I picked up the second-generation ADTH ATSC 3.0 NextGen TV tuner on Amazon the other day (compensated affiliate link) to see how it performs. If you’re not familiar with it, the device lets you receive both traditional ATSC 1.0 and new NextGen TV broadcasts, including those that use DRM encryption. It can record encrypted broadcasts to an SD card, though playback only works on the box itself. ADTH also claims that a “gateway” firmware update will allow more flexibility later.
What caught my attention was the box’s promise of “unconnected DRM,” suggesting it wouldn’t need an internet connection to tune in live television. The first-generation model required one, which made no sense for free over-the-air TV. So I decided to test that claim directly—no Wi-Fi, no Ethernet, just power and an antenna.
Out of the box, the tuner booted up and I was able to bypass the WiFi setup. I manually set the time and region since there was no internet connection to do it automatically. That step alone might frustrate less technical users. The channel scan found about 56 stations, and I was able to tune both encrypted and unencrypted channels without connecting online. My local encrypted CBS and NBC affiliates came through fine, confirming that offline decryption now works.
Unfortunately, HDR output was dim on my non-HDR display. There’s no option to disable HDR in the settings—just “always” or “adaptive”—and color-space adjustments made no difference. That means the firmware still forces HDR on displays that can’t handle it.
Recording worked in a limited way. I could start a recording to the SD card and even switch channels on the same broadcast frequency, but the box only supports a single tuner. Once a recording finished, I couldn’t find where it went. The “library” section that should have contained my recordings was missing until I connected to the internet and performed several beta firmware updates. ADTH is advertising DVR functionality and offline use simultaneously, but in practice, the DVR only becomes usable after downloading updates and enabling a beta mode.
After a few updates, the library finally appeared and playback worked, including for encrypted channels. It did play back those encrypted recordings when I disconnected it from the Internet. However, the software remains buggy—the interface froze at one point, requiring a power-cycle. The tuner also runs an old version of Android 11 with a 2021 security patch, making it dangerously out of date.
So, while the device technically works without the internet for basic live TV—including DRM channels—most of its useful features require network access. The HDR bug, outdated software, and rough interface make it feel unfinished. It still costs $100, far more than the $20 tuners available for ATSC 1.0, largely because of the licensing fees and development costs tied to encrypted broadcasts.
This is one of the few options that can handle NextGen TV’s DRM, but it’s hard to imagine a casual viewer getting this up and running smoothly. I’ll keep testing it as updates roll out, but this second-generation box feels like another rough draft in the long transition to ATSC 3.0.
The FCC has taken an important step in its ongoing review of the ATSC 3.0 television standard, and this time, encryption—or DRM—has taken center stage. After months of advocacy, travel to Washington, and countless public comments, the agency has released a draft of proposed rulemaking that directly addresses many of the issues consumers have been raising.
The most immediate change in the document would eliminate the ATSC 1.0 simulcast requirement. Broadcasters using the new ATSC 3.0 system have been required to continue broadcasting the same programming on the older ATSC 1.0 standard to ensure that no viewers lose access. If this rule change is approved, stations could transition to the new format without maintaining a 1.0 signal, effectively speeding up the shift to next-generation TV. The FCC is also considering allowing MPEG-4 encoding on 1.0 channels to make more efficient use of spectrum, something that could benefit both broadcasters and viewers with modern televisions.
But the biggest topic is DRM and how it’s currently being managed. The FCC is asking for public comment on whether the commission should establish rules governing encryption of free, over-the-air broadcasts rather than leaving control to the A3SA, the private industry group currently setting those standards. The Commission expressed concern about how that system operates and whether it aligns with the Communications Act of 1934’s definition of broadcasting. They’re also examining whether DRM is creating unfair competition or restricting which devices can receive signals—an issue that has limited tuner availability and compatibility with platforms like Roku and Apple devices.
The filing also shows that consumer feedback has made an impact. Thousands of viewer comments have been cited throughout the document, and both Tyler the Antenna Man and I were mentioned multiple times. The FCC clearly took note of the frustration from early adopters who bought new tuners only to find themselves locked out by encryption controlled by a private organization. The agency even raised questions about fair use and whether DRM could undermine consumers’ rights to make in-home recordings—something the broadcast flag controversy of the ATSC 1.0 era had already tested in court two decades ago.
As the FCC prepares to vote on these proposals at the end of the month, it’s clear they’re not ready to sign off on encryption as it currently exists. The upcoming vote will likely remove the simulcasting rule, open another round of public comments, and extend the process into next year. That gives consumers and advocates another opportunity to weigh in. My hope is that the Commission will consider a real-world test by suspending DRM to see how the market responds. If encryption has been holding back tuner adoption and consumer interest, that experiment could prove it.
So we will likely need to keep submitting comments and addressing the questions the FCC is asking that relate to our own personal experiences. Tyler the Antennaman and I also suggest attaching selfies of “encryption error” screens that block free TV could help put faces to the issue. The FCC’s draft shows that public voices are being heard, and continuing to speak up might be what ensures free, open access to the airwaves remains part of the country’s broadcasting future.
The nation’s largest broadcasters are continuing to push an over the air encryption plan that will make it harder for people to record content or use gateway devices to watch TV around the house. What has been a free and open system is moving toward a locked-down approach unless the FCC steps in.
As it becomes clearer that encryption—and the market gatekeeping it enables—are holding back both tuning device availability and adoption, broadcasters are now demanding a government mandate to push it all through. But just a short time ago they were advocating for government to stay out of the process.
In my latest video, I take a look at how broadcasters are contradicting themselves in a recent FCC filing.
After Tyler the Antenna Man and I met with the FCC, the nation’s largest broadcasters quickly followed with their own meeting and filed an ex parte letter about it. In the letter, the broadcasters say:
“We emphasized that all parts of the broadcast ecosystem – from CE manufacturers to developers of converter boxes to retailers and smaller market broadcasters – are waiting for a signal from the FCC that there is a plan to bring the transition to ATSC 3.0 to an end.”
In a response, the Consumer Technology Association reminded the FCC in a meeting and a follow-up ex-parte filing that all parties to the transition, including the broadcasters, never wanted the government stepping in on the transition as it was supposed to be a voluntary, market-driven one. But the CTA stopped short of saying what is obvious—that DRM has been the real barrier to adoption.
But the CTA was joined by Public Knowledge in their meeting with the FCC, and that organization very strongly pointed out the pitfalls in allowing a select group of broadcasters to essentially regulate consumer electronic devices.
They even contradicted statements they made just a few weeks ago. In their letter they state:
“We discussed A3SA’s uniform set of policies that applies equally and objectively to all manufacturers of a particular device type. Finally, we explained that A3SA does not certify hardware components or chips within devices.”
Yet in July, these very same lawyers told the FCC that the HDHomeRun was being blocked because of its chips. They CC’d the industry press and just about every relevant department with it too.
Conversations I’ve had with broadcast executives suggest they don’t really understand the technology they’re trying to bolt onto broadcasting. Encryption designed for the web doesn’t translate cleanly to over-the-air TV. Yet they continue to dig in, convinced it’s necessary. Much of their industry today is built on retransmission fees rather than actual viewers, and DRM protects those business interests.
