# FCC Approves The Start of ATSC 3.0



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well this has been a long time coming: The FCC gives 4K, next-gen TV the green light

I say about time. Sounds like it may start in Phoenix I am guessing it is still several years away for a small market like Rochester NY, but who knows.

So what do people think TiVo is going to do?

Nothing
Find a third party to build an ATSC 3.0 OTA DVR running TiVo Software
Build a new Bolt with ATSC 3.0 tuners
Sell Network attached ATSC 3.0 tuners that will work with Bolts.​Of course I hope they do the last one.
​


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Hooray! Bring it on!

I'm betting you'll see some ATSC 3.0 stations broadcasting there in Rochester in 2019 if not before. Your market is slated for phase 4 of the spectrum repack, due for completion by 8/2/19. And it looks like your CBS station (which will change frequencies in the repack) is owned by Nexstar, while your Fox and ABC stations (the latter of which will also move) are owned by Sinclair. Sinclair and Nexstar are two of the biggest proponents of ATSC 3.0. Sinclair has said it will roll out 3.0 nationwide among all their stations, and they've joined with Nexstar to form a channel-sharing consortium to enable the rollout. By the time the repack is done, it's very likely that they'll get your local NBC there to work with them, so maybe CBS and NBC pair up to share one of their towers on 1.0 and the other on 3.0, while Sinclair does the same with their ABC and Fox towers.

As for what TiVo will do, if anything, I see them licensing their branding and software/UI to a third party who will develop TiVo-branded apps to run on popular platforms (smart TVs, Roku, Fire TV, etc.) to work with network-attached 3.0 tuners and storage as an OTA DVR. Basically like Tablo works. It might work with their own TiVo-branded network tuner or just be an app-based service that works with network tuners from other companies (the way Plex DVR works with Silicon Dust tuners now).


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

The spectrum might get rearranged but I don't see much else happening. There is not much reason to believe the picture quality will improve and the rest of it sounds like boiler room hype.


----------



## DigitalDawn (Apr 26, 2009)

Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 is *not* mandatory. Stations do not have to broadcast 3.0, but they do have to have compatibility with 1.0.

Now what I would like to know is whether or not cable companies have to carry 3.0 4K signals from local stations?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Also keep in mind this topic has a multi-page thread already. -> ATSC 3.0 TimeTable


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

JoeKustra said:


> Also keep in mind this topic has a multi-page thread already. -> ATSC 3.0 TimeTable


Ya I know we have had long discussions about this in the past, but back then it was nothing but speculation. Now that the FCC has approved it we are now in dealing with reality, given that the FCC was pushed by station owners for the approve it is also very clear that some stations intend on moving forward. Will be interesting to what shows up on the hardware side this year at CES.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DigitalDawn said:


> Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 is *not* mandatory. Stations do not have to broadcast 3.0, but they do have to have compatibility with 1.0.
> 
> Now what I would like to know is whether or not cable companies have to carry 3.0 4K signals from local stations?


Not likely as "must carry" only comes into play if the station is not being paid and at this point I am guessing all the ones carrying one of the major networks are being paid re-transmission fees so they have negotiated agreements.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DigitalDawn said:


> Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 is *not* mandatory. Stations do not have to broadcast 3.0, but they do have to have compatibility with 1.0.
> 
> Now what I would like to know is whether or not cable companies have to carry 3.0 4K signals from local stations?


No. Stations can negotiate with cable to carry their 3.0 signals but nothing is mandatory.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> No. Stations can negotiate with cable to carry their 3.0 signals but nothing is mandatory.


There used to be people who talked about rules in the must carry requirements that did not allow cable operators to degrade the signal. But given that no station owner is likely to drop back to must carry and give up being paid it will be part of the re-transmission fee negotiation.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> There used to be people who talked about rules in the must carry requirements that did not allow cable operators to degrade the signal. But given that no station owner is likely to drop back to must carry and give up being paid it will be part of the re-transmission fee negotiation.


Right.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

It looks like once stations start moving to ATSC 3.0 in a given market they will all share one channel to simulcast in ATSC 1.0 and the highest resolution they could go to is 720P for the broadcast network channels and still have room for the subchannels.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

As long as my TiVo works with a cable card :> not really concerned about any changes. I do have an antenna and a Tablo but that is more a backup.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Nothing
> Find a third party to build an ATSC 3.0 OTA DVR running TiVo Software
> Build a new Bolt with ATSC 3.0 tuners
> Sell Network attached ATSC 3.0 tuners that will work with Bolts.​Of course I hope they do the last one.


I can't see why new tuners would be needed, only new software.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 does not mean that 4K broadcasts are around the corner. Indeed, from what I have read, broadcasters are more interested in monetizing the additional bandwidth. They are looking to use it for things like mobile TV, broadband services, etc. Personally, I don't expect 4K OTA for the foreseeable future.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 does not mean that 4K broadcasts are around the corner. Indeed, from what I have read, broadcasters are more interested in monetizing the additional bandwidth. They are looking to use it for things like mobile TV, broadband services, etc. Personally, I don't expect 4K OTA for the foreseeable future.


Multiple sources I've read say that high-quality 1080p HDR will be the target format for the main broadcast channels under 3.0, at least for the next few years. I think Fox is on board with that, and I may have read that CBS is supportive too. No idea as to whether NBC and ABC have plans to offer network content in better formats than they do now. Perhaps we'll see some special events here and there, such as the Super Bowl, broadcast in true 4K.

I have no idea if any broadcasters will actually do this, but ATSC 3.0 does allow for the OTA signal to be combined with internet-delivered bits. So it's possible you'll see 1080p OTA broadcasts that can be optionally upgraded in real time to 4K if your tuner is connected to broadband. The OTA "base layer" gets combined with an internet "upgrade layer". For that matter, ATSC 3.0 also allows the OTA audio/video stream itself to be completely replaced by an internet stream, such as in cases where the receiver gets a faint OTA signal which isn't reliable enough to watch but can serve as a key to unlock a simulcast online live stream of the channel, all of which would be automatic and essentially invisible to the viewer. Since ATSC 3.0 is native IP, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for interactions with the internet. But, in order to geofence services, any associated online content must be triggered by reception of the OTA signal.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> Multiple sources I've read say that high-quality 1080p HDR will be the target format for the main broadcast channels under 3.0, at least for the next few years. I think Fox is on board with that, and I may have read that CBS is supportive too. No idea as to whether NBC and ABC have plans to offer network content in better formats than they do now. Perhaps we'll see some special events here and there, such as the Super Bowl, broadcast in true 4K.


I agree. I would buy a 1080p HDR TV tomorrow if somebody made one. Chicken & egg problem.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

Cost is the driver.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> I can't see why new tuners would be needed, only new software.


Because existing ATSC 1.0 tuners can not tune ATSC 3.0 signals, at least that is what has been consistently stated for the last year or 2.

Tablo has a very good web page explaining ATSC 3.0, they say:

*The Dark Side of ATSC 3.0*
Unfortunately, all the great features of ATSC 3.0 won't be available using current technology as it's not backward compatible. Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts.​Their recent updated/Part 2 of the above article is also very good:What Cord Cutters Need to Know About ATSC 3.0 - Part 2 | Over The Air (OTA) DVR | Tablo 
And is also very clear that new equipment will be needed:

"Although your current Over-the-Air TV antenna will be able to receive the new signals, there are no TVs, no converter boxes, and no DVRs on the market in North America today that support ATSC 3.0's Next Gen TV.

In fact, manufacturers in the United States don't even have access to chipsets or tuners capable to decoding this new standard."​


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> I agree. I would buy a 1080p HDR TV tomorrow if somebody made one. Chicken & egg problem.


Perhaps we'll begin seeing some smaller screen TVs made as 1080p with HDR. But I don't foresee that really ever being the case with TVs at say 43" and bigger. They'll be both 4K and HDR if they have HDR at all. (And once 3.0 broadcasts with HDR commence, I expect HDR to be a mainstream, not premium, feature.)

