There's something about the way Tyler talks that I find very engaging. It's very genuine and conversational, and every clause of every sentence has an inflection that tells you what his real opinion is, with a slight amount of snark when necessary. Lol, keep it up!
I remember watching black and white TV and only having one TV station when I was a kid. We got cable and color TV in 1968 and I was so happy. It's absolutely amazing how far TV has advanced.
I actually miss the old days. 3 channels went off at midnight, no cell phone,no Internet. Watch cartoons on Saturday stayed outside all day and half the night.
in the 60s, 70, 80 and well into the 90's i used to know the primetime lineup of ABC, CBS and NBC by heart. I now can go a month without turning on the TV and I haven't watched a program on those 3 stations for years.
To be fair, over the air TV is limited in the number of channels it can offer. I like where it's headed but they'll never compete with streaming if it's just network programming and side channels that show repeats of Gunsmoke, etc. IF over the air (and it's a big if) can provide lots of current quality programming around the clock (and not load up on infomercials, shopping channels and religious broadcasts) they might stand a chance.
@@eminence_front6043 Some do for sure. But on my Samsung set, as one example, their TV Plus service comes with more than 200 channels including news, weather, music and lots more. And that's without adding any apps which increases options almost exponentially.
@@billpenna I believe LG has something similar. And my brother bought a 65" Samsung TV and he wasn't aware about the TV+ feature until he started flipping the channels. It's basically Pluto TV on steroids. I mean, my family still lives in the El Paso TX/ CD Juarez Mexico borderland and they were already getting about 65 OTA digital channels which is quite a bit of channels. Makes me think that other manufacturers might jump at the idea. And perhaps it might be a boost for antenna channels and manufacturers. And it goes without saying, I want one of these TVs.
@@eminence_front6043 kinda like Pluto TV. Which I like because it's a nice complement to antenna TV. Plus it's not like paid services offer that big of a selection. I've seen my brother's subbed services including Netflix and HBO Plus and I'm like, meh.
You helped me dump an expensive streaming app and have antenna tv again. I installed a Clearstream 4v antenna with a pole mounted pe-amp and a powered, 2 tv distribution splitter. My scanning said 84 channels in both rooms. I only need about 6 or 8 channels to stay relevant. The wife likes Netflix and were deciding on 1 other app for bravo at a fair price.
For comparison: Italy here: DVB-T2 is a 15 years old standard, here switch over (to DVB-T2 and HEVC) was planned but was pushed to kalendae grecae in favor of a switch over to AVC over DVB-T1 because of "lack of compatibility with existing sets" (but actually because all TV managed to fit in the available spectrum otherweise I bet we'd have already had T2 ), and since 2017 it's compulsory for every tv set or digital set top box to be compatible with T2 and HEVC. I'm still trying to figure out how in America can a switch-over be planned with no installed equipement. As a note, here DVB-T is the standard, DVB-S is the exception and cable is virtually non-existent (just the OTT over internet).
ATSC 1.0 works perfectly fine, it's just finicky on weak signals, really the only "upgrade" I see for ATSC 3.0 is being more robust and less fragile of a signal, which would be great for Low VHF, which is great for rural coverage. 4K doesn't matter to me, HD is perfectly adequate, especially for classic TV which is most of what I watch.
It also allows much greater efficiency in spectrum use. Broadcast eats up a good deal of idle spectrum as is, and it's very likely not the most socially desirable usage of the spectrum. 3.0 will allow even more of the spectrum to be moved to higher value uses, while allowing for more channels at the same time. It's most important feature isn't about TV broadcasting.
I was going to ask this very question about the future of over-the-air tv and Tyler read my mind by addressing it in this video. Thanks for the info in this ever changing world of broadcast tv. Believe me, it's changing what seems to be every week.
I sincerely hope that broadcast TV survives. One of my pet peeves is people that are streaming who are calling themselves cord-cutters. If you are streaming, you have a cable to provide the internet. Cord cutting means no cord. I like the anonymous feeling of OTA TV. The provider does not get to track what I am viewing. Before I blasted over the cord-cutter comment. I do have internet and stream a lot of content. I just don't call myself a cord-cutter. I also have a good antenna setup that Tyler helped design through his recommendation service. I highly recommend his service if you are thinking about putting up an antenna.
In today's landscape a cord cutter refers to someone who no longer relies on cable tv or satelite dish to consume their tv programs. Since most people are paying for internet whether they have cable or not, that really doesn't fit into the equation. A large portion of todays gen x and gen z folks have never had a cable subscription, hence they are a cord never. I am going on ten years without cable tv, and I will never go back. I use an over the air antennae, as well as a mohu antennae and also use free apps via roku and firestick to stream content as well. Yes I have the internet and yes I can still be a cord cutter and have that essential service at the same time, as it is so much more than entertainment and it is my primary tool to be able to do my job. Just in case you still are confused as to what a cord cutter is here is the actual oxford dictionary definition of it just to further illustrate. "a person who cancels or forgoes a cable television subscription or landline phone connection in favor of an alternative internet-based or wireless service." "a popular way for cord cutters to view programming on their TV is with a streaming video box"
Год назад+1
Alas, watching over-the-air TV is no longer a guarantee that your viewing won't be tracked. Most smart TVs phone home and report what you watch; at least one manufacturer, Vizio, makes far more money selling data than they do on selling TVs. If you get a set-top box for NextGen TV it's likely that it will also report your viewing, though so far as I know the currently available HD HomeRun devices do not.
OTA broadcasting is making a comeback. Overall it is up 38 percent year over year. Data shows large increases in antenna penetration among Black households (27% to 39%), White, non-Hispanic households (25% to 43%), and 18-34 year-olds (20% to 42%), a whopping 110% increase year over year.
TV stations will all eventually upgrade but some will not do those upgrades in a hurry. Cincinnati Ohio already has most of their stations on ATSC 3 except the PBS stations which will most likely be one of the last stations to do those upgrades. So in September 2026 the ATSC 1.0 stations can be shut off in Cincinnati Ohio.
@@ghenulo The cable and satellite providers have been using encryption for long time. So, it wouldn't be a step backward. It would be a step forward. Don't know what you mean by "calling home" but suspect you think it is something nefarious. Not sure what that would be. I'll go out on a limb and guess you might be referring to the local broadcasters knowing what you are watching. Kind of ridiculous when you think about it considering that not only do cable, satellite and streaming services know what your watching, they know who you are and where you live.
@@techguy3236 I'm not at all concerned about that, and doubt most OTA antenna users would be. Moreover, Digital rights management (DRM) has been in place for long time. Which national broadcasters and streaming services don't use it?
I hope over-the-air TV doesn't become completely obsolete. I love the nostalgic feel and affordability that comes with over-the-air TV. I know people enjoy being able to watch whatever they want when they want (and rightfully so), but to me it feels special when I have to wait a specific time to watch a program. Even though I am not generally a fan of TV graphics or commercials that came out in recent years; TV station graphics, bumpers, and commercials from previous time periods have always provided memories for me throughout my youth. For example, I liked the graphics that ABC-7 KGO-TV had from 2002 until 2009.
@@UncleKennysPlace That's wonderful to hear. I mostly only listen to AM radio when I get caught in traffic, so I do not have knowledge on whether or not it is obsolete. I just hear Tyler saying that OTA TV might eventually go the same route as AM radio, which could bring confusion at times.
It won't become obsolete. Overall, OTA Antenna penetration increases 38 percent year over year. Also, according to Horowitz Research’s State of OTA 2020 study, 40% of TV content viewers 18+ report owning an antenna, up from 29% year over year. As pay TV sheds subscribers, antenna usage increases.
HD Radio was a sole-source provider and receiver -- namely Ibiquity Digital Corporation. They were the only company to bid to develop HD radio. Also, all HD radios come with a $50.00 add-on that goes to Ibiquity. Hence, they were simple much more expensive than standard radios. So, most radio manufacturers decided not to produce them. By the way, the mandate for all TV's to come with UHF receivers was mandated by Congress and not the FCC. I wouldn't expect that agency to require ATSC 3.0 receivers to be in all new TV sets.
I was pretty happy to get started in HD Radio by spending money on the small portable HD radio walkman tuner, Radiosophy HD-100, Auvio HD radio tuner, and Insignia HD FM radio tuner, and the Sangean HD-14 portable radio.
Same for AM stereo radio all the different versions didn't want to come together and decide which they would use. So for some AM is limping along for now.
From what I've observed, the biggest problem for HD Radio is that, outside of the nerd crowd, no one has heard about it. Whilst a lot of people knew about the transition from analogue television to digital, for radio... No awareness whatsoever. Even I only heard about it in an OTA/FTA enthusiast get-together not that long ago.
@@majewskibr that’s an interesting observation. I travel extensively and nearly every rental car I’ve had over the past 10 years has had HD radio. In every situation the HD logo very noticeably appears on the screen when connected to an HD simulcast. Someone would really have to be very unobservant to miss it. I’m sure that there are many elderly or other type drivers who see it but don’t understand it, but anyone able to use Google should be aware of it.
Excellent assessment!! Our local ATSC 3.0 channels are lumped on one, low power UHF channel and only broadcast at 1200x700. Why would I even bother with them? Using my HDHomerun and using their TV app, some TV brands don't even have audio on these stations, but yet some do. Remember, what's driving OTA is the cost of cable, where the minimum cost of cable for just LOCAL stations you can pick up with antenna now runs about $74/mo. with most cable companies, and that's why the FCC needs to be more focused and proactive on the RF needs of the taxpayer. Congress previously subsidized the cost of digital boxes when we went digital. Why not the same for ATSC 3.0 boxes AND mandate ATSC 3.0 capability in ALL new TV's so we have OTA that actually works better than it does now? As other's have mentioned, the roll out of UHF television would have been REALLY delayed if there hadn't been a mandate by the govt. for all TV's after 1964 sold in the U.S. to include UHF tuners. The television industry needs to know the direction of the FCC before they will invest in new low cost ATSC 3.0 capable televisions. The FCC should follow the same actions they took years ago with digital to spur ATSC 3.0 into the market and they need to relax the rules where it makes sense. They are supposed to be working for us, and they should be leading this effort, but I really fear ATSC 3.0 may already be doomed to fail because of limited RF space in many areas, thanks to poor planning at the FCC. Also interesting is that the Franken radio stations are going ATSC 3.0. www.tvtechnology.com/news/next-generation-franken-fms-on-the-rise I checked out one application currently on file for our area. They claimed to be operating ATSC 1.0 currently to meet the FCC rule. Well,... not that I can tell! But that rule should be ditched.
I'm in the New York City market. A huge key market for adoption of any technology but there's only one single ATSC 3.0 station on the air here. That's a huge problem.
I used to work for a major local tv company that is part of the NextGen technology. There has been something that has bothering me. Even while working there, I asked quite a few times if there were any updates to CC or making things more accessible for people that had sight or hearing issues and I was laughed at by the grunts relaying information from their press release ... line by line.... or higher ends of org tree. . (I am not one of these people but when I get older, my sight is going to leave me like it has most others I know). Has there been any discussions or notifications whether ATSC 3.0 is making TV either OTA or on Satellite/Cable or even TV manufacturers to make things more accessible to people with disabilities?
As a non-US watcher, I'm shocked the US terrestrial TV stations do encrypt their signals, and that they use DRM for that. Guess it only adds a lot of hassle with these channels, not just cost. Unthinkable in Europe, except for paid packages. (That said, there are countries where only public TV is free on terrestrial)
ATSC 3.0 is such a good thing overall but this encryption thing with DRM is a horrible horrible thing hopefully something can be done so that they’re made to stop doing it and the tuners will be able to become affordable. Great break down as always, Tyler!
