According to the CRTC, 97% of Canadians live within range of at least one OTA signal. In 2015, the CRTC reported that only 8.1% of Canadians receive their television signals via OTA. In 2024, that percentage crept up to 12. Cable/Satellte usage, while decreasing, was still at a significant 44%. Bell and Rogers are not known for wanting to spend, in their view, unnecessary dollars. If forced. Next Gen would come to major Canadian markets, but the rest of the country would see transmitters shut down. Ma Bell and Mr. Rogers must be smiling. You want to watch tv? Our door is open. No tv. You want to stream everything? We can help there too. I also an estimate that OTA viewership in the U.S. is about 20%. I thought it would be higher, but in a sports focussed country, an antenna won't get you ESPN.

Will broadcasters dare try to do this to you again - force all consumers to buy new TVs in order to keep getting their signals? It's the ongoing question surrounding NextGenTV, the so-called 'new' standard for TV that broadcasters are anxious to institute.

Like HDTV before it, it would require anyone who wants to watch broadcast television to buy a new set, unless you're one of the lucky few who already have it built-in to newer models. It sounds exciting - "Next Generation" - who wouldn't want the latest and the greatest? Except other than a supposedly better picture (I'm fine with HD as it stands now) it benefits broadcasters and not viewers.

While it promises interactivity similar to the Internet (including ads targeted directly at specific viewers) the thing I hate about it most is the inclusion of Digital Rights Management or DRM, which would prevent you from recording shows you want to watch later. 

"The use of encryption on TV signals for DRM purposes has some severe critics in the online world. Much of their complaint is, why should “Free TV,” as broadcasters often call themselves, need to prevent their signals from being received by their taxpaying audience? They, in theory at least, actually own the air waves, which the FCC licenses them to operate “in the public interest.”

"The anti-encryption advocates also note that the DRM in use actually prevents the development of cheaper devices and external adapters from being available to receive ATSC 3.0 signals.

"For their part, broadcasters and their trade groups claim the DRM encryption is needed to prevent the digital theft of their valuable content."

Yeah, as movie mogul Sam Goldwyn once said, "Include me out." 

Is North America ready for NextGen TV?

RadioAaron wrote:

How many people are actually using DVRs with OTA signals?

Well of course, I do and proudly so. But yes, we're a shrinking minority. Frankly, I'd like to be able to get both cable/satellite and over-the-air reception. But free TV has always been free since the first station signed on in the 40s. We need to keep it that way for as long as it lasts. 

If you think I would ever pay for the privilege of watching a CTV or Global thanks to NextGen, I have some swamp land for sale near the Brooklyn Bridge.

RadioActive wrote:

The FCC has now firmed their rules about the transition to ATSC 3.0, but unlike the HDTV conversion in 2009, they're not forcing it on stations. Going to the new standard will be voluntary, but one thing I don't like is there's no order to force stations to also broadcast in ATSC 1.0 when they go to the newcomer.

(The Channel 49 stations from Buffalo converted a long time ago, but keep their over-the-air old style signals alive by piggybacking on the transmitters of other stations in the market. That would not be necessary under the new regs.)

Anyone who goes all "NextGen"-only runs the risk of losing whatever OTA viewers they have. Not that they likely care all that much about us old fashioned antenna users, whose numbers are shrinking. But the new standard gives them a lot of control about what you can watch or record, depending on what they decide. 

And just like HD, no consumer asked for this, but it could be forced on us anyway.

FCC votes to accelerate NextGen TV transition with flexible framework

but isn't ATSC 1.0 and even Next Gen essentially for OTA signals. I understand that next gen introduces some new interactive features but the starting point is still OTA even if PVR functions might be curtailed.  
 

Fitz wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

The FCC has now firmed their rules about the transition to ATSC 3.0, but unlike the HDTV conversion in 2009, they're not forcing it on stations. Going to the new standard will be voluntary, but one thing I don't like is there's no order to force stations to also broadcast in ATSC 1.0 when they go to the newcomer.

(The Channel 49 stations from Buffalo converted a long time ago, but keep their over-the-air old style signals alive by piggybacking on the transmitters of other stations in the market. That would not be necessary under the new regs.)