In broadcasting 1080pHDR, the networks are generally assuming that the TV will do a decent job of upscaling the resolution to 4K. At least during the bandwidth-squeezed transition period, where we'll have stations sharing bandwidth, they generally don't think there's a big enough difference between upscaled 1080p and true 4K to justify devoting nearly 4x the bandwidth for the latter. However, they think that adding HDR, which doesn't require that much additional bandwidth, makes a big difference in picture quality, so it's worth the extra bandwidth.

To achieve an equivalent coverage area as today's 1.0 signals, an equal-powered 3.0 signal would have a total bandwidth of about 26 Mbps. A 1080p HDR channel in HEVC would require about 5 Mbps. So on a shared tower, you might have 2 1080p HDR channels, 4 720p channels, and the remaining ~8 Mbps used for other stuff, like datacasting and/or subscription pay TV. Who knows, really, it's all up to the business decisions made by the broadcasters.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

Read other thread, link to the Tablo explanation and this one.
I am still not sure why I should not buy the Roamio OTA or what the "surprise" will be other than outdated equipment. Everything I read seems to point to current tuners being able to capture/display OTA broadcasts for the next 4-7 years. I only need 8 months of OTA to break even on my OTA equipment. Am I missing something?
I mean in 4-5 years I would expect to have to replace a device. Anything built in today's world has a life cycle in terms of months or years, not decades. Hence the reason I have purchased 8 TIVO's since 2003. All but one had "lifetime" service. Not one of them went past the 6 year point.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

Hubby and I are done with paying for TV or any streaming service. We are in our retirement years and can find no value in the available content. Likely a generational thing. To relax we seek out books, fishing and gardening. If we lost OTA today it would not be a big deal. We had 1-2 stations living in Montana. For 13 days we had no power, no internet, nothing but books during post Irma. I spent 4 months in the hospital and rehab facility. Never once turned on the TV. Neither TV nor the Internet is critical to our enjoyment of living.

I only state this to say we are going OTA due to finding little value any longer in what our FiOS provider offers. Dropped our phone last week and dropping FiOS TV next week. Will keep our basic Internet stream. The money saved will be fun to spend in a different way.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SandiMacD said:


> Read other thread, link to the Tablo explanation and this one.
> I am still not sure why I should not buy the Roamio OTA or what the "surprise" will be other than outdated equipment. Everything I read seems to point to current tuners being able to capture/display OTA broadcasts for the next 4-7 years. I only need 8 months of OTA to break even on my OTA equipment. Am I missing something?
> I mean in 4-5 years I would expect to have to replace a device. Anything built in today's world has a life cycle in terms of months or years, not decades. Hence the reason I have purchased 8 TIVO's since 2003. All but one had "lifetime" service. Not one of them went past the 6 year point.


If I needed a new OTA DVR I would buy one (ok might wait to see what black Friday deals they have). I think that for the next 5 or so years worst case is that the picture quality gets degraded not that the ATSC 1.0 signals go away.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

I got a deal that I am happy with on the Roamio 1TB, 4 channel OTA with All In One service for $360. It arrived Thurs (3 days ago). I set it up Friday and got back on the forum threads Sat due to confusing Hydra UI. Found a the new FCC ruling and then followed that thread to here. 

I can return it within 30 days. 

I can downgrade Hydra. 

For now we are both comfortable with our decision. I unchecked everything associated with streaming searches and recordings. Now Hydra is an enjoyable OTA experience broadcasting 20+ channels of classic movies and TV programs we enjoyed growing up plus local news and weather and of course PBS. 

My mind is now satisfied that we can watch these local SD/HD stations for at least a few more years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

SandiMacD said:


> I got a deal that I am happy with on the Roamio 1TB, 4 channel OTA with All In One service for $360. It arrived Thurs (3 days ago). I set it up Friday and got back on the forum threads Sat due to confusing Hydra UI. Found a the new FCC ruling and then followed that thread to here.
> 
> I can return it within 30 days.
> 
> ...


Yes, you'll get years of use out of your TiVo and it will do just what you need it to do. Don't worry about ATSC 3.0. ATSC 1.0 will be around for a long time and the Roamio is a great OTA DVR.

P.S. Since you still have internet, you may enjoy using the YouTube app on TiVo. You can find some interesting and educational content on there, all free.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Perhaps we'll begin seeing some smaller screen TVs made as 1080p with HDR. But I don't foresee that really ever being the case with TVs at say 43" and bigger. They'll be both 4K and HDR if they have HDR at all. (And once 3.0 broadcasts with HDR commence, I expect HDR to be a mainstream, not premium, feature.)
> 
> In broadcasting 1080pHDR, the networks are generally assuming that the TV will do a decent job of upscaling the resolution to 4K. At least during the bandwidth-squeezed transition period, where we'll have stations sharing bandwidth, they generally don't think there's a big enough difference between upscaled 1080p and true 4K to justify devoting nearly 4x the bandwidth for the latter. However, they think that adding HDR, which doesn't require that much additional bandwidth, makes a big difference in picture quality, so it's worth the extra bandwidth.
> 
> To achieve an equivalent coverage area as today's 1.0 signals, an equal-powered 3.0 signal would have a total bandwidth of about 26 Mbps. A 1080p HDR channel in HEVC would require about 5 Mbps. So on a shared tower, you might have 2 1080p HDR channels, 4 720p channels, and the remaining ~8 Mbps used for other stuff, like datacasting and/or subscription pay TV. Who knows, really, it's all up to the business decisions made by the broadcasters.


I thought only the legacy ATSC 1.0 channels would be the only stations sharing bandwidth on a single ATSC 1.0 frequency, while the new ATSC 3.0 stations would each have their own frequency with full bandwidth.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I thought only the legacy ATSC 1.0 channels would be the only stations sharing bandwidth on a single ATSC 1.0 frequency, while the new ATSC 3.0 stations would each have their own frequency with full bandwidth.


There are no specific Government rules beyond that they must continue to broadcast the core OTA Networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) via ATSC 1.0. So what happens and when it happens will be market specific and based on what the broadcasters in each market negotiate with each other. I hope some of the lesser viewed sub channels are dropped during the transition in favor of retaining higher quality for the main networks but my guess is decisions will be made based on $$s and not my desires.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

If they can't even correctly/dynamically update tv schedules for TiVo, cable companies and websites, it seems unlikely they will successfully implement much of the fancy features of ATSC 3.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

*Phoenix To Serve As 'Model Market' For ATSC 3.0*

Phoenix To Serve As 'Model Market' For ATSC 3.0

Seven broadcasters across 10 stations in Phoenix will launch what they describe as a "model market" to demonstrate the viability of the next-gen ATSC 3.0 ecosystem while at the same time continuing to serve over-the-air viewers with legacy ATSC 1.0 digital television, the broadcasters announced today.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

shwru980r said:


> I thought only the legacy ATSC 1.0 channels would be the only stations sharing bandwidth on a single ATSC 1.0 frequency, while the new ATSC 3.0 stations would each have their own frequency with full bandwidth.


The scenario you're describing is what things may look like several years from now (like maybe 2025?) if ATSC 3.0 really takes off and lots of viewers move over to it. But for the first few years, it would be too risky for TV stations to cram all of their channels together on a single 1.0 tower -- to serve the large majority of their OTA viewers -- while using all the rest of their towers for 3.0, to serve just a slice of viewers. The reason it would be risky is that they couldn't fit all of their current channels/subchannels onto a single tower; everything would have to be downgraded to just SD and they'd still have to drop lots of less popular subchannels. Those moves would drive away some viewers and hurt their ad revenues.