Yeah, digital restrictions management is always a bad thing. I was part of the opposition to EME/Hollyweb back when HTML 5 was being developed, but it passed anyway, despite it being in direct opposition to Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the web (ah, the power of lobbying). Now, pretty much all streaming services use Widevine encryption, so if Google doesn't offer it for your preferred browser/OS/CPU, you're SOL (it's kinda funny that Netflix uses it even for public-domain movies you can watch unencrypted on RUclips; BTW, only user-uploaded RUclips videos are unencrypted, but RUclips Movies does indeed use Widevine). Google won't release the code for Widevine to be compiled for any platform for which there's a compiler; some things do (like Winrar, which explicitly states that it can be used only to be compiled for your platform and you're not allowed to use the code to create your own software; I also worked on Lazarus a couple decades ago and one of the requirements is that you couldn't work on it if you've ever looked at the source code for Delphi, to prevent accidentally using Delphi code, which could lead to legal problems). I suppose in these cases, you just have to have an emulator (e.g. run an x86 OS in an emulator on your PowerPC computer), but that's incredibly slow.
I'm not sure if ATSC 3.0's DRM encryption is to prevent (computerised) recording of broadcasts or not, though it would not surprise me at all that the content providers would want to take OTA television back to the sixties, when basically no-one could record anything. Despite the apparently demonstrated improvements in reception with ATSC 3.0, if I cannot record over-the-air signals, then I'm not interested.
Like you mentioned, Digital Terrestrial over-the-air TV might be possibly encrypted thanks to ATSC 3.0, dude, as a Canadian, who used to live in Canada, and owned an antenna, some channels were encrypted before ATSC 3.0, and locals such as Global, CBC, CTV, etc. were free-to-air
@@polarvortex6601 Yeah. Over the air is a public resource. Like cellphone companies should be persuaded to provide services to people with other providers in rural areas.
You mean like ONTV, which was available in Detroit Windsor? We will probably see a return to Subscription TV, either an original channel or mini cable service.
@@Art7220 if OTA tv goes "pay" i refuse to pay there isn't anything on it that is worth paying for. anyways. If services like Pluto and Tubi can operate via ADs so can the OTA networks
Until an inexpensive ($60 or less) ATSC 3.0 tuner is available, I don't see ATSC 3.0 growing very fast in terms of households that receive it. There are inexpensive ATSC 1.0 tuners available, but the only ATSC 3.0 tuners are still quite pricy. That needs to change.
I think they are predicting that by the end of 2024 that 75% of new tv's will have tuners that are atsc 1.0 and 3.0 compliant, and will increase for the next few years until 100% of them will be. I bought a new tv a year ago, and at the time I read about nextgen, and they were out of my price range, if I was buying today, I would work it into my budget since they have some closer to entry level pricing.
Even when and if inexpensive ATSC 3.0 tuners are made available, what is the point? Why should we be forced to buy a new tuner or TV for the convenience and profits of the broadcasters doing next to nothing for the consumer?
Thank you for all the testing and reporting you do, Tyler. I purchased two Channel Master Flatennas after first researching indoor antennas and then finding links to your review on their site (and other retailer sites too). These are both in use and are functioning just fine. I'm fortunate in that the majority of OTA channels being watched by this household are within 15 miles of us. There is one that is 33 miles away that is important to one viewer and it took a bit of moving around to find a good location for that set's antenna to be properly located but the reception is pretty stable. Another thanks for covering the need to search for a proper mounting location in some of your other videos! It really does help to orient them correctly for the older format broadcasts. The NextGen signals don't seem greatly affected by the antenna orientation, possibly because they're so close to us. As I understand, the DRM being enacted is more to stop DVRs from recording shows freely and shouldn't really affect what's being sent out for free. Is my understanding correct? Thanks again for all your work on our behalf!
I think so. Streaming offers so many other options; whether Pluto TV or FreeVee or Roku Channel and others. I love watching content from decades ago as opposed to much of the content from today. Heck, I don't even watch my local NBC station anymore as I can watch what shows I want to for free on the NBC app on my Roku; on demand when I want it and I don't have to pay for DVR fees to record my local stations if I'm not home. Also, every time I do turn on the local tv, I always seem to find the endless commercials. The free streaming has commercials, but not where near as many as OTA stations. The question is, will internet service to your home become so expensive with potential data caps that the market shifts back to OTA stations? At least at my cable company, the cost of high speed internet service is increasing rapidly and the data cap fee levels are low compared to actual usage in a modern home.
Good post. As interest rates rise and the dollar continues to plummet, everything from internet to food will continue to rapidly increase. You can bet your life on that.
We've had ATSC 3.0 in the Nashville market for several years. The pandemic had a big impact on ATSC 3.0 rollout and the lack of converter boxes and chipsets for TV manufacturers.
Broadcast tv is best. It feels less lonely knowing I'm watching something that's playing in someone else's house at the same time. After ten years of streaming and DVR, I'm ready to step back a little and go back to the old way.
In my opinion, if a worst case scenario happens where Streaming Services completely overtakes over the air TV in usage/popularity, I think OTA television will stay around in a form similar to those NWS Severe Weather radios. Case in point, Streaming Services currently rely on the internet (phone lines) to broadcast their signal and if it goes out in a storm, an OTA television signal will still be freely available assuming the TV station has it's own emergency generator.
When I lived near Chicago, I enjoyed all the ota channels available. Now I live in the middle of farm land. The only thing I miss is ota tv. The only thing close enough to pick up now is PBS. I won't waste my time and money on that.
The main thing keeping broadcast TV alive right now is retransmission fees charged to cable companies, which prohibit most stations from simply providing a linear digital feed on the internet. Without this prohibition, it'd be a simple matter for all local stations to just go online. Eventually this could replace over-the-air broadcast if reliable broadband were available everywhere. Stations don't want to go online with a digital feed for now, because the retransmission fees are too lucrative. But if such retransmission fees were outlawed, I think you'd see every local station go online right away. One thing the rapid growth of FAST channels shows is that adding internet channels is so much easier and faster than revamping a broadcast standard, and of course internet transmission can easily be 4K or 8K if that becomes standard. I agree with Tyler that broadcasters have one shot at making ATSC 3.0 work. But even if they manage it, this will probably be the final iteration of digital TV broadcast; eventually the future is internet feeds for all TV content.
I see no reason why local broadcasters would need to provide an Internet based service. Local broadcasters survived off advertising long before cable and satellite companies started retransmitting local broadcasts. Also, not all pay TV services retransmit local subchannels. Via pay TV I would only have access to the 5 main channels here [ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS]. I'd need an antenna to get the 15 subchannels that are available. ATSC 3.0 would allow each station to broadcast more channels, which would open the door to more advertising, which would more than make up for the loss in retransmission fees.
While I agree with you, the public has to decide to either support or abandon OTA. OTA providers are mostly network affiliates, and those major networks are slowing moving some or all of their content to online streaming. In fact, some have already started DROPPING popular programming from their affiliates and placing them on their streaming networks for a fee! If this trend continues the OTA network affiliates wont survive.
@@RickPaquin According to Nielsen data, most people are watching older TV shows and movies. It's what makes FAST services like Tubi so popular. Local broadcasters are well suited for that content. They can license content as easily as Tubi, The Roku Channel, Plex, etc, and where targeted ads are concerned, are better positioned to reach local audiences better than the SVOD services that content is being moved to can.
I am both excited by new OTA content and sickened by DRM being added to it. I think it is a way to circumvent the "Betamax" decision. Time shifting goes out the window with DRM. Great content as always,Tyler.
Exactly! They intentionally kept their digital encryption plans on a low profile while hyping up 4K, internet connectivity etc. This move to 3.0 was largely about trying to take control of the consumer experience (restrictions on home recording; what channels the viewer can receive and where you can watch them). They’ve always tried to find a way around the Betamax decision and this is part of their plan.
Yes, the power of lobbying. PDF readers based on Xpdf/poppler (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppler_(software), if you're not familiar) can have DRM restrictions disabled, so maybe TV/converter manufacturers will do the same thing. It would certainly be a marketing advantage if one DVR could record and transfer content but another couldn't.
Thanks, Tyler, for the great video! I'm probably asking about a future video, but do any current ATSC 3.0 tuners already have DRM capabilities? Has NAB and/or FCC even decided on the type of DRM? It's great that some ATSC 3.0 tuner companies are willing to add DRM hardware/firmware to the boxes but the cost of shipping and hassle of uninstalling/reinstalling a box will have to be built in to the consumer's price. I'm looking forward to getting an ATSC 3.0 box to get better reception than 1.0. I do have a Roku Ultra and RUclips TV but I like having a "free" (read no internet requirements) alternative. Thanks again for your great content!
Well if all my OTA channels go away because my TV does not support the new signals, I will just watch whatever is on regular You Tube (not RUclips TV) and listen to my radio for the live local news and weather. This is crazy if I have to buy some special DVR or any device to decode the new signals. My current LCD TV's are good an I am not about to switch. If it is a few dollars to do the signal fix, I may do it, but if it costs hundreds of dollars, forget it. Plus how many antenna users are going to have the money to switch over to the new system. I probably have the money, but I will not do it. I dropped cable TV several years ago (280 dollars per month), and I will drop this if I have to put in allot of money to do so. I will just use my ClearStream indoor antenna for a nice paper weight if I don't get OTA TV. Things never stay the same, very sad. I hope this does not happen.
Unless ATSC 3.0 flops, at some point within the next 7-10 years you will likely need a new tuner in order to pick up local TV stations as ATSC 1.0 is shut down. I agree with you that TV stations need to pick a standard and stick with it instead of constantly messing with things.
In my state, WGCL formerly CBS 46 has rebranded to Atlanta's News First and the call sign changed to WANF. I'm not sure which came first but they do not mention the network affiliation or the channel number any longer AT ALL. So what do they know that I don't? It's like they're preparing for a day post OTA.
I couldn’t agree more. And until recently I was a Disney+ subscriber, Chase Disney Visa carrier, Disney Movie Club member, Disney park annual pass holder, D23 fan club member, and Disney Vacation Club timeshare owner. Disney has turned to crap and they deserve every bit of wrath that that unhappy park visitors, content consumers, and the state of Florida can throw at them. Good riddance.
DRM on broadcast TV? It might help for being able to market pay for view services as a new option. But if broadcasters don't want to play nice and encrypt their entire signal??? I'm not interested. But then, I'm still using an unlocked Tivo Series 3 from 2006. Despite replacing the hard drive with a large drive meant for security systems and replacing the caps on the power supply, ATSC 3 will kill that DVR eventually. (I'm actually okay with that in theory.) Since the DVR refuses to die along with my still beautiful Pioneer Elite plasma, how long can I hold out??? A LONG TIME if stations are going to DRM their broadcasts. And it can't even do 4k until the old ATSC 1 standard is turned off? WELL. Don't DRM your regular broadcasts and I may upgrade. DRM me??? Guess what. NOPE. Not budging until you turn ATSC 1 off. And maybe not then if ATSC 3 needs an internet connection to say. . . collecting marketing data. Just no. Me and my ham friends. . . . who are happy to give out advice on whether to adopt a new TV standard or not. Both over the air, the internet and to any neighbor who knows the person who can help with that antenna. The evidence on the roof is pretty apparent. Locking out stations with DRM could be. . . an issue. Good to know!
Wow! You really came through with some critical information for all of us that we are NOT getting through normal sources. Your comments on the behind the scenes also adds to the story so we can understand the real issues. I do not know how you get so much insider information! News media all have an army of researchers and reporters can not seam to get through all the tentacles, layers of view points and information from seemingly unrelated sources to pull a "complete story" together like you do. I do not know how you do it but please keep it up for us! Thank you!
Great info Tyler. Also I like the "consistency" in your videos. Your visibly to the right side of the screen when they start so its easy to scroll and spot your videos... excellent. I hope things are going well...
Local sports and news is the biggest draw for antenna users. I rely on my antenna for NFL games primarily. These won't be available on the free streaming apps.
