Forum Jump: 
 579Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 1481 Old 02-11-2017, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,278
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Is the decision about whether (and when) to begin ATSC 3.0 broadcasting entirely up to the individual stations, or does that need FCC approval? Are the new RF assignments that have resulted from this "repack" assignments that can be used for both the current ATSC system and for ATSC 3.0? In some markets, will different stations share a single RF signal to maintain the current ATSC availability, while installing new transmitters for ATSC 3.0 on the other RF allocations in the market?

It seems to me that in some markets it will be quite a long while before there are many TV sets that have ATSC 3.0 tuners.

Suggest you read the recently published FCC NPRM at http://www.fcc.gov/document/next-ge...ation-document as it covers all your concerns.

ProjectSHO89 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 1481 Old 02-11-2017, 09:29 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Topics merged

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #33 of 1481 Old 02-11-2017, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,871
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 841 Post(s)
Liked: 407
ATSC 3.0 MINIMUM REQUIRED SNR:

FYI: Summary of the various ATSC 3.0 Modulation Alternatives, Code Rates and (Theoretical) Minimum Required SNR for both Gaussian Noise and Rayleigh Fading can be found on pg8-9:
http://www.comarktv.com/wp-content/u...hite-Paper.pdf
Note that the FOUR Specific Examples for Minimum Required SNR are NOT any sort of "standard" choice for the various parameters....each station is free to select their own Waveform and hence Data Rate [may be DIFFERENT for EACH Sub-Channel] from the (74?) checkmarked MODCOD (Modulation+Coding) Tables. [Oh man....kids in the back of their parent's SUV will LOSE their HD Program when freeway speed is over 49-mph!!! SO CLOSE....]

Slide 12 in the ATSC 3.0 Overview Brief shows a blow-up of the Min Required SNR [Gaussian Noise] for ATSC 3.0 vs ATSC 1.0 (per A/53), as well as ATSC-M/H A/153 and DVB-T2 (latest expansion to DVB-T):
http://www.wica.intec.ugent.be/files...3_Chernock.pdf
More details in fol. Technical Paper by Lachlan Michael and David Gómez-Barquero:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ng_for_ATSC_30

Still need to locate a TABLE showing ALL of the different Alternatives, with resultant Data Rates and SNR for both Gaussian and Rayleigh Noise Statistics.....such as weblinks for DVB-T and DVB-T2 in my earlier Post #8.

HOWEVER, since ATSC 3.0 can support Distributed Transmitters (DTx), performance can be ENHANCED by having Multiple Signals coming on from Different Directions and Signal Paths, as discussed in fol. ATSC 3.0 MIMO Paper:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...MO_for_ATSC_30

Although they did NOT specifically address the Min Required SNR issue, fol. is a Summary of OTA ATSC 3.0 Tests at Madison, WI and Cleveland, OH, incl. Mobile Performance:
http://www.gatesair.com/documents/ne....0-Testing.pdf
http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2015/07/fi...-3-0-standard/

Since production ATSC 3.0 Tuners are not yet available for ATSC 3.0 [Korea should be first], it's WAY too premature to know what the ACTUAL Performance will be.

BTW: ATSC 3.0 Spec, A322-2016-Physical-Layer-Protocol, Appendix M [Info Only, NOT Mandatory] discusses methods for reducing the Peak-To-Average Ratio when Transmitting....and important consideration when Transmitters are Peak Voltage Limited and the AVERAGE Power must be DERATED (lowered) so that the Peaks only occur very infrequently. During the early ATSC vs COFDM comparisons, this was one of the factors where ATSC 1.0 had a bit of an advantage vs DVB-T.....but I would expect to see that these new signal processing techniques allow significant increase in the Average Transmitted Power. But we won't know by how much until production ATSC 3.0 Transmitter Specs are released. [Since Peak Excursions are relative RARE and actual Information is carried by the PHASE of the signals, it should be fairly easy for the Signal Processor in the Exciter to simply "round-off" the Peaks....avoiding the use of a hard "clipper" which would generate Distortion.]

PS: Way back when, some co-workers tried to use a mini-computer to Synthesize a Multi-Tone QPSK Waveform [for Modem in 3 kHz HF Band]. They [very logically] started ALL of the Sine Waves at Zero, with ALL Amplitudes INCREASING....yup...it indeed MAXIMIZED the Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR) as ALL of the components were initially IN-PHASE...and had a distinct REPEATING Pattern of SPIKES, irrespective of the actual Data Stream. After using a computer to analyze numerous Random "Picks" for the starting phase, they managed to MINIMIZE PAR to significantly BETTER than anything else on the Market at that time.

Last edited by holl_ands; 02-11-2017 at 01:06 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 1481 Old 02-11-2017, 03:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
What I'm beginning to think ATSC 3.0 is really all about....

The abilities of ATSC 3.0 are way beyond my understanding.
But I can read (from http://www.wica.intec.ugent.be/files...3_Chernock.pdf), and this scares me a little:

"What do we need?
A means to support subscription and pay-per-view services....."

This old cynic wonders if that isn't what all the fuss is really about...
nathill is offline  
post #35 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 03:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
The abilities of ATSC 3.0 are way beyond my understanding.
But I can read (from http://www.wica.intec.ugent.be/files...3_Chernock.pdf), and this scares me a little:

"What do we need?
A means to support subscription and pay-per-view services....."

This old cynic wonders if that isn't what all the fuss is really about...
Same as DVB has always had then...

In some countries the economics have made sense to keep the platform free-to-air (like the UK - where there are very few pay-TV services OTA), whilst others have used it is as a form of 'Cable-Lite' with all but the public-service or main 'analogue' services pay-TV... In many countries, the switch from analogue - where you had around 3-6 SD analogue stations all free-to-air (*) - to SD or SD+HD DVB, where you have capacity for 50+ services easily, meant that a mix of free and pay-TV made sense, and the commercial pay-TV operators subsidised the roll out of the new digital transmission system (in many countries stations don't own their transmitters in the same way as the US)

In Europe a LOT of OTA services are subscription/pay-TV. When I take my DVB-T/T2 tuner on holiday I often only get a couple of unencrypted OTA channels in places like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands etc.

