What I really like about affiliate marketing is that it disincentivizes false advertising, as any returns made on an affiliate generated sale are deducted from the commission paid to the creator.

That’s why I was very disappointed to see the official response from YouTube’s “Creator Liaison,” Rene Ritchie, who said in a Twitter post that this was “the same as Reels and TikTok” and creators on those platforms were doing just fine.

I’ve always believed that YouTube offers a unique platform that stands out from its competitors through generous (and transparent) revenue sharing on long form videos, great discovery features, and the ability to use external links for affiliate marketing and other purposes.

The introduction of this restriction feels like a step backward – especially as their spokesperson devalues his own brand by comparing it to platforms that are the absolute worst for creator monetization. Perhaps Rene’s experience as a content creator and the creators he associates with are not struggling the way most monetized creators do on the platform. Some of us would prefer not to do the type of payola that clogs up TikTok and Reels.

One of the arguments presented by YouTube for this change revolves around security concerns, specifically the risk of scams and hacks appearing in comment threads. But YouTube solved that problem years ago by holding comments with links for moderation if the creator enables that feature (I do). Rene also rejected the idea of allowing those in the YouTube partner program to continue linking as he thinks it would make them a target for phishing attacks. But large creators are already the targets of phishing attacks as Linus Tech Tips found out a few months ago.

What I think is happening here is that YouTube is trying to get their own affiliate program off the ground which does work with Shorts. This new feature embeds affiliate links in the video itself but is limited only to retailers that agree to work with YouTube who presumably takes a cut of the action.

While this program has potential, my experience with it so far has been underwhelming. The click-through rates and conversions from YouTube’s affiliate links are significantly lower than my personally generated affiliate links and very few retailers that sell the types of products I cover are participating in the YouTube program.

I hope that YouTube will reconsider this decision and continue to support creators of all sizes. I love YouTube because it’s not a payola cesspool like their competitors. If that’s the vision for Shorts, fine. But the people I know at YouTube want to do better than that. And after all, it’s the creators who drive the platform, and their voices should be heard.

YouTube Needs to Fix the Subscriptions Tab!

admin — Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:28:21 +0000

I’ve been a part of the YouTube community for about 18 years, starting as an avid viewer and transitioning into a content creator over the last decade. Over the years, I’ve observed the platform’s evolution, especially the algorithmic recommendations on the homepage. While these recommendations often present me with content I’m genuinely interested in, there are times when I miss out on channels I want to catch up with.

I think YouTube can fix this problem by updating their “Subscriptions Tab” to make it easier to organize and navigate subscribed channels. This is the subject of my latest video.

Last year I delved deeper into RSS feeds, a standard for content distribution that can be used with an RSS feed reader to aggregate content from various sources into one organized space. This exploration was an eye-opener as I discovered I was missing content from many of my favorite creators including some larger ones.

Apparently if you don’t religiously watch a creator you’re effectively “shadow unsubscribed” and rarely see their uploads on the recommended home page.

This discrepancy led me to revisit YouTube’s subscriptions tab which gives users the “fire hose” of everything uploaded from subscribed channels in the order in which those videos were posted.

The experience varies across devices. On desktop, it’s a mix of live channels and a chronological list of videos from subscribed channels. On a TV, there’s a semblance of organization with frequently watched channels appearing at the top but no way to control what channels get pinned to the top of that list. The mobile version offers filters like ‘Live’ and ‘Continue Watching’, but the overall experience remains cluttered – especially if you’re subscribed to channels that dump a whole bunch of content at once.

The subscription tab on TV pins frequently watched channels to the top.

One feature I appreciate on YouTube’s algorithmically generated homepage is the topic-based organization of its recommendations. It would be beneficial if such a system were integrated into the subscriptions tab, allowing users to view content from their subscribed channels based on specific topics.

To experiment with this idea, I set up my own RSS reader dedicated to YouTube. Using FreshRSS, I organized channels into topics, creating a streamlined content consumption experience. This approach allowed me to view content from local news stations, hyper-local channels, and other niche interests, all in one place.

In addition to subscribing to channels YouTube also allows the generation of feeds for playlists too. For example I added the playlist for Wil Wheaton’s “Ready Room” Star Trek interview show on the Paramount+ as that’s about the only thing I watch from their channel.

The best part about the RSS approach is that it’s more efficient from a viewing perspective and lets ME choose what not to watch vs. having an algorithm do it for me. Being able to see what I’m passing over is preferable to not seeing it at all IMHO.

While I appreciate YouTube’s efforts in content recommendation, there’s room for improvement in the subscriptions tab. As both a viewer and a creator, I believe that refining this feature will enhance the user experience, ensuring that we never miss out on content from our favorite creators.

Talking Replaceable Smartphone Batteries on WTIC Radio

admin — Wed, 19 Jul 2023 17:28:35 +0000

My latest appearance with WTIC-AM’s Brian Shactman covers the recent announcement that the European Union may soon require smartphone makers to have user replaceable batteries in their products.