I enjoy watching your videos, Tyler. I am totally with you as far as wanting to watch antenna TV for the superior picture quality. In fact, I got tired of the cable companies and cut the cord in 1996. However, there is one area where I have a problem - sports programming often runs way over the scheduled time (and I am NOT a sports fan). As a result, the scheduled programming is screwed up for hours after the sports program and consequently, the program I had set my Homeworx (thanks also for your review of that) device up to record, is very delayed and my recording only has the first part of my show. Do you have any ideas for dealing with that issue?
I have a Tablo DVR but it doesn’t have ATSC 3.0 . My TV does. I like Tablo and have suggested they upgrade the DVR to 3.0 . Thanks for the update on 3.0. I am really looking forward to getting it.
4:43 This reminded me of the dad in the Christmas Story pronouncing "fragile". Joking aside this is a very informative video. As mentioned by the articles 18 percent of antenna users are immigrants and my family is one of them. The Asian language channels my parents watch actually have reliable reception and might not be available on American streaming service. Any ATSC or other upgrade that requires families to get another box or another tv is just more inconvenience at a time of economic uncertainty. I suspect we care more about reception than internet connectivity or 4K. The only tv technology that I'll care about is one that improves reception. Some stations come up if the antenna is held up in some random high spot in the middle of the room where I can't place the antenna. Maybe someone will come up with a "antenna hanger"
Expect that 18% to grow thanks to changing demographics and more available digital subchannels. The VWestlife channel not long ago did a video on how AM talk stations were topping ratings in NYC and I mentioned that AM might be saved by the minority market since they are the ones starting to buy up AM and FM stations. As an example I mentioned two SE Asian stations, one AM and one FM, in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex that are doing very well because there's about 100k Indians, Pakistanis, and Sikhs in the area. Any attempt to mess with either band would bring backlash from any of these groups since their stations tend to be more community oriented. And I think the same is going to happen to digital TV once ATSC 3.0 starts rolling out. Last thing they want to do is piss off groups that are actually watching antenna TV and that are potential investors. In my area that means Mexicans and Tejanos and very soon Cubans and Venezuelans.
@@rockoorbe2002 I know, many more people are starting to listen to MW, and even going back to SW now. Tyler’s most scandalous video was his FM radio video where he keeps putting down AM. For someone who says he appreciates older technology and how we need to keep radio spectrum, he seems to be one of those millennials who is beating down AM radio. It’s not like anyone cares about sound quality these days with their single crappy earbud in their ear, or those horrible Bluetooth speakers. No point in high fidelity stereo with only one earbud plagued by the loudness war and mp3 compression.
1:02 Another problem is that in markets like here in NYC, there is no free spectrum. The 600MHz sale removed all free UHF spectrum. As such, there isn’t ONE free UHF channel available to put ATSC 3.0 on the air. The major broadcasters are going to have to sit down and figure out who will combine their signals to free up a channel. That will take ages. We do have a single low power ATSC 3.0 signal on RF channel 6. Basically multicultural programming. The 600MHz sale was the biggest fiasco in broadcast TV to date.
Good point, probably would have been better to get ATSC 3.0 going while 600 MHz was still available for TV. Once done rolling out ATSC 3.0, then easier to switch off 600 MHz and ATSC 1.0 at the same time. Sad part is that T-Mobile bought it for 5G, you cannot get 5G speeds on 600 MHz. So this was a waste to really get only 4G speeds on 600 MHz too. You're right a big fiasco for sure.
I live on the Southern US border in San Diego and also speak Spanish, a big reason to stay connected to OTA TV are the channels from South of the border. Altough I have 3 Smart TVS in my house, I have to have at least one old school OTA only tv here.
Maybe the government should pick up the tab and allow free (Taxpayer Funded) converter boxes like they did with the analog to digital conversion. Of course they had a lot to gain from that where they don't so much with ATSC 3.0.
@@Michael-Joseph123 Yup! I remember some people getting multiple boxes. The Gov made it very easy to game the system. Only thing is those same people couldn't sell them because they were free and had no resale value 🤣
I just got a Zapper box to get ATSC 3.0. SURE I can get to come in, but a very, very weak signal. I looked and thought the signal was low powered. I wonder if the big corporations what this new standard to not work out cause of the cost to change again after the repack.
The provision of OTA TV in the US is frustrating. I live in a county with a quarter million people and there is no US OTA TV available at all except for one independent station, we're in the Seattle DMA. We're expected to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX via Cable or RUclips TV, while other folks in Seattle are able to view the networks and get their local news for free. It's frustrating that the broadcasters can't be bothered to put up translator stations and are even pulling them down, and if you want to view the networks *anywhere* but OTA you must pay, and pay quite a lot I might add. The cheapest way I can get my Seattle locals is via RUclips TV and that's still $60 a month. It is quite frustrating and I wish the broadcasters would come together to even put up a SD shared translator tower so my county could at least get *something*.
I suspect as more people cut the pay TV cord, local broadcasters will develop their own linear streaming service like Sinclair Broadcast Group is developing. No matter what route they go, some people who are outside the reach of a tower, or not able to get broadband will be effected.
I agree, all these restrictions are definitely keeping atsc 3.0 from taking off, good on the NAB for sending that letter to the FCC, Rome wasn't built in a day, just hope this is all worth while.
Imagine my surprise when I started tuning around TV this evening and spotted some *NX channels, apparently NextGen channels, in Boston! I'm able to watch them on a Sony TV using the HDHR connect4k. First time I've seen them show up.
About the only time I watch local networks is during a weather event. The news around here, is all woke and very politically bent. The TV shows, more woke. I tend to stream, but keep the excellent Antenna recommended by "The Antenna Man". Just wish there was something worth watching... Everything has gone so political and woke, I tend to stream music more than watch anything.
Broadcasters do seem to be dragging their feet with ATSC 3.0. IMO, if they don't go faster, nobody will care about locals anymore. I guess they're planning to live off of retransmission fees. Not sure why they still think they're relevant when there's hundreds of free streaming channels. Even subchannels like METV must be losing viewers to streaming. Just look at FM radio. They all stream free online. I'm not paying to watch ad -supported channels.
No doubt some broadcasters are dragging their feet, but the bigger issue is the lack of affordable tuners for the public. If things don't speed up soon ATSC 3.0 might flop.
@@AntennaMan There is not going to be affordable tuners thanks to encryption and needing to convert AC4 audio to AC3 or stereo which adds to the cost of manufacturing. I am guessing either the government or broadcasters will subsidize tuners once they start shutting down ATSC 1.0.
I hope they find a way to sort this all out an not make this more difficult in the future I watch things like netflix an hbo, etc. but my mom isn't that tech savvy on all those streaming services as she just likes to keep it simple an just wants her broadcast news channels an such so i've been thinking about getting her a tablo box at least...
I wonder if there are any historical lessons to be learned about the big handout of ATSC 1.0 tuners when that transition happened. Is there some post-mortem study of that? How many were given out, how much it cost and who paid for it, how successful that transition was in general, etc.. In theory we've already done this so we should be able to do it again. But agreed that it will require a mandate from Congress/FCC. There is seemingly less appetite for it now than last time, when streaming was still in its infancy.
The main lesson is that it worked. Because of the mandate, as well as the subsidy, ATSC 1.0 tuners were plentiful and affordable. Eventually almost everybody junked their SD TVs, and today every new TV can receive ATSC 1.0 in all its 720p/1080i glory. It remains to be seen whether a privately-led digital transition can work. Years are passing, and I'm only aware of two third-party ATSC 3.0 tuners, neither of which is all that affordable, and both of which are currently hobbled by stations implementing encryption. If Sinclair wants NextGen TV to succeed, they'll need to get hardware makers to produce a LOT of affordable set-top-boxes, and soon. FAST stations aren't waiting.
@@jamesheartney9546 I wonder if "cheap ATSC 3.0 tuner" is not possible because the spec requires much more sophisticated electronics (not even counting encryption, but heck count that too). Or maybe it's just the lack of economy of scale, so far. I suspect cost is also why TV makers have little interest in adding them to their non-high-end TVs. I wonder if there is also more we can learn from Europe.
I have both ATSC 3.0 external tuners and I feel the Zapperbox M1 is a better value due to the signal meter which gives a more detailed perspective. Yes, it costs more but the functionality is better if one is only using a single television. The Hdhomerun is good if multiple people are viewing at the same time on different channels.
My current TV is starting to randomly reboot, so I'm looking at new TV's. I'm disappointed that I can't get a 50" with ATSC 3.0, and the cheapest 55" Hisense with ATSC 3.0 costs more than double. I'm hoping my current LG keeps going until there are more choices.
Smallest I have seen is a 43" sony X80K, and I think they also have a 50" X80K, cheapest I have seen is a Hisense 55" U7H that you can pick up for $549 on sale at best buy. A company out of Alanta is claiming that they will have a device that will plug in to a usb port on the back of your tv that is ATSC 3.0 and will sell for $75, Airialtv solo, and they say available in September.
@@Michael-Joseph123 Thanks! I didn't even think Sony would be in my price range. I'll look at that when my TV eventually quits. 43"-50" is my size range, because I also use it as a computer monitor.
Buy the best TV display you can with the best sound. To me a TV is just a display device. Consider it a monitor with a tuner. If you have cable, satellite, computer, or streaming device you won't be too worried about the OTA tuner.
The encryption is because of the retransmission fees TV get from cable and satellite providers because by encoding the OTA channels they can force people to go back to cable or satellite or have to make all TV paid service (just like in the UK because they have a license fee and with the technology they can do away with it by encoding all OTA TV then the license fee can be replaced with a fee to decode the signals)
"... because by encoding the OTA channels they can force people to go back to cable or satellite or have to make all TV paid service ..." That's ridiculous. People aren't cutting the pay TV cord because of encryption, or lack thereof. The majority cut the cord because the cost. Unless local broadcasters want to follow the death of cable and satellite, there is no scenario where local broadcasters become pay TV services.
What I’m saying is that by encrypting the signals TV stations can cut out the middleman and go directly to the consumer so again another cost to the consumer which could make things worse because TV stations could end up in a bidding war for viewers because each station could charge viewers for the right to watch their channels and you thought cable and satellite was bad with charging customers just wait until the TV stations themselves start charging people to watch their channels
@@jcurnutte2007 : "TV stations could end up in a bidding war for viewers because each station could charge viewers for the right to watch their channels" Again, that's ridiculous. They won't be charging people to watch channels.
Maybe OTA should shift more to sports programming. Something like being able to see the ball clearly would be a significant advantage with 4K. Streaming suffers so much from delay. Cable and satellite companies often aren't much better. You can't get everyone interested in every sport but it still stands that sports are a place for big money.
I'm not a sports fan at all, but you bring up a very good point. Sports clearly validates the need for a higher OTA standard. Sports are probably the only content that can really drive 4K into the OTA market. My interest in ATSC 3.0 is easier, better reception, and honestly, 720P is fine for the stuff I watch because the original content isn't better than that. I'd like to see the industry ditch 480 SD completely. But for live sports, yes, 4k would provide a huge advantage for the viewer. Also I'd love to see travel programming in 4K.
I think you mean sports programming should pivot back to OTA. I suspect that as more people cut the pay TV cord, more of it will end up back on local channels. Sports is big money for the leagues and teams. If it were big money for everyone, the RSNs wouldn't be failing.
I hope it doesn't get to the point that we have to pay for everything. Doing so would be a waste of time and resources. It is not viable to kill off free TV. Free TV has been part of our lives since the invention of the TV set by Philo Farnsworth in the 1920s and into the transition from NTSC to ATSC 1.0 from 2007-2009. Getting rid of free TV kills off the uniqueness every TV market has when it comes to local TV stations and the way each market delivers the news. I do think that every time a station encrypts their signal, another manufacturer of electronics will figure out a way to bypass it, by figuring out ways to decode the signal...
No plans for ATSC 3.0 in my area as I found out. DAB+ Radio may come to the US very soon & eliminate HD Radio as to costly & many areas not even have it as well as getting a HD Radio. If they allow DAB the Ham Radio 220 MHz (1.2 Meters) will have to move or be gone as certain DAB Channels are on them frequencies.
