With the Federal Communications Commission working on new rules for the deployment of NextGen TV, next year promises to be an important one for both the future of ATSC 3.0 in general and for the security protections that are a key component of the new broadcast standard.
“For us, content protection is table stakes in terms of broadcasters being able to compete in digital environments,” explained Ann Schelle, managing director of Pearl TV, a consortium of major station groups backing the NextGen TV rollout. “To compete with streaming and other digital media, we need the same tool kit, the same content protection, they have.”
While ATSC 1.0 lacked encryption and robust content security, the content-security features embedded in ATSC 3.0 are particularly important, as NextGen TV is being deployed when such protections are ubiquitous in the digital and streaming world, added Robert (Rob) Folliard, Gray Media’s senior vice president, government relations and distribution.
“DRM [digital rights management] is critical for high-value content from the NFL, MLB, the NBA and all the other leagues, because they lose billions of dollars each year from piracy,” he explained. “That is a problem for us—live sports drives the broadcast model, and we are the only video provider who doesn’t have it. The NFL doesn’t have to worry about it when they do a deal with Amazon or YouTube. If we don’t have content protection, that is going to be a strike against us in the next round of negotiations.”
New Rules, Old Issues
Many of the ongoing arguments and controversies over content security in the digital world can be found in the FCC’s electronic filing system, where more than 7,000 comments have been tallied in response to the agency’s plans to develop new NextGen TV rules.
While Pearl TV and larger broadcasters have supported the enhanced security and content protection offered by the 3.0 standard, some LPTV stations and smaller station owners have raised concerns about the high costs of implementing security solutions.
These filings have been particularly critical of the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority (A3SA), which was created by broadcast TV networks and station groups to manage the security framework for NextGen TV, including digital rights management and content-protection protocols.
The LPTV Broadcasters Association, for example, has argued that the expense of transitioning to 3.0 broadcasts would force stations out of business and that the costs of obtaining “signal-signing” certificates to verify the 3.0 broadcast signals are “excessive.”
Separately, thousands of filings from consumers and advocacy groups like Public Knowledge have also complained that encryption and signal-signing certificates undermine the public’s ability to access free broadcast signals.
“Introducing encryption and Digital Rights Management (DRM) undermines this foundation by transforming open access into conditional, license-controlled access,” Public Knowledge told the FCC. “DRM and the associated A3SA certification system would allow private entities to determine which manufacturers—and therefore which consumers—may access free over-the-air content, effectively privatizing what has always been a public medium,” as well as increasing the cost of devices, the group argued.
Schelle adamantly disputes those reactions, arguing that much of the opposition is either based on a fundamental misunderstanding of 3.0 security or that complaints come from groups simply opposed to ATSC 3.0.
The LPTV Broadcasters Association and “Weigel [Broadcasting] are not for NextGen TV, full stop,” she said. “‘SuperFrank’ [Copsidas, the founder of the LPTV Broadcasters Association] is in favor of 5G broadcasting. Weigel would prefer that we stay on 1.0…so, of course, they are going to…glom onto these issues and blow them up.”
Schelle and Joe St. Jean, managing director of A3SA, also stressed that opponents have misinterpreted his group’s workings and the role of security in the rollout of NextGen TV.
“When you hear about content protection, people often think that they are losing rights,” said St. Jean. “That is not the case here. We are not trying to box out consumers from viewing the content they could otherwise access…We want consumers to use DVR and home-networking functionality…This is a free environment and will continue to be free…Broadcasters are in the eyeball business, and we want consumers to view the content.”
More specifically, he said, it’s important to separate two security-related issues: the DRM solutions used to protect content and signal-signing certificates to authenticate broadcast signals.
“Content protection is described in the ATSC 3.0 spec, but it doesn’t describe implementation, which is what A3SA did,” St. Jean explained. “They created an implementation, and its use is optional. We are not looking to enforce content protection on folks or make money off it.”
For the A3SA implementation, they turned to Google’s Widevine DRM solution, which is used in tens of billions of devices for content protection, Schelle added. “It is enabled in all the TV manufacturers, it works in the unconnected mode,” she said. “It is already used to enable streaming on these TVs. It is not a big deal for device manufacturers.”
In the future, St. Jean added, they expect to begin offering multiple DRMs. “We are currently working with an affiliate group to figure out how to implement FairPlay for Apple devices,” he said.
St. Jean also said that there has been a lot of confusion around the issue of “signal-signing” certificates for 3.0 broadcasts. Signal signing is important, St. Jean and others explained, because it is designed to let viewers know that a signal is authentic and that hackers or pirates haven’t hijacked broadcast signals or emergency alerts. In many ways, the protection provided by signal-signing certificates is similar to the warning that consumers get online when they try to navigate to a suspicious website.
A3SA worked with Eonti and DigiCert to establish signal-signing certificates that will authenticate a broadcast signal. “We don’t make money from this,” he stressed. “All the revenue paid for the certificates goes to Eonti, who pays DigiCert. Our role is to work with broadcasters and device manufacturers to make sure they are able to accept signed signals and tell the difference between signed and unsigned signals.”