Brian and I talked about the ruling and it what it means for consumers and phone makers. Listen here!

Broadcasters Roll Out Restrictive DRM Encryption on ATSC 3.0 Broadcasts

admin — Tue, 16 May 2023 00:05:05 +0000

In my latest video I discuss the concerning trend of broadcasters introducing encryption and Digital Rights Management (DRM) to ATSC 3 broadcasts in the United States. This move, while seemingly about preventing piracy and illegal re-transmission of signals, could significantly limit consumers’ ability to consume content in the way they want.

While consumers can watch ATSC 3 content live on next-gen certified televisions, they may face restrictions when trying to use apps like Plex or Channels for DVR recordings or outside-the-home viewing. There’s also the looming question of whether an Internet connection might be required to watch broadcast TV in the future.

I suspect that the motivation behind this move is largely to protect their re-transmission fee revenue broadcasters collected on a per-subscriber basis from cable companies and streaming services. Some estimates have it as high as $15 billion annually.

However, this shift towards DRM and encryption raises several questions and concerns. One of the most pressing is whether broadcasters could eventually charge consumers to watch what should be free television. While broadcasters are barred from doing so by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I wouldn’t be surprised to see some broadcasters lobbying the FCC to allow it.

Another concern is the future of free TV content. As networks transition into streaming services, there’s a risk that high-quality content may become exclusive to paid streaming, leaving only local news and less desirable content for free broadcast TV. We’re already seeing examples of NBC, through Peacock and CBS, through Paramount+ offering content exclusive to those streaming apps that are not available on broadcast.

Given these concerns, I believe it’s crucial for consumers to voice their objections to the introduction of DRM in ATSC 3 broadcasts. I recommend reaching out to your senators and representatives, particularly those who have shown interest in accelerating the rollout of the ATSC 3 standard, to bring this issue to their attention.

Since this video was uploaded I heard from a bunch of viewers who were recently impacted by this change. Here’s what Matthew Mello sent to me on Twitter this morning:

Here the Comcast owned affiliate encrypts their ATSC 3 over the air signal making it more difficult to tune for free. If you want to DVR content or watch on a phone you’ll have to subscribe to cable to get those features – with Comcast picking up subscription AND retransmission fees.

There’s a reason the FCC used to limit media ownership in a market!

As a consumer and a tech enthusiast, I’m keeping a close eye on these developments. If DRM gets activated where I live I’ll be sure to share my experiences and continue to advocate for consumer rights in the broadcasting industry. Until then, I encourage everyone to stay informed and take action to protect our access to free over-the-air TV.

I am Opting out of the Facebook Class Action Settlement

admin — Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:09:33 +0000

Facebook settled a privacy lawsuit for $725 million related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and other data sharing practices from 2007 to 2022. Over 200 million people in the United States are automatically included in the class unless they opt out.

In my latest video we take a look at the settlement and why I think the lawyers and Facebook / Meta are the only ones who really benefit.

The lawyers involved in the case are set to receive 25% of the settlement fund, which amounts to about $181 million. Users are expected to receive just a couple of bucks each depending on the length of time they have been Facebook users. The settlement also prevents users from participating in any future lawsuits against Facebook or their parent company Meta regarding any issue related to data sharing that took place throughout the fifteen years the lawsuit covers.

Anyone in the United States that had a Facebook account between 2007-2022 will automatically be included in the class even if they don’t file for a compensation claim. That means unless individuals take the effort to opt-out they will be barred from any legal action against Facebook should additional data sharing scandals and or damages arise in the future.

To opt out of the settlement and preserve your rights, you can visit the Facebook lawsuit website and follow the opt-out instructions.

The Perils of Centralized Platforms

admin — Tue, 20 Dec 2022 15:49:28 +0000

A few months ago I started look at ways to follow Indieweb principles in how I produce and consume content. On the consumption side I spent some time freshening up my RSS reader with a blob of feeds that I have been tracking for almost twenty years now. As for creation I set up this blog and looked at ways to syndicate content from the blog out to other places.

In my latest video in this series we take a look at how it’s all working six months later. I also look at some ways to decentralize other parts of my work, including video using a federated platform called Peertube.

It’s been fun exploring how open source developers are engineering ways to replicate the experience and reach potential of centralized platforms but in a way that’s completely decentralized. Join a server if you want or spin up your own – either way you’re in control of your content and data. And the best part is that there’s no owner who can pull the plug on it.

The past few weeks have shown the perils of centralization with Twitter’s ongoing drama and the collapse of centralized crypto exchanges. In many ways centralizing things on the Internet runs counter to its design doesn’t it? With the proliferation of much faster upstream broadband there’s a lot of opportunity in the decentralized “fediverse.” I think this will likely be as much of a focus in the 2020s as centralized networks were in the 2010s.