And this goes beyond just the encryption. Another feature, signal signing, gives this small group of large broadcasters the ability to take a channel off the air. Even stations that don’t want encryption still need to pay for a certificate from the major broadcasters just to appear on certified tuners. Engineers like Weigel’s Kyle Walker have raised these concerns, but the executives pushing this system seem more interested in invoking flawed analogies—like comparing broadcast encryption to SSL on websites—than in engaging with real technical risks. Here’s an example of that from a recent LinkedIn exchange from one of those executives:
The examples they cite don’t hold up. The 1987 Chicago “Max Headroom” hijacking and the more recent Russian satellite hijacks were both upstream feed compromises that encryption and signing would not have prevented. Yet they continue to argue that certificates protect against threats that have nothing to do with the broadcast signal itself.
For consumers, the result is fewer choices and fewer freedoms. Encryption blocks devices, limits how recordings can be made, and puts unnecessary restrictions on how people watch the signals they’re legally entitled to receive. The broadcasters are not tacitly acknowledging that this market has failed, but it’s their own system that created the failure.
If they really want adoption, there’s a simple solution: stop encrypting. Remove the DRM and devices will appear, consumers will buy them, and the market they keep talking about will actually materialize. Instead, they’re asking the FCC for a mandate to force this system into place. I think the better mandate would be the opposite—no encryption and no private regulation of public airwaves. That’s the kind of order I’d get behind.
The FCC’s Media Bureau put out a notice on September 2nd (DA 25-789) about the ongoing transition to ATSC 3.0, also known as NextGenTV. There really isn’t anything new in this order that wasn’t already in place from 2017 when ATSC 3.0 broadcasts first began.
One of the key points is around the requirement that full-power and Class A stations continue to provide their main channel in the current ATSC 1.0 format if they switch their primary signal over to ATSC 3.0. This is meant to protect viewers who don’t yet have compatible equipment.
The rules allow an application to be processed on an expedited basis if a station keeps at least 95 percent of its existing audience covered with an ATSC 1.0 simulcast. What the Bureau clarified is that it will continue to use detailed terrain-based coverage analysis to determine whether that 95 percent threshold is met.
For stations that can’t quite hit that 95 percent mark, the notice emphasizes that their applications won’t be ignored. The Bureau says it will still review them on a case-by-case basis, weighing factors such as whether viewers in the “loss area” are still served by another station carrying the same network, or whether the station offers mitigation like providing converter boxes.
The Bureau also highlighted some of the flexibility already built into the rules. Stations are only required to simulcast their main channel in ATSC 1.0, not additional sub-channels. The “substantially similar” programming requirement applies only to that main stream, which gives broadcasters room to experiment with new ATSC 3.0 features such as interactive services or higher-resolution video. Stations can also partner with more than one host station to meet the 95 percent coverage goal. Low-power and translator stations aren’t required to simulcast at all, though they can volunteer to host other stations’ signals.
It’s important to note that this notice doesn’t create new obligations or change the simulcast rules. Instead, it’s meant to give broadcasters more certainty about how the FCC staff will interpret and process applications. In other words, this is more about guidance and reassurance than a firm new policy.
Look for a draft order that will more specifically spell out the rules for the cutover – including whether or not DRM will be allowed. Stay tuned!
I’ve been following the ongoing debate over the encryption of over-the-air television signals for several years now. While most of that coverage has focused on the consumer experience, there’s also some pain in store for smaller independent broadcasters through the “High Noon” effort being imposed by the nation’s largest conglomerates.
“High Noon” is not some conspiracy theory – it’s the actual name for a plan about to be implemented by the nation’s largest broadcasters that mandates every station to purchase an encryption certificate through a private security authority called the A3SA. That authority, of course, is owned and operated by the nation’s largest broadcasters and has the power to revoke these certificates at will – essentially being able to pull those smaller stations off the air even if they have a valid FCC license.
These certificates are a requirement of the ATSC 3.0 standard even if the station doesn’t broadcast a DRM encrypted signal. And if that’s not all bad enough, the rules of how all of this work are locked behind an NDA so nobody can talk about it. And of course this private authority can change the rules anytime they want.
And how can they pull a station off the air? Well, the few tuners on the market that support DRM have to also support this signature authority. If the tuner doesn’t detect the certificate it won’t show the station to the viewer citing security issues.
The backdrop here is a filing from Weigel Broadcasting, one of the larger independent broadcasters with stations nationwide and a digital over the air network reaching most U.S. households. Unlike the big conglomerates, Weigel relies on actual viewers tuning in for ad revenue, so they’ve resisted DRM from the start. They’ve also been vocal in their opposition on the FCC docket, pointing out that DRM-compliant tuners are significantly more expensive than current ATSC 1.0 gear.
In tests, Weigel engineers confirmed that TVs are denied access to a channel when presented with unsigned signals, putting the A3SA effectively in the role of gatekeeper instead of the FCC.
“High Noon” was supposed to roll out on June 30, but broadcasters delayed its implementation in March. The reasons aren’t public, and under the NDA, people in the know can’t say why. I think pressure from independent stations and public opposition may be playing a role. Still, once that “High Noon” switch is flipped, broadcasters could find themselves in a position where their ability to reach viewers depends less on FCC licensing and more on private agreements with a handful of corporations.
The justification offered is security—protection against hijacking and what their industry association says are “deepfakes” of a broadcast. But history shows these incidents are exceptionally rare. The only real example of a hijack was the Max Headroom incident in Chicago in 1987, when someone overpowered a microwave relay and briefly took over a broadcast. More recent disruptions have been the result of poor security practices, like leaving default passwords on emergency alert systems or mistakes made inside the broadcast center by technicians. Encryption and signing certificates wouldn’t have prevented those.
Meanwhile, the consumer side of ATSC 3.0 remains sluggish. DRM has made tuners more expensive, stunting adoption of what otherwise could be a much more consumer-friendly standard. Independent broadcasters argue that the only way forward is to drop DRM entirely and allow viewers to access the public airwaves without interference which would bring down the cost of tuning devices substantially.
That’s where things stand now. The “High Noon” switch hasn’t been thrown yet, but the threat of it looms over the industry. For me, the question is whether the FCC will continue letting private groups usurp their authority, or if it will step in before viewers lose access to something they’ve always been entitled to receive.
Broadcasters are hoping to make it harder for viewers to watch without paying subscription fees, and we wanted to make sure the concerns many of you raised were heard directly by the Commission. We paid our own way for travel, hotel, and meals, despite accusations from one broadcaster that Tyler was somehow on the take. The reality is that we were supported only by our viewers, who are equally frustrated by the ATSC 3.0 DRM roll-out.
The FCC doesn’t hold big public hearings for these kinds of decisions. Instead, they rely on docket filings and meetings with stakeholders. That’s why this visit mattered. The bureau staff listened closely, asked thoughtful questions, and took notes. It was clear they are trying to get a full picture before advising the commissioners, who will eventually make the decision about when ATSC 1.0 will be sunset and the ATSC 3.0 era beings.
My portion of the presentation centered on why DRM is the main obstacle to consumer adoption of ATSC 3.0. The technology has been on the air in many major markets for years, but tuners remain scarce and expensive. In contrast, ATSC 1.0 tuners are inexpensive, often around $20, and easy to build because compliance is limited to FCC standards. ATSC 3.0 requires not only FCC compliance but also certifications from NextGenTV and approval from the A3SA, with costs so high that small businesses are effectively shut out.
