- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
From the article:
When we went to our seats, the wait staff let us know that despite the fact that the previews were playing, we wouldn’t know until the movie actually started whether we could see the film or not. If it didn’t work, the screen would just turn black. Luckily, the film went through without a hitch.
Can you elaborate?
DRM but over the air, consumers hate it, investors love it, it’ll make everything worse, it’s the future!
Do investors really love it? Is there anyone as stupid as the group-think whole that believes that will stop even one act of piracy?
All these idiotic measures have clearly driven more people to piracy…
I doubt the investors are smart enough to understand the technology behind it. All they probably hear and fully understand is the part where they can potentially make more money in the long run.
Money people are literally too stupid to understand anything other than line go up or line go down. They were told line would go up if DRM, so that’s what they want.
So broadcast TV currently broadcasts on ATSC 1.0. You get an antenna and a box or TV that has a digital tuner and you’re good. Industry is pushing for ATSC 3.0, which allows for DRM. So even though they are broadcasting on the public airwaves, they can decide you can’t watch. It sets up the local broadcasters to be the new cable with ever increasing prices AND play king maker on devices by choosing which can and cannot produce tuners. In my area, 5 channels have ATSC 3.0, and 1 of them turned on DRM. Meaning I can’t watch it because HDHomeRun devices aren’t approved, likely because it has the ability to record. Luckily, that channel still broadcasts in ATSC 1.0, so I can still watch it for now. 3.0 isn’t a fully adopted yet, but that can change in the future (2027?).
So at some point, it’ll be impossible to get emergency broadcast alerts without a subscription to something, right? Like who’s gonna turn on a TV or radio that they can’t use in anticipation of some emergency they can’t predict?
Exactly. There is a huge potential safety issue.
I’m sorry, but I think that’s a little far fetched.
Are you really suggesting that we run the risk of being too disconnected to receive emergency messages?! In an age where everyone has a smartphone on their person at all times, as well as at least a dozen internet-connected devices in their homes, offices, classrooms etc?!
You would’ve had a point maybe 20 years ago, but technology has changed a bit since then.
Ah yes, let’s put all our bets on cellphone infrastructure. Because that never goes wrong.
You do know landlines are still a thing, right?
Landlines are not part of the emergency broadcasting system. TV and radio are.
This is like assuming everyone has a car because most people do.
It’s not, because the statement is much more accurate in the case of internet-connected devices, and for emergency messages it’s enough to have someone around you who has one (e.g. a neighbour). I guess it would be really hard to find someone - in the areas where this change is made - who doesn’t have access to such a device in that sense, maybe even impossible.
It’s really more like assuming everyone breathes air because most people do.
Most people don’t have diabetes.
Yeah this was nonsense. Like it is mandated to have a TV always on to receive such emergency broadcasts. Same thing can happen to someone not having or not using a TV
And fear overpowers intelligence yet again.