In response to complaints that those certificates were too expensive, Folliard said the industry has been working to provide more options and reduce costs. “Not everyone needs a full-service certificate for $950 [a year],” he said. “We’ve already cut that price down to $550, and we’re working to offer even additional lower-cost options.”
Folliard and others also explained that they hoped that more options would emerge as more companies begin offering 3.0-related security.
In November, for example, SiliconDust announced it is offering an Online Certificate Status Protocol solution, providing new security options and compliance to ensure TV stations meet all of the ATSC 3.0 standard’s signing-security requirements.
Schelle and Folliard praised the move. “We welcome all certificate providers,” Folliard said. “The more competition the better because that drives down prices.”
High Noon
Another major issue has been the so-called “high noon” for implementing signal signing. That deadline was originally scheduled for June 2025, but it has been indefinitely delayed.
“When I came on board at the A3SA, it was clear to me that the industry wasn’t ready to turn it on,” St. Jean said, because there wasn’t “consistent messaging on devices” and because “the consumer experience that you see out in the marketplace is a poor one.”
Currently, the timing for high noon is difficult to predict. Schelle and St. Jean said the initial decision to delay it was a collaborative process with the National Association of Broadcasters, the Consumer Technology Association, the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), A3SA and other stakeholders. They also stressed that any future deadline would come out of a similar collaborative process. “We won’t implement it until we have the right consumer experience,” St. Jean said.
Whether these changes will assuage the fears of LPTV stations and other smaller broadcasters remains an open question.
Kristina Bruni, the chair of the Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance, said that while the group is still polling its LPTV station members regarding ATSC 3.0, she felt there was some confusion in the market about signal signing.
“I do not think that an LPTV operation that is going to transition to 3.0 is going to find that the signal-signing certificate will break the bank,” she said. “I feel that is a nonargument. Nobody is forcing them to go to 3.0 and if they do, the signal-signing certificate is also optional. It’s like when you are on a website and it doesn’t have the proper certificate. As a consumer, you can still choose to continue or not.”
Device Security
Another major question is the potential impact of content security and DRM on the ATSC 3.0 device market.
That issue exploded in 2025 in FCC filings related to SiliconDust’s HDHomeRun 3.0 receivers, which reportedly had problems decoding encrypted 3.0 signals. That prompted SiliconDust and thousands of consumers who own devices to argue that the FCC should not allow 3.0 broadcasts to be encrypted.
In response, Pearl TV told the FCC the problem was not encryption but that the fact that the HDHomeRun device uses a chipset manufactured by HiSilicon, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huawei Technologies, a company “which the Commission has found to be ‘a national security threat.’”
No other manufacturer has had that problem, Foillard said.
SiliconDust “made a business decision to go with a Huawei chip that can’t support Widevine,” he said. “All the others will tell you supporting Widevine is not a big deal.”
- Broadcasters have made content security a fundamental part of the ATSC 3.0 standard because they need to provide their high-profile sports content with the same protections against piracy as their streaming competitors.
- Next year should see lower-cost options for signal-signing, new players offering security certificates and different DRM implementations (perhaps as soon as January’s CES).
- FCC decisions over the next year on issues like 3.0 device mandates, 1.0 simulcast rules, signal-signing and a potential cutoff date for the transition to 3.0 broadcasts will have a major impact on the device market and approaches to content security.
- The June 2025 “high noon” for signal signing was delayed because the industry wasn’t ready; implementation isn’t likely to happen until a variety of industry groups and stakeholders develop better messaging and an improved customer experience.
- Consumers have filed thousands of petitions with the FCC opposing encrypted 3.0 signals, indicating broadcasters will need to dispel some of the complaints and misconceptions surrounding NextGen TV.
— George Winslow
SiliconDust has hotly disputed those claims, stressing that its devices are “NextGen TV-certified” and blaming A3SA’s implementation of Widevine for the problem. (Detailed coverage of this controversy can be found here.)
Other device manufacturers downplay the broader impact of the issue. “I don’t think it [security and DRM] has had a large impact on the device market,” said Alex Day, vice president of business development at Tolka Telecommunications, which provides a software platform that is used by ADTH and other manufacturers of 3.0 receivers.
Day expects lower-cost device options to come to market in 2026. Higher-end devices, gateways and gear with fully integrated Android TV capabilities should also launch, he said.
Gopal Miglani, president and founder of BitRouter, which aims to be the “TiVo of NextGen TV” with products like the ZapperBox receiver, said his company recently released its Unbound Gateway v3.4 software.
The software is “a significant milestone in bringing all the capabilities of the ATSC 1.0 DVR ecosystem to the ATSC 3.0 transition,” Miglani said in a blog post, with a multiroom DRM beta for gateway-connected devices. Software releases v3.5 and beyond will allow multiroom devices to control one another as real gateways, and 2026 will also see the creation of the first streaming app for a non-ZapperBox device.
Other industry players stressed the importance of the FCC setting a cutoff date for NextGen TV transition.
“There has not been a transition globally that has ever taken off until a date has been set,” Schelle said. The whole device market “really changes when the FCC sets a date.”
However, proposals for a 1.0 sunset face powerful opposition from the CTA and TV-set manufacturers. While the FCC has said it wants to speed the transition, the agency has not made any public moves to set firm dates or impose device mandates.
