# ATSC 3, 5G and Tivo



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

How does this fellows opinion effect Tivo OTA, if at all....
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ooyala-broadcasters-future-is-with-ott


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

tvmaster2 said:


> How does this fellows opinion effect Tivo OTA, if at all....
> https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ooyala-broadcasters-future-is-with-ott


ATSC 3.0 doesn't need UHD to be successful. The increased bandwidth of ATSC 3.0 would allow each local station to offer many more sub-channels. Massive censorship is coming to OTT content and those content providers, who are banned from OTT, will find a home on an ATSC 3.0 sub-channel.


----------



## El Maestro (Nov 19, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> ATSC 3.0 doesn't need UHD to be successful. The increased bandwidth of ATSC 3.0 would allow each local station to offer many more sub-channels. Massive censorship is coming to OTT content and those content providers, who are banned from OTT, will find a home on an ATSC 3.0 sub-channel.


Why is censorship coming to OTT?


----------



## ke3ju (Jan 5, 2004)

I was wondering this too.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tvmaster2 said:


> How does this fellows opinion effect Tivo OTA, if at all....
> https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ooyala-broadcasters-future-is-with-ott


I'd say that report, and the views of quoted individuals in it, are consistent with these ideas:


that all TV is eventually moving to OTT streaming and that the advent of fast, widespread 5G internet connectivity will only accelerate that trend;
that ATSC 3.0 won't ever gain widespread implementation, thereby preventing the move of broadcast TV to OTT, because it faces insurmountable obstacles -- expensive rollouts by broadcasters for questionable financial gains, consumer confusion about the necessary technology needed, lack of an FCC mandate, etc.;
and that the path of least resistance for broadcasters will be to go with the consumer flow that already exists, which is to stream their content OTT to popular devices such as Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, mobile phones, etc. (For an example, see the STIRR streaming app that debuted yesterday from Sinclair Broadcast Group, the largest owner of local TV stations in the country.)

Keep in mind, though, that Ooyala, who issued the report, is a company in the business of OTT streaming video platforms. So of course they see that as the future.

How would the above scenario, if it plays out, affect TiVo's OTA DVRs? Well, it would eventually make them obsolete.

I'm personally lukewarm about the prospects for ATSC 3.0. But ATSC 1.0 stations will be broadcasting for years to come (even if the quality of their content decreases as the major networks shift resources to their subscription streaming services).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Eventually all OTA DVR's will be obsolete, of course eventually could be 20 years or so.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I figure the OTA business model eventually won't be viable if most people are skipping the commercials. Although I guess product placement always viable or showing logos of advertisers in the corner while the show airs.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

IIRC, ATSC 3.0 requires little more than a software upgrade to current generation ATSC transmitters.

Though whether ATSC 3.0 will be adopted here apart from the very few current test stations in the U.S. is currently unknown.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

El Maestro said:


> Why is censorship coming to OTT?


It's already come to youtube which is now OTT. Roku recently banned a channel. Much of the banned content had high viewership and was generating significant ad revenue. Plenty of companies selling supplements or crazy gadgets would sponsor them on OTA TV. I think with ATSC 3.0 a station could carry 100 subchannels.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I'd say that report, and the views of quoted individuals in it, are consistent with these ideas:
> 
> 
> that all TV is eventually moving to OTT streaming and that the advent of fast, widespread 5G internet connectivity will only accelerate that trend;
> ...


Part of the ATSC 3.0 specification is for the signal to be carried over 5G to mobile devices without the data counting towards the data cap.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I miss the ATSC 3.0 and Reverse Auction mania. I guess we can squeeze some panic out of this idea.

The main falsehood of the article is the statement that there is increased demand for UHD/4K sets. Sales of UHD/4K are increasing because 1) there is no discount for 1080p sets and 2) no one is selling them. My $300 55" TCL Roku TVs are UHD/4K. Retailers, not consumers, are 'all in' on UHD/4K.

Soccer and the Olympics will drive demand for 4K? LOL, not in the US. Also, 'affordable 4K streaming devices' are not new. ATSC 3.0 has been a pipe dream of "theoretical televisionists" since day #1.

Here's another lie...

_"The bottom line may be that 5G is already winning the content delivery race before it has even officially begun," O'Neill concludes._​
5G is shopping for sneakers.

The bottom line? The report recommends broadcasters wholeheartedly embrace OTT. You know, so there is no zero cost alternative to increasingly expensive OTT products.

This fellow's opinion would not even have been known to most of us had you not linked the article. It will have no impact on TiVo or any other OTA products. Your TiVos will be long dead before there is nothing to watch OTA.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

5G Competition Is Finally Here (Sort of) - SDxCentral

Dec 21, 2018:

"These first deployments are nowhere near meeting these requirements. No. Where. Near.

And that level of support won't come for years. And by years, I mean at least five years, but probably closer to 10 years.

I base my claim on what has happened with the current 4G LTE technology, which nearly a decade after the first commercial services were launched has only recently been able to meet its much-hyped promise."


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I've was very surprised there where no manufacturers featuring ATSC 3.0 last Black Friday. Or mainstream news covering it for 2019 CES. Is space savings for H.265 HEVC or AV1 just theoretical ?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This article is a bunch of crap. Yes, there is a move to OTT, but no, 5G is not winning anything yet. I think it will be quite successful for fixed wireless internet, and eventually mobile, but right now the "5G E" "Real 5G" and "10G" hype is still just a bunch of BS. 5G E is not 5G, Real 5G is, but it's deployment makes it unnecessary for mobile, since the sites will have dense 4G LTE on them anyway, and 10G is BS since cable systems today can't handle any significant number of customers using gig speeds at the same time before they slow way down.

There is no "censorship" problem, and that has nothing to do with anything. However, I still wonder if ATSC 3.0 will succeed. If it does, it will have a ton of subchannels, mostly in 720p, some in 480i if there is no HD source material. 4k is not driving anything except people like us who are into the tech. Most 4k streaming today is probably done in 4k only because someone bought a new TV, it happened to be 4k, and they have Netflix, and it streams in 4k. Most people aren't demanding 4k, and there is no indication that's going to change anytime soon.

What is driving widespread cord cutting and streaming is basic economics and convenience. People want to watch what they want when they want for a reasonable price, and that's what streaming offers. It also offers new and exciting TV formats and genres, and new ways of discovering content (although it's harder than ever to find anything on Netflix due to the sheer number of shows they have now).


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> What is driving widespread cord cutting and streaming is basic economics and convenience. *People want to watch what they want when they want for a reasonable price, and that's what streaming offers*. It also offers new and exciting TV formats and genres, and new ways of discovering content (although it's harder than ever to find anything on Netflix due to the sheer number of shows they have now).


OTA is free. OTT is not free and requires high speed internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> OTA is free. OTT is not free and requires high speed internet.


Did you even read what I said? The part you highlighted in my post directly contradicts what I said.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I commented on what I underlined. OTT is not inexpensive. When people consider the cost of streamers, high speed internet, and infrastructure improvements, it's comparable to a slim cable or satellite account. What are these exciting new formats and genres you rave of? And there is nothing exciting about 'discovering content' -- as you note re: Netflix.

OTT is fine for a certain niche. Sounds like you are in it. Premium providers still command >75% of homes while OTA'ers are nearly 20%.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> I commented on what I underlined. OTT is not inexpensive. When people consider the cost of streamers, high speed internet, and infrastructure improvements, it's comparable to a slim cable or satellite account.


That should have been directly contradicts what you said. OTT is inexpensive. Internet and streaming devices aren't part of the equation, as they are there anyway, so the incremental cost to add various streaming services is relatively low. I've seen some articles that count the cost of broadband in cutting the cord, which is nonsense unless your broadband cost goes up when you get rid of cable or satellite due to bundling. Otherwise, it's the same broadband you would have had anyway.



> What are these exciting new formats and genres you rave of? And there is nothing exciting about 'discovering content' -- as you note re: Netflix.