220 has been popular in recent years though. Why don't they use the existing commercial spectrum they have or use the low band VHF spectrum that public safety and businesses have largely abandoned? DAB could work there instead.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 DAB+ Radio goes from 179-229 MHz. 220 MHz has a bunch of DAB+ channels in there. DAB+ Radio is used in many counties around the world. The 220 MHz here is absolute dead & they took off repeaters few years ago in my area as well others. I would like the FCC to put 4 meters on the 70 MHz like UK & EU has as that its dead now since the analog TV is gone. They can not use that low frequency for that part of the 5G cell spectrum.
@@drsysop There's no technical reason DAB can't be on 30-50 MHz. Plus I don't think there's demand for it. The 220/1.25 band got a revival recently because the Chinese two way radio companies were willing to make them while the establishment Japanese companies were sitting on their hands. A UV-5X3 is a great first radio.
Well I know what you're saying about streaming channels are growing very fast but at the same time they could grow faster retransmission fees were outlawed. Therefore the would not be an incentive for local channels to put their feet behind a paywall. I mean seriously there are a lot of great channels out there that are for pay and honestly it would make sense that if there wasn't retransmission fees it would make a lot more sense to allow them to be solely supported by ads.
The only thing i watch is broadcast TV. So what are we going to do about sports if it's dying? I doubt if its dying. How would News shows run?? Too many reasons why it will never go away. We use it for emergencies, all kinds of reasons. How would we receive our breaking news about the shooters outside or the snowfall or any other urgent thing that can come up?
Just helped my girlfriend add an antenna and drop expensive cable packages and rental fees. I can see how the industry has no interest in supporting that.. why would the networks or stations want people to get the locals for free.
Hope OTA stays! Because broadcasting is way more reliable, especially in blackouts and no need to use and connect to internet service! Please NO DRMs, and more quick and easy channel tuning! Make it easy to tune and watch a channel from broadcasting!
It isn't going anywhere. Antenna usage increases every year. Currently 25 percent [30 million] of all U.S. broadband households [120 million] now use an antenna to watch local TV channels. I give it 5 years and OTA households will be nearly as high as current pay TV households [about 70 million].
@@therealevissam OTA is getting popular thanks to no monthly subscriptions and no dependency on internet access, I just don’t want any logins nor DRM with ATSC 3.0, that would defeat the purpose of using an antenna, since there’s enough streaming apps on digital devices and I hate using free streaming apps like PBS, because it’s just too complicated and you don’t get the same picture quality, there’s constant delays!
@@Markimark151 Most people won't have an issue with DRM. I certainly won't. If I want to record something on one of the national broadcasters, I use PlayOn Cloud. I can get credits as low as $0.08 per recording. An entire season of the Goldbergs cost me about $1.92. 🙂
I made a video about RV antennas but it performed poorly so I deleted it. The basis is that you can put any antenna on an RV. Don't buy an "RV antenna." Buy an antenna that's appropriate for the frequencies and signal strength at your location.
Let's add this all up and do a more fair to the point comparison. On the NextGenTV side I only see HD Homerun and the Tablo with NextGenTV tuner in them. On the HD Radio side I see mobile radios and a boombox and car radios with HD Radio tuner in them. On the NextGenTV side I see a silent killer coming for ATSC 1.0 after around a decade because of the fact that TV Broadcasters are only authorized to broadcast their ATSC 1.0 with their ATSC 3.0 signals for 10 years. On the HD Radio side I only hear crickets. Where and when is the silent killer coming for analog radio stations? There are limits on the ATSC 1.0 stations where there are no limits on the analog radio stations and that is what is hurting demand on the HD Radio side and what will ultimately build and create demand in the future for NextGen TV things.
All HDHomeRun ATSC 3.0 models WILL NOT require new hardware to support DRM channels. They only need a software update and a client that will work with DRM (most will, but Apple platforms might take longer because they don't use Widevine, so something has to be figured out there).
Good video. There is no incentive for broadcasters to switch to ATSC3.0. The government isn't mandating it. Investing money into the switch will not significantly increase the number of OTA viewers to a point where it will bring a return of investment to the broadcasters. The percentage of the population using an antenna is small in comparison to the percentage of the population who use streaming apps and people who pay for TV. Broadcasters would much prefer to bury free OTA and move everyone to pay for their content. On the good side, there will always be a free tier of TV available. The free TV will generally be "dollar store" content and old content. The good content will always be behind a pay wall. The question is, will the free TV tier continue to be delevered OTA.
Good point from the broadcaster's point of view. Some companies like Sinclair, Nexstar, and Scripps are pushing for ATSC 3.0 for certain reasons. O&O networks aren't as interested in it possibly because it could impact retranmission fees from cable/satellite services.
@@AntennaMan Because Sinclair, Nextar, and Scripps have valuable content going over the ATSC 1.0 airwaves. With this standard, anyone can capture this content and redistribute it in the form of Illegal IPTV services and/or simply recording it on a USB drive and sending the content to anyone. These broadcasters would like to encrypt the signal to prevent the unauthorized redistribution of this valuable content. The "dollar store" content and the older content is not that big of a concern to the broadcasters. However, no matter what form of encryption the broadcasters use, it will get defeated. History is the best predictor of the future.
The number of people going back to using a antenna has been growing over the last few years, there are more people streaming now than have cable tv now, and a lot of the people who stream are now starting to get antennas so the can watch local tv.
The FCC isn't mandating it, yet. As pay TV subscriptions decline, the percentage of households receiving OTA broadcasts is up 38 percent year over year. Advertising revenue will increase as OTA penetration increases. There is no scenario where OTA becomes pay TV.
@@therealevissam maybe enough people will drop cable and streaming services that include sports, that it will force MLB, NHL, and the NBA to go back to OTA broadcasting, so many people have dropped these services that Bally sports has just filed for bankruptcy protection, and I'm thinking there might be more sport services feeling the pinch from customers dropping the expensive services that carry sports.
Having all the RF channels be in HD is the best part about ATSC 3.0 compared to 1.0, yes ATSC 1.0 may have higher quality than cable but it's usually only 1 channel while the rest are in 480p
It's possible to do multiple 1080 HD channels on one ATSC 1.0 channel. Boston does this for their PBS station on RF channel 5. Not sure what the max number is.
@@miketech79 Our PBS station does one 720p and one 1080i channel, plus two 480i channels. However, I can tell that both channels aren't as good as other stations' single-HD setups; there's always tradeoffs. But ATSC 3.0 has more modern codecs plus more robust transmission, if ever we can get the price of hardware down to something reasonable.
When I was younger I would go out, buy newer stuff and support the development of it. Now I wait around until the bugs are worked out and let the kids support the new teck.
I think broadcasters need to think long and hard about making more changes. If they make this too difficult & expensive, they'll just force those that can, into streaming. One problem is, that a large percentage of Americans don't have access to high speed broadband, or cable. Yes, I'm talking rural America, and no Starlink isn't the answer, because it's quite expensive. I only watch, at most 3 shows a day, and if my TV's which still work fine, become obsolete, I'll drop OTA.
It won't be difficult for the OTA end user, and costs for devices will come down by the time ATSC 3.0 is mainstream. Most of the lower cost brands like TCL and HiSense will have large screens comparable to current ATSC 1.0 TV prices.
My take on it it this. History repeats itself. They will likely keep the .1 channels clear and free, but start encrypting the subchannels like ME tv and charge for them. They will charge more and more and more over time until people quit paying like we are seeing now with cable and sattelite.
I don't know what's on broadcast TV these days because I don't have paid cable TV and don't use an antenna. Besides that, I don't miss broadcast TV because I work 5 days a week. I do have a 43" 4K UHD TV, but I last turned it on to watch Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker on 1080p Blu-ray when it came out.
Exactly how is all this new standard better than the present HD TV standard which is great and already here? Maybe there's just not the public demand for some new standard.
Agreed, it is totally unnecessary, wasteful, and only geared to the interest of broadcasters. the TV manufacturers, and TV retailers. Planned obsolescence at it's finest. As with 4K a marketing gimmick.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
There's something about the way Tyler talks that I find very engaging. It's very genuine and conversational, and every clause of every sentence has an inflection that tells you what his real opinion is, with a slight amount of snark when necessary. Lol, keep it up!
He's a lot like Pat Paulson, he too was very engaging. They have certain similarities. 👍
He’s also kind of cute.
You enjoy the drunken smirky drawl?
I remember watching black and white TV and only having one TV station when I was a kid. We got cable and color TV in 1968 and I was so happy. It's absolutely amazing how far TV has advanced.
I actually miss the old days.
3 channels went off at midnight, no cell phone,no Internet.
Watch cartoons on Saturday stayed outside all day and half the night.
@@docholliday7777 I'm with ya there!
@@docholliday7777 and tv used to sign off
Yes, One God, that does sound very familiar.
Did you watch Star Trek the original series when it aired?
in the 60s, 70, 80 and well into the 90's i used to know the primetime lineup of ABC, CBS and NBC by heart. I now can go a month without turning on the TV and I haven't watched a program on those 3 stations for years.
Watch American idol on abc though.
Things went to crap in the late 90s. Why? Cable TV. Now cable TV is crap because the garbage that ruined over the air TV in the 90s.
To be fair, over the air TV is limited in the number of channels it can offer. I like where it's headed but they'll never compete with streaming if it's just network programming and side channels that show repeats of Gunsmoke, etc. IF over the air (and it's a big if) can provide lots of current quality programming around the clock (and not load up on infomercials, shopping channels and religious broadcasts) they might stand a chance.
Many of those streaming channels do the same thing. Reruns of old TV shows.
@@eminence_front6043 Some do for sure. But on my Samsung set, as one example, their TV Plus service comes with more than 200 channels including news, weather, music and lots more. And that's without adding any apps which increases options almost exponentially.
@@billpenna My Samsung does too. Plus I have Roku and antenna with about 60 channels.
@@billpenna I believe LG has something similar. And my brother bought a 65" Samsung TV and he wasn't aware about the TV+ feature until he started flipping the channels. It's basically Pluto TV on steroids. I mean, my family still lives in the El Paso TX/ CD Juarez Mexico borderland and they were already getting about 65 OTA digital channels which is quite a bit of channels.
Makes me think that other manufacturers might jump at the idea. And perhaps it might be a boost for antenna channels and manufacturers. And it goes without saying, I want one of these TVs.
@@eminence_front6043 kinda like Pluto TV. Which I like because it's a nice complement to antenna TV. Plus it's not like paid services offer that big of a selection. I've seen my brother's subbed services including Netflix and HBO Plus and I'm like, meh.
You helped me dump an expensive streaming app and have antenna tv again. I installed a Clearstream 4v antenna with a pole mounted pe-amp and a powered, 2 tv distribution splitter. My scanning said 84 channels in both rooms. I only need about 6 or 8 channels to stay relevant. The wife likes Netflix and were deciding on 1 other app for bravo at a fair price.
For comparison: Italy here: DVB-T2 is a 15 years old standard, here switch over (to DVB-T2 and HEVC) was planned but was pushed to kalendae grecae in favor of a switch over to AVC over DVB-T1 because of "lack of compatibility with existing sets" (but actually because all TV managed to fit in the available spectrum otherweise I bet we'd have already had T2 ), and since 2017 it's compulsory for every tv set or digital set top box to be compatible with T2 and HEVC.
I'm still trying to figure out how in America can a switch-over be planned with no installed equipement.
As a note, here DVB-T is the standard, DVB-S is the exception and cable is virtually non-existent (just the OTT over internet).
Thank you for the heads up. Because of your continuing info I finally installed a out door antenna.
ATSC 1.0 works perfectly fine, it's just finicky on weak signals, really the only "upgrade" I see for ATSC 3.0 is being more robust and less fragile of a signal, which would be great for Low VHF, which is great for rural coverage. 4K doesn't matter to me, HD is perfectly adequate, especially for classic TV which is most of what I watch.