For the next five years, the FCC is requiring that stations (with the exception of some low-power stations, which can apply for waivers from this rule) simulcast all of the free (non-subscription) channels they air on 3.0 also on 1.0, although they can carry them at lower quality/resolution on 1.0. However, they're not required to carry all of their 1.0 channels on 3.0. I've read that all TV-connected 3.0 tuners will actually be hybrid 3.0/1.0 tuners, capable of receiving both types of signals. So, in some cases, we may see broadcasters choosing NOT to air some of their 1.0 subchannels on their new 3.0 signal too. For instance, one of my local channels currently carries ABC (720p) and Me-TV, Justice Network, and Grit (all 480i). When they launch a 3.0 broadcast, maybe it will carry ABC in 1080p HDR and Me-TV in 720p. But perhaps neither Justice Network nor Grit, which are less popular, will offer affiliates an HD version. So maybe they won't bother duplicating those SD feeds on the 3.0 signal, they'll just let folks continue to watch them in SD on the original 1.0 signal. And they'll use the saved bandwidth on the 3.0 signal for other business opportunities, like datacasting, audio-only/music, or subscription TV channels.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I can't see why new tuners would be needed, only new software.


Apparently LG thought they would need to build a TV with Dual Tuners
LG Builds Dual-Tuner ATSC 1.0/3.0 Ultra HD TVs for the Korean Market - The Broadcast Bridge - Connecting IT to Broadcast


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Having just purchased a new TV (LG OLED) which I'm extremely happy with, I have to ask, has anyone seen any possibility of a stand-alone OTA set top box to receive ATSC 3 signals to feed a current ATSC 1 set?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

MScottC said:


> Having just purchased a new TV (LG OLED) which I'm extremely happy with, I have to ask, has anyone seen any possibility of a stand-alone OTA set top box to receive ATSC 3 signals to feed a current ATSC 1 set?


I am guessing there will be some ATSC-3 equipment available at this years CES. Beyond cost there should be no technical problem building ATSC-3 tuner boxes that output via HDMI.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Yeah, I would be SHOCKED if there aren't ATSC 3.0 tuners, just like there's ATSC 1.0 tuners.

Plus of course ideally we'll have TiVos with ATSC 3.0, making the need for a stand alone tuner irrelevant. 

At any rate, I wouldn't spend time worrying about only having 1.0 compatible TVs. I'm like 99.9 confidant it won't be an issue.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

MScottC said:


> Having just purchased a new TV (LG OLED) which I'm extremely happy with, I have to ask, has anyone seen any possibility of a stand-alone OTA set top box to receive ATSC 3 signals to feed a current ATSC 1 set?


I HOPE that my $3k LG OLED would have the opportunity to upgrade. Ideally something that includes an external tuner, USB control, and firmware upgrade that makes the experience transparent as if the TV was originally shipped with both tuners.

Technically this is certainly possible, the test will be if TV manufacturers want to spend money to develop something for existing customers or if they want to push sales of new Televisions.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

MighTiVo said:


> I HOPE that my $3k LG OLED would have the opportunity to upgrade. Ideally something that includes an external tuner, USB control, and firmware upgrade that makes the experience transparent as if the TV was originally shipped with both tuners.
> 
> Technically this is certainly possible, the test will be if TV manufacturers want to spend money to develop something for existing customers or if they want to push sales of new Televisions.


They don't need to. At least in the case of a handful of high end Samsung TVs it would technically be possible (basically the guts of the TV are in a box separate from the TV), but there's no need, as there will almost certainly be stand alone ATSC 3.0 tuners just as there are 1.0 tuners, especially in the early years.

Plus it's all a moot point for us if TiVo makes a 3.0 TiVo, since I haven't used a tuner outside a TiVo in over a decade. (Well, save for a tuner I've used with my notebook to watch/record some Olympics last year LOL)


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

ATSC 3.0 outboard tuners will likely be made, but there are no government mandates or subsidies this time around. So, ATSC 3.0 tuners will be more expensive than the 1.0 units that sold for under $100, both because the demand will be less (without a converter last time, you couldn't continue watching TV but this time you can) and the subsidies won't be available.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Sinclair and Nexstar are two of the biggest proponents of ATSC 3.0. Sinclair has said it will roll out 3.0 nationwide among all their stations, and they've joined with Nexstar to form a channel-sharing consortium to enable the rollout.


Pelosi: FCC Can't Apply UHF Discount to Sinclair Deal | Broadcasting & Cable

This is beginning to sound like an Enron plot.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

MScottC said:


> Having just purchased a new TV (LG OLED) which I'm extremely happy with, I have to ask, has anyone seen any possibility of a stand-alone OTA set top box to receive ATSC 3 signals to feed a current ATSC 1 set?


There will definitely be standalone ATSC 3.0 (actually 3.0/1.0) tuners coming to market here. LG and Samsung both brought their own such units to market in S. Korea earlier this year. I saw the LG unit on their Korean website. It was a thin black box. LG has been one of the biggest proponents and technological developers of ATSC 3.0.

I also have an LG OLED (2016). I haven't read much about LG's external 3.0 tuner (I can't read Korean) but my guess is that it will integrate with LG's webOS and existing channel tuning system. Hopefully it will also bring with it LG's Time Machine feature for recording OTA TV to a USB hard drive connected to the tuner. That's a feature that LG has built into the TVs they sell in pretty much every market except N. America. (There may even be a way to enable the feature on our OLEDs by monkeying around in the hidden service menu.) I think there must be some fear of lawsuits or infringement of the DMCA law that keeps TV makers from building DVR functionality directly into TVs sold in the US.

Given that there's no government-sponsored tuner subsidy program, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, broadcasters do to incentivize consumers to buy 3.0 tuners. There's been some speculation in the past that they may band together to subsidize the cost themselves. We'll see. I know that Sinclair, the biggest station owner group and biggest proponent of 3.0, has offered mobile phone manufacturers 1 million free 3.0 tuner chips if they'll incorporate them into their phones.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> Hopefully it will also bring with it LG's Time Machine feature for recording OTA TV to a USB hard drive connected to the tuner. That's a feature that LG has built into the TVs they sell in pretty much every market except N. America.


Thanks, I was wondering about that when I was reading about the DVR capability of the LG TVs and couldn't find it on my 2017 and only found the snapshot feature. I thought it must be on even more expensive models, not that it was disabled for US. Didn't really matter since I use TiVo anyway...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

MighTiVo said:


> Thanks, I was wondering about that when I was reading about the DVR capability of the LG TVs and couldn't find it on my 2017 and only found the snapshot feature. I thought it must be on even more expensive models, not that it was disabled for US. Didn't really matter since I use TiVo anyway...


If I had that feature in my TV, I might just sell my Roamio OTA, which I don't rely on that much any more thanks to Hulu and other streaming services. But it is handy for certain things, so I don't see the point in ditching it yet. Right now, I'm waiting to see what comes to market next year in terms of next-gen streaming boxes that will interface with ATSC 3.0 tuners for live and DVR'd OTA TV. Could go with an Apple TV 4K, although I'm hoping a new Android TV box (maybe an updated Nvidia Shield TV) comes to market with support for Dolby Vision.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> If I had that feature in my TV, I might just sell my Roamio OTA, which I don't rely on that much any more thanks to Hulu and other streaming services. But it is handy for certain things, so I don't see the point in ditching it yet. Right now, I'm waiting to see what comes to market next year in terms of next-gen streaming boxes that will interface with ATSC 3.0 tuners for live and DVR'd OTA TV. Could go with an Apple TV 4K, although I'm hoping a new Android TV box (maybe an updated Nvidia Shield TV) comes to market with support for Dolby Vision.


There is just no way I think I could handle no TiVo after using it for about 18 years, we have a relationship...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

MighTiVo said:


> There is just no way I think I could handle no TiVo after using it for about 18 years, we have a relationship...