This leads to situations where a basic ATSC 3.0 tuner costs upwards of $90, compared to $22 for an ATSC 1.0 device with identical functionality (including DVR features). And even when people buy these devices, they often ship with outdated software—one box I tested was four years behind on its Android security updates. Meanwhile, only three operating systems currently support ATSC 3.0 DRM, leaving much of the market, including Roku’s large share, without access.
I also shared with the FCC what I found at Walmart and Best Buy. Walmart, which accounts for more than a third of U.S. TV sales, didn’t stock a single ATSC 3.0-capable television. Best Buy had a few, but only in the high-end section, and even then the support wasn’t advertised. Shoppers wouldn’t know about it unless they asked. On the other hand, antenna sales remain strong, with valuable retail space dedicated to them, and even ATSC 1.0 tuners were sold out on my last visit to Walmart.
Despite the challenges, many existing devices can handle unencrypted ATSC 3.0 signals, including older TVs, Roku models, Apple TV, Nvidia Shield, Xbox, iPhones, and iPads. I showed examples of all of these working fine with unencrypted broadcasts. Encryption is the barrier. Without it, adoption could grow quickly and cheaply, as inexpensive tuner boxes could be developed for broad compatibility. Instead, enthusiasts remain the only group experimenting with ATSC 3.0, mostly through devices like the HDHomeRun.
Broadcasters want to mandate the inclusion of expensive tuners in new TVs, but I argued that the real fix is simpler: drop DRM. Years have already been lost to this failed experiment, and open signals would encourage innovation and adoption much more effectively. The FCC now has to weigh the evidence, and I expect strong pushback from broadcasters in their docket responses. Whatever happens next, the commissioners will need clear evidence before making their decision, and I believe we’ve shown that DRM is the central issue holding back this transition.
Tyler’s portion of the presentation is available on his channel, and I’ll continue watching the docket for developments. The debate over the future of free, over-the-air television is far from over.
Last week, SiliconDust, the makers of the HDHomeRun, met with the FCC to discuss ongoing concerns over the encryption of over-the-air broadcasts in the U.S. We know this meeting happened because FCC rules require a public filing summarizing the conversation—and that document reveals a lot. It offers new insight into the challenges SiliconDust has faced, including what appears to be selective regulation by the broadcast industry, and some possible paths forward.
At the heart of this issue is the use of digital rights management, or DRM, to encrypt ATSC 3.0 signals—something that wasn’t present in the older ATSC 1.0 standard. SiliconDust argues that encrypting these broadcasts violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law in regards to public access to the airwaves. They also point out that the rules governing access to the encrypted content are deliberately opaque. Device makers like SiliconDust are under NDA and can’t publicly explain how the system works or how they comply with it. That kind of secrecy runs counter to how the FCC has typically operated—where rulemaking is transparent and compliance information is available to the public.
SiliconDust has gone through the expensive process of getting NextGen TV certification for their device. That’s one of two certifications needed to access encrypted signals. The other is DRM certification through A3SA, the private industry group managing the encryption scheme. They had initially pursued a different DRM method—DTCP—but the A3SA changed course, which forced SiliconDust to pivot midstream. This shifting landscape has created additional costs and delays, which helps explain why so few tuners for ATSC 3.0 are available and why they’re priced well above what consumers might expect.
Silicondust isn’t new to managing protected content. Years ago, they developed the HDHomeRun Prime, which worked with cable providers to decrypt scrambled digital signals. That product functioned reliably for years and helped many consumers avoid renting costly cable boxes. So, SiliconDust already has experience building secure systems that work within industry requirements.
They even tried to partner with LG to bring ATSC 3.0 access to older LG TVs via an app and an HDHomeRun device. This would have allowed millions of LG customers to access the new broadcast standard without upgrading their hardware. LG was a co-developer of the ATSC 3.0 spec, yet their joint proposal was rejected by the A3SA. That decision blocked a cost-effective solution that could have helped speed up adoption.
There are also examples of what appears to be selective treatment between SiliconDust and competitors. ZapperBox, another ATSC 3.0 tuner, has been promoted at trade shows and in press materials, despite lacking NextGenTV certification. SiliconDust, which has both DRM and NextGen certifications, has been left out.
SiliconDust isn’t just voicing complaints. They came to the FCC meeting with proposed solutions. The simplest, they say, is to eliminate DRM from public broadcasts altogether, which would remove the need for expensive certification and open up the market to more affordable devices. That certification process might explain why inexpensive TVs at retailers like Walmart don’t include ATSC 3.0 tuners—the added cost pushes them out of the low-margin price range.
Another option is to model DRM implementation after streaming services like Netflix, which encrypt streams using widely supported methods. But the current ATSC 3.0 DRM system goes further, layering additional restrictions on top of Google’s Widevine which is what the broadcasters chose for encryption.
But Widevine is only one of several DRM standards. Apple devices use FairPlay. Microsoft Xboxes and PCs use PlayReady. Netflix supports all three by tailoring the stream to the device.
Netflix can do this because they provide a unique stream to every viewer. Broadcasters, working with limited over the air bandwidth, do not have the flexibility to deliver three separate streams of the same content.
Although A3SA had promised broad device compatibility over a year ago, but only Android devices, which are owned by Google and support Widevine natively, have proven to work. Apple, Roku, WebOS, and others remain unsupported. That’s a significant problem for a broadcast standard that’s supposed to be universally accessible.
Another issue is that the DRM standard is not actually part of the official ATSC 3.0 spec, nor is it regulated by the FCC. That means A3SA—a private organization with just five members—can change the rules at any time. They can add new restrictions or limit access based on brand. That kind of unchecked authority over access to public broadcasts raises valid concerns.
The FCC doesn’t hold public hearings on this issue. Instead, they’re conducting private meetings like this one to gather information. It was the National Association of Broadcasters that initiated this push for a hard transition from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0. But adoption has been slow, partly because DRM has made devices more expensive and difficult to develop. Over the coming weeks, more meetings and filings like this one will likely surface, possibly followed by a draft order outlining the FCC’s next steps.
Even though the public comment period has closed, it’s still possible to file additional thoughts with the FCC. Here’s a link with instructions where you can do that if you feel the need to respond to other filings. I’ll continue following the story and keeping you updated.
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.
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.
On Friday, television broadcast association Pearl TV filed a scathing letter to the FCC in response to the thousands of consumers who wrote in to the commission complaining that their home gateway products (like the HDHomerun Flex 4k) are unable to tune encrypted broadcasts. I was surprised to see Pearl TV, through their attorneys, essentially admit to selectively enforcing their DRM rules to favor one tuning device type and maker over another.
A gateway device allows a single antenna connection for bringing digital TV signals into the home and available on the local Wi-Fi or ethernet network. Any device with a screen can watch the content, and most gateway devices also offer a centralized DVR for recordings. Essentially gateway users can watch TV by just pulling up an app on any device.
Gateways are popular among cord cutters because they replicate many of the features that come with expensive streaming and cable TV plans. But when consumers “cut the cord,” broadcasters lose cable & streaming retransmission fees that make up a sizable portion of their annual revenues.
Broadcasters, through their encryption organization called the A3SA, have not allowed any gateway device to work with their encrypted broadcasts, permitting only single television tuner boxes that require separate antenna connections for each screen they are attached to. These devices can record, but only onto the single device without centralized DVR features found in gateways.