It also allows much greater efficiency in spectrum use. Broadcast eats up a good deal of idle spectrum as is, and it's very likely not the most socially desirable usage of the spectrum. 3.0 will allow even more of the spectrum to be moved to higher value uses, while allowing for more channels at the same time. It's most important feature isn't about TV broadcasting.
I was going to ask this very question about the future of over-the-air tv and Tyler read my mind by addressing it in this video. Thanks for the info in this ever changing world of broadcast tv. Believe me, it's changing what seems to be every week.
I sincerely hope that broadcast TV survives. One of my pet peeves is people that are streaming who are calling themselves cord-cutters. If you are streaming, you have a cable to provide the internet. Cord cutting means no cord. I like the anonymous feeling of OTA TV. The provider does not get to track what I am viewing. Before I blasted over the cord-cutter comment. I do have internet and stream a lot of content. I just don't call myself a cord-cutter. I also have a good antenna setup that Tyler helped design through his recommendation service. I highly recommend his service if you are thinking about putting up an antenna.
In today's landscape a cord cutter refers to someone who no longer relies on cable tv or satelite dish to consume their tv programs. Since most people are paying for internet whether they have cable or not, that really doesn't fit into the equation. A large portion of todays gen x and gen z folks have never had a cable subscription, hence they are a cord never. I am going on ten years without cable tv, and I will never go back. I use an over the air antennae, as well as a mohu antennae and also use free apps via roku and firestick to stream content as well. Yes I have the internet and yes I can still be a cord cutter and have that essential service at the same time, as it is so much more than entertainment and it is my primary tool to be able to do my job. Just in case you still are confused as to what a cord cutter is here is the actual oxford dictionary definition of it just to further illustrate. "a person who cancels or forgoes a cable television subscription or landline phone connection in favor of an alternative internet-based or wireless service."
"a popular way for cord cutters to view programming on their TV is with a streaming video box"
Alas, watching over-the-air TV is no longer a guarantee that your viewing won't be tracked. Most smart TVs phone home and report what you watch; at least one manufacturer, Vizio, makes far more money selling data than they do on selling TVs. If you get a set-top box for NextGen TV it's likely that it will also report your viewing, though so far as I know the currently available HD HomeRun devices do not.
@ I guess you are right about that. I suppose that we are the tool that they make the money on.
@@greyeagle4388 It's not that I didn't know that, it's just such an inaccurate term that I don't like it. But that is just me. You do you.
OTA broadcasting is making a comeback. Overall it is up 38 percent year over year. Data shows large increases in antenna penetration among Black households (27% to 39%), White, non-Hispanic households (25% to 43%), and 18-34 year-olds (20% to 42%), a whopping 110% increase year over year.
Since ATSC 3.0 seems to be cost prohibitive and it’s not mandatory, stations are not in a rush to upgrade their towers. Great video Tyler!! 👍😁
TV stations will all eventually upgrade but some will not do those upgrades in a hurry. Cincinnati Ohio already has most of their stations on ATSC 3 except the PBS stations which will most likely be one of the last stations to do those upgrades. So in September 2026 the ATSC 1.0 stations can be shut off in Cincinnati Ohio.
ATSC 3.0 seems to be one step forward (better picture, better reception) and two steps backwards (encryption, calling home).
@@ghenulo
The cable and satellite providers have been using encryption for long time. So, it wouldn't be a step backward. It would be a step forward.
Don't know what you mean by "calling home" but suspect you think it is something nefarious. Not sure what that would be. I'll go out on a limb and guess you might be referring to the local broadcasters knowing what you are watching. Kind of ridiculous when you think about it considering that not only do cable, satellite and streaming services know what your watching, they know who you are and where you live.
@@therealevissam My concern is the broadcaster setting a no-copy flag in the encryption which would end recording episodes over the air.
@@techguy3236
I'm not at all concerned about that, and doubt most OTA antenna users would be. Moreover, Digital rights management (DRM) has been in place for long time. Which national broadcasters and streaming services don't use it?
I hope over-the-air TV doesn't become completely obsolete. I love the nostalgic feel and affordability that comes with over-the-air TV. I know people enjoy being able to watch whatever they want when they want (and rightfully so), but to me it feels special when I have to wait a specific time to watch a program. Even though I am not generally a fan of TV graphics or commercials that came out in recent years; TV station graphics, bumpers, and commercials from previous time periods have always provided memories for me throughout my youth. For example, I liked the graphics that ABC-7 KGO-TV had from 2002 until 2009.
AM radio is "alive and well" in the Midwest. Of course, I'm just down the street from a 50 kilowatt transmitter.
@@UncleKennysPlace That's wonderful to hear. I mostly only listen to AM radio when I get caught in traffic, so I do not have knowledge on whether or not it is obsolete. I just hear Tyler saying that OTA TV might eventually go the same route as AM radio, which could bring confusion at times.
It won't become obsolete. Overall, OTA Antenna penetration increases 38 percent year over year. Also, according to Horowitz Research’s State of OTA 2020 study, 40% of TV content viewers 18+ report owning an antenna, up from 29% year over year. As pay TV sheds subscribers, antenna usage increases.
HD Radio was a sole-source provider and receiver -- namely Ibiquity Digital Corporation. They were the only company to bid to develop HD radio. Also, all HD radios come with a $50.00 add-on that goes to Ibiquity. Hence, they were simple much more expensive than standard radios. So, most radio manufacturers decided not to produce them. By the way, the mandate for all TV's to come with UHF receivers was mandated by Congress and not the FCC. I wouldn't expect that agency to require ATSC 3.0 receivers to be in all new TV sets.
I was pretty happy to get started in HD Radio by spending money on the small portable HD radio walkman tuner, Radiosophy HD-100, Auvio HD radio tuner, and Insignia HD FM radio tuner, and the Sangean HD-14 portable radio.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825There is an insignia model that eBay has them for like $30-$40.
Same for AM stereo radio all the different versions didn't want to come together and decide which they would use. So for some AM is limping along for now.
From what I've observed, the biggest problem for HD Radio is that, outside of the nerd crowd, no one has heard about it. Whilst a lot of people knew about the transition from analogue television to digital, for radio... No awareness whatsoever. Even I only heard about it in an OTA/FTA enthusiast get-together not that long ago.
@@majewskibr that’s an interesting observation. I travel extensively and nearly every rental car I’ve had over the past 10 years has had HD radio. In every situation the HD logo very noticeably appears on the screen when connected to an HD simulcast. Someone would really have to be very unobservant to miss it. I’m sure that there are many elderly or other type drivers who see it but don’t understand it, but anyone able to use Google should be aware of it.
I look forward to your video on the update. I cannot for the life of me figure out how an entity can use licensed, public, airways for encrypted TV.
I don't know either, but it looks like that's what's happening while the FCC just sits there.
Excellent assessment!! Our local ATSC 3.0 channels are lumped on one, low power UHF channel and only broadcast at 1200x700. Why would I even bother with them? Using my HDHomerun and using their TV app, some TV brands don't even have audio on these stations, but yet some do.
Remember, what's driving OTA is the cost of cable, where the minimum cost of cable for just LOCAL stations you can pick up with antenna now runs about $74/mo. with most cable companies, and that's why the FCC needs to be more focused and proactive on the RF needs of the taxpayer. Congress previously subsidized the cost of digital boxes when we went digital. Why not the same for ATSC 3.0 boxes AND mandate ATSC 3.0 capability in ALL new TV's so we have OTA that actually works better than it does now?
As other's have mentioned, the roll out of UHF television would have been REALLY delayed if there hadn't been a mandate by the govt. for all TV's after 1964 sold in the U.S. to include UHF tuners.
The television industry needs to know the direction of the FCC before they will invest in new low cost ATSC 3.0 capable televisions. The FCC should follow the same actions they took years ago with digital to spur ATSC 3.0 into the market and they need to relax the rules where it makes sense. They are supposed to be working for us, and they should be leading this effort, but I really fear ATSC 3.0 may already be doomed to fail because of limited RF space in many areas, thanks to poor planning at the FCC.
Also interesting is that the Franken radio stations are going ATSC 3.0. www.tvtechnology.com/news/next-generation-franken-fms-on-the-rise
I checked out one application currently on file for our area. They claimed to be operating ATSC 1.0 currently to meet the FCC rule. Well,... not that I can tell! But that rule should be ditched.
I'm in the New York City market. A huge key market for adoption of any technology but there's only one single ATSC 3.0 station on the air here. That's a huge problem.
I used to work for a major local tv company that is part of the NextGen technology. There has been something that has bothering me. Even while working there, I asked quite a few times if there were any updates to CC or making things more accessible for people that had sight or hearing issues and I was laughed at by the grunts relaying information from their press release ... line by line.... or higher ends of org tree. . (I am not one of these people but when I get older, my sight is going to leave me like it has most others I know).
Has there been any discussions or notifications whether ATSC 3.0 is making TV either OTA or on Satellite/Cable or even TV manufacturers to make things more accessible to people with disabilities?
As a non-US watcher, I'm shocked the US terrestrial TV stations do encrypt their signals, and that they use DRM for that. Guess it only adds a lot of hassle with these channels, not just cost. Unthinkable in Europe, except for paid packages. (That said, there are countries where only public TV is free on terrestrial)
Local broadcasters aren't encrypting their ATSC 1.0 broadcasts.
ATSC 3.0 is such a good thing overall but this encryption thing with DRM is a horrible horrible thing hopefully something can be done so that they’re made to stop doing it and the tuners will be able to become affordable. Great break down as always, Tyler!
I work in broadcast tv, I don't see many stations using it
Yeah, digital restrictions management is always a bad thing. I was part of the opposition to EME/Hollyweb back when HTML 5 was being developed, but it passed anyway, despite it being in direct opposition to Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the web (ah, the power of lobbying). Now, pretty much all streaming services use Widevine encryption, so if Google doesn't offer it for your preferred browser/OS/CPU, you're SOL (it's kinda funny that Netflix uses it even for public-domain movies you can watch unencrypted on RUclips; BTW, only user-uploaded RUclips videos are unencrypted, but RUclips Movies does indeed use Widevine). Google won't release the code for Widevine to be compiled for any platform for which there's a compiler; some things do (like Winrar, which explicitly states that it can be used only to be compiled for your platform and you're not allowed to use the code to create your own software; I also worked on Lazarus a couple decades ago and one of the requirements is that you couldn't work on it if you've ever looked at the source code for Delphi, to prevent accidentally using Delphi code, which could lead to legal problems). I suppose in these cases, you just have to have an emulator (e.g. run an x86 OS in an emulator on your PowerPC computer), but that's incredibly slow.
@@ghostgoose4067 What part of the country?
I'm not sure if ATSC 3.0's DRM encryption is to prevent (computerised) recording of broadcasts or not, though it would not surprise me at all that the content providers would want to take OTA television back to the sixties, when basically no-one could record anything. Despite the apparently demonstrated improvements in reception with ATSC 3.0, if I cannot record over-the-air signals, then I'm not interested.
@@televisionarchivestudios1130 Miami, FL is notable for using it
I just bought a 4K tv late last year, and I don't want to have to buy another one for ATSC 3.0, so affordable converter boxes can't come soon enough
You won't have to for a good 7-10 years as we're still in the very early stages of ATSC 3.0. Broadcasters are just being impatient.
Like you mentioned, Digital Terrestrial over-the-air TV might be possibly encrypted thanks to ATSC 3.0, dude, as a Canadian, who used to live in Canada, and owned an antenna, some channels were encrypted before ATSC 3.0, and locals such as Global, CBC, CTV, etc. were free-to-air
encrypting the channels that ought to be free to catch on air because we pay taxes for the FCC and even some stations like pbs. what a scam
@@polarvortex6601 Yeah. Over the air is a public resource. Like cellphone companies should be persuaded to provide services to people with other providers in rural areas.