In Germany they are switching some channels from SD 16:9 MPEG2 FTA on DVB-T (i.e. unencrypted) to HD 1080p50 and 720p50 H265/HEVC on DVB-T2 but with a small monthly subscription... (On satellite the HD channels are already pay-TV, but the SD versions are simulcast FTA. There isn't the capacity for FTA SD on OTA...)

I think the reality is that any OTA system has to include provision for pay-TV if it is going to be a global standard, or one of them. In Japan all OTA TV is encrypted (apart possibly from the 1-seg stuff aimed at mobile devices) - not all of it is pay-TV though.

Hasn't ATSC 1.0 had this functionality added anyway? ISTR there were pay-TV H264 broadcasts in 'spare' ATSC capacity on some stations?

(*) France actually had encrypted analogue OTA for Canal+, and the BBC encrypted analogue overnight for air-time sales for minority third party distribution sevices. AIUI there were some encrypted analogue broadcasts in the US at one point in the 80s? (ONTV?)

Last edited by sneals2000; 02-12-2017 at 03:59 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #36 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 08:10 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Hasn't ATSC 1.0 had this functionality added anyway? ISTR there were pay-TV H264 broadcasts in 'spare' ATSC capacity on some stations?
Starz and Showtime are apparently available with an Airbox subscription on some ION stations. I can see both on a channel scan in Tampa, but can't view anything without said Airbox. Also, WKRC in Cincinnati used some bandwidth for a subscription internet service called Webhopper some years ago. So, yeah, this is nothing new.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 02-12-2017 at 08:32 AM.
DrDon is offline  
post #37 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2541 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
That's right. Don't know about PPV, but the Airbox subscription TV service has been around for some time, using good ol' ATSC 1.0. So while that may have been a 3.0 requirement, it's not new.

Interestingly, while Airbox video is encrypted, its audio is not. If you have an ordinary MStar tuner (such as iView, HomeWorX, etc.) and an Airbox station in your area (scan your local Ion affiliate if you aren't sure), you can listen to the Airbox channels, as well as view the EPG. (If you don't hear the audio, try pressing Mute on your STB's remote twice.) Admittedly, Showtime, Starz, etc. aren't very compelling without video, but it is an interesting bit of trivia.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #38 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 01:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
The last three posts have been very informative for me.
I had no idea pay-per-view OTA was that far along in other areas of the world, or that it was even in existence in the USA.
Silly obvious question, but I have to assume any over-the-air service that requires a subscription will by definition require a set top box. Right?
With around half a dozen TVs scattered all over my house, that's not a very appealing thought.
I rather enjoy free 1080i (plus a bunch of sub-channels) on all of my sets, and am afraid it will all end when ATSC 3.0 has a little time to settle in.
nathill is offline  
post #39 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 04:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,871
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 841 Post(s)
Liked: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
I do not think so in the specific case of KTNC, they cleaned up their signal with the filter, removed any old un-used attached parts, cleaned up and painted any suspected parts and other things the expert said to do. For other stations on RF 14 I believe the same would apply as the format of the RF 14 signal does not matter.

My understanding of the problem, and I cannot find the 2014-2015 documents to refresh my memory, is that:

The tower is an old rusty one that has a rusty metal to metal joint that acts like a diode causing the RF 14 signal to generate the interfering frequencies. They just cannot find it.

I am sure someone else who has been in a EE class decades after my last class in 1968 can provide a better answer.

SHF
It's called PIM (Passive Intermodulation Distortion):
http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf...s-tutorial.php
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/sta...number=6983562

I did not hear about PIM in any of my EE Classes....came from actual work experience....

I'm no expert in the field of PIM, but I DO know quite a bit about Adaptive Antenna Arrays...and hence also Direction Finders. Seems to me that a Pair of Antennas mounted several feet apart can be used as a MOBILE Direction Finder, where the Antennas are connected OUT-OF-PHASE, so that the resultant VERY NARROWBAND NULL can be directed at the Tower until the PIM signals are minimized to point toward WHICH Tower Leg is at fault and when turned around so it is Vertical, WHICH HEIGHT to start grinding down the RUST and if necessary, start replacing Rusty Rivets....

Last edited by holl_ands; 02-13-2017 at 01:04 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #40 of 1481 Old 02-12-2017, 04:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,871
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 841 Post(s)
Liked: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
The last three posts have been very informative for me.
I had no idea pay-per-view OTA was that far along in other areas of the world, or that it was even in existence in the USA.
Silly obvious question, but I have to assume any over-the-air service that requires a subscription will by definition require a set top box. Right?
With around half a dozen TVs scattered all over my house, that's not a very appealing thought.
I rather enjoy free 1080i (plus a bunch of sub-channels) on all of my sets, and am afraid it will all end when ATSC 3.0 has a little time to settle in.
Currently PC's, some OLD "Digital Cable Ready" DTV's and a FEW (damn few, e.g. TiVo, Ceton, Samsung, et. al.) Cable DVR's can host the CableCARD Decryption Module...which was a defective design, requiring the use of the external TiVo Tuning Adapter Box to decode the CORRECT Cable Channel Numbers, etc. And DTV mfrs never picked up the gauntlet to FINISH the development so you only needed to plug CableCARD into the Back of the DTV to access ALL two-way Cable Services.

This SAME approach COULD be FINISHED to support Encrypted ATSC 3.0 (and Cable...perhaps even SAT) signals...perhaps as part of FCC's current effort to loosen the grip that Cable Co's have on Box Rentals.....

SOFTWARE Based Encryption has been developed and even released in some cases. Embedding the AES-128/256 Encryption/Decryption Algorithm into the PC [and DTV?] Processor Chips also makes it extremely difficult to Hack. It COULD be part of ATSC 3.0 Encrypted Services if the developers....and COPYRIGHT holders can ever AGREE on an acceptable approach....COULD happen, but I wouldn't count on it....

Last edited by holl_ands; 02-13-2017 at 03:14 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #41 of 1481 Old 02-14-2017, 01:52 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
ATSC 3.0 chips in the iPhone and other smartphones? Don’t hold your breath
by Ben Munson | Feb 3, 2017 4:34pm


The ATSC 3.0 suite of standards is likely to be finalized by the start of the National Association of Broadcasters’ annual show in April 2017.

ATSC 3.0 technology—the audio and video transmission standard TV broadcasters are hoping to eventually migrate to—carries with it the promise of many new features, including delivering enhanced broadcast TV to mobile devices. But that means, at some point, new receivers will be needed in those devices, and that process will take time.

