# Another OTA DVR debuting in 2016



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Looks like the old Magnavox brand will bring a line of OTA DVRs to market later this year. No real competition to the TiVo experience as they do not incorporate streaming, though.

http://www.cnet.com/products/magnavox-tbhp500-series-dvr/

That said, it gets a favorable look from Cnet (and will be considered by a number of cord-cutters also looking at the ChannelMaster DVR+) because it does not require an ongoing subscription fee. Makes me wonder if the upcoming Bolt OTA (should be it ever come to market) will be available with All-In lifetime service for a reasonable total cost, maybe $500 or less. I think a lot of the cord cutter market just isn't interested in any hardware that requires recurring fees.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I think a lot of the cord cutter market just isn't interested in any hardware that requires recurring fees.


I think the entire market just isn't interested in any hardware that is overpriced, whether via recurring fees or otherwise.

How come Magnavox can do 6 OTA tuners but it's prohibitive for TiVo?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Available chip sets... I think TiVo could do 6 OTA tuners now, but have to measure it against cost and the market.

Is a six tuner OTA DVR really worth the expense? The base Roamio sold more units than the Pro and Plus... Cost is more a consideration than tuners for most, and I doubt the number of available OTA channels really isn't DEMANDING a six tuner device @ a premium price.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

But a Pro version of the Bolt line IS demanding an OTA option to expand the numbers of potential purchasers and eliminate all risk for buyers that the utility of their expensive purchase goes to zero without the dependency of a cable subscription w/cablecard. Even if it's the same as the base Roamio/Bolt in that you select either digital cable OR OTA at setup but with six tuners, that's a real substantive feature that would make a Bolt Pro much more valuable than a Roamio Pro. Especially if TiVo is now focused on this annual subscription model, they couldn't care less whether it's used for cable or OTA as long as for each box the chances for that annual fee to keep coming in are maximized.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

It looks pretty good and should be much better than the Channel Master DVR. I will stick with TiVo for OTA, it works so well and the premium isn't much compared to the competition. Still there is a small market that insists TiVo is too expensive and will pay almost as much to have something that isn't TiVo. Some will be wowed by 6 tuners for OTA but I can't imagine anybody needs that many.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Six tuners with no Mini? Not sure there is much of a market for watch one/record five programs. m $400 for two tuners and 1t of storage seems pricey. THE DVR+ with a 1t disk is $50 less and includes streaming apps.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

series5orpremier said:


> I think the entire market just isn't interested in any hardware that is overpriced, whether via recurring fees or otherwise.
> 
> How come Magnavox can do 6 OTA tuners but it's prohibitive for TiVo?


Just my experience but the largest metro area I've lived was St. Louis and had about 11 channels OTA. I realize some larger markets like LA and NYC get loads more stations but I can't imagine ever using even all 4 of the tuners I have right now. We use 2 at the most.

On the subject of price/fees-- just bought our Roamio OTA this summer because the price was finally somewhere I found reasonable with lifetime service. I had never pulled the trigger in the past because of the ongoing fees/cost of lifetime... now if I were to look at TiVo today and the only option was a Bolt at $150 a year I wouldn't be here and would instead end up with a DVR+ or continue futzing around with an HDHomeRun ;/


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Whether 6 tuners is overkill for OTA just depends on the DMA. Some markets have 10 digital OTA channels, but the biggest markets (most potential customers) might have 50+. I live in a not too big market with 10 channels. I don't remember if I ever needed 6 OTA tuners but on Monday nights this past fall I definitely needed at least 5. I had to offload the extra to my old Premiere XL.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

wizwor said:


> Six tuners with no Mini? Not sure there is much of a market for watch one/record five programs. m $400 for two tuners and 1t of storage seems pricey. THE DVR+ with a 1t disk is $50 less and includes streaming apps.


?!!?

I want the tuners for shows on AT THE SAME TIME. I only have one TV.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

cybergrimes said:


> Just my experience but the largest metro area I've lived was St. Louis and had about 11 channels OTA.