You mean like ONTV, which was available in Detroit Windsor? We will probably see a return to Subscription TV, either an original channel or mini cable service.
@@Art7220 if OTA tv goes "pay" i refuse to pay there isn't anything on it that is worth paying for. anyways. If services like Pluto and Tubi can operate via ADs so can the OTA networks
@@americanbadass88
There is no scenario where OTA becomes a subscription service.
Until an inexpensive ($60 or less) ATSC 3.0 tuner is available, I don't see ATSC 3.0 growing very fast in terms of households that receive it. There are inexpensive ATSC 1.0 tuners available, but the only ATSC 3.0 tuners are still quite pricy. That needs to change.
I think they are predicting that by the end of 2024 that 75% of new tv's will have tuners that are atsc 1.0 and 3.0 compliant, and will increase for the next few years until 100% of them will be. I bought a new tv a year ago, and at the time I read about nextgen, and they were out of my price range, if I was buying today, I would work it into my budget since they have some closer to entry level pricing.
Even when and if inexpensive ATSC 3.0 tuners are made available, what is the point? Why should we be forced to buy a new tuner or TV for the convenience and profits of the broadcasters doing next to nothing for the consumer?
Thank you for all the testing and reporting you do, Tyler. I purchased two Channel Master Flatennas after first researching indoor antennas and then finding links to your review on their site (and other retailer sites too). These are both in use and are functioning just fine. I'm fortunate in that the majority of OTA channels being watched by this household are within 15 miles of us. There is one that is 33 miles away that is important to one viewer and it took a bit of moving around to find a good location for that set's antenna to be properly located but the reception is pretty stable. Another thanks for covering the need to search for a proper mounting location in some of your other videos! It really does help to orient them correctly for the older format broadcasts. The NextGen signals don't seem greatly affected by the antenna orientation, possibly because they're so close to us.
As I understand, the DRM being enacted is more to stop DVRs from recording shows freely and shouldn't really affect what's being sent out for free. Is my understanding correct?
Thanks again for all your work on our behalf!
Correct, DRM is going to be used to limit DVR recordings on ATSC 3.0. Existing ATSC 1.0 DVRs like the Tablo will not be affected.
I hope it becomes a balanced system when using this, somethign that is sutiable of consumers but able to launch secure measures
I think so. Streaming offers so many other options; whether Pluto TV or FreeVee or Roku Channel and others. I love watching content from decades ago as opposed to much of the content from today. Heck, I don't even watch my local NBC station anymore as I can watch what shows I want to for free on the NBC app on my Roku; on demand when I want it and I don't have to pay for DVR fees to record my local stations if I'm not home. Also, every time I do turn on the local tv, I always seem to find the endless commercials. The free streaming has commercials, but not where near as many as OTA stations. The question is, will internet service to your home become so expensive with potential data caps that the market shifts back to OTA stations? At least at my cable company, the cost of high speed internet service is increasing rapidly and the data cap fee levels are low compared to actual usage in a modern home.
Good post. As interest rates rise and the dollar continues to plummet, everything from internet to food will continue to rapidly increase. You can bet your life on that.
We've had ATSC 3.0 in the Nashville market for several years. The pandemic had a big impact on ATSC 3.0 rollout and the lack of converter boxes and chipsets for TV manufacturers.
Broadcast tv is best. It feels less lonely knowing I'm watching something that's playing in someone else's house at the same time. After ten years of streaming and DVR, I'm ready to step back a little and go back to the old way.
In my opinion, if a worst case scenario happens where Streaming Services completely overtakes over the air TV in usage/popularity, I think OTA television will stay around in a form similar to those NWS Severe Weather radios.
Case in point, Streaming Services currently rely on the internet (phone lines) to broadcast their signal and if it goes out in a storm, an OTA television signal will still be freely available assuming the TV station has it's own emergency generator.
@Tyler thanks for ALL you DO!!!!!
When I lived near Chicago, I enjoyed all the ota channels available. Now I live in the middle of farm land. The only thing I miss is ota tv. The only thing close enough to pick up now is PBS. I won't waste my time and money on that.
The main thing keeping broadcast TV alive right now is retransmission fees charged to cable companies, which prohibit most stations from simply providing a linear digital feed on the internet. Without this prohibition, it'd be a simple matter for all local stations to just go online. Eventually this could replace over-the-air broadcast if reliable broadband were available everywhere.
Stations don't want to go online with a digital feed for now, because the retransmission fees are too lucrative. But if such retransmission fees were outlawed, I think you'd see every local station go online right away. One thing the rapid growth of FAST channels shows is that adding internet channels is so much easier and faster than revamping a broadcast standard, and of course internet transmission can easily be 4K or 8K if that becomes standard.
I agree with Tyler that broadcasters have one shot at making ATSC 3.0 work. But even if they manage it, this will probably be the final iteration of digital TV broadcast; eventually the future is internet feeds for all TV content.
I see no reason why local broadcasters would need to provide an Internet based service. Local broadcasters survived off advertising long before cable and satellite companies started retransmitting local broadcasts. Also, not all pay TV services retransmit local subchannels. Via pay TV I would only have access to the 5 main channels here [ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS]. I'd need an antenna to get the 15 subchannels that are available. ATSC 3.0 would allow each station to broadcast more channels, which would open the door to more advertising, which would more than make up for the loss in retransmission fees.
While I agree with you, the public has to decide to either support or abandon OTA.
OTA providers are mostly network affiliates, and those major networks are slowing moving some or all of their content to online streaming. In fact, some have already started DROPPING popular programming from their affiliates and placing them on their streaming networks for a fee!
If this trend continues the OTA network affiliates wont survive.
@@RickPaquin
According to Nielsen data, most people are watching older TV shows and movies. It's what makes FAST services like Tubi so popular. Local broadcasters are well suited for that content. They can license content as easily as Tubi, The Roku Channel, Plex, etc, and where targeted ads are concerned, are better positioned to reach local audiences better than the SVOD services that content is being moved to can.
I am both excited by new OTA content and sickened by DRM being added to it. I think it is a way to circumvent the "Betamax" decision. Time shifting goes out the window with DRM. Great content as always,Tyler.
Exactly! They intentionally kept their digital encryption plans on a low profile while hyping up 4K, internet connectivity etc. This move to 3.0 was largely about trying to take control of the consumer experience (restrictions on home recording; what channels the viewer can receive and where you can watch them). They’ve always tried to find a way around the Betamax decision and this is part of their plan.
Yes, the power of lobbying. PDF readers based on Xpdf/poppler (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppler_(software), if you're not familiar) can have DRM restrictions disabled, so maybe TV/converter manufacturers will do the same thing. It would certainly be a marketing advantage if one DVR could record and transfer content but another couldn't.
I don't see the problem. The national broadcasters and streaming services use Digital rights management (DRM).
If DRM Klls ATSC3, they will likely blame anything other than DRM breaking things again.
If DRM kills broadcast TV I'll create a new RUclips channel with Mr. Beast style content. How many light bulbs does it take to blow a fuse?
Thanks, Tyler, for the great video!
I'm probably asking about a future video, but do any current ATSC 3.0 tuners already have DRM capabilities? Has NAB and/or FCC even decided on the type of DRM?
It's great that some ATSC 3.0 tuner companies are willing to add DRM hardware/firmware to the boxes but the cost of shipping and hassle of uninstalling/reinstalling a box will have to be built in to the consumer's price.
I'm looking forward to getting an ATSC 3.0 box to get better reception than 1.0. I do have a Roku Ultra and RUclips TV but I like having a "free" (read no internet requirements) alternative.
Thanks again for your great content!
DRM kills everything it touches, in part because the government loves DRM, and the government kills everything it touches.
Well if all my OTA channels go away because my TV does not support the new signals, I will just watch whatever is on regular You Tube (not RUclips TV) and listen to my radio for the live local news and weather.
This is crazy if I have to buy some special DVR or any device to decode the new signals. My current LCD TV's are good an I am not about to switch.
If it is a few dollars to do the signal fix, I may do it, but if it costs hundreds of dollars, forget it.
Plus how many antenna users are going to have the money to switch over to the new system. I probably have the money, but I will not do it. I dropped cable TV several years ago (280 dollars per month), and I will drop this if I have to put in allot of money to do so. I will just use my ClearStream indoor antenna for a nice paper weight if I don't get OTA TV.
Things never stay the same, very sad. I hope this does not happen.
Unless ATSC 3.0 flops, at some point within the next 7-10 years you will likely need a new tuner in order to pick up local TV stations as ATSC 1.0 is shut down. I agree with you that TV stations need to pick a standard and stick with it instead of constantly messing with things.
I like coming home from work and just turning on the tv and laying on the couch without having to think about what to watch. Thanks for your hard work
Very informative. Thanks for the updates
Thanks for watching!
In my state, WGCL formerly CBS 46 has rebranded to Atlanta's News First and the call sign changed to WANF. I'm not sure which came first but they do not mention the network affiliation or the channel number any longer AT ALL. So what do they know that I don't? It's like they're preparing for a day post OTA.
The bigger problem is that most television programming is garbage. Disney in particular needs to go out of business as soon as possible.
I couldn’t agree more. And until recently I was a Disney+ subscriber, Chase Disney Visa carrier, Disney Movie Club member, Disney park annual pass holder, D23 fan club member, and Disney Vacation Club timeshare owner. Disney has turned to crap and they deserve every bit of wrath that that unhappy park visitors, content consumers, and the state of Florida can throw at them. Good riddance.
DRM on broadcast TV? It might help for being able to market pay for view services as a new option. But if broadcasters don't want to play nice and encrypt their entire signal??? I'm not interested. But then, I'm still using an unlocked Tivo Series 3 from 2006. Despite replacing the hard drive with a large drive meant for security systems and replacing the caps on the power supply, ATSC 3 will kill that DVR eventually. (I'm actually okay with that in theory.) Since the DVR refuses to die along with my still beautiful Pioneer Elite plasma, how long can I hold out??? A LONG TIME if stations are going to DRM their broadcasts. And it can't even do 4k until the old ATSC 1 standard is turned off? WELL. Don't DRM your regular broadcasts and I may upgrade. DRM me??? Guess what. NOPE. Not budging until you turn ATSC 1 off. And maybe not then if ATSC 3 needs an internet connection to say. . . collecting marketing data. Just no. Me and my ham friends. . . . who are happy to give out advice on whether to adopt a new TV standard or not. Both over the air, the internet and to any neighbor who knows the person who can help with that antenna. The evidence on the roof is pretty apparent. Locking out stations with DRM could be. . . an issue. Good to know!
i still have 2 digital converters from the analog digital switchover. a program like that one is the only way i see this working
Not going to happen as this time there is no auction of airwaves to pay for the converter boxes.
Closer and closer to all-pay TV.
Great video...cant wait for the follow up videos!!
People need to complain to the FCC AND the FTC about the encryption and complain to the broadcaster about it!!! screw encryption tv should be free!!!!
Can you pickup (receive) OTA ATSC 3.0 channel's on the Hisense U8H tv. No internet connection.
Wow! You really came through with some critical information for all of us that we are NOT getting through normal sources. Your comments on the behind the scenes also adds to the story so we can understand the real issues. I do not know how you get so much insider information! News media all have an army of researchers and reporters can not seam to get through all the tentacles, layers of view points and information from seemingly unrelated sources to pull a "complete story" together like you do. I do not know how you do it but please keep it up for us! Thank you!
Great info Tyler. Also I like the "consistency" in your videos. Your visibly to the right side of the screen when they start so its easy to scroll and spot your videos... excellent. I hope things are going well...
Local sports and news is the biggest draw for antenna users. I rely on my antenna for NFL games primarily. These won't be available on the free streaming apps.