The ATSC 3.0 suite of standards is likely to be finalized by the start of the National Association of Broadcasters’ annual show in April 2017 and will be comprised of sections including PHY, delivery, personalization and security. It recently received a boost when the FCC initiated a public rulemaking process for the standard, which will serve to authorize ATSC 3.0 for commercial use.

In its filing, the FCC said that ATSC 3.0 will help enable Ultra High Definition (UHD) picture and immersive audio, more localized programming content, an advanced emergency alert system, better accessibility options and interactive services.

“With today’s action, we aim to facilitate private sector innovation and promote American leadership in the global broadcast industry,” the FCC wrote in today’s filing.

Final authorization from the FCC likely won’t happen until the end of 2017, meaning that the transition to ATSC 3.0 won’t begin in earnest until 2018. The process will take years but, for new features outlined by the FCC as well as mobile broadcasts, many broadcasters are keen to make the transition.

Mobile a big selling point

In fact, mobile has been one of the biggest selling points so far for broadcasters considering the costly and time-consuming jump to ATSC 3.0.

Dave Arland, spokesperson for the Advanced Television Systems Committee, which is responsible for developing the ATSC 3.0 standards, said ATSC 1.0 also had a mobile capacity baked in after that standard was adopted in the ’90s but that 1.0 was more designed for reception by a living room TV connected to a rooftop antenna.

“The smartphone and the tablet didn’t exist at that time,” Arland told FierceBroadcasting.

Of course, smartphones and tablets have greatly proliferated in the U.S. market since ATSC 1.0 was adopted and ATSC 3.0 is being designed to better cater to those devices.

“ATSC 3.0 anticipates that many viewers may be watching on a future device with an embedded ATSC 3.0 tuner,” said Arland. “So it will be possible to receive a signal and display it deep inside a building or for a passenger to view live TV on a mobile device in a car or train.”

Products for the home will come first

ATSC 3.0 will first focus on products in the home, where the bulk of broadcast TV viewing happens. Through early ATSC 3.0 gateways, like the combination Wi-Fi router and TV tuner products that LG showed off at the NAB show last year, ATSC 3.0 signals will be distributed in the home and that will likely be how mobile devices first get access to ATSC 3.0 content.

But for a truly mobile experience that follows out of the home and off Wi-Fi, chipset receivers will need to be embedded in devices.

According to Arland, once ATSC 3.0 is set in stone, chipmakers will be able to build an ATSC 3.0 receiving chip with the full capacity of standard. After that, it’s time to take the ATSC 3.0 case to mobile OEMs like Apple, Samsung, LG and other smartphone and tablet vendors, as well as mobile device chipset vendors like Qualcomm and MediaTek.

“Negotiations would need to take place with the mobile phone manufacturers and cellular companies to plan integration of this functionality and to enable its use—much the same as what happened with Wi-Fi chips several years ago,” Arland said.

Sam Matheny, chief technology officer for NAB, said that, like Wi-Fi, he envisions ATSC 3.0 support finding its way into the more all-purpose communications chip.

“As the technology matures, we’d love to see the chipmakers include ATSC 3.0 in a multipurpose communications chip,” Matheny said.

Matheny was careful not to push out the integration timetable for ATSC 3.0 in mobile device chips too far but did admit that the development will take time.

“I do think that ATSC 3.0 is going to be in mobile devices and that those chips will be there,” said Matheny. “But it’s going to be a staged approach. … It’s just a matter of timing.”

“Somebody has to blink”

Roger Entner, telecom analyst, said getting device makers to incorporate ATSC 3.0 chips might be difficult because it could cause incremental increases to device costs and squeeze margins, leaving OEMs searching for the upside of building it in. He also added that it won’t be much of a debate until the standards are in use.

“Nobody is going to put in the chips unless they’re broadcasting. Somebody has to blink and it’s not going to be the OEMs,” Entner said.

Of course, the idea of delivering broadcast TV over IP isn’t exactly new.

More than 10 years ago, Qualcomm launched a mobile TV service called Flo TV, based on its MediaFlo technology that allowed for real-time audio and video to be delivered to mobile devices via IP networks. Carriers like AT&T and Verizon offered the service, which for $10 per month would deliver network programming from the Disney Channel, Comedy Central and Fox News. Qualcomm eventually shuttered the service and sold the spectrum it used to AT&T.

Since that time, Qualcomm has become involved in some of the specialist groups developing the management and protocol technologies within the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards.

Currently, vMVPDs like DirecTV Now, PlayStation Vue and Sling TV all offer varying amounts of local broadcast content, and major broadcasters like CBS have launched standalone IP-based streaming products, meaning that lots of broadcast television is already being delivered over the internet. That fact could affect the decision of mobile device makers considering adding ATSC 3.0 capabilities to their smartphones and tablets.

Of course, having a chipmaker like Qualcomm working on the standards and a smartphone maker like LG developing ATSC 3.0-compatible consumer electronics may bode well for the mobile future of ATSC 3.0. But mobile carriers will also have a say in whether ATSC 3.0 support is built into mobile devices.

While wireless carriers haven’t necessarily come out against ATSC 3.0, they have certainly signaled some hesitation around the technology. Both AT&T and CTIA, a group serving wireless industry interests, have urged the FCC to not award channel repack funds to broadcasters for ATSC 3.0 transition work following the end of the 600 MHz broadcast incentive auctions. Verizon, though it may have cooled to the idea of offering video over LTE-broadcast technology, may still be reticent to see next-gen TV service technology baked into the mobile devices it offers.

Wireless carriers were also resistant to turning on FM radio chips in smartphones, likely due in part to the rise of streaming music services and the fact that FM radio reception wouldn’t cost users any mobile data.

Benefits will drive a solution

Matheny said the key thing that broadcasters can do to ensure ATSC 3.0 chips make it into mobile devices is to focus on getting through the regulatory process and earn the FCC’s blessing to transmit ATSC 3.0 signals.

“From there we think that the benefits are really going to help drive a market-based solution,” said Matheny.

Among those other benefits of IP-based standards like ATSC 3.0 besides mobile, which Matheny discussed during the NAB Show New York in November, is moving to orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing and better compression technology that will free up more bandwidth for offering 4K Ultra HD, high dynamic range and immersive audio.