Pearl TV’s filing is misleading the FCC in response to questions about why Pearl’s broadcast partners are locking out home gateway devices that consumers have enjoyed for nearly 20 years. In their ex-parte filing, Pearl asserts:
The root cause why the HDHomeRun device has encountered issues is that it depends on a chipset manufactured by HiSilicon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., which the Commission has found to be “a national security threat to the integrity of our communications networks” given that the company has been deemed to be “highly susceptible to influence and coercion by the Chinese government.”
Pearl also references a Department of Commerce blacklist in a footnote:
Huawei also has been placed on the US Commerce Department’s “Entity List,” and thus American companies are prohibited from providing sensitive technology to it. 15 C.F.R. § 744, Supp. 4 (2025) (The BI Entity List, as defined in 15 C.F.R. § 744.16, contains the names of “foreign parties subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or in-country transfer of controlled items.”
This filing suggests that any component from a blacklisted company violates the industry’s secret, non-disclosable rules concerning decryption. Their assertion is not even legally correct as a receive-only TV tuner is not a piece of telecommunications infrastructure that these laws and regulations apply to.
But even if those laws did apply, it’s clear the A3SA & Pearl are selectively enforcing this “rule.“
Let’s examine the GT Media X1, currently available on Amazon and other e-commerce sites for approximately $60. It is advertised as “DRM Certified.” My independent testing confirms its ability to play back and record encrypted content, a function exclusive to A3SA certified devices. It is capable of tuning into DRM protected content on a single television, but it is not a gateway device so it only works on a single television.
After removing the casing, I was greeted with the chip circled in red on the Chinese designed and manufactured X1’s motherboard. That chip is made by YMTC, which was added to the Commerce Department’s black list under the Biden administration in 2022.
According to the footnote in the Pearl TV filing, this should be an immediate disqualifier for A3SA certification. Yet, here we are with a device that is fully certified and capable of decrypting content.
This is a prime example of the anti-competitive nature of the opaque selective “regulation” that Pearl and broadcasters are imposing,where they get to decide who has access to the market. Here they continue to give an American company and television viewers the run-around while extending preferential treatment to a foreign entity – even allowing that company to break these opaque rules.
What’s worse, the GT Media box initially shipped to US consumers was running with an Android operating system that was four years out of date containing many known security vulnerabilities that puts consumers at risk and also makes the broadcaster’s encrypted recordings less secure. You can see for yourself in my review of the product.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the GT Media Device did not have the Google Play Store and required sideloading apps from unknown sources, which opens the door to additional vulnerabilities.
While GT Media says they have since rectified some of these security issues, the larger question is why was it approved in the first place? It clearly violates an alleged rule of using a blacklisted component AND has gaping security holes.
But it’s a tuner, not a gateway device. And the broadcast industry has been trying to find ways to kill off gateways once and for all.
All of this comes as a surprise to Silicondust CEO Nick Kelsey, who told me that the A3SA licensing authority never communicated this concern to him. In fact, the A3SA approved the HDHomerun for on-device decryption by issuing Widevine security credentials in 2022 per this email supplied to me by Kelsey. Widevine would only turn over ATSC 3.0 DRM credentials to applicants who were approved by the A3SA.
In 2023, Pearl’s partners granted full NextgenTV certification for the HDHomerun product and software knowing full well what was inside the unit.
So I asked the A3SA for comment. Specifically I wanted to know why they approved the GT Media Box, and to share any records of SiliconDust being notified about the component issue. Here’s what they said:
“Huawei has been on a restricted component list with the U.S. government for more than five years. SiliconDust cannot claim ignorance of U.S. law.. SiliconDust has long been aware of this concern – so it is not new information to them.”
I pressed for more than just this but this was all they were willing to give.
The HDHomerun product hasn’t changed since those certifications and it’s apparent Pearl and their partners clearly knew what components were inside the unit when granting them.
With this blatant example of cooking up rules to push out a technology they don’t like, another question is what are Pearl’s goals here? Is it to protect content or inconvenience consumers and limit their choices for tuning devices?
The market is speaking loudly that gateway devices are the preferred means of watching and recording live television. A quick search of Amazon for “TV tuners” reveals that customers are choosing gateway devices over standalone TV tuners by a large margin. Three of the top four best sellers when searching for “TV tuners” are Tablo ATSC 1.0 gateways.
A similar search for “ATSC 3.0 tuners” reveals that the HDHomerun Flex 4k product is the best selling ATSC 3.0 device.
This new FCC has consistently advocated for open markets, and allowing those markets to dictate the optimal path rather than regulations. I fully support this stance. However, Pearl’s letter clearly indicates their preference to artificially restrict consumer choice. They aim to stifle a thriving cottage industry of US-based gateway hardware and software manufacturers through a private regulatory regime that lacks fairness and transparency.
It’s time the commission regain control of this absurdity, assert that broadcasters do not have the power to regulate device manufacturers, and ban the use of encryption over the public airwaves. It will solve a multitude of problems this transition is facing and will result in a vibrant and competitive marketplace for consumers and broadcasters alike.
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.
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.
John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge, provided me some detailed insight into the ongoing FCC debate surrounding DRM (Digital Rights Management) and ATSC 3.0, also known as NextGen TV in a recent interview.
Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based consumer rights advocacy group, champions balanced digital rights, net neutrality, intellectual property reform, and media policy reforms that benefit diversity of voices and consumer interests. Bergmayer, who has been with the organization for over 12 years, emphasized their proactive role: “We do interface with government directly and participate in regulatory proceedings like this one at the FCC.”
Despite engaging in working groups aimed at consensus-building for the future of television, Bergmayer identified substantial disagreements among stakeholders. He explained, “There was consensus on the sort of issues that don’t really matter all that much… but on fundamental questions about DRM and encryption issues, there was not a lot of agreement.” Bergmayer highlighted that within broadcaster groups, positions significantly diverged, citing smaller broadcasters like Weigel Broadcasting, who see limited benefits in transitioning to ATSC 3.0.
A central point of contention involves DRM implementation, which Bergmayer argued severely threatens fair use rights and consumer freedoms. He emphasized the inherent conflict: “DRM interferes with things that are legal… it prevents you from accessing the content to do things that are fair uses.” According to Bergmayer, DRM undermines established consumer rights, specifically referencing landmark fair use cases such as the Sony case, which secured the right to record and privately use broadcasted content at home.
Bergmayer pointed out the paradox created by DRM regulations, noting that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes circumventing DRM illegal, even if the underlying action, such as recording television programs for personal use, is legally protected fair use. He explained that this contradiction effectively criminalizing legitimate first amendment activities.
The chilling effect of DRM was another significant concern raised by Bergmayer. He indicated that DRM requirements could severely limit innovation and device availability. Specifically, he mentioned popular devices like the HDHomeRun, which significantly outsell DRM-compatible devices precisely because of their flexibility and consumer-friendly nature.
Bergmayer also underscored the unique obligations of broadcasters, emphasizing their responsibilities given their free access to valuable public spectrum. “Free public airwaves should not be turned into a private playground for these companies,” Bergmayer said.
Regarding consumer engagement, Bergmayer praised the active participation of thousands of individual commenters in the FCC docket, noting its unusual depth for such technical issues: “It’s really impressive that there’s people out there who are willing to spend the time to make their voice heard.”