We've seen new storytelling formats emerge for binge watching, like the slow burn, and some offbeat/different stuff that doesn't fit into the 22 or 43 minute weekly cable TV format. We've also seen new experiments with technical formats, like 2:1 and 4K, which both debuted with House of Cards. We've also seen a bunch of shows that use HDR extensively.



> OTT is fine for a certain niche. Sounds like you are in it. Premium providers still command >75% of homes while OTA'ers are nearly 20%.


Look at the trend. 3-4M subscribers per year are leaving cable and satellite when they should be gaining about 500k/year based on new housing starts, so the numbers are even worse than they appear on the surface. I'm guessing that there are another few million that Verizon and Comcast are hiding behind aggressive pricing bundles and bulk deals that don't even want the TV service that they have, or are not willing to pay more than a few dollars for it. I think you mean pay tv, not premiums, that are in 75% of homes. Many people cutting the cord are using OTA, but many are not, they are just streaming, and don't really care about traditional TV at all.

The other trend that is now surfacing is that content is competing not just for TV time, but for screen time. Not only are other forms of TV and movie delivery competing for people's TV time, but not YouTube and gaming are competing for screen time. Those are not direct competitors to TV on paper, but if people have x amount of time to spend staring at a screen every day, then watching YouTube or playing video games affects how much TV and movie content that they consume.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Massive censorship is coming to OTT content and those content providers, who are banned from OTT, will find a home on an ATSC 3.0 sub-channel.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody's "banned from OTT". Broadcast channels are under the purview of the FCC, while the Internet is wide open.

I think you're confusing deplatforming with censorship, and I think I know just who you have in mind, but I'll stop there because No Politics.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody's "banned from OTT". Broadcast channels are under the purview of the FCC, while the Internet is wide open.
> 
> I think you're confusing deplatforming with censorship, and I think I know just who you have in mind, but I'll stop there because No Politics.


Exactly. And these are the same people who usually claim to believe in "free speech", yet want to compel Roku or whomever to include extremist content and hate speech on their private platform in violation of Roku's own 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. And these are the same people who usually claim to believe in "free speech", yet want to compel Roku or whomever to include extremist content and hate speech on their private platform in violation of Roku's own 1st Amendment rights.


It's a form of censorship. It kind of falls into one of these right or wrong versus capitalism arguments. Should platforms have the right to ban content they disagree with? Capitalism says yes. The banned aren't silenced as they can always create their own platform. And no legacy platform has been required to air or print any content provided by others. So if the contract between the platform and content provider allows the platform to drop the content and terminate the contract then no foul has been committed.

The bigger concern has been with the reasons for banning and verification of offense. In some ways we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty by accusation.

Alex Jones has been the focal point for all of this. As I understand it something he said was taken out of context and distorted to ban him. Personally I don't listen to him as he's a nut job. But for many it's an eye opener as they just assumed these platforms would have to carry any content posted. But as you tube and others have shown, they can remove any content they disagree with regardless of the motivation for doing so (i.e. user complaints or pressure from advertisers).


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Anotherpyr said:


> It's a form of censorship. It kind of falls into one of these right or wrong versus capitalism arguments. Should platforms have the right to ban content they disagree with? Capitalism says yes. The banned aren't silenced as they can always create their own platform. And no legacy platform has been required to air or print any content provided by others. So if the contract between the platform and content provider allows the platform to drop the content and terminate the contract then no foul has been committed.
> 
> The bigger concern has been with the reasons for banning and verification of offense. In some ways we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty by accusation.
> 
> Alex Jones has been the focal point for all of this. As I understand it something he said was taken out of context and distorted to ban him. Personally I don't listen to him as he's a nut job. But for many it's an eye opener as they just assumed these platforms would have to carry any content posted. But as you tube and others have shown, they can remove any content they disagree with regardless of the motivation for doing so (i.e. user complaints or pressure from advertisers).


Wouldn't that be kind of like forcing NBC to run ABC's shows for them?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Anotherpyr said:


> It's a form of censorship. It kind of falls into one of these right or wrong versus capitalism arguments. Should platforms have the right to ban content they disagree with? Capitalism says yes. The banned aren't silenced as they can always create their own platform. And no legacy platform has been required to air or print any content provided by others. So if the contract between the platform and content provider allows the platform to drop the content and terminate the contract then no foul has been committed.
> 
> The bigger concern has been with the reasons for banning and verification of offense. In some ways we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty by accusation.
> 
> Alex Jones has been the focal point for all of this. As I understand it something he said was taken out of context and distorted to ban him. Personally I don't listen to him as he's a nut job. But for many it's an eye opener as they just assumed these platforms would have to carry any content posted. But as you tube and others have shown, they can remove any content they disagree with regardless of the motivation for doing so (i.e. user complaints or pressure from advertisers).


It's a First Amendment issue. You cannot compel speech under the First Amendment. Thus, you cannot compel Roku to carry content that they find objectionable. YouTube has never carried porn. I bet porn companies would LOVE to use YouTube's platform and CDN for porn, but they don't allow it. The porn companies have First Amendment rights to offer their content even if some people may find it objectionable, but they have to get their own website, or use a website that permits adult content as YouTube won't do it for them.

Broadcast TV is a weird place because the airwaves are owned by the government/people, at least in theory, so the government has a lot more say over what can and cannot be broadcast, while cable is a bunch of private providers linked to private infrastructure, so they have more say in things.


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's a First Amendment issue. You cannot compel speech under the First Amendment. Thus, you cannot compel Roku to carry content that they find objectionable. YouTube has never carried porn. I bet porn companies would LOVE to use YouTube's platform and CDN for porn, but they don't allow it. The porn companies have First Amendment rights to offer their content even if some people may find it objectionable, but they have to get their own website, or use a website that permits adult content as YouTube won't do it for them.
> 
> Broadcast TV is a weird place because the airwaves are owned by the government/people, at least in theory, so the government has a lot more say over what can and cannot be broadcast, while cable is a bunch of private providers linked to private infrastructure, so they have more say in things.


I think we agree but just word it differently.

Censorship doesn't violate the first amendment in these situations so I'd say that it isn't a first amendment issue. They aren't public (government owned) platforms. But since everyone can post content, and it doesn't cost them to do so they often confuse it with being a public space and thus see it incorrectly as a first amendment issue.

So it's really a question of is it right or wrong to censor speech someone finds offensive on these platforms. That's a tough question when you think about it. The answer can change based on what type of content they find offensive. What if they started banning all transsexual or gay content? While that sounds absurd today, there was a time when the populist would've been offended by it. And in its extreme this kind of censorship takes the form of banning all opinions and possibly even facts that disagree with the owner's. What makes this disturbing is the size of the platforms and what they do. In many ways they are the public portion of the Internet. Roku banning a channel is in somewhat like Sony deleting channel 7 off of its tuner because they've found content broadcast on channel 7 offensive. This has shades of Fahrenheit 451 to it. And it's much easier to ban books on the internet than it is to track down and burn all the banned books. It also reminds me of the Larry Flynt vs ? trial on obscenity. I can't describe what obscene is but I know it when I see it. Just replace obscenity with offensive. Somethings are easy to define as such, but the grey area and where the line is drawn is tougher.

I just think these types of issues tend to cross into grey areas as these businesses didn't exist in the past and I don't think any government is ready to tackle the problem yet. I mean they can't even do their basic job of having a budget on time any more.

I don't have an answer. I just encourage people to see things from multiple viewpoints and hopefully realize the full impact of some of these ideas.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

I think magazines can dictate what gets allowed. Even in classifieds there usually are limits to what can be listed. I know FB has very strict rules for posting on it's classified. I think the rule is "If you own it, you get to decide" when it comes to publishing.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> It's a First Amendment issue.


No it's not. The Bill of Rights protects us from the Government -- not each other. Always a good idea to read the actual text before interpreting it. Here you go...


> *Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.