Matheny added that it helps that ATSC 3.0 has already been adopted in South Korea and broadcasts are beginning there this year, which will give a leg up to big consumer electronics manufacturers based in South Korea like Samsung and LG.

“They’re already beginning to build ATSC 3.0 devices. They’ll be deployed in South Korea first and we think that’s really going to lay the groundwork for deployment in the U.S. and other places as well,” Matheny said.

Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications for the NAB, added that, by broadcasters having the most popular TV content, it should more than incentivize device makers to add ATSC 3.0 compatibility.

“Those are incentives that we think will drive demand on the part of viewers, who will then ask the smartphone makers to get the chips in mobile devices down the road,” Wharton told FierceBroadcasting.

http://www.fiercecable.com/broadcast...ld-your-breath
jeff_rigby likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #42 of 1481 Old 02-14-2017, 05:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
The last three posts have been very informative for me.
I had no idea pay-per-view OTA was that far along in other areas of the world, or that it was even in existence in the USA.
Silly obvious question, but I have to assume any over-the-air service that requires a subscription will by definition require a set top box. Right?
With around half a dozen TVs scattered all over my house, that's not a very appealing thought.
I rather enjoy free 1080i (plus a bunch of sub-channels) on all of my sets, and am afraid it will all end when ATSC 3.0 has a little time to settle in.
Slight correction - it's not usually pay-per-view - it's almost always regular subscription pay-TV. (Pay-per-view is where you pay a one-off fee to watch a single event - like a boxing match, or to watch a movie before it is on a regular movie channel)

The rest of the world does TV quite a bit differently to North America.

In Europe we have a common platform (DVB) for OTA, satellite and cable, that has compatible CAM slot (CAM='conditional access module') (not all providers will use CAMs - but their support is mandated in TVs with digital receivers). This means you can buy a TV like mine - a Sony UHD set from late 2015 - which has a couple of DVB-T/T2/C (combined OTA and Cable) tuners and a pair of DVB-S/S2 satellite tuners - and there is a slot that would let me put in a CAM to allow me to watch encrypted OTA, Cable or Satellite broadcasts (you buy your CAM separately, and it has a slot for a viewing card) In the UK - none of the major Pay-TV satellite or cable providers offer CAMs, and we don't have much in the way of encrypted OTA, but if you look to France, Germany, Scandinavia etc. the picture is very different, and CAMs are much more popular.

DVB-T is our first gen OTA modulation system, DVB-T2 is the second gen one. DVB-C is the cable system. DVB-S is the first gen digital satellite system, S2 is the second gen one.

Last edited by sneals2000; 02-14-2017 at 06:03 PM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #43 of 1481 Old 02-14-2017, 06:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Sneals2000 - thanks for the great detailed information

Sneals2000
I'm the clown that inserted "pay-per-view" into the discussion.
You have sure opened up my eyes by revealing how advanced the rest of the world is in over-the-air broadcasting technology.
I simply have so blasted many televisions scattered around the house that are all now working so well, I just hate the thought of having to start all over with set-top-boxes as we did the last time around here in the USA.
But I can see it coming and now understand that the USA is certainly not the trail-blazer in the area.
Thanks!
nathill is offline  
post #44 of 1481 Old 02-15-2017, 07:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Randolph, NJ, 725' above sea level, 30 miles west of ESB
Posts: 2,020
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 433 Post(s)
Liked: 314
How will this impact the cable and satellite providers? Will they get a pass on this issue or will they be impacted and their customers impacted?
LenL is offline  
post #45 of 1481 Old 02-15-2017, 12:32 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by LenL View Post
How will this impact the cable and satellite providers? Will they get a pass on this issue or will they be impacted and their customers impacted?
NTCA says, “Cable operators have no legal obligation to carry the ATSC 3.0 signal during the transition. Carriage of an ATSC 1.0 signal will continue to fulfill cable operators’ obligations.”

Here's a good read on the technical issues facing retransmission: http://www.adgorilla.com/atsc-3-0-and-mvpds/
aaronwt likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #46 of 1481 Old 02-16-2017, 02:09 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
TV/Business Notes (Cable)
Cable Ops Have ATSC 3.0 Questions
Ask FCC, nicely, to do more drilling down in NPRM

By John Eggerton, broadcastingandcable.com Feb. 15, 2017

Cable operators have some questions they want the FCC to answer about how broadcasters will be allowed to roll out the new ATSC 3.0 transmission standard and what new bandwidth demands will be put on MVPDs who carry the signals.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has circulated an item for a vote at the Feb. 23 meeting that would allow a voluntary rollout of the new standard, with the requirement (it is incompatible with current sets) that TV stations continue to deliver their regular programming in the current format. The item also asks a lot of questions about how that test/transition should be handled.

In a letter to the FCC, the American Television Alliance (ATVA), whose members include cable and satellite operators and others, praises the FCC for the new step of releasing the draft text of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before the vote—a Pai FCC reform pilot project—and for the number of questions the draft raises.

While going out of its way not to criticize the draft per se, the group does offer up areas where it thinks "additional specificity" in the NPRM's questions would be helpful.

The draft broadly asks for comment on any deviations from the required simulcasting of TV station signals—cable operators would be required to carry the existing format but not the ATSC 3.0 signals as well, though they could choose to and would eventually have to switch to the ATSC 3.0 version once that became the new standard.

ATVA suggested drilling down with follow-ups, including asking whether stations should be permitted to simulcast in a lower format—standard vs. HD—and the impact on MVPD subs; whether they should be able to simulcast non-identical content; whether existing retrans deals cover simulcasts; and what simulcasting notice requirements there should be.

ATVA also said the NPRM should ask how much bandwidth an ATSC 3.0 signal will consume; whether, as the NPRM suggests, broadcasters can fit two ATSC 3.0 signals on a single facility; how much ATSC 3.0 coverage areas may differ or will be allowed to differ from current coverage; and if the ATSC 3.0 in some configurations expands coverage, should broadcasters be encouraged to do so.

ATVA has a number of questions about capacity including how much MVPD bandwidth ATSC 3.0 will consumer once it becomes the new standard.