I bought my first and only TiVo 2.5 years ago. It works well as a DVR, not so much for streaming. I don't have any kind of emotional attachment to it, it's just one of a few DVRs I've used over the years, including the Sony DHG-HDD 250, the Dish ViP-722, and the DirecTV Genie. Before long, we'll look back at DVRs the way we do VCRs today.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> I bought my first and only TiVo 2.5 years ago. It works well as a DVR, not so much for streaming. I don't have any kind of emotional attachment to it, it's just one of a few DVRs I've used over the years, including the Sony DHG-HDD 250, the Dish ViP-722, and the DirecTV Genie. Before long, we'll look back at DVRs the way we do VCRs today.


Oh I have had other relationships on the side. ReplayTV, Dishplayer, XBMC, MythTV, SageTV, Genie, a few DVD/DVR combos, SimpleTV, etc. but I keep coming back and upgrading S1, S2, DTV Tivo, DVDTiVo, Premier, Replay, Bolt....

Funny thing is I thought I got a real deal, at the introduction of the first TiVo at CES, TiVo had a contest, write why you want a TiVo. As best we could tell from the "small" audience that participated everybody that entered won. Our guess was that TiVo apparently had a bit of an error and sent congratulations to most/all a lot anyway, who entered. We surmised that TiVo took the loss and gave everyone the TiVo they promised to avoid bad publicity as a startup. Needless to say, it was a good investment on their part for myself as a customer at least.


----------



## mlippert (Apr 3, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> Tablo has a very good web page explaining ATSC 3.0, they say:
> 
> *The Dark Side of ATSC 3.0*
> Unfortunately, all the great features of ATSC 3.0 won't be available using current technology as it's not backward compatible. Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts.​


OK, so this is what I'm trying to find out more about, and no one seems to be talking about "Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts.".

When I started hearing that ATSC 3.0 enables over the air DRM and tracking of people receiving the signal (for targeted ads etc.) I wondered how it could do that for a broadcast signal.

If a broadband internet connection is required in order to make use of the broadcast signal, that would explain how, but I for one think it's unreasonable to require an internet connection in a home in order to watch broadcast TV.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

mlippert said:


> I for one think it's unreasonable to require an internet connection in a home in order to watch broadcast TV.


I have to agree with that. It's broadcast television.

Nuts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mlippert said:


> OK, so this is what I'm trying to find out more about, and no one seems to be talking about "Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts.".
> 
> When I started hearing that ATSC 3.0 enables over the air DRM and tracking of people receiving the signal (for targeted ads etc.) I wondered how it could do that for a broadcast signal.
> 
> If a broadband internet connection is required in order to make use of the broadcast signal, that would explain how, but I for one think it's unreasonable to require an internet connection in a home in order to watch broadcast TV.


My take is there will be advanced features that will require Internet access, but to just watch TV it will not be needed. We should start to see some devices at this years CES.


----------



## emuman100 (Jul 3, 2003)

For years, it was the law that new standards had to be backwards compatible. With ATSC, that is not the case. The government funded program to subsidize converter boxes was a good solution. Now, if ATSC 3.0 is forced by industry (which I think it will), all current ATSC 1.0 equipment will be rendered unusable. This is sad, because mpeg4 video could be implemented in ATSC 1.0 transport stream. ATSC 3.0's transport stream is incompatible with ATSC 1.0.

This is the issue. This new standard is being pushed solely for DRM. It's not the "exciting new services", or the "improved program delivery", it's for DRM and revenue generating services. Don't let the industry lie to you. Because of that, existing DVRs like Tivo, TVs, and video equipment will be left out and we'll be forced to buy newer, crapper equipment. Tivo platforms have gotten worse and worse over the years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> My take is there will be advanced features that will require Internet access, but to just watch TV it will not be needed. We should start to see some devices at this years CES.


This is exactly correct.



emuman100 said:


> For years, it was the law that new standards had to be backwards compatible. With ATSC, that is not the case. The government funded program to subsidize converter boxes was a good solution. Now, if ATSC 3.0 is forced by industry (which I think it will), all current ATSC 1.0 equipment will be rendered unusable. This is sad, because mpeg4 video could be implemented in ATSC 1.0 transport stream. ATSC 3.0's transport stream is incompatible with ATSC 1.0.
> 
> This is the issue. This new standard is being pushed solely for DRM. It's not the "exciting new services", or the "improved program delivery", it's for DRM and revenue generating services. Don't let the industry lie to you. Because of that, existing DVRs like Tivo, TVs, and video equipment will be left out and we'll be forced to buy newer, crapper equipment. Tivo platforms have gotten worse and worse over the years.


It's true that MPEG-4 H.264 compressed video can be used with the existing ATSC 1.0 standard. But if broadcasters were to switch to that more efficient type of compression, it would still mean that LOTS of current OTA TV viewers would have to buy new converter boxes or replace their current TVs, as most ATSC 1.0 tuners in use don't support MPEG-4.

So if the industry is going to embrace a new format that requires new consumer hardware, why should they restrict themselves to ATSC 1.0? Why not upgrade the entire standard, skip over MPEG-4 H.264 compression and go to the even better, more modern HEVC H.265 compression codec? Why restrict themselves to 1080i when they could allow for 1080p and 2160p with HDR? Why not change the nature of the transport stream to be fully IP-compatible so that it can interact with the internet in various ways? And change the physical nature of the broadcast signal -- the wave modulation -- from the fragile 8VSB (which ATSC 1.0 uses, and is prone to interference and difficult to tune in) to the far more robust OFDM (which ATSC 3.0 uses)?

There are many, many ways that ATSC 3.0 is simply superior to ATSC 1.0. That said, yes, DRM is a concern. I don't think it's clear yet how and to what extent DRM could be legally implemented in ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. That said, DRM is legally permissible under ATSC 1.0. It was used by an OTA subscription pay TV service called AirBox (now defunct) which allowed subscribers in a few cities to watch SD versions Showtime, Starz and other channels OTA using their own receiver box. Broadcasts were encoded in encrypted H.264.


----------



## emuman100 (Jul 3, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But if broadcasters were to switch to that more efficient type of compression, it would still mean that LOTS of current OTA TV viewers would have to buy new converter boxes or replace their current TVs, as most ATSC 1.0 tuners in use don't support MPEG-4


There are quite a few advanced STBs like Tivo and others with SoC's that fully support mpeg4 decoding, as they are often dual OTA/digital cable units. If the ATSC 1.0 transport stream had mpeg4 programs, all that would be required would be a software update, which a lot of those STBs are designed for. And the best part would be backwards compatibility for those STBs. FM and AM stereo, and color had to be backwards compatible. But, if a special interest group pays the FCC enough, the FCC conveniently will drop that clause, unfortunately. Also, broadcasters can still broadcast mpeg2 programs.



NashGuy said:


> Why not upgrade the entire standard, skip over MPEG-4 H.264 compression and go to the even better, more modern HEVC H.265 compression codec? Why restrict themselves to 1080i when they could allow for 1080p and 2160p with HDR? Why not change the nature of the transport stream to be fully IP-compatible so that it can interact with the internet in various ways?


As I stated above, HEVC is not compatible with many of those STBs that decode mpeg4. Many people don't even have TVs that can display anything higher than 1080p. And, IP data can very easily be transmitted in the ATSC 1.0 transport stream as another PID that can easily be found in the PMT. Programming providers like the Weather Channel broadcast IP data in the transport stream without issue for use with their Intellistar. HBO, Starz, PBS, and other providers deliver VOD files via IP over the transport stream as another PID. The same can be easily done via ATSC 1.0 transport stream.



NashGuy said:


> And change the physical nature of the broadcast signal -- the wave modulation -- from the fragile 8VSB (which ATSC 1.0 uses, and is prone to interference and difficult to tune in) to the far more robust OFDM (which ATSC 3.0 uses)?


8VSB and OFDM provide very similar performance. In certain situations, OFDM can provide slightly better performance, but that's only in certain signal conditions. 8VSB provides better multipath performance. Changing modulation would not allow backwards compatibility with STBs that support mpeg4 decoding.