Looking forward, Bergmayer predicted inevitable legal challenges regardless of the FCC’s decision, referencing previous influential cases like the Broadcast Flag litigation, which Public Knowledge successfully led. He believes further court battles are likely due to persistent conflicts between DRM implementation and established individual rights.
Bergmayer strongly encouraged continued public awareness and advocacy as the FCC is obligated to process and acknowledge consumer feedback in making its decisions.
A major filing was submitted just before the ATSC 3.0 public comment deadline by a coalition including Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Reports, and several other organizations. Their message to the FCC is clear: DRM has no place in public broadcast spectrum. You can read the document here and watch my analysis piece here.
Their argument centers around the idea that mandatory encryption under ATSC 3.0 fundamentally conflicts with the legal and constitutional frameworks that have long governed broadcast TV.
One case they point to is American Library Association v. FCC, where a rule that would have forced devices to honor a broadcast flag was overturned. The court concluded that the FCC had no authority to regulate what happens inside consumer devices once a signal is received. That precedent is particularly relevant as we now face a situation where encryption could prevent people from exercising their long-established right to record broadcasts.
The filing emphasizes that public spectrum isn’t a private asset—it’s a shared, collectively owned resource managed under a mandate to serve the public interest. That’s different from how spectrum is handled in industries like mobile phones, where companies purchase and control allocated spectrum. Here, broadcasters are allowed to profit, but only as trustees serving the public.
What stood out in this filing was how thoroughly it outlined the risks to consumers. Many certified ATSC 3.0 devices are already showing their flaws—most require Internet access to tune televisions, others are running outdated software, and few give users any meaningful flexibility. If encryption becomes the norm, gateway devices, DIY DVRs, open-source solutions, and even basic home recording could vanish.
A central point made by the filing is that DRM turns broadcasters into gatekeepers—not just over content, but also over the devices people can use. It also creates a strange contradiction in the law. On one hand, it’s legal to record a broadcast under the American Library decision and the 1980s Sony Betamax case; on the other, it’s illegal to bypass encryption under the DMCA. So even if you have the right to record something, you will be breaking the law in practice.
They also call out the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority, or A3SA, for setting private rules that aren’t subject to public oversight. Even the encoding guidelines broadcasters have touted are limited—they only apply to ATSC 1.0 simulcasts, not future ATSC 3.0-only broadcasts.
The process by which A3SA licenses devices is also under scrutiny. Developers have to sign NDAs, the terms aren’t transparent, and consumers have no voice in the process. This kind of structure, the filing argues, runs counter to the FCC’s mandate to ensure open and nondiscriminatory access to public airwaves.
Interestingly, the document even questions whether encrypted broadcasts still qualify as “broadcasting” under the law, since they require a privately licensed decoder to access them.
So what happens next? It’s going to be a waiting game. The FCC is about to be short on commissioners, with two stepping down and replacements not yet confirmed. Until the commission has a quorum, it won’t be able to vote on anything substantial—including ATSC 3.0 rules.
On Monday we’ll have an interview with John Bergmayer from Public Knowledge, the lead author of the filing, to dive into this topic further.
Until then, this conversation around DRM is going to slow down a bit as we wait for the FCC to get back to full strength. But I’ll keep tracking the story and will have more updates when the next phase begins.
I’ve been keeping a close eye on the ATSC 3.0 NextGen TV transition, and with the public comment period now closed, we’re into the reply phase. Many of you submitted comments sharing your experiences with DRM making it harder to watch local TV, and it was encouraging to see so many voices represented. Industry participation was a bit more muted—except for Sinclair Broadcasting. They were anything but quiet.
Sinclair, which owns numerous TV stations nationwide, filed a lengthy comment just before the deadline, and they went all in on DRM. While most other broadcasters and industry players sidestepped the issue, likely to keep the focus on finalizing the transition date, Sinclair declared in their filing that those of us concerned about DRM are manufacturing outrage. Specifically, they urged the FCC not to be “swayed by a paroxysm of astroturf concern generated by vloggers…hostile to the concept of intellectual property.”
Sinclair also pinned the blame on TV and tuner manufacturers, claiming they created compliance problems. But if you look at the SiliconDust HDHomeRun, which remains the top-selling ATSC 3.0 tuner on Amazon (compensated affiliate link), that argument starts to fall apart. It’s fully certified, carries the NextGen TV logo, and paid to become an “adopter” of the A3SA DRM standard. Yet their product still can’t access encrypted broadcasts, likely because devices that act as gateways—letting viewers stream TV across multiple platforms—just aren’t what the industry wants in the DRM era.
Sinclair also argues that services like Netflix use DRM, so broadcasters should be able to as well. But Netflix supports multiple standards—PlayReady, Widevine, FairPlay—so it works on nearly any device. They’ve gone out of their way to make watching legally more convenient than pirating. In contrast, broadcasters have offered buggy, outdated Android boxes with questionable security and limited support. I’ve tested a few myself, like the Zinwell and GT Media boxes, and both shipped with Android TV builds that hadn’t received a security patch in four years.
Consumers have spoken with their wallets. The HDHomeRun ATSC 3 gateway tuner is the best selling ATSC 3 device on Amazon by a wide margin. The Zinwell tuner, which the industry seems to prefer, was once $99 and now costs $129. It barely moves off the shelves. There’s no mystery here—people want reliable, flexible options that respect how they’ve been watching TV for decades.
On the question of intellectual property, Sinclair’s record complicates their position. In one case, they were sued for taking a photographer’s images from Facebook and Instagram and using them for profit without permission. They tried to argue that the photographer shouldn’t have posted the photos if he didn’t want them reused—an argument a judge rejected. That’s a hard position to reconcile with a company now portraying itself as a defender of copyright.
There’s also precedent around fair use in the home. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of home recording in the 1984 Sony Betamax case, and the broadcast flag regulation was struck down in 2005 when the FCC overstepped its authority. Broadcasters are now leaning on the DMCA, which makes it illegal to bypass encryption, even for legal uses like time-shifting a recording. They’re hoping this legal path will succeed where the broadcast flag failed.
Sinclair’s regulatory history doesn’t help their case. They paid a $48 million civil penalty—the largest in FCC history—for failing to disclose facts during a proposed merger and for allegedly negotiating retransmission deals in bad faith. They were also accused of running undisclosed sponsored content. Yet they argue that others are the problem and that fewer regulations should apply to them while they enjoy all the benefits of broadcast distribution.
Near the end of their filing, Sinclair suggested broadcasters should only be required to offer one free over-the-air signal and be allowed to charge for everything else. That’s the real heart of the DRM debate. It’s not just about encryption—it’s about carving out a new subscription business model using public spectrum.
In all of their cries for deregulation, the only regulation they suggest keeping in place is one that doesn’t apply to them but to TV manufacturers. They offered no objection to the NAB’s controversial request that all TV makers switch to installing more expensive ATSC 3 tuners now ahead of the transition deadline.
Over the past two years, I’ve been closely following developments around the transition to the new ATSC 3.0 television standard—particularly the implications of broadcasters encrypting over-the-air signals with digital rights management (DRM). In my area, I’ve already lost access to a couple of local networks via my HDHomeRun. That experience isn’t unique, and now the FCC is asking for public comment about how this transition should proceed.
I cover what they’re looking for and show how you can respond in my latest video. Instructions are also below.