Bigg said:


> You cannot compel speech under the First Amendment. Thus, you cannot compel Roku to carry content that they find objectionable. YouTube has never carried porn. I bet porn companies would LOVE to use YouTube's platform and CDN for porn, but they don't allow it. The porn companies have First Amendment rights to offer their content even if some people may find it objectionable, but they have to get their own website, or use a website that permits adult content as YouTube won't do it for them.
> 
> *Broadcast TV is a weird place because the airwaves are owned by the government/people, at least in theory, so the government has a lot more say over what can and cannot be broadcast, while cable is a bunch of private providers linked to private infrastructure, so they have more say in things.*


Except that none of this is true. The FCC regulates broadcast television and cable. Nudity and profanity have been allowed on broadcast television. The reason broadcast is more censored (to this date, anyway) is that you bring cable into your home and implicitly agree to their standards whereas broadcast television is available to anyone with a receiver -- including children.

from Program Content Regulations

*Q: Does the FCC regulate the content of cable programming?*

*A:* Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" in the rules -- that are subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the content of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.

*Q: What rules, if any, apply to sexually explicit programming?*

*A: *Section 505 of the 1996 Act states that cable operators, or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit adult video programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video programming distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours of the day when a significant number of children are likely to view it.

However, Section 505 was challenged in the courts. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in _Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S., _determining Section 505 unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules implementing Section 505 can not be enforced.

*Q: Is there anything else that will allow cable television subscribers to block objectionable programming?*

*A: *Yes. Section 504 of the 1996 Act requires a cable operator to fully scramble or block the audio and video portions of programming services not specifically subscribed to by a household. The cable operator must fully scramble or block the programming in question upon the request of the subscriber and at no charge to the subscriber. Also, cable subscribers may request a "lockbox" from cable operators to prevent the viewing of any channel on which objectionable programming may appear. Cable operators are required to make lockboxes available for sale or lease to customers who request them.

from Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: _Miller v. California_, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); _Smith v. United States_, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and _Pope v. Illinois_, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged _Miller_ test is as follows:


Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (_i.e._, an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (_i.e._, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
 Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.

Moreover, Sections 1464 and 1468 of Title 18, United States Code, specifically prohibit the broadcast or distribution of obscene matter by radio communication or by cable or subscription television respectively. Convicted offenders under these statutes face fines and up to 2 years in prison.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wizwor said:


> No it's not. The Bill of Rights protects us from the Government -- not each other. Always a good idea to read the actual text before interpreting it. Here you go...
> 
> Except that none of this is true. The FCC regulates broadcast television and cable. Nudity and profanity have been allowed on broadcast television. The reason broadcast is more censored (to this date, anyway) is that you bring cable into your home and implicitly agree to their standards whereas broadcast television is available to anyone with a receiver -- including children.
> 
> ...


Most of that really only applies to analog cable, which doesn't exist any more. In the digital world they can simply block channels you don't subscribe to and your device won't even attempt to tune it. These rules were more intended to block the scrambled porn that existed in the 90s, a la the opening scene in American Pie, where the video was (mostly) scrambled but the audio was not.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Most of that really only applies to analog cable, which doesn't exist any more. In the digital world they can simply block channels you don't subscribe to and your device won't even attempt to tune it. These rules were more intended to block the scrambled porn that existed in the 90s, a la the opening scene in American Pie, where the video was (mostly) scrambled but the audio was not.


Regardless, the laws are current and the requirements continue to exist however met.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

It seems like the business model for both cable and OTA is to offer more channels at the expense of picture quality. UHD is a niche market. Many people still purchase DVDs over BluRay. Unless it takes to long for the local station to recover the costs of switching over to ATSC 3.0, it doesn't make sense not to.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Anotherpyr said:


> I think we agree but just word it differently.
> 
> Censorship doesn't violate the first amendment in these situations so I'd say that it isn't a first amendment issue. They aren't public (government owned) platforms. But since everyone can post content, and it doesn't cost them to do so they often confuse it with being a public space and thus see it incorrectly as a first amendment issue.


Correct in that people are incorrectly seeing Alex Jones' right to free speech as a First Amendment issue, when that doesn't apply on someone else's platform. But, hypothetically, who would force Roku to allow certain types of speech on their platform? The government, and the government can't do that because the First Amendment bars the government from compelling speech.



> So it's really a question of is it right or wrong to censor speech someone finds offensive on these platforms. That's a tough question when you think about it. The answer can change based on what type of content they find offensive. What if they started banning all transsexual or gay content? While that sounds absurd today, there was a time when the populist would've been offended by it. And in its extreme this kind of censorship takes the form of banning all opinions and possibly even facts that disagree with the owner's. What makes this disturbing is the size of the platforms and what they do. In many ways they are the public portion of the Internet. Roku banning a channel is in somewhat like Sony deleting channel 7 off of its tuner because they've found content broadcast on channel 7 offensive. This has shades of Fahrenheit 451 to it. And it's much easier to ban books on the internet than it is to track down and burn all the banned books. It also reminds me of the Larry Flynt vs ? trial on obscenity. I can't describe what obscene is but I know it when I see it. Just replace obscenity with offensive. Somethings are easy to define as such, but the grey area and where the line is drawn is tougher.


Yes, it's a grey area, and yes, it's a tough question. However, it has to be dealt with at some level, otherwise you're going to end up with violent, hateful, crazy fringe content taking over a platform, and the platform will get serious blowback from that. Look at YouTube with all the Neo-Nazi/ White Supremacist stuff and the pushback they got there. Extreme free speech on a platform is a slippery slope, and even the First Amendment itself doesn't protect someone yelling fire in a movie theater or threatening violence against other groups or people.



> I just think these types of issues tend to cross into grey areas as these businesses didn't exist in the past and I don't think any government is ready to tackle the problem yet. I mean they can't even do their basic job of having a budget on time any more.
> 
> I don't have an answer. I just encourage people to see things from multiple viewpoints and hopefully realize the full impact of some of these ideas.


All perfectly salient points.



wizwor said:


> No it's not. The Bill of Rights protects us from the Government -- not each other. Always a good idea to read the actual text before interpreting it. Here you go...


It becomes a First Amendment issue because the only entity that could hypothetically compel Roku to host certain types of content on their platform in the government, except that they can't because of the First Amendment.



> Except that none of this is true. The FCC regulates broadcast television and cable. Nudity and profanity have been allowed on broadcast television. The reason broadcast is more censored (to this date, anyway) is that you bring cable into your home and implicitly agree to their standards whereas broadcast television is available to anyone with a receiver -- including children.


You just talked around in a circle from my point. I said that the FCC regulates broadcast TV. AFAIK, they don't regulate cable content at this point. Section 504 and 505 are technologically obsolete, since everything on modern digital cable systems is broadcast with sets of channels keyed to a crypto key, so there is no way that you can accidentally tune into something you don't subscribe to, and they can nuke individual channels from the cloud by taking it out of the channel mapping in the box or de-authing individual crypto keys if they are keyed individually. The days of getting HBO for free because they forgot to trap channel 5 have been gone for about a decade.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Most of that really only applies to analog cable, which doesn't exist any more.


CT has one small cable provider that still has a full Expanded Basic lineup in analog, but to the point of this thread, there is no adult content in analog. They have moved towards utilizing the upper end of their 1ghz plant to offer gigabit internet instead of going all-digital like every other provider.



shwru980r said:


> It seems like the business model for both cable and OTA is to offer more channels at the expense of picture quality. UHD is a niche market. Many people still purchase DVDs over BluRay. Unless it takes to long for the local station to recover the costs of switching over to ATSC 3.0, it doesn't make sense not to.


True. That is why I hypothesize that ATSC 3.0 only happens under one or both of two circumstances:

1. The channel can launch many more subchannels with syndicated, re-run, or low-cost content to grind out an ad revenue stream, or launch some type of localized content.