NashGuy said:


> That said, yes, DRM is a concern. I don't think it's clear yet how and to what extent DRM could be legally implemented in ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.


That's the common denominator. There is no implementation of conditional access in ATSC 1.0. That's the whole reason for this switch. For the conditional access to work the way the industry wants, the structure of the transport stream needs to change. New STBs with decryption keys will be needed, and this allows for revenue generating services. Licensing of the CA system will make lots of money for the industry, but leave you and me footing the bill for a new, crappier STB with poorly programmed software just so the industry could make an extra buck. Everything except CA can be accomplished with ATSC 1.0. That is why I'll never support it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

emuman100 said:


> There are quite a few advanced STBs like Tivo and others with SoC's that fully support mpeg4 decoding, as they are often dual OTA/digital cable units. If the ATSC 1.0 transport stream had mpeg4 programs, all that would be required would be a software update, which a lot of those STBs are designed for. And the best part would be backwards compatibility for those STBs. FM and AM stereo, and color had to be backwards compatible. But, if a special interest group pays the FCC enough, the FCC conveniently will drop that clause, unfortunately. Also, broadcasters can still broadcast mpeg2 programs.
> 
> As I stated above, HEVC is not compatible with many of those STBs that decode mpeg4. Many people don't even have TVs that can display anything higher than 1080p. And, IP data can very easily be transmitted in the ATSC 1.0 transport stream as another PID that can easily be found in the PMT. Programming providers like the Weather Channel broadcast IP data in the transport stream without issue for use with their Intellistar. HBO, Starz, PBS, and other providers deliver VOD files via IP over the transport stream as another PID. The same can be easily done via ATSC 1.0 transport stream.
> 
> ...


Your response is full of errors, mischaracterizations, and besides-the-points. Believe what you want and continue to enjoy ATSC 1.0, which will continue on for several years.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Diana Collins said:


> Keep in mind that ATSC 3.0 does not mean that 4K broadcasts are around the corner. Indeed, from what I have read, broadcasters are more interested in monetizing the additional bandwidth. They are looking to use it for things like mobile TV, broadband services, etc. Personally, I don't expect 4K OTA for the foreseeable future.


After reading this article, the 'monetizng' thing has me the most concerned, especially the 'hybrid internet' portion. The whole point of ASTC reception, at least to me, is FREE! Does anyone know as of yet that this will change, aka it will be mandatory to link the free, ota signals with your paid, internet wifi services?
That would suck...
What Cord Cutters Need to Know About ATSC 3.0 - Part 1 | Over The Air (OTA) DVR | Tablo


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

tvmaster2 said:


> The whole point of ASTC reception, at least to me, is FREE!


So-called "FREE" content will have its place, albeit nothing is truly free but rather ad supported. I would not begrudge any provider for offering paid premium services. It is a business after all.



tvmaster2 said:


> Does anyone know as of yet that this will change, aka it will be mandatory to link the free, ota signals with your paid, internet wifi services?


That is only one of many possible models.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tvmaster2 said:


> After reading this article, the 'monetizng' thing has me the most concerned, especially the 'hybrid internet' portion. The whole point of ASTC reception, at least to me, is FREE! Does anyone know as of yet that this will change, aka it will be mandatory to link the free, ota signals with your paid, internet wifi services?
> That would suck...
> What Cord Cutters Need to Know About ATSC 3.0 - Part 1 | Over The Air (OTA) DVR | Tablo


No, you won't be required to connect an ATSC 3.0 tuner to the internet in order to receive a station's main, free OTA broadcast channel.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> No, you won't be required to connect an ATSC 3.0 tuner to the internet in order to receive a station's main, free OTA broadcast channel.


Then how will they do custom ad insertions? The point of these insertions (and why they would generate extra revenue for broadcasters) is that they are customized for YOUR viewing, shopping and buying habits. That can't be done via broadcast, it requires a one to one connection to each viewing node. If they can't insert ads without an internet connection, then they lose part of the financial benefit of ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 is being promised to "support" many things that have no financial driver. if there isn't a way for broadcaster to make money off a feature it will never be implemented. Free OTA access to UHD content with HDR and high frame rates is a pipe dream. You'll only see broadcast UHD if it is required to stay competitive with other sources of such content. You'll see lots of fee based services, and not much else.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> You'll see lots of fee based services


There's your revenue.

And I think a lot of people won't want their viewing, shopping, and buying habits logged, analyzed and "customized".


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

RoamioJeff said:


> There's your revenue.
> 
> And I think a lot of people won't want their viewing, shopping, and buying habits logged, analyzed and "customized".


That's OK, they'll lower the resolution of the ATSC 1.0 signals to 480p or highly compressed 720p. It'll make the 720p Comcast signal look amazing. That will get everybody to switch "voluntarily" to AT$C 3.0. Then the tracking can begin, and selling that information is where the real money is at.

Since there is no FCC oversight this time around, nobody can say for sure how this will play out. If I were them, I'd limit the free stuff to 1080p and cram it full of ads. I'd even have an ad or two appear on the bottom of the TV during the show. If you want 4k, you pay. If you want an ad-free experience, that's a separate fee.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> That's OK, they'll lower the resolution of the ATSC 1.0 signals to 480p or highly compressed 720p. It'll make the 720p Comcast signal look amazing. That will get everybody to switch "voluntarily" to AT$C 3.0. Then the tracking can begin, and selling that information is where the real money is at.
> 
> Since there is no FCC oversight this time around, nobody can say for sure how this will play out. If I were them, I'd limit the free stuff to 1080p and cram it full of ads. I'd even have an ad or two appear on the bottom of the TV during the show. If you want 4k, you pay. If you want an ad-free experience, that's a separate fee.


I imagine that the viewing habits of young(er) people will also dictate what the broadcasters will be able to charge for their programming... There is a growing generation of customers who do not subscribe to the linear pay-television model, and make do with OTA and streaming services... Unless they are sports fanatics, many young people I know really don't watch television as I knew it 20 years ago. Hell, even 10 years ago...


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

BobCamp1 said:


> That's OK, they'll lower the resolution of the ATSC 1.0 signals to 480p or highly compressed 720p. It'll make the 720p Comcast signal look amazing. That will get everybody to switch "voluntarily" to AT$C 3.0. Then the tracking can begin, and selling that information is where the real money is at.
> 
> Since there is no FCC oversight this time around, nobody can say for sure how this will play out. If I were them, I'd limit the free stuff to 1080p and cram it full of ads. I'd even have an ad or two appear on the bottom of the TV during the show. If you want 4k, you pay. If you want an ad-free experience, that's a separate fee.


I think that _some_ providers(stations/channels) _could_ do some of those things. But they will be competing with other OTA channels who might choose not to do that to set themselves apart for competitive advantage.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Then how will they do custom ad insertions? The point of these insertions (and why they would generate extra revenue for broadcasters) is that they are customized for YOUR viewing, shopping and buying habits. That can't be done via broadcast, it requires a one to one connection to each viewing node. If they can't insert ads without an internet connection, then they lose part of the financial benefit of ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 is being promised to "support" many things that have no financial driver. if there isn't a way for broadcaster to make money off a feature it will never be implemented. Free OTA access to UHD content with HDR and high frame rates is a pipe dream. You'll only see broadcast UHD if it is required to stay competitive with other sources of such content. You'll see lots of fee based services, and not much else.


You're right that custom ad insertions will require an internet connection.* For those viewers who choose NOT to connect their tuner to their home wifi/ethernet network, they won't get custom ads; they'll simply see the "main" broadcast ad, the same as is currently the case with ATSC 1.0. But stations will have goodies they can offer to induce viewers to connect their tuner to the internet, such as the ability to stream free on-demand content with no additional streaming box/dongle needed, or the ability to watch certain live broadcasts in UHD HDR rather than 1080p HDR (with the additional bits streamed via the internet), or the ability to fall back on a live stream of some or all subchannels if the OTA signal is weak, or the ability to interact with live shows through polls, quizzes, social media, etc.