This is the most direct invitation yet to share feedback on some key questions before any decisions are finalized. Notably, question eight on their list acknowledges thousands of consumer objections to DRM on ATSC 3.0 broadcasts—comments that many of you submitted over the last couple of years from our collective effort:
Even though the question seems to accept the idea that broadcasters may need to protect their content, there’s still room to advocate for alternatives. If you believe gateways could strike a balance between access and protection, you can say that. Personally, I don’t believe DRM is necessary at all, but the FCC appears to be open to constructive, well-supported suggestions. The key is offering real-world experiences and ideas, not just opinions.
We may still end up losing this fight, but I think it’s important that this question made it into the public notice. They did listen to us and they are interested in this topic enough to include it in the public notice. So now we have a chance to provide further clarity. So you can take the cynical route and do nothing, or spend a few minutes to share your thoughts with a commission that is at least interested in hearing from you on this topic.
Another point they’re seeking input on involves some of the mandates broadcasters are proposing as part of the transition—things like requiring all new TVs to include ATSC 3.0 tuners, putting broadcast TV front and center in menu interfaces, or even adding a dedicated broadcast button to remote controls.
What’s different this time is that the current FCC is moving faster than its predecessor. That means deadlines are tight. The main comment period ends May 7, 2025, with replies to comments due by June 6. If you submitted comments before this notice came out, please file again to have your input considered during this official period.
When writing your comments, be specific and back up your statements with facts whenever possible. If DRM has impacted your ability to enjoy over-the-air television—especially if you use HDHomeRun or hoped to—it’s important to say so. Also consider the broader impact. Small companies like SiliconDust, which produces HDHomeRun devices, face real risks. Channels DVR is in a tight spot, and Plex hasn’t even attempted to get into ATSC 3.0 because of the current restrictions. These are the kinds of real-world effects the FCC needs to hear about.
If you’re ready to comment, the process isn’t too difficult. On the FCC’s website, you’ll find two options: an “express comment” form and a more detailed “standard filing” route if you have something longer to say. Just make sure to reference docket number 16-142, and be sure to include your mailing address—it won’t be made public, but it’s required to verify your identity.
I’ve put together my own written comment organized into sections to make it easier for the FCC to follow that you can find here.PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT MY WORDS AS YOUR OWN. A number of people have done this already, this hurts the cause more than helps. Take the time and relate your personal experinces.
Once you’ve submitted your comment, it may take a day or two to show up in the public docket. But the important thing is to submit something. Your experiences matter, and the FCC is actually listening—at least for now. Whether they’ll take action based on what we say remains to be seen, but our collective efforts are part of the official record. That alone makes it worth speaking up.
Here’s how to submit:
1. Click this link to be taken to the FCC filing form. This will take you to the express filing. You’ll also see the option at the top of the screen to select the standard filing option where you can submit a PDF or Word Doc. The instructions for submitting are the same for both.
2. On the first line for proceedings type in 16-142 . The system will then display the text “Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcasting Television Standard.” Click on that to lock in the docket number. Here’s what it looks like:
I’ve found that sometimes on the express form that the search doesn’t always pop up correctly. Sometimes clicking over to standard and back to express will get it working. Once you click on it 16-142 will light up yellow like this:
3. Fill in your information. A US address is required and note that this will be part of the public record.
4. Write your comment in the comment section. It’s important to provide some detail especially how this change will make it difficult for YOU to consume over the air television.
I’ve been recovering from laryngitis, but I’m back at it with a look at a new TV tuner from ADTH. This one comes with a lot of buzz from the broadcast industry, which is pitching it as a reliable solution for tuning encrypted ATSC 3.0 TV signals. After spending time with it, though, I found it falls painfully short of expectations. See more in my latest review.
The ADTH tuner will likely cost more than the device you’re plugging it into. It’s also imported from China, so there’s a chance future shipments might cost more due to tariffs. You can find it here on Amazon (compensated affiliate link).
It connects via USB to Android TV or Fire TV devices. Out of all the hardware I tested, the only one it fully worked with was the Onn 4K Pro box. Everything else—like the Nvidia Shield, Onn stick, and Fire TV Stick 4K Max—ran into trouble with encrypted channels. On the Shield, encrypted ATSC 3.0 channels froze after showing a single frame. The Fire TV Stick displayed an error saying DRM wasn’t supported. In each case, unencrypted channels were fine, but the whole point of this tuner is to handle encryption, and that’s where it stumbled. My friend Elias Saba of AFTVNews.com tested twenty supposedly compatible devices and found only two worked as advertised.
To make things more complicated, AC-4 audio compatibility on the host device is also required for ATSC 3 broadcasts. Unfortunately most devices don’t say whether they do. So users are left guessing.
Setting it up was relatively simple. The app is available on the Android and Fire TV app stores. After granting permission for USB access—something I had to do each time I launched the app—it walked me through a channel scan and a dongle firmware update. It found channels quickly and offered a decent guide, both a quick overlay and a more detailed grid. The app also lets you pause live TV and jump back to the live broadcast, but there’s no recording or rewinding.
One feature that stood out was the stats screen. It’s the most detailed I’ve seen for ATSC 3.0 tuning and could be useful for those trying to troubleshoot signal issues or understand what’s coming through the airwaves.
It’s worth noting that the app only works on Android TV and Fire TV but not phones or tablets. I checked some APK sites to see if there was an unofficial workaround for mobile, but couldn’t find anything that worked. It also will never work with PCs, or anything Apple- or Roku-based. That’s a big limitation for a device that’s supposed to represent the future of TV tuning.
All of this brings me to DRM and its cost. Right now, the ADTH tuner is one of the few options that’s officially sanctioned to handle encrypted ATSC 3.0. But the GT Media USB tuner we looked at last year, which doesn’t support encryption but works on a much wider range of Android devices—including mobile—sells for as little as $30 on AliExpress. It even has DVR support via an SD card. Despite being cheaper and more versatile, it’s being held back by the same DRM restrictions that limit broader innovation in the space.
As broadcasters continue to push the FCC to accelerate the ATSC 3.0 transition, we’re left with hardware that still doesn’t deliver on the promise. Two years into this DRM rollout, basic functionality still isn’t guaranteed. There’s more to come this week as the FCC opens public comments on the DRM issue, and I’ll be sharing how to get involved. For now, this is where things stand—and it’s not a great place to be.
I’ve been following the rough rollout of ATSC 3.0—also known as NextGenTV—for a while now, and this week the transition hit another bump in the road. A dispute over tuner mandates has surfaced between two key players in the process: the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), which represents electronics manufacturers, and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents TV broadcasters. I dive into this in my latest video.
The disagreement is notable because these two organizations have worked closely to get this new standard off the ground. Even the NextGenTV logo consumers see on compatible equipment is a registered trademark of the CTA, not the NAB.
Recently, the NAB asked the FCC to push the transition forward, proposing a 2028 cutoff for the current standard in major markets. That proposal included several desired mandates. One, which I mentioned previously, would require manufacturers to include ATSC 3.0 tuners in TVs well before that deadline. But there were a few other items tucked into the request. For instance, the NAB wants the FCC to require that remotes with buttons for services like Netflix also have buttons for broadcast TV. They also want broadcast content to be featured prominently in on-screen menus—right up there with paid placements from streaming platforms.