2. The channel can save money in the long run by eventually migrating off of ATSC 1.0 towards ATSC 3.0, possibly sharing many stations on one transmitter, especially in small markets. This could be a double-edged sword, however, if they lose viewers as a result who might watch the channel but don't see it worthwhile enough to upgrade to ATSC 3.0 equipment.

The two reasons that I don't see as being motivators are:

1. Video quality. Sadly, most people are too oblivious to see how bad the current VQ is, or their TV is too small to notice the difference.

2. Broadcast coverage. There is a perverted incentive when cable and satellite companies have to pay for the channel so that broadcasters can double-dip with the cable companies doing the hard work of physically extending their range.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> It becomes a First Amendment issue because the only entity that could hypothetically compel Roku to host certain types of content on their platform in the government, except that they can't because of the First Amendment.


It never becomes a First Amendment issue because the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government. That is all it does and all it ever did. When the Founding Fathers finished writing the Constitution, they created the Bill of Rights to ensure that the Government did not have too much power. If you read the Bill of Rights, exactly what they intended should be clear. If it isn't, you can read documents explaining their intent...

_THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution._​


Bigg said:


> You just talked around in a circle from my point. I said that the FCC regulates broadcast TV. AFAIK, they don't regulate cable content at this point. Section 504 and 505 are technologically obsolete, since everything on modern digital cable systems is broadcast with sets of channels keyed to a crypto key, so there is no way that you can accidentally tune into something you don't subscribe to, and they can nuke individual channels from the cloud by taking it out of the channel mapping in the box or de-authing individual crypto keys if they are keyed individually. The days of getting HBO for free because they forgot to trap channel 5 have been gone for about a decade.


Perhaps you are reading too much into my post (only 95 of those words are mine). I simply stated that television is not protected by the First Amendment and posted links and excerpts from the laws that actually govern television.

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Sadly, most people are too oblivious to see how bad the current VQ is, or their TV is too small to notice the difference.


Which shows, other than sports, would, in theory, be significantly better in UHD ?

For Broadcast TV, I can't think of many.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> It never becomes a First Amendment issue because the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government. That is all it does and all it ever did. When the Founding Fathers finished writing the Constitution, they created the Bill of Rights to ensure that the Government did not have too much power. If you read the Bill of Rights, exactly what they intended should be clear. If it isn't, you can read documents explaining their intent...


You clearly didn't comprehend my post. People are saying "Roku shouldn't be allowed to ban Alex Jones". Well who would stop them? The only entity that I can think of with the hypothetical power to stop them from banning Alex Jones would be some part of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government is prevented from doing so, because forcing Roku to carry certain types of content means compelling speech, in violation of Roku's First Amendment Rights. Thus, Roku has the right to determine that content they find objectionable and ban it from their platform.



jth tv said:


> Which shows, other than sports, would, in theory, be significantly better in UHD ?
> 
> For Broadcast TV, I can't think of many.


In terms of ATSC 3.0, I was thinking in terms of the VQ of HD or FHD content with HEVC and more bandwidth available, not in terms of 4k. Broadcasters could crank the VQ way up without moving beyond 1080i/p.

I doubt we will ever see broadcasters move to 4k. If anyone does, the RSNs are the most likely, as DirecTV could carry them in all in 4k, and each cable system would only need to carry 2 or 3 RSNs on average.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> You clearly didn't comprehend my post. People are saying "Roku shouldn't be allowed to ban Alex Jones". Well who would stop them?


Roku SHOULD be allowed to decide what they will stream. I don't like some of their choices and have complained about two in particular (and been banned for posting stuff in their forums which RokuShawnS found inappropriate)...


RokuShawnS said:


> I hope you understand that no matter the number of bans I've issues against you in all your previous incarnations/usernames, I always respected your opinions, which is why with each incarnation I've allowed you to continue posting instead of banning you outright.
> 
> Good luck with your future endeavors.
> 
> C. Shawn Smith


One of the apps Roku banned was VideoBuzz. In fact, while Roku was courting YT, they removed most of the apps that featured YouTube content at the request of YouTube. One notable exception was WhatsOn which added YT content when a 'special' zip code was specified. In this case, Roku wanted YouTube to build and maintain an app for their store and banned competing apps. They left WhatsOn alone because YouTube did not know about the secret. In this case, the decision was a business decision not anything ethical or moral.

Another app famously banned by Roku was Playon. The Roku model is that they revenue share with app developers who sell apps and content. Free apps do not pay Roku. PlayOn built a free app and charged for a required server. PlayOn offered a lot of the content streamed via many Roku paid apps for a _one time or monthly fee for the server_. Roku relentlessly banned PlayOn until the two companies came to some sort of agreement that included token concessions in the PlayOn app. Again, a business decision.

Regarding Alex Jones, Roku bows to the mainstream media. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and all the others have free apps for Roku and other choices of streamers to work with. It's entirely possible that the app was removed to please these masters. That would not be right, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional. After all, Roku has First Amendment rights as well.

Anyway, if this is still confusing to you, let's just agree to disagree. I am sure this is boring to everyone else and we don't want to get banned from the forum, right? Have a great weekend.

By the way, would you consider someone placing an I'm with Hillary sign on your front lawn Protected Speech?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Roku SHOULD be allowed to decide what they will stream. I don't like some of their choices and have complained about two in particular (and been banned for posting stuff in their forums which RokuShawnS found inappropriate)...


Right, I agree, I was pointing out how that is effectively Roku's First Amendment right, since the only entity that could hypothetically stop them from doing it would be part of the government.

Those other examples are definitely a slippery slope in terms of what is allowed or not, although they sound like very niche applications, not ones that are well known like Alex Jones.



> Regarding Alex Jones, Roku bows to the mainstream media. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and all the others have free apps for Roku and other choices of streamers to work with. It's entirely possible that the app was removed to please these masters. That would not be right, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional. After all, Roku has First Amendment rights as well.


It had nothing to do with "mainstream media". Alex Jones is widely known to be a crackpot, but what pushed him over the line was just plain hate spewing.



> Anyway, if this is still confusing to you, let's just agree to disagree. I am sure this is boring to everyone else and we don't want to get banned from the forum, right? Have a great weekend.


I think you're still responding to me here? I get what you're saying, I was just clarifying the First Amendment potion of it. Otherwise, we more or less agree on Roku owning their own platform and being able to exercise their own rights to speech.



> By the way, would you consider someone placing an I'm with Hillary sign on your front lawn Protected Speech?


That's a great analogy as to why Roku can't be compelled to speech.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

It is quite simple, really...

If a baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, then Roku has the right to refuse to carry a content provider.

Q.E.D. - Baking the cake violates the bakers ethical standards and Alex Jones violates Roku's ethical standards.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jth tv said:


> Which shows, other than sports, would, in theory, be significantly better in UHD ?
> 
> For Broadcast TV, I can't think of many.


Every show I watch would be better in UHD and HDR than in HD and SDR. Just like every show I watched in 2001 and later was better in HD than it was in SD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> It is quite simple, really...
> 
> If a baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, then Roku has the right to refuse to carry a content provider.
> 
> Q.E.D. - Baking the cake violates the bakers ethical standards and Alex Jones violates Roku's ethical standards.


Not really. Providing a product equally and fairly is different from a platform which has speech on it.



aaronwt said:


> Every show I watch would be better in UHD and HDR than in HD and SDR. Just like every show I watched in 2001 and later was better in HD than it was in SD.


Maybe a tiny bit, but many shows just wouldn't be much better beyond 1080p. There are a few 4k shows that are fantastic, like Narcos and House of Cards, but others, like Orange is the new Black are kind of pointless, as they just don't have enough detail to warrant 4k. I actually don't even like HDR that much. I've seen some good uses of it, but in many cases it just looks weird and too bright to me.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Not really. Providing a product equally and fairly is different from a platform which has speech on it.
> 
> Maybe a tiny bit, but many shows just wouldn't be much better beyond 1080p. There are a few 4k shows that are fantastic, like Narcos and House of Cards, but others, like Orange is the new Black are kind of pointless, as they just don't have enough detail to warrant 4k. I actually don't even like HDR that much. I've seen some good uses of it, but in many cases it just looks weird and too bright to me.