*(Well, actually, I think it's possible for the broadcaster to split the bandwidth of their OTA signal during ad breaks and send out, for instance, 3 different ads at lower resolutions/bitrates, with the ads targeted at different tuners based on geography. That's also a possibility with SFNs, with each low-power tower sending out different ads to nearby homes. Whether there will prove to be a worthwhile business case for such hyper-local geo-targeted advertising remains to be seen.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Right now ATSC 3.0 is about possibilities. 

On the consumer side we have, the possibility of UHD or 1080p TV with HDR, many more channels, better in home reception, reception on mobile devises, etc. On the broadcaster side, they have the possibility of a larger viewing audience, premium services, targeted adds, data collection and monetization, etc. 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what ATSC 3.0 will end up being, but everyone pretty much knows that traditional ATSC 1.0 broadcasts are not going to cut it in the future. With ATSC 3.0 we have a chance that OTA broadcast will survive without ATSC 3.0 many see OTA having a slow but sure death.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Are people really that dissatisfied with the current resolution of OTA broadcasts? I think most people would just stick with ATSC 1.0 if it has the same channels as ATSC 3.0. Some may be motivated to upgrade if ATSC 3.0 has more channels. If they have to offer more channels to get people to switch, then they won't be able to broadcast a continuous 4K signal, so the resolution won't improve very much.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> Are people really that dissatisfied with the current resolution of OTA broadcasts?


Like the 3D snake oil that came before it, the higher resolution of 4K is of limited benefit unless you have a really big panel, or you sit significantly closer to the screen.

4K Resolution Does Matter - Here's When - Carlton Bale .com


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> If I were them, I'd limit the free stuff to 1080p and cram it full of ads. I'd even have an ad or two appear on the bottom of the TV during the show.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Are people really that dissatisfied with the current resolution of OTA broadcasts? I think most people would just stick with ATSC 1.0 if it has the same channels as ATSC 3.0. Some may be motivated to upgrade if ATSC 3.0 has more channels. If they have to offer more channels to get people to switch, then they won't be able to broadcast a continuous 4K signal, so the resolution won't improve very much.


I loved the quality of OTA ATSC 1.0 broadcasts when they started and there was only one channel per frequency, now that they have 4 or more channels on each frequency the quality is noticeably not as good and it appears the way they are going to gradually switch from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0 is to load more channels on the frequencies still being used for ATSC 1.0 perhaps to the point where the main broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) are down graded to 480p SD.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> Like the 3D snake oil that came before it, the higher resolution of 4K is of limited benefit unless you have a really big panel, or you sit significantly closer to the screen.
> 
> 4K Resolution Does Matter - Here's When - Carlton Bale .com


I don't think we are going to get 4k broadcasts on ATSC 3.0 any time soon. What it appears we may get is 1080p with HDR, which will look significantly and noticeably better on a mid size or larger 4K TV with HDR than the current downgraded 720p or 1080i broadcasts we are getting now.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> I loved the quality of OTA ATSC 1.0 broadcasts when they started and there was only one channel per frequency, now that they have 4 or more channels on each frequency the quality is noticeably not as good and it appears the way they are going to gradually switch from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0 is to load more channels on the frequencies still being used for ATSC 1.0 perhaps to the point where the main broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) are down graded to 480p SD.


I bought a 480P extended definition LCD TV over 10 years ago and the picture looked pretty good to me. The TV died a couple years ago or else I'd still be using it. I don't mind the 480i subchannels that exist now. 480P is basically DVD quality, which looks good to me on my current TVs.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

RoamioJeff said:


> Like the 3D snake oil that came before it, the higher resolution of 4K is of limited benefit unless you have a really big panel, or you sit significantly closer to the screen.
> 
> 4K Resolution Does Matter - Here's When - Carlton Bale .com





atmuscarella said:


> I don't think we are going to get 4k broadcasts on ATSC 3.0 any time soon. What it appears we may get is 1080p with HDR, which will look significantly and noticeably better on a mid size or larger 4K TV with HDR than the current downgraded 720p or 1080i broadcasts we are getting now.


If that is the case, then they can offer significantly more subchannels than they do now which would motivate me to upgrade.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

shwru980r said:


> If that is the case, then they can offer significantly more subchannels than they do now which would motivate me to upgrade.


If I remember the last articles I read. A single 6Mhz ATSC 3.0 channel using HEVC could technically have 1 4K channel, 3-6 HD channels, 36 SD channels or a combination of that.

How ATSC 3 Changes Broadcasting for the Better (It's Not Just 4K) - Studio Daily


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

osu1991 said:


> If I remember the last articles I read. A single 6Mhz ATSC 3.0 channel using HEVC could technically have 1 4K channel, 3-6 HD channels, 36 SD channels or a combination of that.
> 
> How ATSC 3 Changes Broadcasting for the Better (It's Not Just 4K) - Studio Daily


A single 6MHz ATSC 3.0 channel using HEVC can accommodate a range of bandwidths/bitrates, depending on how robust they want the signal to be (how far it reaches and how easy it is to tune in). If a station aims to replicate their current ATSC 1.0 coverage, then the 3.0 signal could carry about 25 Mbps of data. A single UHD HDR channel may be feasible at 20 Mbps, maybe less, based on what I've read. If that's so, then there would still be room for an additional 1080p HDR channel or a couple of 720p channels. I've that a 1080p HDR signal can be done well at around 5 to 5.5 Mbps.

Of course, the problem for the next several years is that most stations broadcasting in 3.0 will do so from a tower shared with another station. Certainly both stations could not broadcast in UHD at the same time. And if one of the two stations wants to broadcast something in UHD, they would be taking more than half of the available bandwidth (although I'm sure stations could work out an agreement to allow that to happen). Seems likely to me than some of the subchannels would have to be temporarily suspended when any one subchannel broadcasts in UHD. Outside of really high profile events, like the Super Bowl, or the Olympics Opening Ceremonies, I don't think we'll see that much UHD broadcast OTA in the next 4-5 years.

If they wanted, broadcasters could allow users to receive an "upgrade" signal via the internet that would boost the OTA signal from 1080p to UHD. That could be one perk that stations offer to induce viewers to connect their 3.0 tuners to the internet and opt into targeted ads. But the networks, such as CBS and ABC, would still have to go along with offering their primetime shows in UHD. I'm not sure they'll want to do that for free. Why not save the best version of their content for paying customers, via Hulu, CBS All Access, cable on-demand, digital sales (iTunes, Amazon), etc?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

HDR UHD can fit in 15-18Mbps - that's about the current average for UHD streaming right now. Of course, you can degrade the quality even more to fit more - if you're willing to compromise image quality, two UHD on one ATSC3.0 channel is possible. Given what everyone seems to do today, I wouldn't be surprised to see two UHD channels and two HD channels all sharing one ATSC3.0 channel, image quality be damned.

(For comparison purposes, a 1080p Blu-Ray is around 25-35Mbps, and UHD Blu-Ray averages around 75Mbps - granted we also switch from h.264/AVC to HEVC to achieve a halving of the data size, so you can fit 4 times as much data in just over twice as much space).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Worf said:


> HDR UHD can fit in 15-18Mbps - that's about the current average for UHD streaming right now. Of course, you can degrade the quality even more to fit more - if you're willing to compromise image quality, two UHD on one ATSC3.0 channel is possible. Given what everyone seems to do today, I wouldn't be surprised to see two UHD channels and two HD channels all sharing one ATSC3.0 channel, image quality be damned.
> 
> (For comparison purposes, a 1080p Blu-Ray is around 25-35Mbps, and UHD Blu-Ray averages around 75Mbps - granted we also switch from h.264/AVC to HEVC to achieve a halving of the data size, so you can fit 4 times as much data in just over twice as much space).


