Weigel’s ATSC 3.0 tests show emergency alerts fail without internet on DRM channels

When Weigel Broadcasting connected a pair of ATSC 3.0 converter boxes to DRM-encrypted broadcast signals and then disconnected them from the internet, Emergency Alert System messages stopped appearing on screen. The ATSC 1.0 signal on the same station continued to carry the alerts without interruption.

Weigel ran that test across four television markets and with two separate devices. The results were the same every time.

The broadcaster took those findings to the Federal Communications Commission in early June, filing ex parte materials with the agency and meeting directly with staff from the FCC Media Bureau, Commissioner Trusty’s office and Commissioner Gomez’s office on June 3, 2026. The filings added a concrete set of test results to an ongoing FCC proceeding, GN Docket No. 16-142, that will help determine the rules governing the nation’s transition from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0.

Weigel conducted EAS tests in Chicago, Charlotte, N.C., Green Bay, Wis. and South Bend, Ind. In each market, the company monitored required monthly EAS test broadcasts on both the ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 signals of local stations. Two converter devices were used: a Zapperbox, which holds certification from the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority, known as A3SA, and a HDHomeRun, made by Silicondust.

Neither device was connected to the internet during testing.

In South Bend, the ATSC 1.0 signal from WNDU displayed the required monthly test on March 19, 2026. The ATSC 3.0 DRM-encrypted signal returned a “Secure Content License Server” error message instead. The same pattern appeared in every other market tested: WMAQ in Chicago on April 7, WFRV in Green Bay on April 2 and WSOC in Charlotte on April 9. Both devices produced identical results across all four markets.

The problem, as Weigel explained it to FCC staff, is not unique to a particular device or market. It is structural.

When a station’s ATSC 3.0 signal is encrypted using DRM, digital rights management technology that controls access to content, a converter device must contact a license server over the internet to decrypt and display that signal. If the internet connection is absent or interrupted, the device cannot access the content at all. That means the channel goes dark, and any EAS alert embedded in that broadcast does not reach the viewer.

Advertisement

In ATSC 1.0, no internet connection is required to receive EAS alerts. The standard delivers alerts over the air, without any dependency on external network connectivity.

“When these devices were not connected to the Internet, EAS messages were not delivered,” Evan Fieldman, president of Weigel Broadcasting Co., wrote in the company’s June 4 ex parte letter to FCC Secretary Marlene H. Dortch.

Why the internet gap matters

Weigel’s filings framed the internet dependency as a life safety issue, not merely a technical inconvenience.

An EAS alert that fails to reach a viewer during a tornado warning or other emergency carries real consequences, and the company argued that the failure is most likely to occur precisely when it matters most, during severe weather or infrastructure disruptions that also knock out internet service.

To support that point, Weigel included data from Cisco ThousandEyes showing 85 network outages recorded across major internet providers, including Cox Communications, Comcast and Charter Communications, during a single 24-hour window between June 1 and June 2, 2026.

The company also cited figures from the National Association of Broadcasters‘ own FCC filings, which noted that 19.3% of Americans with incomes below $20,000 lack an internet subscription, and that in North Carolina alone, 15% of residents lack access to high-speed internet. Those are among the viewers most likely to rely on over-the-air television as their primary source of broadcast content — and, under current ATSC 3.0 DRM deployment, the viewers most likely to lose access to EAS.

The proposed fix

Weigel proposed that the FCC require what the broadcaster called a “Broadcast PLP,” a designated layer within each ATSC 3.0 transmission that would carry at minimum 19.3 Mbps of free over-the-air video.

Under Weigel’s proposal, content within that layer could not require an internet connection to access, even if encrypted using DRM. The proposal also called for a minimum signal receive threshold equal to or better than ATSC 1.0, so that viewers would not need to purchase or reposition antennas to continue receiving over-the-air signals.

The intent, Weigel told FCC staff, is to preserve the basic promise of over-the-air television: free, accessible, internet-independent, while still allowing broadcasters flexibility to offer additional internet-connected services and features on top of the core broadcast layer.

The broadcaster also reiterated its opposition to the mandatory “flash cut” transition to ATSC 3.0 proposed by NAB, arguing that a forced transition before sufficient consumer adoption thresholds are met would leave significant portions of the viewing public behind.

Weigel called for the simulcast and substantially similar rules, which currently require broadcasters to maintain ATSC 1.0 service alongside ATSC 3.0 until adoption benchmarks are met.

Industry pushback

Not all parties to the FCC proceeding agree with Weigel’s characterization of the risk.

Advertisement

In February 2026 reply comments, ATSC 3.0 Security Authority LLC argued that content protection works alongside EAS and does not impede alert delivery, pointing to more than 18 million households with NextGen TV receivers as evidence that encrypted content can be accessed without an internet connection or subscription. Pearl TV, in January 2026 comments, said that properly implemented content protection frameworks protect content without interfering with EAS signaling.

Those arguments, however, address ATSC 3.0 televisions with built-in certified tuners, not converter devices, which operate differently and, as Weigel’s testing showed, may handle DRM license acquisition in ways that block the full channel when connectivity is absent.

Other voices at the FCC

Weigel was not alone in raising concerns with the FCC around the same period.

Nicholas Kelsey, president of Silicondust, met with FCC Media Bureau staff on June 2, 2026, and filed a follow-up letter the next day. Silicondust makes the HDHomeRun, one of the two devices Weigel used in its EAS testing, and, Kelsey noted, currently the best-selling ATSC 3.0 receiver on Amazon. Despite that market position, HDHomeRun users cannot access DRM-encrypted channels.

Kelsey proposed two rules: that television content be assigned at least 50% of the physical broadcast channel, and that television content not be encrypted. He also drew a parallel to the NTSC-to-ATSC 1.0 transition, when the FCC conditioned the shift on the viewing experience being the same or better for consumers.

“Tell broadcasters they can switch their ATSC 1.0 broadcasts to ATSC 3.0 as long as the result for viewers is the same or better,” Kelsey wrote, suggesting the FCC apply that same standard today.

Keith J. Leitch, president of One Ministries Inc., the licensee of KQSL in the San Francisco market, filed a letter on June 4 supporting Weigel’s position. Leitch endorsed Weigel’s guardrail proposals and raised a separate concern about independent stations, which are largely absent from existing ATSC 3.0 lighthouse station arrangements and could face viewership declines as the transition proceeds without additional FCC action.

“It is imperative that the FCC do all it can to help independent stations thrive,” Leitch wrote.

Whether the FCC will adopt guardrails along the lines Weigel proposed, or leave those decisions to market participants, remains an open question as the GN Docket No. 16-142 proceeding continues.

Advertisement