Agreed, sometimes if a director is going for a look, 4k is not an improvement. The proper application of 4k for sports will be what really sells it, HDR needs people who know how to really use it. It will come but there is a learning curve, sort of like with Dolbly Atmos (it's application in movies is still kind of hit or miss.)


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Not really. Providing a product equally and fairly is different from a platform which has speech on it.


I strongly disagree. The case of the baker was decided in his favor on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both aspects of the First Amendment because they are two sides of the same coin. In fact, one of the baker's arguments was supplying such a cake was the same as forcing him to say he approved of same sex marriage, i.e. requiring him to convey a message he did not believe. This is exactly the same issue as Roku being forced to convey a message they did not believe in. It is the same point of law, and is protected by the First Amendment.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Not really. Providing a product equally and fairly is different from a platform which has speech on it.
> 
> Maybe a tiny bit, but many shows just wouldn't be much better beyond 1080p. There are a few 4k shows that are fantastic, like Narcos and House of Cards, but others, like Orange is the new Black are kind of pointless, as they just don't have enough detail to warrant 4k. I actually don't even like HDR that much. I've seen some good uses of it, but in many cases it just looks weird and too bright to me.


Anytime I can see more detail from a show I want it. IF a show uses UHD or higher cameras, then I want to see the extra detail. The more detail there is the more lifelike teh image can look. I can't stand watching a show and it's nothing but a blurry mess in the background because there is not much detail in the image. Because it's only HD or worse SD.

Orange is the NEw Black definitely benefits from the UHD resolution. They used 6K cameras for many of the shots. And it definitely looked better to me when I started watching it in UHD instead of HD. I only wish it was in HDR instead of SDR.

I'll take a higher resolution any day over a lower one.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Maybe a tiny bit, but many shows just wouldn't be much better beyond 1080p. There are a few 4k shows that are fantastic, like Narcos and House of Cards, but others, like Orange is the new Black are kind of pointless, as they just don't have enough detail to warrant 4k. I actually don't even like HDR that much. I've seen some good uses of it, but in many cases it just looks weird and too bright to me.


There are definitely certain types of content/scenes that benefit more from 4K than others but, IMO, there's always at least a small improvement from the increased resolution. I also notice that 4K streams, aside from being sharper, typically exhibit far less compression artifacts than the average 1080p stream, particularly in dimly lit areas. So, for me, the benefits of 4K streaming are more about what I don't see than what I do.

As for HDR, I will agree that sometimes the brightness can be overly done (that can be tamped down a bit in your TV settings) but in general, I do think it's an improvement. More than the increased brightness and contrast, though, I like the wider color gamut that usually accompanies HDR. It all adds up to visuals that more closely portray the real world but it can look a little strange at times because, I think, our brains are so conditioned to the more limited contrast and color of traditional video.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Most of the shows I watch are focused on someone's face and too much detail is often not better. I've noticed that older HD occasionally shows blemishes while newer shows do not. I've begun to wonder if they are now using some kind of electronic makeup.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Well they did need to change the way makeup was applied when they went from SD to HD. So maybe they had to change things again when going from HD to UHD?


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

Diana Collins said:


> I strongly disagree. *The case of the baker was decided in his favor on First Amendment grounds. *Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both aspects of the First Amendment because they are two sides of the same coin. In fact, one of the baker's arguments was supplying such a cake was the same as forcing him to say he approved of same sex marriage, i.e. requiring him to convey a message he did not believe. This is exactly the same issue as Roku being forced to convey a message they did not believe in. It is the same point of law, and is protected by the First Amendment.


What was decided in the baker's favor was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
ruling against him had been infected by religious animus and the decision should be overturned.

As for the baker's 1st Amd rights to discriminate based on religious freedom (SMH) that has yet to be decided last I heard. As for Roku, it's their platform, and just like Apple, Facebook or YouTube, they decide what 3rd party software/channels can be installed based on whatever criteria they feel like making up.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

In summary: It's always OK to discriminate when the position differs from yours. It's never OK to discriminate when the affected position is the same as yours.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

eherberg said:


> In summary: It's always OK to discriminate when the position differs from yours. It's never OK to discriminate when the affected position is the same as yours.


Newspapers discriminate by not putting things in their paper they don't like, you may have free speech, but not free publication, nobody is forced to carry your free speech, but you can demonstrate your free speech with signs etc. (within some limits).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> Agreed, sometimes if a director is going for a look, 4k is not an improvement. The proper application of 4k for sports will be what really sells it, HDR needs people who know how to really use it. It will come but there is a learning curve, sort of like with Dolbly Atmos (it's application in movies is still kind of hit or miss.)


Yes, resolution and format (HFR vs 24, HDR vs not HDR, film vs digital) can influence the artistic intent of the director. However, I'm not sure where dropping from 4k to 2k would improve the aesthetic that the director is going for. My point is simply that the extra resolution is of little benefit for some shows. I don't think it detracted one bit for those shows, but it added little as well.

Sports in 4k would be great if there were more than a few demo games here and there. RSNs could go 4k if there is a business model for doing do. However, I don't forsee much live 4k content.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> It is quite simple, really...
> 
> If a baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, then Roku has the right to refuse to carry a content provider.
> 
> Q.E.D. - Baking the cake violates the bakers ethical standards and Alex Jones violates Roku's ethical standards.


Your premise is incorrect.

The Supreme Court never said the baker had the right to refuse to bake the cake. They said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not qualified to rule on the matter because they disparaged bakers' faith as despicable and that the baker was entitled to neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

If anything, the Colorado baker's case implies the opposite of your conclusion, because the banned individuals are being disparaged and not given respectful consideration.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> I strongly disagree. The case of the baker was decided in his favor on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both aspects of the First Amendment because they are two sides of the same coin. In fact, one of the baker's arguments was supplying such a cake was the same as forcing him to say he approved of same sex marriage, i.e. requiring him to convey a message he did not believe. This is exactly the same issue as Roku being forced to convey a message they did not believe in. It is the same point of law, and is protected by the First Amendment.


This is incorrect. The case was decided in favor of the baker because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased and disrespectful towards the baker's religious beliefs. The baker was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
It seems to me the banned individuals are being treated in the same manner as the Colorado Baker.


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

I know thread drift is to TCF as wet is to water, but is there any chance this thread might discuss ATSC 3, 5G, OR TiVo any time soon? The title says AND instead of OR, but at this point I'd settle for just hitting one of the markers.

Or would asking people to be on topic be 'censorship'?


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

stile99 said:


> I know thread drift is to TCF as wet is to water, but is there any chance this thread might discuss ATSC 3, 5G, OR TiVo any time soon? The title says AND instead of OR, but at this point I'd settle for just hitting one of the markers.


ATSC 3.0 won't happen, 5G is inevitable, and TiVo's share price will continue to drop as the company deals with the reality that its future customer base is not willing to pay a lot for a set top box. Discuss.










stile99 said:


> Or would asking people to be on topic be 'censorship'?


Depends who asks the question.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> I strongly disagree. The case of the baker was decided in his favor on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both aspects of the First Amendment because they are two sides of the same coin. In fact, one of the baker's arguments was supplying such a cake was the same as forcing him to say he approved of same sex marriage, i.e. requiring him to convey a message he did not believe. This is exactly the same issue as Roku being forced to convey a message they did not believe in. It is the same point of law, and is protected by the First Amendment.


It's a totally different thing to look at a platform that delivers videos, versus providing a physical product that is not speech.



aaronwt said:


> Orange is the NEw Black definitely benefits from the UHD resolution. They used 6K cameras for many of the shots. And it definitely looked better to me when I started watching it in UHD instead of HD. I only wish it was in HDR instead of SDR.
> 
> I'll take a higher resolution any day over a lower one.


