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.

  • Banzai51@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?).

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

        • shrugal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

            • shrugal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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.

          • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            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