True, although keep in mind that Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, etc. are generally streaming 24p or 30p (not 60p) content in UHD, and all that stuff is more efficiently pre-encoded as opposed to being live encoded on-the-fly.

Recently had a conversation with a guy from my local PBS station and he said they would probably need 21Mbps of bandwidth to do UHD on ATSC 3.0, so they will likely just do "enhanced 1080p" when they eventually make the switch. He said the new tower they'll erect during the repack (they switch from VHF 8 to 7) will be 3.0-ready but they currently have no plans as to when they'll actually start 3.0 broadcasts.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> Like the 3D snake oil that came before it, the higher resolution of 4K is of limited benefit unless you have a really big panel, or you sit significantly closer to the screen.
> 
> 4K Resolution Does Matter - Here's When - Carlton Bale .com


There is more to 4K resolution than just the resolution itself, though obviously there are many contributing factors, such as the content you're watching, how it's encoded/compressed, one's eyesight, etc. I have seen some YouTube 4K content that looks like I'm looking at a tiger in my Den, and I'm watching it on a 50-inch.



atmuscarella said:


> I don't think we are going to get 4k broadcasts on ATSC 3.0 any time soon. What it appears we may get is 1080p with HDR, which will look significantly and noticeably better on a mid size or larger 4K TV with HDR than the current downgraded 720p or 1080i broadcasts we are getting now.


I agree. While HDR will be great, I'd just be thrilled to get a less compressed 1080 feed again. It's sad when I can get better quality HD streaming from Hulu than I can watching OTA broadcasts.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Alan Gordon said:


> It's sad when I can get better quality HD streaming from Hulu than I can watching OTA broadcasts.


A X-Files episode on Hulu was noticeably better on Hulu than via OTA (Channel 13 Los Angeles). Stopped the recording at the same spot on both, OTA was fuzzy while Hulu was clearer.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

jth tv said:


> A X-Files episode on Hulu was noticeably better on Hulu than via OTA (Channel 13 Los Angeles). Stopped the recording at the same spot on both, OTA was fuzzy while Hulu was clearer.


Does KCOP air "The X-Files" in HD in syndication?

Either way, yeah, it's one thing for programming on ABC and FOX to not look as good as Hulu, but programming on my NBC isn't as good as the PQ on Hulu, and honestly, that's true even prior to before the NBC affiliates I can pick up started broadcasting a second HD subchannel. Now, back when HD first started, that's a different story. The PQ then would blow away any current (HD) streaming I've seen.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Alan Gordon said:


> Does KCOP air "The X-Files" in HD in syndication?


The indications are that KCOP is showing the HD version of X-Files. The scene I compared was exactly the same widescreen and Tivo reports it as HD, just a bit fuzzy OTA. I think the recorded file size was 2.78GB for a hour recording, less than HD on other stations.

Not a good sign for future OTA.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Just thought I would post some links to some new articles, all are from the last week or so: 

Articles about ATSC 3.0 standards released at this year's CES: ATSC Releases ATSC 3.0 Digital TV Standards Suite: Over-The-Air Meets Over-The-Top or ATSC 3.0 Standard Is Officially Released at CES 2018

Article about some stuff going on with/at the FCC and ATSC 3.0: FCC Ponders Giving Broadcasters ATSC 3.0 Carriage Flexibility | Broadcasting & Cable
A general media article about ATSC 3.0, of note it says first TVs & DVRs with ATSC 3.0 will be released in 2020 which seems to be a long way off: Broadcasters Excited for ATSC 3.0 Ahead of Full Deployment


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Just thought I would post some links to some new articles, all are from the last week or so:
> 
> Articles about ATSC 3.0 standards released at this year's CES: ATSC Releases ATSC 3.0 Digital TV Standards Suite: Over-The-Air Meets Over-The-Top or ATSC 3.0 Standard Is Officially Released at CES 2018
> 
> ...


2020? Wow. That surprises me, given that major manufacturers were already including ATSC 3.0 tuners in a few TVs *last year* for S. Korea, which also just began broadcasting in the new standard last year. Sinclair says they plan to begin 3.0 broadcasting in two dozen markets this year. I'd guess they'll light up even more in 2019. And that's just Sinclair; Nexstar and lots of other groups have big plans for 3.0. And then you have the Phoenix test market going live in a few months with lots of stations. I would expect to see at least a few TVs with built-in 3.0 tuners hit the market in 2019 at the latest.

As far as DVRs with 3.0 tuners, I really think the future of OTA DVRs is network DVRs. The concept of network tuners has been proposed for ATSC 3.0 for a long time now (check out old promotional pieces about 3.0 from the NAB), so once external 3.0 tuners hit the market, I expect we'll see them not just as HDMI-equipped dongles for single TVs but also as HD HomeRun-style network tuners that can serve live TV to all sorts of devices on your home network via wifi and/or ethernet. I would expect Plex, Tablo, HD HomeRun and others to be able to incorporate 3.0 network tuners into their existing systems pretty easily IF the 3.0 standard is open enough to allow that.

Actually, that's where a lot of the questions I have about 3.0 come in. What will the client app/UI be for 3.0 TV? Will different smart TV/streaming box/network tuner/dongle tuner manufacturers be able to present their own software UI for TV, i.e. the channel changing system, the program guide, DVR controls (if implemented)? That's how it works now with ATSC 1.0. You can watch live and/or recorded ATSC 1.0 TV through a myriad of interfaces, from any manufacturer's built-in TV software to TiVo to Plex to Tablo to Android TV, etc. But I know that 3.0 allows broadcasters to actually publish their own HTML5 UIs either through the broadcast signal or via the internet if connected to the tuner. So will broadcasters control and present their own UI? Perhaps they will only control a UI for their specific channels (e.g. the look of the menus and controls for their on-demand content such as shows, weather, sports scores, etc.) while the overall UI spanning all channels (e.g. the live program guide) will be up to individual app makers/TV manufacturers. Who knows?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> 2020? Wow. ...


Ya that is the same response I had. Seems to me they have to have hardware available once more than a test station or 2 start broadcasting using ATSC 3.0. I guess ATSC 3.0 hardware was very lacking at CES. I still have not found much mention of it, but would think that there would be plenty by CES 2019, maybe the tuners are going to be expensive to start for anything but high end TVs. I kind of remember single tuner HD ATSC 1.0 add on tuners back in 2002-3ish time frame costing $2-300, also allot of HD TVs back then did not have an ATSC 1.0 tuner built in because of cost. Perhaps we will have the same issue for the first few years with ATSC 3.0 tuners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Ya that is the same response I had. Seems to me they have to have hardware available once more than a test station or 2 start broadcasting using ATSC 3.0. I guess ATSC 3.0 hardware was very lacking at CES. I still have not found much mention of it, but would think that there would be plenty by CES 2019, maybe the tuners are going to be expensive to start for anything but high end TVs. I kind of remember single tuner HD ATSC 1.0 add on tuners back in 2002-3ish time frame costing $2-300, also allot of HD TVs back then did not have an ATSC 1.0 tuner built in because of cost. Perhaps we will have the same issue for the first few years with ATSC 3.0 tuners.


I want to say that I read that external 3.0 tuners from LG and Samsung currently for sale in S. Korea are priced in the $100-200 range. Obviously, if broadcasters want 3.0 to really take off, they're going to have to get tuners to market at an affordable price. Virtually no one is going to spend more on an OTA tuner (at least a single tuner) than the cost of a $179 Apple TV 4K. The pricing for a single 3.0 tuner needs to be more in line with Rokus and Fire TV, i.e. under $99.