I'll take the higher resolution, but I don't think OITNB benefitted from 4k, as the scenes and surroundings are generally very bland and lack detail to begin with, as that's the prison aesthetic. Maybe in the woods, or when they are outside the prison, but I just don't feel like it benefits. Narcos and House of Cards have much richer, more detailed surroundings.



NashGuy said:


> There are definitely certain types of content/scenes that benefit more from 4K than others but, IMO, there's always at least a small improvement from the increased resolution. I also notice that 4K streams, aside from being sharper, typically exhibit far less compression artifacts than the average 1080p stream, particularly in dimly lit areas. So, for me, the benefits of 4K streaming are more about what I don't see than what I do.


That's fair. There is always a small improvement, some shows just don't really show off 4k in any meaningful way.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> There is always a small improvement, some shows just don't really show off 4k in any meaningful way.


On Amazon Prime (via Apple TV 4K), I first started watching a show in HD, then switched to 4K for the later episodes. It looked good either way, but actually seemed sharper (!) at the "lower" resolution. Then, I noticed -- they kept the bitrate exactly the same for both streams. I think it was the same codec, too. This particular show was non-HDR, so only the resolution changed.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

*U.S. Proposes ATSC 3.0 Be Adopted As An International Broadcast Standard*


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

silversurfer2k7 said:


> BitRouter shows an ATSC 3.0 gateway demo on a TiVo BOLT OTA Player at NAB 2019


Your link is bad. http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=32632

That sounds really cool. If ATSC 3.0 ever goes anywhere on the broadcaster side.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Your link is bad. BitRouter shows an ATSC 3.0 gateway demo on a TiVo BOLT OTA Player at NAB 2019
> 
> That sounds really cool. If ATSC 3.0 ever goes anywhere on the broadcaster side.


Back when we started talking about ATSC 3.0, this is the type of device that I and several others said TiVo could develop and be used with Bolts. Guess we were only half right, looks like there will be a device, just developed by someone else. If ATSC 3.0 ever comes I sure hope something like this is sold for a reasonable price. Just a note/comment for us Roamio owners, something like this will not work with Roamios. .


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Just a note/comment for us Roamio owners, something like this will not work with Roamios.


I don't understand what it is and how it works. How is it connected, etc ? Why won't it work for Roamios ?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jth tv said:


> I don't understand what it is and how it works. How is it connected, etc ? Why won't it work for Roamios ?


I don't think they do HEVC.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jth tv said:


> I don't understand what it is and how it works. How is it connected, etc ? Why won't it work for Roamios ?





Bigg said:


> I don't think they do HEVC.


Correct Roamios are old enough so that they do not have the hardware needed to play the format that ATSC 3.0 will be broadcast in - which is the same reason that Roamios can not play 4K content.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Correct Roamios are old enough so that they do not have the hardware needed to play the format that ATSC 3.0 will be broadcast in - which is the same reason that Roamios can not play 4K content.


Also lack of 4k HDMI output.


----------



## silversurfer2k7 (Jun 29, 2016)

Looks like Tivo has come up with something for ATSC 3.0. Nice

TiVo Demos ATSC 3.0 Network Tuner To Retrofit Existing DVRs


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Back when we started talking about ATSC 3.0, this is the type of device that I and several others said TiVo could develop and be used with Bolts. Guess we were only half right, looks like there will be a device, just developed by someone else. If ATSC 3.0 ever comes I sure hope something like this is sold for a reasonable price. Just a note/comment for us Roamio owners, something like this will not work with Roamios. .


It _could_ work with Roamios if a transcoder was added to the mix to convert HEVC to h.264 or MPEG2 and downsample the resolution for 4k channels. That'll add a decent bit of cost and complexity for a relatively small base of customers. I'm not holding my breath, but it's not impossible. Ultimately I think the solution for Roamio owners to get ATSC 3 is just going to be "buy the next box."



jth tv said:


> I don't understand what it is and how it works. How is it connected, etc ? Why won't it work for Roamios ?


It's basically an HD Homerun.

The setup in @TiVo_Ted 's video is cobbled together out of a laptop and external tuner device, but an actual retail device would be a box with everything it needs inside. Just hook up an antenna & network connection and it's good to go. The Bolt picks up the stream via the Network and can do all its DVR stuff from there.

I wonder if multiple tuners are still a possibility with this, or if a single tuner setup is going to be the best they can do.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Also lack of 4k HDMI output.


Ya my mind auto lumped that into part of the hardware that was needed, but good to point out there are several hardware limitations.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

OrangeCrush said:


> It _could_ work with Roamios if a transcoder was added to the mix to convert HEVC to h.264 or MPEG2 and downsample the resolution for 4k channels. That'll add a decent bit of cost and complexity for a relatively small base of customers. I'm not holding my breath, but it's not impossible. Ultimately I think the solution for Roamio owners to get ATSC 3 is just going to be "buy the next box."
> 
> It's basically an HD Homerun.
> 
> ...


Yes a device that could recode the stream would work with a Roamio, but as you indicated at that point the price is getting pretty high.

Regarding the number of tuners, my guess is it could be multi-tuner as multi streams should not be an issue with most home networks at this point. Time will tell but again like you said, by the time this happens it may just be time to buy a new TiVo for most users.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Also see: TiVo ATSC 3.0


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

TiVo Demos ATSC 3.0 Network Tuner To Retrofit Existing DVRs


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

FWIW, another article on the subject, posted by Cord Cutter News, previously linked by @b_scott ...

TiVo Is Working on Upgrading Current DVRs to ATSC 3.0 - Cord Cutters News


----------



## scott784 (Jun 2, 2019)

krkaufman said:


> FWIW, another article on the subject, posted by Cord Cutter News, previously linked by @b_scott ...
> 
> TiVo Is Working on Upgrading Current DVRs to ATSC 3.0 - Cord Cutters News


Thanks for sharing that krkaufman. I wonder if any retrofit (so to speak) tuner will be as "sensitive" as a future built-in ATSC 3.0 tuner? Dunno here.

This brings up some other thoughts I've had about DVRs (generally), &#8230;.why is it that some manufacturers (to include TiVo) "promote" 4 tuners in an OTA DVR box now days? For example, I still have a fully functioning TiVo Premiere from 2011 with 2 tuners (that has met my needs). Several years back, I did buy a Roamio OTA box that has 4 tuners (not that I ever needed 4 tuners in a single OTA DVR box). And it seems the problem with so many tuners (in an OTA DVR box) is the fact that it basically just weakens the OTA signal more so without additional amplification....keeping in mind that many people already have splits on their coax downlead going to more than one television in the first place. And with all these tuners in a single OTA DVR, I guess that's why they "dumbed down" the Roamio to a maximum of 72% signal strength to try to balance things out. Am I missing something here because I've always wondered about these large number of tuners in a single OTA box? (If it were a cable TiVo box, obviously that would be different).

And on a different note, I haven't kept up with all the competing brands of home DVRs now days (versus when I bought my first TiVo), although I know there is certainly more options now days. I suppose I am staying put with what I've got at the present. But I do want to see what the latter part of 2020 brings with ATSC 3.0. Another feature (that I've thought about) is the best in-home solution for integrating two separate downleads (from 2 separate attic antennas facing different directions) (and wired separately) into a single TV guide line-up where the OTA channels (and reception) are maximized as a result of each functioning antenna being allowed to perform at its fullest potential. Of course, this would require a dedicated tuner for each antenna - and home networking (which I already have) to bring the tuners all together in a single guide line up. But maximum reception on every capable OTA channel is one of the most important items on my list since I don't subscribe to paid TV (except Netflix).


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

scott784 said:


> I wonder if any retrofit (so to speak) tuner will be as "sensitive" as a future built-in ATSC 3.0 tuner? Dunno here.


No doubt there will be a lot of adapters when ATSC 3.0 arrives, but I believe ATSC 3.0 will enter the home via a whole house 'router' which will stream to set top devices like Roku, Fire TV, and TiVo via an app. The images in the NAB article are deceptive. The words tend to support my thoughts. By the way, only current gen TiVos render 4K, so you are probably going to use another device...