This is where the CTA pushed back. Gary Shapiro, CTA’s CEO, took to LinkedIn with a public response. He accused the NAB of trying to force an unpopular product on consumers and manufacturers. He noted that less than 10% of Americans rely on antennas for TV and argued that these mandates would increase costs for everyone, especially at a time when affordability is a concern.
The CTA also began lobbying FCC commissioners directly. They brought along cost comparisons, pointing out that TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners are significantly more expensive. They argue that additional costs—like those tied to licensing and DRM requirements—are part of why manufacturers are reluctant to include these tuners in their products.
And that’s been a sticking point all along. The tuners are pricey. They’re expensive to make and expensive to buy, largely because of how difficult it is to meet all the DRM requirements that come with ATSC 3.0. These restrictions make it tough for smaller companies to enter the market, which in turn limits consumer choice.
A good example is something like the HDTV Mate, a sub $60 tuner that doesn’t meet the DRM standards. It’s more affordable than the few certified options, but because it doesn’t comply with the DRM, it’s not really part of the formal ecosystem. Without the DRM roadblock, I believe we’d already see a wider selection of tuners at better price points.
Broadcasters don’t seem likely to budge on DRM. The CTA seems less focused on that issue than on the broader economic impact of the mandates. Still, the lack of tuners—and the obstacles to building them—is at the heart of why this transition has been so slow.
Looking ahead, I don’t expect the FCC to go along with any of the mandates the NAB is pushing for. It’s hard to imagine this FCC chairman telling manufacturers how to design their remotes or menu layouts. But the broader transition to ATSC 3.0 is probably going to keep moving forward. If nothing changes, over-the-air TV might become even harder to access, which could lead to its gradual disappearance. That might suit some interests, especially if the valuable spectrum currently used by broadcasters gets reallocated or repurposed.
It didn’t have to go this way. With more affordable tuners and fewer restrictions, we might have had a more vibrant market by now—even if it was a small one. But instead, we’re left with a limited selection of costly devices and a standard that’s tough for both consumers and developers to embrace.
I’m not giving up on the DRM issue, and if you’re concerned too, there’s a way to weigh in. You can visit my instructions here to file a public comment with the FCC. I’ll be following this docket closely, and I expect more developments as the FCC begins formalizing its approval process for the transition. Public comment periods and even field hearings are likely on the horizon. I’ll keep watching.
As I reported on the other day, the nation’s broadcasters are hoping the FCC will finally set a date to transition to the new ATSC 3.0 standard. This of course comes with restrictive DRM that makes it difficult for consumers to tune into over the air television the way they do today.
Here’s what I filed in response:
Dear FCC Commissioners,
It is clear from both the Future of Television report and the recent request for rulemaking from the NAB that the availability of ATSC 3.0 tuners is the major barrier to this transition. Broadcasters seem to believe that setting a firm transition date while simultaneously pulling most of their programming off ATSC 1.0 will magically create a market for tuning devices.
The real reason for this tuner availability problem is that broadcasters have implemented a broken DRM encryption standard that barely works—even for early adopters like me. Before this encryption experiment, it was possible to tune and decode ATSC 3.0 signals on a variety of hardware and operating systems.
With encryption, however, broadcasters now limit tuning boxes to pre-approved tuners running Google’s operating system and encryption technologies. The NAB’s claims that Google is destroying their industry ring hollow when they have essentially created a monopoly for Google in tuning over-the-air signals.
Currently, I have an HDHomeRun “gateway” tuner connected to a single antenna, which delivers ATSC 1.0 and unencrypted ATSC 3.0 content to all of my televisions, computers, and other devices on my home network—regardless of manufacturer. DRM, however, will require consumers to make individual antenna connections to each television and purchase a Google-powered standalone tuner. How is this progress?
Broadcasters will argue that their streaming competitors also use DRM. This is true. However, those streaming services ensure that their apps are available across multiple platforms. Even Apple—well known for its closed ecosystem—makes its Apple TV+ app available on nearly all streaming devices.
A look at Amazon sales data for “ATSC 3.0 tuners” shows that consumers are choosing gateway products at a rate of 20 to 1 over standalone tuners. Why? Because purchasing a single device that integrates with their existing TVs and set top boxes just makes sense. Yet broadcasters want to restrict this option, forcing consumers to either buy more hardware or push them back into a subscription service where they can collect retransmission fees.
While broadcasters have assured this commission that their self-imposed “broadcast encoding rules” allow for in-home recording and gateway use, what they didn’t disclose is that these encoding rules—created entirely by them—only apply to ATSC 3.0 broadcasts that are simulcast on ATSC 1.0.
The broadcast industry’s reliance on retransmission fees will ultimately bankrupt them, as this business model defies basic economic principles. As demand for their product declines, they continue to raise prices. Comcast was charging me $36 per month in pass-through retransmission fees right before I cut the cord!
You will hear from many major corporations in the coming weeks, but I believe it is equally important to listen to the thousands of consumers who have filed on this docket. The truth is that DRM is harmful. The tuning solutions that broadcasters have approved are subpar, expensive, and have stifled innovation—preventing more tuners from reaching consumers by now. ATSC 3.0 offers significant improvements in signal quality that we should all be able to benefit from. But allowing broadcasters to encrypt their signals—on our publicly owned airwaves—in an effort to keep consumers locked into predatory retransmission fees is not the right path for this transition.
Broadcasters already have the full weight and power of the U.S. government to combat and prevent signal piracy. DRM does nothing to prevent piracy but significantly restricts law-abiding consumers from accessing the airwaves that we have granted broadcasters to use for free.
If they want a set transmission date, give it to them—with the requirement that these signals be delivered to the public without encryption or restriction, just as they are now.
The nation’s broadcasters are making a push for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to lock in a firm February, 2028 date for the transition to the NextGen TV standard, ATSC 3.0.
The broadcaster proposal includes setting the February, 2028 date for the top 55 television markets to fully switch over, with smaller markets following by February 2030. Along with that date request, they’re asking the FCC to make a number of policy changes to accelerate the transition.
One ask is for the FCC to lift the simulcasting rules that exist under the current ATSC 3.0 rule. Right now, stations are required to offer “substantially similar” broadcasts in both the current ATSC 1.0 and newer ATSC 3.0 formats. Broadcasters want to move their higher value programming to ATSC 3.0 to push more viewers to upgrade their televisions or tuners.
Last month’s long awaited “Future of Television” report indicated significant adoption issues centered around ATSC 3.0 tuner availability. At the moment only higher end TV sets have the new tuners built in and standalone tuners are expensive. and lousy. Broadcasters are asking the FCC to mandate the inclusion of ATSC 3.0 tuners on all new televisions as soon as possible to get more of them out to consumers.
One hurdle to this request is an ongoing legal dispute over patents related to the ATSC 3.0 tuning technology. A company has already won a lawsuit against LG, requiring the manufacturer to pay excessive licensing fees on every television sold with an ATSC 3.0 tuner. The case is currently before an appeals court but will no doubt make a mandate difficult to put in place right now.
Another contentious issue is digital rights management (DRM) encryption that broadcasters are building into the new standard. Broadcasters acknowledge the concerns raised by consumers, but tell the FCC that their existing “encoding rules” allow unlimited recording and storage of TV broadcasts. They fail to mention that these rules only apply to simulcasts of ATSC 1.0 content, not dedicated ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. If simulcasting is phased out, broadcasters would have more control over how content is recorded and accessed. And on top of that there are significant compatibility issues that limit how consumers can access the broadcasts and record them.