I enjoy watching your videos, Tyler. I am totally with you as far as wanting to watch antenna TV for the superior picture quality. In fact, I got tired of the cable companies and cut the cord in 1996. However, there is one area where I have a problem - sports programming often runs way over the scheduled time (and I am NOT a sports fan). As a result, the scheduled programming is screwed up for hours after the sports program and consequently, the program I had set my Homeworx (thanks also for your review of that) device up to record, is very delayed and my recording only has the first part of my show. Do you have any ideas for dealing with that issue?
I have a Tablo DVR but it doesn’t have ATSC 3.0 . My TV does. I like Tablo and have suggested they upgrade the DVR to 3.0 . Thanks for the update on 3.0. I am really looking forward to getting it.
4:43 This reminded me of the dad in the Christmas Story pronouncing "fragile".
Joking aside this is a very informative video. As mentioned by the articles 18 percent of antenna users are immigrants and my family is one of them. The Asian language channels my parents watch actually have reliable reception and might not be available on American streaming service. Any ATSC or other upgrade that requires families to get another box or another tv is just more inconvenience at a time of economic uncertainty. I suspect we care more about reception than internet connectivity or 4K.
The only tv technology that I'll care about is one that improves reception. Some stations come up if the antenna is held up in some random high spot in the middle of the room where I can't place the antenna. Maybe someone will come up with a "antenna hanger"
Expect that 18% to grow thanks to changing demographics and more available digital subchannels.
The VWestlife channel not long ago did a video on how AM talk stations were topping ratings in NYC and I mentioned that AM might be saved by the minority market since they are the ones starting to buy up AM and FM stations. As an example I mentioned two SE Asian stations, one AM and one FM, in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex that are doing very well because there's about 100k Indians, Pakistanis, and Sikhs in the area. Any attempt to mess with either band would bring backlash from any of these groups since their stations tend to be more community oriented.
And I think the same is going to happen to digital TV once ATSC 3.0 starts rolling out. Last thing they want to do is piss off groups that are actually watching antenna TV and that are potential investors. In my area that means Mexicans and Tejanos and very soon Cubans and Venezuelans.
😂 I knew there was something off of how he said it.
@@rockoorbe2002 I know, many more people are starting to listen to MW, and even going back to SW now.
Tyler’s most scandalous video was his FM radio video where he keeps putting down AM. For someone who says he appreciates older technology and how we need to keep radio spectrum, he seems to be one of those millennials who is beating down AM radio.
It’s not like anyone cares about sound quality these days with their single crappy earbud in their ear, or those horrible Bluetooth speakers. No point in high fidelity stereo with only one earbud plagued by the loudness war and mp3 compression.
1:02 Another problem is that in markets like here in NYC, there is no free spectrum. The 600MHz sale removed all free UHF spectrum. As such, there isn’t ONE free UHF channel available to put ATSC 3.0 on the air. The major broadcasters are going to have to sit down and figure out who will combine their signals to free up a channel. That will take ages. We do have a single low power ATSC 3.0 signal on RF channel 6. Basically multicultural programming. The 600MHz sale was the biggest fiasco in broadcast TV to date.
Good point, probably would have been better to get ATSC 3.0 going while 600 MHz was still available for TV. Once done rolling out ATSC 3.0, then easier to switch off 600 MHz and ATSC 1.0 at the same time. Sad part is that T-Mobile bought it for 5G, you cannot get 5G speeds on 600 MHz. So this was a waste to really get only 4G speeds on 600 MHz too. You're right a big fiasco for sure.
@@miketech79but cell phones still have issues like slow upload speeds it doesn’t matter you sell much tv band
There is no valid reason to encrypt a broadcast signal. If it up-to-date equipment it should be against the law
Yeah there’s no point of OTA if broadcasters can force you to pay for it or track your viewing.
Thanks!
Thanks so much!
I live on the Southern US border in San Diego and also speak Spanish, a big reason to stay connected to OTA TV are the channels from South of the border. Altough I have 3 Smart TVS in my house, I have to have at least one old school OTA only tv here.
Maybe the government should pick up the tab and allow free (Taxpayer Funded) converter boxes like they did with the analog to digital conversion. Of course they had a lot to gain from that where they don't so much with ATSC 3.0.
To bad there all in a landfill now.
@@Michael-Joseph123 Yup! I remember some people getting multiple boxes. The Gov made it very easy to game the system. Only thing is those same people couldn't sell them because they were free and had no resale value 🤣
I just got a Zapper box to get ATSC 3.0. SURE I can get to come in, but a very, very weak signal. I looked and thought the signal was low powered. I wonder if the big corporations what this new standard to not work out cause of the cost to change again after the repack.
The provision of OTA TV in the US is frustrating. I live in a county with a quarter million people and there is no US OTA TV available at all except for one independent station, we're in the Seattle DMA. We're expected to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX via Cable or RUclips TV, while other folks in Seattle are able to view the networks and get their local news for free. It's frustrating that the broadcasters can't be bothered to put up translator stations and are even pulling them down, and if you want to view the networks *anywhere* but OTA you must pay, and pay quite a lot I might add. The cheapest way I can get my Seattle locals is via RUclips TV and that's still $60 a month. It is quite frustrating and I wish the broadcasters would come together to even put up a SD shared translator tower so my county could at least get *something*.
I suspect as more people cut the pay TV cord, local broadcasters will develop their own linear streaming service like Sinclair Broadcast Group is developing. No matter what route they go, some people who are outside the reach of a tower, or not able to get broadband will be effected.
I agree, all these restrictions are definitely keeping atsc 3.0 from taking off, good on the NAB for sending that letter to the FCC, Rome wasn't built in a day, just hope this is all worth while.
Imagine my surprise when I started tuning around TV this evening and spotted
some *NX channels, apparently NextGen channels, in Boston! I'm able to watch
them on a Sony TV using the HDHR connect4k. First time I've seen them show up.
About the only time I watch local networks is during a weather event. The news around here, is all woke and very politically bent. The TV shows, more woke. I tend to stream, but keep the excellent Antenna recommended by "The Antenna Man". Just wish there was something worth watching... Everything has gone so political and woke, I tend to stream music more than watch anything.
Broadcasters do seem to be dragging their feet with ATSC 3.0. IMO, if they don't go faster, nobody will care about locals anymore. I guess they're planning to live off of retransmission fees. Not sure why they still think they're relevant when there's hundreds of free streaming channels. Even subchannels like METV must be losing viewers to streaming. Just look at FM radio. They all stream free online. I'm not paying to watch ad -supported channels.
No doubt some broadcasters are dragging their feet, but the bigger issue is the lack of affordable tuners for the public. If things don't speed up soon ATSC 3.0 might flop.
I love your comment "I'm not paying to watch ad supported channels". That is exactly why I refuse to pay for cable/streaming.
@@AntennaMan There is not going to be affordable tuners thanks to encryption and needing to convert AC4 audio to AC3 or stereo which adds to the cost of manufacturing. I am guessing either the government or broadcasters will subsidize tuners once they start shutting down ATSC 1.0.
I hope they find a way to sort this all out an not make this more difficult in the future
I watch things like netflix an hbo, etc. but my mom isn't that tech savvy on all those streaming services as she just likes to keep it simple an just wants her broadcast news channels an such
so i've been thinking about getting her a tablo box at least...
problem with streaming as opposed to broadcast is that when the internet is down or no internet no tv.
It better go right because business / companies have a tendency to mess things up for consumers out of greed for money
Tyler, you should do a collaboration video with Luke over at Cord Cutters News.
I wonder if there are any historical lessons to be learned about the big handout of ATSC 1.0 tuners when that transition happened. Is there some post-mortem study of that? How many were given out, how much it cost and who paid for it, how successful that transition was in general, etc.. In theory we've already done this so we should be able to do it again. But agreed that it will require a mandate from Congress/FCC. There is seemingly less appetite for it now than last time, when streaming was still in its infancy.
The main lesson is that it worked. Because of the mandate, as well as the subsidy, ATSC 1.0 tuners were plentiful and affordable. Eventually almost everybody junked their SD TVs, and today every new TV can receive ATSC 1.0 in all its 720p/1080i glory.
It remains to be seen whether a privately-led digital transition can work. Years are passing, and I'm only aware of two third-party ATSC 3.0 tuners, neither of which is all that affordable, and both of which are currently hobbled by stations implementing encryption. If Sinclair wants NextGen TV to succeed, they'll need to get hardware makers to produce a LOT of affordable set-top-boxes, and soon. FAST stations aren't waiting.
@@jamesheartney9546 I wonder if "cheap ATSC 3.0 tuner" is not possible because the spec requires much more sophisticated electronics (not even counting encryption, but heck count that too). Or maybe it's just the lack of economy of scale, so far. I suspect cost is also why TV makers have little interest in adding them to their non-high-end TVs. I wonder if there is also more we can learn from Europe.
Everything changes when the networks pull their affiliations with local broadcast stations. In Houston the push is to watch local TV news on an App.
I have both ATSC 3.0 external tuners and I feel the Zapperbox M1 is a better value due to the signal meter which gives a more detailed perspective. Yes, it costs more but the functionality is better if one is only using a single television. The Hdhomerun is good if multiple people are viewing at the same time on different channels.
I agree, the Zapperbox is a good value for what you get. It will soon be a DVR as well.
My current TV is starting to randomly reboot, so I'm looking at new TV's. I'm disappointed that I can't get a 50" with ATSC 3.0, and the cheapest 55" Hisense with ATSC 3.0 costs more than double. I'm hoping my current LG keeps going until there are more choices.
Smallest I have seen is a 43" sony X80K, and I think they also have a 50" X80K, cheapest I have seen is a Hisense 55" U7H that you can pick up for $549 on sale at best buy. A company out of Alanta is claiming that they will have a device that will plug in to a usb port on the back of your tv that is ATSC 3.0 and will sell for $75, Airialtv solo, and they say available in September.
Just took a look, the lowest price tv with atsc 3.0 might be a 43" sony X80K that you can get at best buy fir $449
@@Michael-Joseph123 Thanks! I didn't even think Sony would be in my price range. I'll look at that when my TV eventually quits. 43"-50" is my size range, because I also use it as a computer monitor.
Might make more sense to go with the cheapest TV for right now rather than sink your money into an expensive ATSC 3.0 one.
Buy the best TV display you can with the best sound. To me a TV is just a display device. Consider it a monitor with a tuner. If you have cable, satellite, computer, or streaming device you won't be too worried about the OTA tuner.
Free streaming TV isn't free. You have to pay for internet access to stream.
Thanks Tyler for ur incite and critique and breaking it down for me to understand !!!
Thanks 😊 Sounds like I read about Switzerland ending for the most part
has shut down OTA TV.
Is DRM, Digital Rights Managenent?
Yes, DRM is digital rights management.
The encryption is because of the retransmission fees TV get from cable and satellite providers because by encoding the OTA channels they can force people to go back to cable or satellite or have to make all TV paid service (just like in the UK because they have a license fee and with the technology they can do away with it by encoding all OTA TV then the license fee can be replaced with a fee to decode the signals)
"... because by encoding the OTA channels they can force people to go back to cable or satellite or have to make all TV paid service ..."
That's ridiculous. People aren't cutting the pay TV cord because of encryption, or lack thereof. The majority cut the cord because the cost.
Unless local broadcasters want to follow the death of cable and satellite, there is no scenario where local broadcasters become pay TV services.
I can tell you that free TV isn't going away. I'll be posting a video on the concerns of DRM encryption sometime next week.
What I’m saying is that by encrypting the signals TV stations can cut out the middleman and go directly to the consumer so again another cost to the consumer which could make things worse because TV stations could end up in a bidding war for viewers because each station could charge viewers for the right to watch their channels and you thought cable and satellite was bad with charging customers just wait until the TV stations themselves start charging people to watch their channels
@@jcurnutte2007 : "TV stations could end up in a bidding war for viewers because each station could charge viewers for the right to watch their channels"
Again, that's ridiculous. They won't be charging people to watch channels.
Thank you for all your information on AtSC 3.0
Your video have helped me to understand many things about oat tv and antennas and more
Removing the ATSC 1 broadcast will just piss off people who bought a TV recently.