Those questions include how that additional bandwidth requirement will impact MVPDs, program networks—would some have to be displaced to make room—and subs, as well as the cost of equipment for MVPDs and subs to receive the new signals.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...estions/163355

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #47 of 1481 Old 02-17-2017, 08:03 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
TV Notes (Cable)
Indies Share ACA's ATSC 3.0 Capacity Concerns
Tell FCC they are at risk if channels have to be dropped to make room
By John Eggerton broadcastingandcable.com - February 17th, 2017

Independent programmers, including some familiar names, have joined the American Cable Association to express concerns at the FCC about the impact of the new ATSC 3.0 broadcast TV transmission standard on MVPD capacity and say the FCC should make capacity issues part of its upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) authorizing transmissions.

In a filing with the FCC, the Outdoor channel, Herring Networks, Cinémoi and five others pointed out that ACA had said that ATSC 3.0 would force MVPDs to allocate added capacity to broadcast stations leaving less room for other networks.

Independents have already argued it is hard enough now to get carriage, with bandwidth often the reason given by MVPDs.

Broadcasters have told the FCC they do not expect MVPDs to carry their signals in both ATSC 3.0 and the current standard, and the FCC is not proposing to require MVPDs to carry ATSC 3.0 signals, at least at first.

But ACA has said broadcasters are likely to try and force that dual carriage, that ATSC 3,0 will likely require more bandwidth than the current format, and programmers are worried.

"[U]sing ACA’s assumptions, 'a cable operator would have to remove at least six HD cable channels in order to make room for higher resolution versions of the ‘Big Four,' " ACA said.

The programmers said that while the believe their content can compete with any in the market, "as programmers unaffiliated with the largest conglomerates, our offerings will be at particular risk should the transition to ATSC 3.0 compel MVPDs to eliminate cable channels."

The FCC is planning to vote Feb. 23 on the proposal to allow broadcasters to start rolling out ATSC 3.0 on a voluntary basis, so long as they continue to simulcast their primary channel in the current transmission format--ATSC 3.0 is not compatible with current sets.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...oncerns/163419

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #48 of 1481 Old 02-18-2017, 04:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
TV Notes (Cable)
Indies Share ACA's ATSC 3.0 Capacity Concerns
Tell FCC they are at risk if channels have to be dropped to make room
By John Eggerton broadcastingandcable.com - February 17th, 2017

Independent programmers, including some familiar names, have joined the American Cable Association to express concerns at the FCC about the impact of the new ATSC 3.0 broadcast TV transmission standard on MVPD capacity and say the FCC should make capacity issues part of its upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) authorizing transmissions.
<SNIP>
It's interesting to compare the US and European markets. The split between broadcasters and transmitter operators / platform operators is much more delineated here - even in the UK where the BBC and ITV/C4 have dedicated muxes. In the UK we have :

PSB1 - BBC SD Mux (DVB-T) carries all BBC SD services
PSB2 - ITV/C4 SD Mux (DVB-T) carries many (but not all) ITV/C4 SD services and C5 SD
PSB3 - BBC One HD, BBC Two HD, CBBC HD, ITV HD, C4 HD, C5 HD (and Film 4+1 SD) (DVB-T2) Licensed to the BBC but they provide capacity to commercial terrestrials
COM4-6 - Arqiva operated commercial SD DVB-T muxes, which are available to any programme provider
COM7-8 - Arqiva operated commercial SD/HD DVB-T2 muxes, which are available to any programme provider. (Not as universal as COM 4-6) The BBC have commercially purchased capacity on COM7 to carry more HD services (BBC News HD, BBC Four HD, CBeebies HD)
LOC - a local mux (using low power QPSK DVB-T not QAM) which is only available in some areas and is much lower bitrate.

All the transmitters are operated by Arqiva (formed by a merger of the ITV/C4/C5 and BBC transmitter operators), who also handle distribution (apart possibly from the LOC mux)

PSB1-3 have wider carriage than COM4-8 as Arqiva have decided not to build out their commercial platforms as they don't see it providing decent returns, and there are issues with increasing COM7-8 coverage of frequency availability, whereas PSB1-3 have a public service duty and thus are more widespread.

Effectively PSB3 is like an 'all your major HD networks on one channel' solution...

Most of Europe uses a similar, nationally co-ordinated model, with the main PSBs having dedicated spectrum, and a commercial platform operator running the rest on a 'level playing field' basis.

The US model of individual stations owning and operating their transmitters and running them independently is anathema here. (Having a properly co-ordinated terrestrial network means things like pan-mux EPG carriage, co-ordinated channel numbering across the country etc. 'just work'. Having a 7 day EPG with series link, dynamic programme start/stop signalling for PVRs etc - and which doesn't require you to be tuned to any specific channel to get listings for any other channel is a major benefit to the platform.)

Last edited by sneals2000; 02-18-2017 at 04:22 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #49 of 1481 Old 02-18-2017, 07:06 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
ATSC 3.0 Testing
FCC Ok's ATSC 3.0 DTS Experiment on KKEI-CD, Portland, OR
By Deborah D. McAdams tvtechnology.com - February 17th, 2017

A low-power broadcaster in the Pacific Northwest plans to fire up ATSC 3.0 broadcasts on multiple frequencies over a distributed transmission system, or DTS. WatchTV of Portland had requested an experimental license from the Federal Communications Commission to allow its Portland-area Class A low-power stations to be used for a ATSC 3.0 DTS. The request was granted Tuesday, Feb. 14. WatchTV has six months to run its experimental broadcasts with the caveat that they don’t cause interference.

“We... conclude that the public interest would be served by the grant of this request since the information obtained from the experiment may be valuable to the commission’s broadband initiative. However, we caution you that an experimental facility is secondary and may be summarily terminated if the operation causes interference to any other broadcast facility, ” the commission said in its Feb. 14 determination.

Specifically, WatchTV requested it be allowed to use its KKEI-CD facility, broadcasting on Ch.38, to transmit a ATSC 3.0 signal over a DTS configured of two more sites. ATSC 3.0 broadcasts also will be transmitted on frequencies occupied by three more WatchTV stations that share the KKEI-CD transmitter site—KORS-CD at Ch. 16; KOXI-CD at Ch. 20; and KORK-CD at Ch. 35. The primary signals of each of these stations will be carried on a fifth WatchTV licensee, KOXO-CD, transmitting on Ch. 41.