Currently, the only tuners capable of decrypting these broadcasts rely on Google’s Android TV operating system and Google’s DRM technology. This means broadcasters, who argue they need regulatory relief to compete with Big Tech, are indirectly reliant on Google’s ecosystem to distribute their content. Additionally, consumers have expressed a strong preference for networked tuner solutions—such as gateway devices that connect to a home network—yet broadcasters have struggled to deliver on their promise to support them.
Cable providers are likely to push back against this transition timeline, due to the costs involved in upgrading their infrastructure to support ATSC 3.0’s DRM along with its new video and audio codecs. Broadcasters argue that setting firm deadlines will give cable companies enough time to prepare and budget but they make no offer to assist cable providers’ transition expenses.
Alongside this requested transition, broadcasters are also asking for policy changes that could impact local station ownership rules and streaming services like YouTube TV.
They asked the FCC to lift restrictions on station ownership, claiming they need the ability to scale up their businesses in order to compete for advertising revenue. Unlike digital platforms that can expand without regulatory barriers, broadcasters face limitations on how many TV and radio stations they can own, both nationally and within local markets.
Another significant request involves treating streaming services that carry local stations — such as YouTube TV and Hulu — the same as cable providers when it comes to retransmission negotiations. Currently, national networks negotiate these deals for streaming platforms on behalf of their locally owned affiliates, whereas cable companies must negotiate with each individual station. If the rule changes, it could drive up the cost of streaming services as local broadcasters gain leverage to negotiate their own carriage fees.
The broadcast industry’s current business model defies basic economic principles: they continually raise prices even as demand for their product declines, while simultaneously making it more difficult for cord-cutters to tune in over the air due to the industry’s insistence on broadcast DRM. This FCC chair has already indicated that there are better uses for TV spectrum, so I predict he will approve broadcasters’ request just to hasten their demise.
My ATSC 3 / NextGen TV woes continue.. My CBS affiliate, along with my local NBC station, have enabled interactive content, offering options like on-demand news segments, weather updates, and even the ability to restart live broadcasts. While the potential of this technology is promising, my experience with it has been far from seamless. You can see it in action in my latest video.
For this test, I used the ADTH box, currently the least expensive ATSC 3.0 tuner on the market. This is one of the devices that the broadcast industry is touting as an acceptable device to help people transition to the new standard on a budget.
The interactive features themselves are designed to provide a more dynamic viewing experience. When the prompt appears on a support channel, selecting the interactive option opens a menu where viewers can choose from various content categories. This might include local news updates, weather reports, emergency alerts, and special event coverage. For instance, NBC’s interface included information about the Paris Olympics, although that content was outdated. These features require an internet connection, as they pull in real-time updates from online sources rather than relying solely on the broadcast signal.
However, on my ADTH box, the interactive pop-up became a persistent annoyance. It pops up and stays persistent for a long time on a supported channels. And in the case of my NBC affiliate the interactive prompt prevented me from navigating back to the channel guide without switching to another channel first.
A particularly strange problem emerged when watching unencrypted ATSC 3.0 channels. A persistent large grey play button overlay appeared on these channels, blocking a significant portion of the screen. Oddly enough, this issue did not occur on encrypted channels. The play button glitch is not intentional, but it underscores the broader problem with the current implementation of ATSC 3.0’s encryption system. Broadcasters are misleading the FCC and the public by claiming these cheap boxes are ready for a major broadcast TV transition.
To troubleshoot, I updated the firmware, even trying a beta version. I performed a factory reset, plugged the box directly into my television to rule out HDCP issues, and tried multiple setups. Nothing fixed these problems. The ADTH box, which should be an accessible entry point for consumers into ATSC 3.0, instead became an example of the complications that DRM and unfinished software introduce to the experience.
Despite these issues, I do see value in the interactive features themselves. On-demand access to local news and alerts could be useful, and the ability to restart live broadcasts is a welcome addition. However, the current execution—at least on this hardware—is deeply flawed. The performance lags, interface issues, and DRM restrictions hinder what could be a major advancement in over-the-air television.
Beyond the interface frustrations, there were issues with HDR implementation. My NBC affiliate broadcasts in HDR, but the ADTH box doesn’t seem to tone map correctly, resulting in an overly dark picture. Switching between channels was also sluggish, and once interactive features were engaged, performance slowed down significantly. The delay in accessing menus and content made navigation frustrating, even when just trying to check the weather or local news updates.
With ATSC 3.0’s continued rollout, broadcasters and hardware manufacturers need to ensure that these features work as intended across a variety of devices. If the most affordable tuner on the market struggles this much, it’s hard to see widespread consumer adoption happening smoothly. For now, I’ll keep testing and see if future updates bring any improvements.
A long-awaited report on the transition to ATSC 3.0, the new over-the-air television technology, was released last week. The report represents the work of a broad coalition of stakeholders, including broadcasters, cable and satellite companies, consumer groups, and manufacturers, alongside the FCC. We talk about the report in my latest video.
What’s clear in the report is that the transition to this new over the air television technology is stuck – largely hindered by new DRM requirements that make it difficult for manufacturers to make affordable devices. Many are opting not to make one at all.
The FCC had initially targeted 2027 for turning off ATSC 1.0 and transitioning fully to ATSC 3.0. However, no stakeholder in the report supports setting a transition date yet. Consumer adoption of ATSC 3.0 capable televisions and tuners remains slow due to expensive devices. Most of the TVs that include ATSC 3.0 tuners are higher end sets, and while some lower-cost models are starting to include them, the technology has yet to reach the broader market. Similarly, cable and satellite providers face costly upgrades to their infrastructure and set-top boxes to handle the new standard, adding another layer of complexity.
Interestingly, the FCC chairman has suggested that TV spectrum could be repurposed for broadband data delivery, especially in underserved areas. Broadcasters are exploring this possibility by looking at how ATSC 3.0 might serve as a wireless data delivery system. However, this shift could force the industry to accelerate the transition or risk losing valuable spectrum to broadband use.
Retransmission fees—a major revenue source for broadcasters—complicate the situation further. Cable and satellite providers already pass significant costs to customers to cover these fees. Adding the expense of transitioning to ATSC 3.0 only intensifies the pressure cable companies face being stuck in the middle of broadcasters and customers. Moreover, legal requirements to maintain signal quality without material degradation present additional technical and financial challenges.
DRM is another contentious issue. Broadcasters continue to push for encryption of over-the-air signals, arguing it aligns with how the internet secures content. But unlike platforms like Netflix, which offer seamless access across devices even with DRM, ATSC 3.0 encryption has created significant consumer inconvenience. Currently, only devices running Android or Samsung’s Tizen TV OS can decrypt ATSC 3.0 signals, severely limiting accessibility.
Allowing gateway devices, like the HDHomerun and Zapperbox’s gateway functionality, could make the transition easier for consumers as they could watch ATSC 3 signals on the smart TVs and streaming boxes they already own. But the promised specifications from the broadcast standards body have yet to materialize.
For now, the ATSC 3.0 transition seems to be at a crossroads. With no clear path forward, the technology risks stalling altogether. Broadcasters, policymakers, and other stakeholders will need to address the existing challenges—from cost and DRM to consumer convenience—if they want to see widespread adoption.