_'TiVo has developed software that enables current generation Hydra-powered DVR hardware to manage a *network ATSC 3.0 tuner* and deliver next gen OTA content through those existing boxes.'

'While widespread ATSC 3.0 deployment (and an associated ATSC 1.0 drawdown) is quite a bit off, broadcasters in 40 markets intend to light up hardware to begin trials later this year. And TiVo has similarly begun preparations. This proof-of-concept (with laptop+tuner standing in for some sort of "box") pulls in ATSC 3.0 antenna signals over-the-air to provide video content to an Ethernet-connected TiVo DVR. Of course, *only Bolt and the new, new Mini are capable of rendering 4K content* (with HDR waiting in the wings).'_​


scott784 said:


> This brings up some other thoughts I've had about DVRs (generally), &#8230;.why is it that some manufacturers (to include TiVo) "promote" 4 tuners in an OTA DVR box now days? For example, I still have a fully functioning TiVo Premiere from 2011 with 2 tuners (that has met my needs). Several years back, I did buy a Roamio OTA box that has 4 tuners (not that I ever needed 4 tuners in a single OTA DVR box). And it seems the problem with so many tuners (in an OTA DVR box) is the fact that it basically just weakens the OTA signal more so without additional amplification....keeping in mind that many people already have splits on their coax downlead going to more than one television in the first place. And with all these tuners in a single OTA DVR, I guess that's why they "dumbed down" the Roamio to a maximum of 72% signal strength to try to balance things out. Am I missing something here because I've always wondered about these large number of tuners in a single OTA box? (If it were a cable TiVo box, obviously that would be different).


Beyond bragging rights and those who 'harvest' rather than watch television, TiVo sells a Mini tunerless device which uses a tuner on a full function TiVo. A four or six tuner TiVo can support a house full of these.



scott784 said:


> And on a different note, I haven't kept up with all the competing brands of home DVRs now days (versus when I bought my first TiVo), although I know there is certainly more options now days. I suppose I am staying put with what I've got at the present. But I do want to see what the latter part of 2020 brings with ATSC 3.0.


Good idea to sit tight. ATSC 3.0 is still far off. Capable televisions are working their way into the mainstream (except for the tuners), and content is becoming available, but the infrastructure is not there at this time and 


scott784 said:


> Another feature (that I've thought about) is the best in-home solution for integrating two separate downleads (from 2 separate attic antennas facing different directions) (and wired separately) into a single TV guide line-up where the OTA channels (and reception) are maximized as a result of each functioning antenna being allowed to perform at its fullest potential. Of course, this would require a dedicated tuner for each antenna - and home networking (which I already have) to bring the tuners all together in a single guide line up. But maximum reception on every capable OTA channel is one of the most important items on my list since I don't subscribe to paid TV (except Netflix).


Joiners are common. In my case, UHF stations are in one direction and VHF in another, so I use an RCA pre-amp to join and amplify the two. I believe HDHomerun devices will integrate multiple tuners into a single grid.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

wizwor said:


> I believe HDHomerun devices will integrate multiple tuners into a single grid.


I've tested this very thing, and yes, if you have multiple HDHR boxes, each box can have its own antenna and enable specific channels. Client devices will display a single guide w/ everything and select the preferred tuner & antenna combo for each channel. Caveat being you need multiple boxes to do this since each box only takes a single input. ie. I have two 2-tuner boxes, so I'll end up w/ two tuners per antenna.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I really do think that the future of OTA DVRs (both for ATSC 1.0 and 3.0) will be network tuner boxes with built-in DVR server software. Just plug your own USB hard drive (or flash drive) into it and then watch live/recorded TV via apps on the typical streaming platforms. In other words, the model used by both Tablo and AirTV.

Perhaps we'll still see HDHomeRun selling their simple network tuners that rely on a separate PC, Mac or NAS for DVR recording but those are more complicated (and, I suspect, failure-prone) set-ups. And even HDHomeRun is now getting into the business of full-function network tuner/DVR with their new HDHomeRun Scribe boxes. They even went a step further and included a 1 TB hard drive, so no need to supply your own storage. Not bad for $200 (the dual-tuner Duo model), with the first year of DVR/guide service included. Then $35/yr thereafter.

Of course, it can't compete price-wise with the dual-tuner AirTV at just $80 (with a $25 credit toward an optional Sling TV subscription). Plug in your own 1 TB USB hard drive for $45 and then ongoing DVR service is free. It recompresses the OTA signal, so does diminish HD PQ somewhat, but that makes it pretty easy for the unit to sling the video stream around the house via wifi in case you can't connect it via ethernet. Also really stretches your storage capacity. It doesn't (yet) have all the features that power-users would want (e.g. padding start/end times) but for $125 all-in, it's not bad.

Oddly, neither device has an app (yet) for Apple TV, although I think both work with Roku, Fire TV and Android TV.


----------



## scott784 (Jun 2, 2019)

OrangeCrush said:


> I've tested this very thing, and yes, if you have multiple HDHR boxes, each box can have its own antenna and enable specific channels. Client devices will display a single guide w/ everything and select the preferred tuner & antenna combo for each channel. Caveat being you need multiple boxes to do this since each box only takes a single input. ie. I have two 2-tuner boxes, so I'll end up w/ two tuners per antenna.


I *really* like the feature of being able to combine two separate tuners, with each Tuner/DVR box having its own dedicated antenna whereby the user can specify the desired channels off each antenna. I don't currently have this feature, but I *do* want it.

The fact is, many of us have scenarios where we've got broadcast towers in two or more directions. Or sometimes we have access to TV markets in separate directions. Either way, the desire is there to utilize more than one antenna to a dedicated/separate tuner. Of course, we know we can combine multiple antennas into a single downlead into the home. But that always means compromises where each antenna is not able to function at its fullest so it is *not* an ideal solution. I did read that HDHomeRun devices will do this (with separate wired antennas/tuners, all combined together in a single TV guide/grid. And I see they are selling one model, currently at BB (the Scribe model) (that NashGuy mentioned here) that does this very thing. Of course, it would require more than one box, although not necessary two Scribes. Is any other company doing this very same thing with their Tuner/DVR boxes? I wonder if TiVo will offer this feature in new models?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

scott784 said:


> I *really* like the feature of being able to combine two separate tuners, with each Tuner/DVR box having its own dedicated antenna whereby the user can specify the desired channels off each antenna. I don't currently have this feature, but I *do* want it.


That's always been the advantage of the network tuner model. People have had CableCard and OTA tuners combined for a while that way, and before that, they had multiple tuner cards in HTPCs with Windows MCE (which was, IMO, a horrendous piece of garbage in general). The downside, of course, in increased complexity, but with NAS or purpose-built storage devices, much of that complexity is gone, and it's pretty straightforward to set up. You can also hide all the equipment away, or put the tuners where the coax feeds go, and then have streaming devices throughout the house. If only they had software as good as TiVo....


----------



## scott784 (Jun 2, 2019)

NashGuy said:


> I really do think that the future of OTA DVRs (both for ATSC 1.0 and 3.0) will be network tuner boxes with built-in DVR server software. Just plug your own USB hard drive (or flash drive) into it and then watch live/recorded TV via apps on the typical streaming platforms. In other words, the model used by both Tablo and AirTV.


Yes, I think consumers would want the simplicity of all of that. Even better (given the small size of storage now days) is to have the model with its own "built in storage" by default, and allow the user to add more external storage, if desired.

As for ATSC 3.0, I keep questioning why manufacturers are being so quiet about it? The fact is, I think it hurts their business in 2019 (at least for consumers "in the know" about this upcoming change. Yes, it will be a slow change and only few test markets are even experimenting with ATSC 3.0 right now. But since the FCC has already signed off on the protocol of ATSC 3.0, why not start integrating that tuner technology in devices this year in order to "future proof" the product (versus consumers even having to think about how some future adapter will work)? And we know the new generation tuners have already been adopted and readily available on retail shelves in South Korea, although, perhaps the final protocol in their market is slight different? Or maybe not really so much at all?