“All spurious emissions on all channels will be confined within the limits applicable to ATSC 1.0 transmissions,” WatchTV’s application stated. “Because ATSC 3.0 is an OFDM‐based system, the potential for interference to other stations transmitting ATSC 1.0 facilities will be less than the potential from the existing licensed ATSC 1.0 facilities of the four stations. The emission mask at all three transmitter sites will be stringent.”

Facilities at the two DTS sites, Spud Mountain and Bald Peak West, (Fig. 1, above right) were designed to ensure that their 51 dBu signal contour remained within the contour of the KKEI-CD originating facility, WatchTV said.

The broadcaster said its objectives included learning more about ATSC 3.0 signal propagation characteristics “in a geographic area with much more uneven terrain than exists in the Washington‐ Baltimore area, where Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. conducted its recent experimental operations.” Additionally, WatchTV said it would explore delivery of multiple data services alongside various TV formats, including Ultra HD, and that it wanted to see if multifrequency network broadcasting would increase the data capacity of ATSC 3.0.

“WTV’s experiment will use four channels. WTV’s program will be the first experiment of which it is aware in which spectrum will be available to test spreading data across multiple TV channels while each channel is also transmitting single‐channel video content,” the WatchTV application stated.

WatchTV further said it wished to “explore the benefits of distributed antenna systems by transmitting simultaneously from three transmitter sites initially, with the possibility that a request will be filed at a later date to add more sites,” and to “explore the robustness and capabilities of a multi‐frequency system to deliver video and other content to mobile receivers”

Greg Herman, WatchTV president and CEO, told Mike Gravino of the LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition he was grateful to the FCC staff for their “rapid assessment and approval of our experimental application.

“As we have contended for many years, television broadcasters in the United States are in dire need of a new and technologically advanced television broadcasting system.

“The world has passed us by in the last decade, and left us in a place where broadcast television spectrum is no longer relevant in the daily lives of average Americans. This must change, and we believe that ATSC 3.0, next-generation TV is an essential step in this evolution.

“Further, we are excited and encouraged to demonstrate the essential role Class A and LPTV broadcasters and their spectrum can play in the new ATSC 3.0 ecosystem. We want to be first and we want to be the best we can be!”


http://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/00...dts-sta/280385

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #50 of 1481 Old 02-18-2017, 05:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I call BS on these comments

"As we have contended for many years, television broadcasters in the United States are in dire need of a new and technologically advanced television broadcasting system."

Really, who says that, besides the broadcasters already charging cable/satellite millions to rebroadcast their signal and awash in profits??? I'm finally enjoying OTA tv without the need for set top boxes.

“The world has passed us by in the last decade, and left us in a place where broadcast television spectrum is no longer relevant in the daily lives of average Americans. This must change, and we believe that ATSC 3.0, next-generation TV is an essential step in this evolution. "

Who, besides the greedy broadcasters, is screaming for this change?
I humbly submit that OTA ATSC 1.0 HDTV is highly relevant in the lives of many folks (including me), and if broadcasters and cable don't quit jacking each other around, OTA will continue to gain even more users.
jjeff and JHBrandt like this.
nathill is offline  
post #51 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 02:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
"As we have contended for many years, television broadcasters in the United States are in dire need of a new and technologically advanced television broadcasting system."

Really, who says that, besides the broadcasters already charging cable/satellite millions to rebroadcast their signal and awash in profits??? I'm finally enjoying OTA tv without the need for set top boxes.

“The world has passed us by in the last decade, and left us in a place where broadcast television spectrum is no longer relevant in the daily lives of average Americans. This must change, and we believe that ATSC 3.0, next-generation TV is an essential step in this evolution. "

Who, besides the greedy broadcasters, is screaming for this change?
I humbly submit that OTA ATSC 1.0 HDTV is highly relevant in the lives of many folks (including me), and if broadcasters and cable don't quit jacking each other around, OTA will continue to gain even more users.
ATSC 1.0 is an incredibly dated TV system - with very basic functionality. I can see why broadcasters in the US would want the same functionality that some of us in Europe have. Having experienced the introduction of a second gen system in the UK (and seen it adopted in many other countries in Europe - from Sweden to Germany, from Finland to Denmark) - I can see why it is happening.

In Europe our DVB-T2 system allows us 40.25Mbs in 8MHz bandwith (compared to 19.2Mbs in 6MHz), H264 or H265 compression (which is respectively 2x and nearly 4x more efficient than MPEG2), includes HbbTV or similar interactive TV services (so catchup TV is integrated into the same user interface as your pan-station EPG, streaming radio and connected Smart TV services are integrated into the broadcast experience etc., as well as high quality text information services) as well as allowing for 1080p50/59.94 (and 2160p50/59.94 potentially) I'd imagine ATSC 3.0 allows similar functionality - improvements in picture quality, delivery of more services etc.

I still find it amazing that the US doesn't have a full cross-channel EPG on OTA - we've had that since our first gen systems (where every channel carries listing for every other channel, rather than just their own) - as well as PVR series links, record start/stop triggering based on when the show ACTUALLY starts, over-run flagging and recording re-scheduling etc.

With a well implemented next-gen OTA system - you end up with an OTA system with most of the bells and whistles of satellite or cable PVRs...

As for the transition - in the UK we introduced our second-gen DVB-T2 system in 2009, when we introduced HD OTA to join our 16:9 SD OTA (as it was clear MPEG2 DVB-T was a dead-end for HD services even then). Initially it was optional, but now if you want to have the 'Freeview' logo on your TV (which is vital to sell it in the UK), the Digital TV Group that manages the UK standards for OTA (not a government body as such - just a trade body) and manages the use of the UK 'Freeview' logo, now mandates a DVB-T2 tuner that meets the Freeview HD standard is used. Now you can't buy a mainstream TV in the UK without a second-gen compatible tuner in it. This leaves us well set for another transition in 5 years or so when we will migrate all services to T2 and switch off T.
aaronwt likes this.