There's been some talk in the past that broadcasters may join together to offer 3.0 tuners at reduced cost, which they subsidize, in order to seed the market. I think some sort of direct action by those broadcasters in the Pearl group will be necessary to get the Phoenix test market off the ground. Pearl is talking about that going live this spring but, as of now, there are literally zero 3.0 tuners available commercially in the US. Pearl is working with Sony and my guess is that they will collectively come up with one or two models of 3.0 tuners (maybe one HDMI-connected dongle tuner and one network tuner) that they will subsidize and offer to Phoenix area consumers at an affordable price. Maybe they'll sell them directly via the web and/or set up an exclusive retail distribution through area Walmarts or Best Buys.

Pearl TV, Sony Collaborate on 3.0 Program Navigation


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> There's been some talk in the past that broadcasters may join together to offer 3.0 tuners at reduced cost, which they subsidize, in order to seed the market.


I'll say right now that unless they are provided free, I will have no interest. Especially after the circle jerk that was the first transition from analog.

If stations want to offer so-called "free" OTA TV in a new format, then they need to present a value proposition to view their "free" broadcasts. They can send me a tuner or converter that interfaces with my considerable investment in existing television equipment. I'm not going to shell out more bucks for yet another "box", "adaptor", single-purpose tuner, or anything else to view "free" broadcasts (filled with ads). Nothing is "free", there is no free lunch.

I'm not climbing their technology tower of Babel, nor running on their technology refresh treadmill of add-ons on my dime just to do it. And I will bet that a lot of ordinary consumers out there, not the rarefied group of early adopters and tech enthusiasts, will feel the same way.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> I'll say right now that unless they are provided free, I will have no interest. Especially after the circle jerk that was the first transition from analog.
> 
> If stations want to offer so-called "free" OTA TV in a new format, then they need to present a value proposition to view their "free" broadcasts. They can send me a tuner or converter that interfaces with my considerable investment in existing television equipment. I'm not going to shell out more bucks for yet another "box", "adaptor", single-purpose tuner, or anything else to view "free" broadcasts (filled with ads). Nothing is "free", there is no free lunch.
> 
> I'm not climbing their technology tower of Babel, nor running on their technology refresh treadmill of add-ons on my dime just to do it. And I will bet that a lot of ordinary consumers out there, not the rarefied group of early adopters and tech enthusiasts, will feel the same way.


The short term benefit to the consumer of ATSC 3.0 broadcasts is significantly better picture quality. To start we should get full 1080p with HDR broadcasts (so better than blu-ray because of the HDR) and at some point 4k with HDR broadcasts. To benefit from this consumers will need a newer 4K TV with HDR support and of course an ATSC 3.0 tuner. Reception may also be better and available on mobile devices. If this does not matter to someone the older ATSC 1.0 broadcast should be around for an extended period of time (5+ yrs.).

Longer term the benefit may simple be the continued existence of OTA broadcasts. Many in the media world do not see a long term (say more than a decade) financial path forward for OTA as it exists currently.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> As far as DVRs with 3.0 tuners, I really think the future of OTA DVRs is network DVRs.


Instead of one device, there would be 3 ? Tuner, recorder and player ? Each by a different manufacturer. Maybe even a different company selling the DVR software. Who to blame if there is a problem, 4 companies finger pointing.

No thanks, a Tivo is so much easier.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

While those of us with a technical mindset may think networked tuners are the best solution, this is a good point. The average user will struggle with adding HomeRun-style devices to their network, getting the software on the streaming devices to see them, and configuring software. All-in-one solutions are preferable to most people.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

RoamioJeff said:


> I'll say right now that unless they are provided free, I will have no interest. Especially after the circle jerk that was the first transition from analog.
> 
> If stations want to offer so-called "free" OTA TV in a new format, then they need to present a value proposition to view their "free" broadcasts. They can send me a tuner or converter that interfaces with my considerable investment in existing television equipment. I'm not going to shell out more bucks for yet another "box", "adaptor", single-purpose tuner, or anything else to view "free" broadcasts (filled with ads). Nothing is "free", there is no free lunch.
> 
> I'm not climbing their technology tower of Babel, nor running on their technology refresh treadmill of add-ons on my dime just to do it. And I will bet that a lot of ordinary consumers out there, not the rarefied group of early adopters and tech enthusiasts, will feel the same way.


Do you really think they care if they lose a "free" customer? Starting next year I'd bet new TVs will be sporting the new type tuners and after a few years most will be on board. Folks with newer TVs will just buy the external tuners to get the better picture quality. The add-on digital boxes were a piece of cake to hook up so I'd bet the external tuners they will be selling will be too.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

mschnebly said:


> Do you really think they care if they lose a "free" customer?


Not as much in past times. But nowadays and going forward, the consumer is the product. They want eyeballs, and they want to deliver advertising. By any means possible. By any method possible. The entire media universe is increasingly driven around delivering ads. There are *billions* of dollars at stake. Every customer is now a potential source of revenue.

And not just the advertisements of old ... nowadays the ad networks want to profile you. They want to know what ads you watch. They want to catalog your interests. And a two-way network tuner is perfect tool to facilitate that versus a one-way OTA tuner. And the ad networks will will desperately want to leverage and match this data with other crossed-referenced info about you through collected by other means.

What does all this have to do with potentially providing a free device? There is big money in collecting information on consumers and building up these massive databases from which to sell the info. Just look at a couple of auto insurance companies that have offered a "free" device to plug into your car, marketed as "saving" drivers' money on their premiums. An along side of that purported "benefit", it is just another avenue to collect and pump consumer habits into a massive profile database.

So, yes, I expect that any converter boxes or tuners, especially network tuners, may be provided free or _extremely_ cheap. I certainly would not _pay_ for a device that is part of a model where I am the "product". I might take it free, and use it at my discretion.

This is why they will not want to lose a "free" customer.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> While those of us with a technical mindset may think networked tuners are the best solution, this is a good point. The average user will struggle with adding HomeRun-style devices to their network, getting the software on the streaming devices to see them, and configuring software. All-in-one solutions are preferable to most people.


Ease of use is important. I can't speak to setting up an HD HomeRun tuner as I've never had one, but setting up my Tablo network DVR was a piece of cake. Only way it could be improved is if you had the option to do initial set-up on the TV app; instead, you must use a Tablo app on a phone or tablet (or computer?). It came with an illustrated quick-start guide (like TiVo). I had it up and running faster than my Roamio OTA. At least for anyone who owns a smartphone/tablet and knows how to download an app and connect to a wifi network, it's no more difficult than setting up a Tivo.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> Not as much in past times. But nowadays and going forward, the consumer is the product. They want eyeballs, and they want to deliver advertising. By any means possible. By any method possible. The entire media universe is increasingly driven around delivering ads. There are *billions* of dollars at stake. Every customer is now a potential source of revenue.
> 
> And not just the advertisements of old ... nowadays the ad networks want to profile you. They want to know what ads you watch. They want to catalog your interests. And a two-way network tuner is perfect tool to facilitate that versus a one-way OTA tuner. And the ad networks will will desperately want to leverage and match this data with other crossed-referenced info about you through collected by other means.
> 
> ...


OTA used to always be paid for by advertisers, then 10+/- years ago they started getting cable & satellite to pay to carry their stations, primarily because of the competition that satellite provided for their content. Now many people in media see the gradual decline of standard cable/satellite packages and the gradual decline of advertising dollars going to broadcast TV, which is why many believe OTA needs ATSC 3.0 to survive long term. So yes ATSC 3.0 does just what you said and provides away for OTA broadcasters to continue to obtain the revenue they desire.

Regarding providing a free or nearly free ATSC 3.0 tuner, the broadcasters may end up doing that, but honestly I think most people here don't care as we want an ATSC 3.0 multi tuner DVR which isn't going to be free, just think about what the original Series 3 (TiVo's first ATSC 1.0 DVR) cost at release. Of course best case for me would be if TiVo sold a Network attached ATSC 3.0 4 tuner device that work with my Bolt, I would be morn than willing to pay several hundred dollars for that.


----------