Either way, the perceived lack of transparency about all of this from manufacturers in the US market remains a mystery to me.


----------



## scott784 (Jun 2, 2019)

Bigg said:


> That's always been the advantage of the network tuner model. People have had CableCard and OTA tuners combined for a while that way, and before that, they had multiple tuner cards in HTPCs with Windows MCE (which was, IMO, a horrendous piece of garbage in general). The downside, of course, in increased complexity, but with NAS or purpose-built storage devices, much of that complexity is gone, and it's pretty straightforward to set up. You can also hide all the equipment away, or put the tuners where the coax feeds go, and then have streaming devices throughout the house. If only they had software as good as TiVo....


I've been invested in TiVo since 2011 and it seems the guide interface and user friendliness of the product cannot be beat! That said, it's very interesting to me that TiVo hasn't marketed this technology of combining more than one (separate OTA tuner) into a home network guide/grid?

Although I've never used HDHomeRun, it seems that's the area where they are currently "excelling". TiVo really should get on board with this option. Also, my "guess" would be that as these other home DVRs become more advanced themselves (and user friendly), TiVo will need to become more competitive from the price standpoint.

Although my TiVo Premiere is still chugging along fine 8 years since I bought it - I paid "lots" of money for that DVR at the time with "lifetime" included.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

scott784 said:


> Yes, I think consumers would want the simplicity of all of that. Even better (given the small size of storage now days) is to have the model with its own "built in storage" by default, and allow the user to add more external storage, if desired.
> 
> As for ATSC 3.0, I keep questioning why manufacturers are being so quiet about it? The fact is, I think it hurts their business in 2019 (at least for consumers "in the know" about this upcoming change. Yes, it will be a slow change and only few test markets are even experimenting with ATSC 3.0 right now. But since the FCC has already signed off on the protocol of ATSC 3.0, why not start integrating that tuner technology in devices this year in order to "future proof" the product (versus consumers even having to think about how some future adapter will work)? And we know the new generation tuners have already been adopted and readily available on retail shelves in South Korea, although, perhaps the final protocol in their market is slight different? Or maybe not really so much at all?
> 
> Either way, the perceived lack of transparency about all of this from manufacturers in the US market remains a mystery to me.


You might find the conversation interesting on the ATSC 3.0 thread over at AVS Forum. It's actively moderated by a guy, Dr. Don, who has a background in the local broadcast TV industry.

My guess as to lack of ATSC 3.0 tuners in the US yet is that, although the physical specs of the tuners are set by the ATSC 3.0 standards, US broadcasters have yet to decide on the firmware/software stack that will be used with the tuners. Kinda like how you might know the design for a PC, and you know that it'll need to render web pages, but how the web browser that runs on the PC will be coded is yet to be decided. Will it be Chrome? Or Firefox? Or Edge? Or Safari?


----------



## scott784 (Jun 2, 2019)

I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip on that thread, NashGuy.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

scott784 said:


> And I see they are selling one model, currently at BB (the Scribe model) (that NashGuy mentioned here)


Amazon's still selling the dual tuner boxes for $80 (BB has them for $100). The Scribe Quatro is $250. I haven't looked in to the scribes because I have no need for the built in DVR stuff. I'm experimenting with Channels DVR running on my desktop with my two dual tuner boxes now (which is really _really_ good, especially w/ the beta TVE integration).



Bigg said:


> and before that, they had multiple tuner cards in HTPCs with Windows MCE (which was, IMO, a horrendous piece of garbage in general)


That's a little surprising. I never used it since I got in to the whole cord cutting DVR thing when MCE was on its way to being discontinued, but had always heard how much people liked it and how upset they were it didn't make it to Windows 10.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

scott784 said:


> As for ATSC 3.0, I keep questioning why manufacturers are being so quiet about it?


You're looking too much into it. Most people don't care, a lot of cord cutters don't have antennas at all, and most of the ones who do rarely use them.



scott784 said:


> That said, it's very interesting to me that TiVo hasn't marketed this technology of combining more than one (separate OTA tuner) into a home network guide/grid?


TiVo is more interested in the "DVR box" model as opposed to a networked DVR system.



> Although I've never used HDHomeRun, it seems that's the area where they are currently "excelling". TiVo really should get on board with this option. Also, my "guess" would be that as these other home DVRs become more advanced themselves (and user friendly), TiVo will need to become more competitive from the price standpoint.


It's sort of confusing/complicated for your average idiot out there, but they do compete heavily for the enthusiast market that TiVo lives in (at least on the retail side).



OrangeCrush said:


> That's a little surprising. I never used it since I got in to the whole cord cutting DVR thing when MCE was on its way to being discontinued, but had always heard how much people liked it and how upset they were it didn't make it to Windows 10.


MCE had a tiny but rabid following, and probably will until January 10, 2023. That being said, MCE's UI/UX is atrocious. I used it for a few months and subsequently bought a TiVo it was so bad. It was also generally unreliable and would have all sorts of weird bugs/glitches.

This is my thread from 2013, and the MCE fanboys/trolls are hilarious in trying to explain everything away:

Extremely disappointed with MCE - TheGreenButton.tv


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> You're looking too much into it. Most people don't care, a lot of cord cutters don't have antennas at all, and most of the ones who do rarely use them.


Crazy talk...


Nielson said:


> Nielson estimates that 13.8 percent of U.S. homes rely on antennas for TV, up from 10.3 percent in 2014.


Over-the-Air TV is Booming in U.S. Cities


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> You're looking too much into it. Most people don't care, a lot of cord cutters don't have antennas at all, and most of the ones who do rarely use them.





wizwor said:


> Crazy talk...
> 
> Over-the-Air TV is Booming in U.S. Cities


Yeah, OTA antenna use is edging up but I'm with Bigg in thinking that most of that growth comes from cord-cutters who *primarily* rely on streaming video. OTA TV is a freebie, so whatever they can get with an inexpensive indoor antenna, great. Normal folks I know (i.e. not the kind of guys like us who post on forums like this) often say things like "I've got a little antenna and I can get 2, 5 and 17 with it but can't really get 4 at all. But whatever, it's free." And then they ask if you're watching that new thing on Netflix or Prime Video.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Crazy talk...


I don't think a lot of those actively use them other than an occasional sportsball game.



NashGuy said:


> Normal folks I know (i.e. not the kind of guys like us who post on forums like this) often say things like "I've got a little antenna and I can get 2, 5 and 17 with it but can't really get 4 at all. But whatever, it's free." And then they ask if you're watching that new thing on Netflix or Prime Video.


Yup. Ate dinner with a friend last night who mentioned that he lost one of our local channels about a month ago and was just now wondering where it went (turns out it was a lower power STA for the repack). I told him to wait until August 2, and rescan, he was fine with waiting.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, OTA antenna use is edging up but I'm with Bigg in thinking that most of that growth comes from cord-cutters who *primarily* rely on streaming video. OTA TV is a freebie, so whatever they can get with an inexpensive indoor antenna, great. Normal folks I know (i.e. not the kind of guys like us who post on forums like this) often say things like "I've got a little antenna and I can get 2, 5 and 17 with it but can't really get 4 at all. But whatever, it's free." And then they ask if you're watching that new thing on Netflix or Prime Video.


This afternoon I'm working with a 30ish engineer whose wife is expecting their first. His name is Ellsworth which got us talking about a place we used to pass through when I was very young. It's in Maine, so we got to talking about desolate parts of the state including Ebeemee Township -- where I installed an antenna and a DVR+ in a camp with little cell and no other service. It turns out he just installed an antenna. Much hugging and such ensued.

The thing is that this is a young guy with a family and plenty of disposable income who installed an antenna. This is a chicken and egg thing. More eyes attract more networks which draws more eyes. Antennas will besmirch the horizon for another generation.


----------