Last edited by sneals2000; 02-19-2017 at 03:07 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #52 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 05:03 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,197
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
“The world has passed us by in the last decade, and left us in a place where broadcast television spectrum is no longer relevant in the daily lives of average Americans. This must change, and we believe that ATSC 3.0, next-generation TV is an essential step in this evolution. "

I humbly submit that OTA ATSC 1.0 HDTV is highly relevant in the lives of many folks (including me), and if broadcasters and cable don't quit jacking each other around, OTA will continue to gain even more users.
I remind you that the key phrase here was "average Americans." If you talk to an average American today, depending on their age, they may not even know OTA TV is available for free. The average American has cable or satellite and the majority assumes that is how one gets TV if they want it.

I think the point is quite valid--OTA is not relevant to the average American, and with ATSC 1.0 being as inflexible and poor performing as it is, only a change in standard will fix it. The average person expects to be able to watch video on their phone, something ATSC 1.0 cannot do.

You know I'm as much an OTA fan as you're liable to find (RabbitEars takes quite a bit of time out of my life), but I truly believe something like ATSC 3.0 is pretty much required for OTA to have a long-term future. Yes, it's growing, but pretty slowly; how much harder would it be to justify future things like the Incentive Auction if 80% of the country used OTA instead of 15%?

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #53 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 06:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
You're more than likely right, Trip and Sneals2000

I hate it when reason, intelligence, and knowledge shoot me down.
Trip, you're right that the average American does not understand what OTA offers.
I'm beginning to wonder just what the average America does understand.
I might disagree a little with your assessment of ATSC 1.0. I find my OTA HD pictures of better quality than the equivalent cable or satellite picture, I and love the sub-channels.
I just put up an antenna for a friend who is not rich, and he is absolutely thrilled with all of the local news, and NFL football games he gets for free.
He had no idea what is (and what someday may NOT) be available for free.
My theory is that the broadcast stations really aren't interested in folks watching for free, and would rather sell their signal for big bucks to cable/satellite. I NEVER see a public service advertisement by a television station explaining how free OTA works, but can remember countless ads when UHF first starting broadcasting OTA (yeah, they really did that, and even sent out antennas for free). They clearly like charging cable for their product and aren't interested in giving it away. They will love ATSC 3.0 when they can figure out a way to charge for OTA.
What it really boils down to in my mind, is that a lot of us have a pretty good thing going with free OTA, and have spent a lot of money to adopt to ATSC 1.0.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm afraid the US government is more deeply in the pockets of big businesses than in the UK (although I clearly know very little about the UK). If US TVs can include tuners similar to what you have described in the UK, that at least gives me hope. My thought was that we would be going down the set-top-box montly rental fee world. Cable companies in the US pretty well killed cable card by refusing to work with customers.
At 69, I'm just not looking forward to another round of improvements mandated by the industry/government, but that's life, I guess.
Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned responses to my flame-throwing post.
I actually learned something by listening, which I still need to get better at.
Who knows, it it works out as well as it has in the UK, I may even become a proponent.
Thanks to both of you.

Trip, Rabbit Ears has become my go-to with so many options for my antenna (Indy, Terre Haute, and Louisville). THANKS!
PA_MainyYak likes this.

Last edited by nathill; 02-19-2017 at 06:05 AM. Reason: grammar
nathill is offline  
post #54 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I hate it when reason, intelligence, and knowledge shoot me down.
Trip, you're right that the average American does not understand what OTA offers.
I'm beginning to wonder just what the average America does understand.
I might disagree a little with your assessment of ATSC 1.0. I find my OTA HD pictures of better quality than the equivalent cable or satellite picture, I and love the sub-channels.
I just put up an antenna for a friend who is not rich, and he is absolutely thrilled with all of the local news, and NFL football games he gets for free.
He had no idea what is (and what someday may NOT) be available for free.
My theory is that the broadcast stations really aren't interested in folks watching for free, and would rather sell their signal for big bucks to cable/satellite. I NEVER see a public service advertisement by a television station explaining how free OTA works, but can remember countless ads when UHF first starting broadcasting OTA (yeah, they really did that, and even sent out antennas for free). They clearly like charging cable for their product and aren't interested in giving it away. They will love ATSC 3.0 when they can figure out a way to charge for OTA.
What it really boils down to in my mind, is that a lot of us have a pretty good thing going with free OTA, and have spent a lot of money to adopt to ATSC 1.0.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm afraid the US government is more deeply in the pockets of big businesses than in the UK (although I clearly know very little about the UK). If US TVs can include tuners similar to what you have described in the UK, that at least gives me hope. My thought was that we would be going down the set-top-box montly rental fee world. Cable companies in the US pretty well killed cable card by refusing to work with customers.
At 69, I'm just not looking forward to another round of improvements mandated by the industry/government, but that's life, I guess.
Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned responses to my flame-throwing post.
I actually learned something by listening, which I still need to get better at.
Who knows, it it works out as well as it has in the UK, I may even become a proponent.
Thanks to both of you.

Trip, Rabbit Ears has become my go-to with so many options for my antenna (Indy, Terre Haute, and Louisville). THANKS!
This may be an interesting read for how the UK market works. Ofcom is the UK equivalent-ish of the FCC.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...7495/uk_tv.pdf

Figure 2.34 shows 2001-2015 and the UK household breakdown between analogue OTA, digital OTA, Cable, Satellite Pay-TV, Free Satellite TV, and other platforms like IPTV. (Though this doesn't split DVB-T first gen and DVB-T2 second gen platforms)

You can see how popular digital OTA is in the UK - and even in households where pay-TV satellite and cable are primary viewing platforms, OTA digital is often there on second or third TVs.

