Over the next few weeks we are likely to see the broadcast industry tout “gateways” that work with their private, opaque DRM regulatory framework. The first one you will hear about comes from Zapperbox. Last month they released news of a “Big Deal,” stating their device now allows in-home streaming of DRM content from one Zapperbox device to another.
While this is a “big deal” given how difficult the private, opaque DRM regulation has made the simple act of watching television, it underscores how difficult it’s been for the industry to implement a feature that has worked on ATSC 1.0 broadcasts for nearly two decades. But this is far from being at parity with the ATSC 1.0 experience – at the moment the Zapperbox solution only works with other expensive Zapperbox devices.
Unfortunately for consumers, getting functionality back that DRM has taken away will result in a significantly higher cost. Since this only works with Zapperbox devices, consumers will need to purchase a Zapperbox tuner starting at a whopping $199 for a single tuner device, $274 for a dual tuner device or $300 for a quad tuner.
On top of that, consumers need additional Zapperbox hardware for each of their televisions. Their “Zapper Mini” client device currently sells for $139 each. And if that’s not enough, Zapperbox requires a subscription for its whole home DVR features to record content for an additional $5 monthly/$29.99 a year or $240 for a lifetime subscription. Quad tuner device subscriptions cost even more. So a three TV set up will cost $552 + subscription fees.
On ATSC 1.0 devices gateway tuners like the Tablo can be purchased for far less right now with no subscription fee (compensated affiliate link) and will work with the smart TV or streaming devices consumers already have. An ATSC 1.0 SiliconDust HDHomerun also costs less than that Zapperbox (compensated affiliate link) and will work with nearly every streaming platform in existence along with mobile devices too. That’s because there is not an expensive and complicated private, opaque regulatory scheme driving up cost.
This certainly is a “big deal” for Zapperbox as the A3SA is currently picking the winners and losers in this space. But shouldn’t the market decide instead?
If you’re still paying for cable TV, you might be seeing a sizable increase this month on your local TV fee paid to broadcasters. In my part of Connecticut that increase is substantial. According to the latest Comcast rate card, that fee is going up over $10 to $48.30 a month! It sits outside any contract pricing, so even subscribers locked into a package are getting hit with this increase.
Comcast publishes very detailed rate cards that break down every charge and bundle for each of the markets they serve. But I can’t access cards from other regions without logging in as a customer. Because of that, I put together a form where viewers can share what they’re seeing locally.
I went back to an older video I made in 2018 where I had pulled this same section from the rate card. At the time, the fee was only $8. In under eight years, that’s a 500 percent increase!
Much of this money is going to large broadcast groups like Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray, and Scripps. Nexstar, for example, is currently asking regulators for permission to grow even larger by taking over Tegna. As more people cancel cable, the subscriber base that funds retransmission consent fees keeps shrinking, and the broadcasters have been raising rates to maintain the revenue they’ve grown accustomed to. Many of these companies now rely on retransmission for half or more of their income, regardless of how many people actually watch their stations.
The natural question is how broadcasters are allowed to keep raising these fees. The answer lies in the retransmission consent framework. Cable companies once had to carry every local station for free under “must-carry,” but court decisions in the 1980s and a 1992 law shifted the landscape. Broadcasters can now choose between must-carry or negotiating a paid consent agreement. Nearly all of them opt for the paid agreement. Cable providers, meanwhile, are required to negotiate in good faith and can’t walk away. Broadcasters, on the other hand, can pull their signals if they’re unhappy, and the cable company can’t replace a local station with the same network from another market. If the ABC affiliate in my area is owned by Nexstar, that’s the one Comcast has to carry—no alternatives.
Cable companies also must place local stations on their most basic tier. Years ago that tier was called “lifeline cable,” but with a $48.30 broadcast fee added on, even a “lifeline” subscription has become expensive.
The FCC is revisiting national broadcast ownership rules, which has drawn in comments from groups across the political spectrum. One proposal from the International Center for Law and Economics argues for eliminating the retransmission consent system entirely and treating broadcasters more like any other content supplier under copyright and contract law. That could allow cable companies to negotiate outside their markets and potentially reduce costs by choosing among multiple affiliates of the same network. It wouldn’t preserve local newscasts, but it could give cable companies some leverage they don’t currently have.
Streaming services like YouTube TV and Hulu are not subject to the same rules that bind cable companies. Broadcasters want that changed, which would likely raise streaming prices as well. Some smaller networks such as Newsmax have raised concerns about consolidation for a different reason: if large broadcast groups force cable operators to carry their affiliated news channels on the basic tier, smaller channels could be pushed off the lineup entirely.
There’s a lot happening at once—shrinking cable audiences, aggressive fee increases, regulatory reviews, and pressure on both distributors and programmers to keep revenue flowing. I’ll continue following these developments. In the meantime, if you have a recent cable rate card, sending it in will help build a clearer picture of what subscribers are facing across the country.
Some viewers have been seeing an ad during football games urging viewers to text a number to “keep football free,” and after looking into it more closely, it became clear that what’s happening here isn’t what the ad suggests.
The spot positions itself as a warning about streaming services taking football away, but the goal appears to be getting fans to send form emails to Congress in support of loosening broadcast ownership rules. That effort benefits the large corporations that own most local stations, not the people watching these games.
In my latest video I take you through a number of misleading statements the broadcasters are using to trick football fans into their astroturf advocacy campaign.
The reason networks are turning to streaming platforms versus their local broadcast affiliate partners seems tied to the economics of local broadcasting. As cable and satellite subscribers have cut back due to ever increasing costs, local stations have leaned heavily on retransmission fees from pay-TV services. Those charges have steadily risen, and they show up whether someone watches over cable, satellite, or a streaming bundle. My own cable bill before I dropped it climbed from about $33 in local TV fees last year to over $38 this year. That pattern has repeated across the country. As more customers leave cable, the fees for those who remain increase to compensate. Not a very good economic model!