ATSC 1.0 is not going anywhere for at least 5-10 years.
Maybe OTA should shift more to sports programming.
Something like being able to see the ball clearly would be a significant advantage with 4K.
Streaming suffers so much from delay. Cable and satellite companies often aren't much better.
You can't get everyone interested in every sport but it still stands that sports are a place for big money.
I'm not a sports fan at all, but you bring up a very good point. Sports clearly validates the need for a higher OTA standard. Sports are probably the only content that can really drive 4K into the OTA market.
My interest in ATSC 3.0 is easier, better reception, and honestly, 720P is fine for the stuff I watch because the original content isn't better than that. I'd like to see the industry ditch 480 SD completely. But for live sports, yes, 4k would provide a huge advantage for the viewer. Also I'd love to see travel programming in 4K.
I think you mean sports programming should pivot back to OTA. I suspect that as more people cut the pay TV cord, more of it will end up back on local channels.
Sports is big money for the leagues and teams. If it were big money for everyone, the RSNs wouldn't be failing.
The current hot mess with some of the RSNs should drive home the potential for OTA sports pay TV broadcasts to be a lucrative business.
can't stand sports! CANT STAND SPORTS!!!
@@lcoleman45 Well if they're not willing to hire writers or have too particular agenda about how a show should be, there will be no quality shows.
I hope it doesn't get to the point that we have to pay for everything. Doing so would be a waste of time and resources. It is not viable to kill off free TV. Free TV has been part of our lives since the invention of the TV set by Philo Farnsworth in the 1920s and into the transition from NTSC to ATSC 1.0 from 2007-2009. Getting rid of free TV kills off the uniqueness every TV market has when it comes to local TV stations and the way each market delivers the news. I do think that every time a station encrypts their signal, another manufacturer of electronics will figure out a way to bypass it, by figuring out ways to decode the signal...
No plans for ATSC 3.0 in my area as I found out. DAB+ Radio may come to the US very soon & eliminate HD Radio as to costly & many areas not even have it as well as getting a HD Radio. If they allow DAB the Ham Radio 220 MHz (1.2 Meters) will have to move or be gone as certain DAB Channels are on them frequencies.
220 has been popular in recent years though.
Why don't they use the existing commercial spectrum they have or use the low band VHF spectrum that public safety and businesses have largely abandoned? DAB could work there instead.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 DAB+ Radio goes from 179-229 MHz. 220 MHz has a bunch of DAB+ channels in there. DAB+ Radio is used in many counties around the world. The 220 MHz here is absolute dead & they took off repeaters few years ago in my area as well others. I would like the FCC to put 4 meters on the 70 MHz like UK & EU has as that its dead now since the analog TV is gone. They can not use that low frequency for that part of the 5G cell spectrum.
@@drsysop There's no technical reason DAB can't be on 30-50 MHz.
Plus I don't think there's demand for it.
The 220/1.25 band got a revival recently because the Chinese two way radio companies were willing to make them while the establishment Japanese companies were sitting on their hands.
A UV-5X3 is a great first radio.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 They can I am sure but DAB+ been assigned already. DAB+ very popular in the UK, EU, Middle East & most of Asia.
TV antenna plus free Pluto+Tubi+Freevee+Plex why pay for anything except renting an ocasional movie or paying for an ocasional sports ppv?
Well I know what you're saying about streaming channels are growing very fast but at the same time they could grow faster retransmission fees were outlawed. Therefore the would not be an incentive for local channels to put their feet behind a paywall. I mean seriously there are a lot of great channels out there that are for pay and honestly it would make sense that if there wasn't retransmission fees it would make a lot more sense to allow them to be solely supported by ads.
The only thing i watch is broadcast TV. So what are we going to do about sports if it's dying? I doubt if its dying. How would News shows run?? Too many reasons why it will never go away. We use it for emergencies, all kinds of reasons. How would we receive our breaking news about the shooters outside or the snowfall or any other urgent thing that can come up?
Just helped my girlfriend add an antenna and drop expensive cable packages and rental fees. I can see how the industry has no interest in supporting that.. why would the networks or stations want people to get the locals for free.
Hope OTA stays! Because broadcasting is way more reliable, especially in blackouts and no need to use and connect to internet service! Please NO DRMs, and more quick and easy channel tuning! Make it easy to tune and watch a channel from broadcasting!
It isn't going anywhere. Antenna usage increases every year. Currently 25 percent [30 million] of all U.S. broadband households [120 million] now use an antenna to watch local TV channels. I give it 5 years and OTA households will be nearly as high as current pay TV households [about 70 million].
@@therealevissam OTA is getting popular thanks to no monthly subscriptions and no dependency on internet access, I just don’t want any logins nor DRM with ATSC 3.0, that would defeat the purpose of using an antenna, since there’s enough streaming apps on digital devices and I hate using free streaming apps like PBS, because it’s just too complicated and you don’t get the same picture quality, there’s constant delays!
@@Markimark151
Most people won't have an issue with DRM. I certainly won't. If I want to record something on one of the national broadcasters, I use PlayOn Cloud. I can get credits as low as $0.08 per recording. An entire season of the Goldbergs cost me about $1.92. 🙂
I am planning on purchasing an ATSC 3.0 converter box. Just waiting for the price to come down a bit.
I don't blame you. The price should come down in the future.
@@AntennaMan I paid $150 for my Tablo. I would be willing to pay the same for an ATSC 3.0 converter box.
Do you ever test antennas and tuners for RVs? a
I made a video about RV antennas but it performed poorly so I deleted it. The basis is that you can put any antenna on an RV. Don't buy an "RV antenna." Buy an antenna that's appropriate for the frequencies and signal strength at your location.
Do you think the Zapperbox and the future Tablo ATSC 3.0 DVR can both coexist?
I'm not sure what your question means. They're two separate units. You can't combine them together but you can use each on its own.
I meant is there enough market share for both of them to coexist? Or will one win out?
So,we don't have to get a new TV to get NextGen TV. That's great news
If not a new tv, you will have to get a converter box of some sort.
@@Michael-Joseph123 Exactly,just like we did with the DTV transition,only this time,it will be with NextGenTV
HDHR also has said they will provide updates once a standard has been established.
Let's add this all up and do a more fair to the point comparison.
On the NextGenTV side I only see HD Homerun and the Tablo with NextGenTV tuner in them.
On the HD Radio side I see mobile radios and a boombox and car radios with HD Radio tuner in them.
On the NextGenTV side I see a silent killer coming for ATSC 1.0 after around a decade because of the fact that TV Broadcasters are only authorized to broadcast their ATSC 1.0 with their ATSC 3.0 signals for 10 years.
On the HD Radio side I only hear crickets. Where and when is the silent killer coming for analog radio stations?
There are limits on the ATSC 1.0 stations where there are no limits on the analog radio stations and that is what is hurting demand on the HD Radio side and what will ultimately build and create demand in the future for NextGen TV things.
All HDHomeRun ATSC 3.0 models WILL NOT require new hardware to support DRM channels. They only need a software update and a client that will work with DRM (most will, but Apple platforms might take longer because they don't use Widevine, so something has to be figured out there).
HDHomeRun probably requires 2021 computer, therefore, the client needs to be reverse engineered
Good video. There is no incentive for broadcasters to switch to ATSC3.0. The government isn't mandating it. Investing money into the switch will not significantly increase the number of OTA viewers to a point where it will bring a return of investment to the broadcasters. The percentage of the population using an antenna is small in comparison to the percentage of the population who use streaming apps and people who pay for TV. Broadcasters would much prefer to bury free OTA and move everyone to pay for their content. On the good side, there will always be a free tier of TV available. The free TV will generally be "dollar store" content and old content. The good content will always be behind a pay wall. The question is, will the free TV tier continue to be delevered OTA.
Good point from the broadcaster's point of view. Some companies like Sinclair, Nexstar, and Scripps are pushing for ATSC 3.0 for certain reasons. O&O networks aren't as interested in it possibly because it could impact retranmission fees from cable/satellite services.
@@AntennaMan Because Sinclair, Nextar, and Scripps have valuable content going over the ATSC 1.0 airwaves. With this standard, anyone can capture this content and redistribute it in the form of Illegal IPTV services and/or simply recording it on a USB drive and sending the content to anyone. These broadcasters would like to encrypt the signal to prevent the unauthorized redistribution of this valuable content. The "dollar store" content and the older content is not that big of a concern to the broadcasters. However, no matter what form of encryption the broadcasters use, it will get defeated. History is the best predictor of the future.
The number of people going back to using a antenna has been growing over the last few years, there are more people streaming now than have cable tv now, and a lot of the people who stream are now starting to get antennas so the can watch local tv.
The FCC isn't mandating it, yet.
As pay TV subscriptions decline, the percentage of households receiving OTA broadcasts is up 38 percent year over year. Advertising revenue will increase as OTA penetration increases. There is no scenario where OTA becomes pay TV.
@@therealevissam maybe enough people will drop cable and streaming services that include sports, that it will force MLB, NHL, and the NBA to go back to OTA broadcasting, so many people have dropped these services that Bally sports has just filed for bankruptcy protection, and I'm thinking there might be more sport services feeling the pinch from customers dropping the expensive services that carry sports.
Having all the RF channels be in HD is the best part about ATSC 3.0 compared to 1.0, yes ATSC 1.0 may have higher quality than cable but it's usually only 1 channel while the rest are in 480p
It's possible to do multiple 1080 HD channels on one ATSC 1.0 channel. Boston does this for their PBS station on RF channel 5. Not sure what the max number is.
@@miketech79 Our PBS station does one 720p and one 1080i channel, plus two 480i channels. However, I can tell that both channels aren't as good as other stations' single-HD setups; there's always tradeoffs. But ATSC 3.0 has more modern codecs plus more robust transmission, if ever we can get the price of hardware down to something reasonable.
I like watching your videos. Well informed. This is another good example.
When I was younger I would go out, buy newer stuff and support the development of it. Now I wait around until the bugs are worked out and let the kids support the new teck.
I think broadcasters need to think long and hard about making more changes. If they make this too difficult & expensive, they'll just force those that can, into streaming. One problem is, that a large percentage of Americans don't have access to high speed broadband, or cable. Yes, I'm talking rural America, and no Starlink isn't the answer, because it's quite expensive. I only watch, at most 3 shows a day, and if my TV's which still work fine, become obsolete, I'll drop OTA.
Or that bottom tier DSL from 15 years ago is still considered "high speed".
It should be interesting to see if broadcasters shoot themselves in the foot.
I remember when my grandparents had Nexicom Turbo on their old computer. 1 mbps DSL, baby!
It won't be difficult for the OTA end user, and costs for devices will come down by the time ATSC 3.0 is mainstream. Most of the lower cost brands like TCL and HiSense will have large screens comparable to current ATSC 1.0 TV prices.
My take on it it this. History repeats itself. They will likely keep the .1 channels clear and free, but start encrypting the subchannels like ME tv and charge for them. They will charge more and more and more over time until people quit paying like we are seeing now with cable and sattelite.
I don't see them encrypting any channels we get free now. Paid over the air TV services have always failed when tried.
Nice video.
If they can ultimately encrypt every over the air channel, OTA tv can become pay tv only.
OTA will never be pay only.
No benefit of ATSC 3.0 is worth DRM.
I don't know what's on broadcast TV these days because I don't have paid cable TV and don't use an antenna. Besides that, I don't miss broadcast TV because I work 5 days a week. I do have a 43" 4K UHD TV, but I last turned it on to watch Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker on 1080p Blu-ray when it came out.
Exactly how is all this new standard better than the present HD TV standard which is great and already here? Maybe there's just not the public demand for some new standard.
Agreed, it is totally unnecessary, wasteful, and only geared to the interest of broadcasters. the TV manufacturers, and TV retailers. Planned obsolescence at it's finest. As with 4K a marketing gimmick.