Last edited by sneals2000; 02-19-2017 at 09:59 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #55 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 10:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Channel99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I hate it when reason, intelligence, and knowledge shoot me down.
Trip, you're right that the average American does not understand what OTA offers.
I'm beginning to wonder just what the average America does understand.
I might disagree a little with your assessment of ATSC 1.0. I find my OTA HD pictures of better quality than the equivalent cable or satellite picture, I and love the sub-channels.
I just put up an antenna for a friend who is not rich, and he is absolutely thrilled with all of the local news, and NFL football games he gets for free.
He had no idea what is (and what someday may NOT) be available for free.
My theory is that the broadcast stations really aren't interested in folks watching for free, and would rather sell their signal for big bucks to cable/satellite. I NEVER see a public service advertisement by a television station explaining how free OTA works, but can remember countless ads when UHF first starting broadcasting OTA (yeah, they really did that, and even sent out antennas for free). They clearly like charging cable for their product and aren't interested in giving it away. They will love ATSC 3.0 when they can figure out a way to charge for OTA.
What it really boils down to in my mind, is that a lot of us have a pretty good thing going with free OTA, and have spent a lot of money to adopt to ATSC 1.0.
The primary problem with the future of ATSC 3.0, is that it isn't compatible with current OTA TV's, and the FCC screwed up any chance for it to be successful by not convincing Congress to include the requirement of having all TV's sold for the past few years to have some form of update mechanism (not specifically to ATSC 3.0) via software, a plug-in card, or a port of some kind. The percentage of the remaining OTA viewers who are going to rush to replace their TV's or buy the ATSC 3.0 equivalent of the original DTV converter boxes will be small. Also, after the repack, in many areas, the only way to fit in new ATSC 3.0 signals, while keeping the current ATSC 1.0 signals for a few years, with their subchannels, will be to heavily use the interference-ridden low and high VHF bands. And since the FCC does far too little to regulate equipment that generates that interference, those mainly unused channels are filling with noise that is not noticed now.

As long as the ATSC 1.0 signals remain, which may not be the newest technology, then all but the most high-tech hungry OTA viewers will continue to use it, and if the FCC decides to add a shutdown date for ATSC 1.0, then most of the remaining OTA viewers will just give in and switch to cable or satellite, and those in locations or financial situations that can't do that will just give up TV. It's hard to see how that could be justified to viewers, broadcasters, or Congress, without a driving force behind it, such as the huge $$ from the telcos that drove the repack. And by the time it could be fully implemented, ATSC 3.0 will be old, outdated technology, and something like ATSC 4.0 will be already in testing.
Channel99 is offline  
post #56 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 01:45 PM
Senior Member
 
L David Matheny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
Trip, you're right that the average American does not understand what OTA offers.
I'm beginning to wonder just what the average America does understand.
Obviously the average American doesn't understand government, and most don't understand how insurance works, to give two examples. People are amazingly adept at believing whatever they want to believe, which is usually whatever is in their selfish interest. Objective facts are troublesome and easily ignored or rationalized away. Such behavior is especially worrisome in our elected leaders. Ultimately reality will exact a price, but sadly all of us will pay, not just the deluded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I might disagree a little with your assessment of ATSC 1.0. I find my OTA HD pictures of better quality than the equivalent cable or satellite picture, I and love the sub-channels.
I just put up an antenna for a friend who is not rich, and he is absolutely thrilled with all of the local news, and NFL football games he gets for free.
He had no idea what is (and what someday may NOT) be available for free.
OTA TV isn't exactly "free". We pay for it by having it polluted with commercial advertising, which is typically not targeted enough to be useful to more than a tiny minority of viewers. The obsolete 20th-Century advertising model will not disappear easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
My theory is that the broadcast stations really aren't interested in folks watching for free, and would rather sell their signal for big bucks to cable/satellite. I NEVER see a public service advertisement by a television station explaining how free OTA works, but can remember countless ads when UHF first starting broadcasting OTA (yeah, they really did that, and even sent out antennas for free). They clearly like charging cable for their product and aren't interested in giving it away. They will love ATSC 3.0 when they can figure out a way to charge for OTA.
I might be willing to pay for OTA TV or even for cable TV if the ads can be eliminated. As long as ads are included, cable subscribers are essentially paying twice for that content. If commercial interests finally manage to kill off OTA TV, I'll probably (by then) be able to stream enough commercial-free content to satisfy my viewing needs. Or I'll have more time to read and do other healthier activities.
dmatch likes this.
L David Matheny is offline  
post #57 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 03:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
L David Matheny;
Mild philosophical disagreement.
I don't like ads when I've paid to see a movie, or when I'm paying around $140 a month to watch my television.
I do not object to ads when by putting up an antenna I receive quite a bit of programming (of superior image quality as of the moment) without paying a monthly set top box rental or content fee.
JHBrandt likes this.

Last edited by nathill; 02-19-2017 at 03:09 PM. Reason: grammar
nathill is offline  
post #58 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 03:41 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
I honestly don't think broadcasters are even considering a paid content model, at least not for primary programming. That's not to say some Airbox-style company won't lease some space for services. Imagine if PPV "events" were available through a service such as that in addition to cable outlets in use, now. I know a lot of cord-cutters who'd still shell out for a UFC fight. I'd buy a box to keep on hand "just in case." But I digress..

The money is still in advertising and anything broadcasters can to do keep that revenue stream from further deterioration, they'll do. The way I understand ATSC 3.0's capabilities seems to suggest better ways of quantifying viewership and targeting advertising.

But the bigger issue, as mentioned above, is the difficulty in converting anytime soon.

I'm currently surveying a number of TV General Managers about this and will post my results. So far, not one has ATSC 3.0 in their 2017 budgets and all respodants doubt they'll have it in their 2018 budgets.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #59 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 05:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,251
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 824 Post(s)
Liked: 589
DrDon, what is your feel about whether the FCC would require ATSC 3.0 tuners in the near future?

It seemed that part of the "chicken and the egg" dilemma was solved in the Digital TV transition by mandating ATSC tuners, and this may be needed again for ATSC 3.0. Otherwise, I think it would take a very long time for ATSC 3.0 to become more than just a niche feature.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!
Mark12547 is offline  
post #60 of 1481 Old 02-19-2017, 06:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,683
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 895 Post(s)
Liked: 100
4K demanders will lead the way

The HDTV transition was driven by people (Right here on AVS) that wanted HD and they wanted it NOW! They would not allow any delays and you see what we got as a result.

It was not until a breakthrough tuner was demonstrated in the horrible apartment in New York City that ATSC had any chance of working. It was adopted years before the tuner that could receive it was demonstrated, I read the Usenet post (Not here on AVS) by a person promoting what may have been a better system. He was tarred and feathered and run out of AVS on a rail. My joining AVS was delayed six (6) or more months by the thugs that replied in mass to his posts where I learned a huge amount. The thugs stalked his posts and had no information in them even if the grammar were to be corrected which was unbelievable. His posts have been tracked down and erased and poor replacements made in their place.

The 4K broadcasts might be possible with ATSC 3.0 but they will be long in coming IMHO. I just wonder if the bugs will be corrected when ATSC 3.0 starts broadcasting in South Korea this month.

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off