Anyone who goes all "NextGen"-only runs the risk of losing whatever OTA viewers they have. Not that they likely care all that much about us old fashioned antenna users, whose numbers are shrinking. But the new standard gives them a lot of control about what you can watch or record, depending on what they decide. 

And just like HD, no consumer asked for this, but it could be forced on us anyway.

FCC votes to accelerate NextGen TV transition with flexible framework

but isn't ATSC 1.0 and even Next Gen essentially for OTA signals. I understand that next gen introduces some new interactive features but the starting point is still OTA even if PVR functions might be curtailed.  
 

Yes, as I pointed out, it's for those of us who still prefer to use an antenna. Frankly, our numbers are so small, I can't understand why they're going to the expense to change anything. It can't be cheap. And again I repeat - who asked for this? I just don't see the point of upgrading to a new system almost no one can see. So why do it if it's not going to somehow become more widespread in time?

And yes, those behind the new tech keep stressing its ability to enforce Digital Rights Management, which can potentially prevent recording of shows. Maybe it won't start that way - but it's there waiting, just in case. And I don't trust that they one day won't use it. (My DVR is not a cable box - it records off air digital signals. And it's great. I don't want them to screw with it.)

RadioAaron wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

And yes, those behind the new tech keep stressing its ability to enforce Digital Rights Management, which can potentially prevent recording of shows. Maybe it won't start that way - but it's there waiting, just in case. And I don't trust that they one day won't use it. (My DVR is not a cable box - it records off air digital signals. And it's great. I don't want them to screw with it.)

Why, if they're not doing it now on 99% of PVRs, would they start when they can get the remaining 1%.

The tech company can tout it all they want, but the networks have shown no interest.

Forgive me, but I just don't trust them to keep it that way. I'd vastly prefer you be right. But don't give them a power and tell them not to use it. History has shown that usually doesn't work. 

I'm perfectly happy with what I have now without having to buy yet another piece of equipment for not one but two TVs. 

Frankly, the way things have been going, I'm bracing for ATSC 5.0, the Next NextGen, which doesn't exist - yet!

RadioActive wrote:

Fitz wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

The FCC has now firmed their rules about the transition to ATSC 3.0, but unlike the HDTV conversion in 2009, they're not forcing it on stations. Going to the new standard will be voluntary, but one thing I don't like is there's no order to force stations to also broadcast in ATSC 1.0 when they go to the newcomer.

(The Channel 49 stations from Buffalo converted a long time ago, but keep their over-the-air old style signals alive by piggybacking on the transmitters of other stations in the market. That would not be necessary under the new regs.)

Anyone who goes all "NextGen"-only runs the risk of losing whatever OTA viewers they have. Not that they likely care all that much about us old fashioned antenna users, whose numbers are shrinking. But the new standard gives them a lot of control about what you can watch or record, depending on what they decide. 

And just like HD, no consumer asked for this, but it could be forced on us anyway.

FCC votes to accelerate NextGen TV transition with flexible framework

but isn't ATSC 1.0 and even Next Gen essentially for OTA signals. I understand that next gen introduces some new interactive features but the starting point is still OTA even if PVR functions might be curtailed.  
 

Yes, as I pointed out, it's for those of us who still prefer to use an antenna. Frankly, our numbers are so small, I can't understand why they're going to the expense to change anything. It can't be cheap. And again I repeat - who asked for this? I just don't see the point of upgrading to a new system almost no one can see. So why do it if it's not going to somehow become more widespread in time?

And yes, those behind the new tech keep stressing its ability to enforce Digital Rights Management, which can potentially prevent recording of shows. Maybe it won't start that way - but it's there waiting, just in case. And I don't trust that they one day won't use it. (My DVR is not a cable box - it records off air digital signals. And it's great. I don't want them to screw with it.)

What I meant is that next Gen is OTA so :"the risk of losing whatever OTA viewers they have"  seems counterproductive to a OTA  system upgrade or perhaps you mean that when most stations upgrade to next Gen very few will have the ability to watch and In that case OTA may be phased out but I believe the cord cutting trend has seen a modest uptick in Antenna use.