At the same time, many broadcasters have been signaling that the new ATSC 3.0 television standard gives them the flexibility to charge for some over-the-air channels. They would still provide one free stream, but additional channels could become paid offerings. This isn’t speculation; companies like Sinclair have stated this directly in filings with the FCC.
Alongside that, stations have begun encrypting these new signals and limiting how viewers can access them. Devices like the HDHomeRun, which let people stream over-the-air channels around their homes, are blocked unless the manufacturer receives permission from the broadcasters. Approved devices must remain directly connected to the antenna and TV, disabling features that consumers have taken for granted—such as in-home streaming or out-of-home access while traveling. Even emergency information could become harder to receive if these encrypted signals can’t be freely tuned.
When viewers text the number in the ad, they’re funneled to a site that collects their personal information and sends a pre-written email to Congress and FCC commissioners. That email can’t be edited and specifically pushes for relaxed station-ownership limits. Those limits exist to prevent any one company from dominating local markets, but in recent years large groups have been consolidating anyway.
A pending deal between Tegna and Nexstar would knit together two already sizable owners into one of the largest station groups in the country. Sinclair’s footprint is similarly extensive. The larger these conglomerates become, the more likely they are to merge or eliminate local newsrooms, centralize weather coverage, or replace market-specific reporting with generic content produced elsewhere. Examples of these changes are already visible, from stations reducing local newscasts to companies experimenting with centralized anchorless news segments or attempting to replace entire meteorology staffs with feeds from national services.
The ad’s promise of protecting free football doesn’t reflect what’s actually happening. If anything, consolidation and encryption will make TV more expensive and less accessible.
The one area where the public still has leverage is the ongoing FCC proceeding on broadcast encryption. This is the moment where viewers can register their concerns about how restrictions on recording, streaming in the home, and traveling with content could affect them. Anyone interested in that process can find resources on how to file comments and understand the issues at stake.
There’s a flag down on this play, and it’s worth taking a closer look at what these campaigns are really asking viewers to support.
As I note in in my latest video, there isn’t as much for the public to respond to as there was before. The broadcasters, however, have a lot to answer in regards to how they’ve been handling the DRM situation. More on that here.
Tyler the Antennaman and I are recommending that if you decide to submit written testimony on the docket to include photos of yourself along with the encryption messages you’re receiving when trying to tune DRM protected content. This can come from either your HDHomerun device or some of the other ATSC 3.0 tuners that require an Internet connection. You can see an example based on my filing here. Here’s the photo that I embedded.
One thing I noticed is that the FCC accepts Powerpoint files on the docket that are under 100MB in size. You could embed videos in a Powerpoint presentation in addition to photos.
I’ve been following the fight over the encryption of broadcast television for a while now, and the past couple of weeks have revealed some meaningful shifts in how parts of the industry are talking about it. What began as an effort by the largest broadcasters to impose full encryption on their signals—making it harder for people to watch and record over-the-air television the way they do now—has moved into a phase where even some of the people who helped build the system are beginning to question whether it’s the right path forward.
The FCC’s pending public comment period is still waiting on publication in the Federal Register, but in the meantime I’ve been watching the trade press. One notable development is SiliconDust becoming an official ATSC 3.0 certificate authority. This isn’t a replacement for A3SA’s DRM system, but it does give broadcasters an alternative for the broadcast identification certificates that 3.0 will eventually require. It’s another sign of how fragmented and privatized the standard has become—functions that once sat squarely with the FCC now depend on private bodies asserting control, and smaller stations are looking for options that don’t leave them answerable to a handful of major corporations.
Then there’s the more direct crack in the wall: an op-ed from Fred Baumgartner, a former Sinclair executive who helped lead their NextGen TV implementation. He’s now arguing that encryption should be paused. He describes the rollout as abrupt, poorly communicated, and alienating to early adopters—many of whom discovered their new TVs and receivers couldn’t display encrypted 3.0 broadcasts at all. He also points out that encryption shifts broadcasting away from what it has been for decades, turning it into something closer to narrowcasting. Coming from someone who helped architect the system, it’s a notable departure.
Sinclair’s current leadership didn’t let that stand unanswered. Sinclair VP Mark Aitken responded in a follow-up piece, insisting that encryption doesn’t hinder access when “properly implemented,” a phrase that glosses over the very real fact that devices already in people’s homes cannot tune these encrypted broadcasts. Aitken also frames “free unencumbered access” as applying only to a single primary channel—essentially signaling that everything else could move behind a paywall. It’s hard to see how that squares with why people use antennas in the first place, especially those who cut the cord to avoid paying retransmission fees.
Baumgartner doubled down in a second response, saying he has tried and failed to articulate a scenario where the benefits of encryption outweighed the downsides. He also warned that the approach invites regulation, a point the FCC itself has raised as it asks broadcasters to justify why encrypted over-the-air signals are appropriate in a system designed to serve the public. That debate will continue once the comment window opens, but it’s already clear that consensus is faltering inside the industry itself.
As for what happens next, I’m planning to submit my own filing once the comment period officially begins, including photos of the devices in my home that can no longer tune freely available broadcast channels because of encryption. Many people submit only text, but showing the real-world impact could help contextualize what’s happening. These public airwaves belong to everyone, and documentation from the people affected is part of what keeps the process grounded.
There’s still a long way to go, but seeing industry veterans rethink their stance—and watching the FCC press for answers we’ve been asking for—feels like a shift. It’s not final, and it’s not enough on its own, but it’s movement.
I’ll keep an eye on the Federal Register and on the broadcasters who seem to be discovering that the path they set may not be as defensible as they once thought.
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.
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.
