Originally Posted by wco81
Sounds like a real PITA.
I bet a lot of people would skip ATSC 3.0 even if there was a lot of 4K HDR content, rather than being forced to watch ads.
Or they might spend a few bucks for a streaming service instead, which will also be 4K HDR and won't have the ads, such as Disney +.
Originally Posted by videobruce
That sounds exactly like the TiVo monopoly by hook or by crook where one entity controls one aspect of TV viewing almost completely.
Fair enough. I'm not thinking about what *I* would like to see as a consumer. I'm trying to imagine what might actually happen, looking at the current business landscape from the point of view of local broadcasters.
Think about it. In order to get consumers to connect their ATSC 3.0 tuners to the internet and opt into allowing targeted advertising, viewer data collection, etc., they have to offer us *something*, right? I'm envisioning those goodies as mainly being free OTA DVR service and an enhanced long-term program guide. Right now, with ATSC 1.0, if you want that kind of thing, you'll pay the Channels app $8/mo or $80/yr. Or you'll pay TiVo $15/mo or $150/yr. Or you'll pay Tablo $5/mo or $50/yr. In other words, OTA DVR service has some amount of value
But the only reason local broadcasters might have for giving you that kind of OTA DVR for FREE is if it forced you to watch more of their lucrative ads. Ads are the only way to monetize a free service. That's why, in my hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't be able to FF past the ads in your ATSC 3.0 recordings. Instead, you'd be streamed unskippable targeted ads (which fetch a much higher rate per viewer impression than regular broadcast ads).
But here's the thing: if I'm ABC or CBS or NBC, I'm saying "Why am I letting my local affiliates -- owned by Nexstar, Sinclair, etc. -- distribute my valuable primetime and sports content like this, for free to OTA viewers, with the ability to record it and play it back on-demand, but with the ads MY COMPANY has sold to advertisers CUT OUT and replaced by a different set of internet-delivered targeted ads that the AFFILIATE has sold instead?!" All three of those companies have (or will soon have) their own direct-to-consumer streaming service that costs a certain amount with unskippable ads or a higher price with the ads removed. Disney (ABC) has Hulu. ViacomCBS has CBS All Access. NBCUniversal will have Peacock (along with Comcast cable TV). "Why let these little piss-ant affiliates ride our content coattails to steal business from us?"
And that's way I don't see how supporting ATSC 3.0 is really in any of the major broadcast networks' best interests. Nor is it in the interests of major cable TV distributors, such as AT&T/WarnerMedia or DISH. ATSC 1.0 is right where everyone likes it. It's DRM-free, which AT&T and DISH like, because they can easily distribute free OTA tuners to their customers to plug into their satellite/cable/streaming pay TV boxes to incorporate free locals without the need to pay those groups like Sinclair and Nexstar a dime. (This at least helps to keep retrans rates in check during tense contract renegotiations.) And *all* the powers that be like the fact that ATSC 1.0 is glitchy and somewhat of a pain to receive because it encourages consumers to simply pay $10-14 per month for those local channels as part of a cable TV package -- that's money that gets funneled back to the station owners as well as the broadcast networks. Frankly, the broadcast nets couldn't afford those big NFL carriage contracts without that retrans money they're getting from cable TV subscribers.