Just curious because I don’t see people talk about it a lot.

    • Ptsf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Bandwidth is cheaper from the tower since the signal is the “same” for each client and it can then be distributed over a wide area. You send the “DRM” (Just a fancy encryption key) over the network since it’s relatively small and likely unique to each device (probably fingerprinting the device ids to the content invisibily in case of piracy).

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Multicast is a thing, though it doesn’t seem to be widespread. That would make a lot more sense than this weird DRM broadcast system.

        • Ptsf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Multicast still requires more expensive less widespread bandwidth than sending out analog signals ota & shooting off a few packets of encryption information every now and then. US infrastructure has rapidly improved over the past few years, but we’re still a farcry from anything robust and reliable enough to serve the people benefiting from this type of content.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Having the receiver phone home would have the benefit of generating more accurate viewership data, where broadcast tv has historically relied on representative cohorts.