St. Louis now has about 30 channels.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mattack said:


> ?!!?
> 
> I want the tuners for shows on AT THE SAME TIME. I only have one TV.


Exactly!

The stuff I care about is always scheduled opposite each other.


----------



## connie_w (Jan 10, 2015)

I'd like 6 or more tuners, actually. There have been several times I have been using all 4 tuners for DVR'ing and have to miss another show. Plus, I have tv's in 5 other rooms. If someone in another room is watching live tv from a mini, each one would take up a tuner while in use. Of course, chances are I wouldn't be using all 5 tv's at once, it is not impossible to imagine the possibility of having multiple recordings going on and 1 or 2 other tv's being utilized, at the same time.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

series5orpremier said:


> I think the entire market just isn't interested in any hardware that is overpriced, whether via recurring fees or otherwise.
> 
> How come Magnavox can do 6 OTA tuners but it's prohibitive for TiVo?


 Tuner quantity is no guarantee of tuner quality. There are a lot of people using ota that don't even record anything. The market potential for ota recorders is there but only for a lot less money than what we are seeing now. 
Build a 100 dollar ota recorder with two tuners you might have something, much more that you have a niche market like we have now. most of the players in this niche will bail out.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Seems a little high $ for the Walmart demo and it has a Rovi guide. But it should be better than the DVR+.


----------



## aspexil (Oct 16, 2015)

Glad to see more competition in the OTA DVR space. Hopefully Magnavox can get it out to market before 4Q. Would like to evaluate it before my first annual Bolt bill shows up.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

The article doesn't indicate if the new models store HD data. The previous versions, MDR865-866, save SD to the HDD so they can burn it to a DVD. Rovi's guide can be free.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Frankly the best deal/option I have seen to date for an OTA DVR was the TiVo Roamio OTA at $300 with lifetime. If someone who new about that deal didn't buy one then they really don't want an OTA DVR. 

That said unlike cable & satellite there are allot of ways for OTA users to skin the DVR cat. And my take is the more the better. But this concept that someone is going to sell you a new fully function OTA DVR for a hundred or even 2 hundred dollars is just nuts. Of course you can buy a very good OTA DVR for $1-200 - it's called a used Series 3 or TiVo HD with lifetime. Add in a low cost streaming device and/or good Blu-ray player and you pretty much have everything you need.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

The old HR10-250 HDTivos for DirecTV had ATSC tuners for OTA. The monthly DVR fee was only $5 for as many DVRs as you wanted on your account, but that may have changed. You'd need DirecTV to use them because the guide data comes in over the dish. The point being you could probably pick these up dirt cheap if you already have a DirecTV account. You couldn't use them to record too many DirecTV channels, if any, and I'm not even sure they'd allow you to activate them anymore, but I suspect you could if you explained you only wanted to use them for OTA recording and viewing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

bradleys said:


> Available chip sets... I think TiVo could do 6 OTA tuners now, but have to measure it against cost and the market.
> 
> Is a six tuner OTA DVR really worth the expense? The base Roamio sold more units than the Pro and Plus... Cost is more a consideration than tuners for most, and I doubt the number of available OTA channels really isn't DEMANDING a six tuner device @ a premium price.


If they could add OTA to the Bolt Pro at a reasonable cost, that would be a pretty cool thing, from a flexibility perspective. But actually using more than 4 tuners on an OTA DVR is an extremely small niche.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The Magnavox with DVD burner could be popular for people who want to record kids' shows and play them in the car...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Cnet Video of these DVRs: 




They said not available to 4th quarter in 2016. Pricing seems weird 2 tuner with 1TB is $450 and 6 tuner with 2TB is $500?? The one with DVD appears to may be an SD unit hard to tell from video but it is only $400.

I don't understand the use case for the $450 unit seems almost anyone would go with the $500 unit if they had the specs correct. Maybe I heard it wrong.

Will be interesting to see if TiVo has decided to release a Bolt OTA by then and what price point. Those that bought a Roamio OTA with lifetime for $300 look like they really got a great deal.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

There's a digital clock on the front panel!!! I'm in!!!

.....just kidding.

Those prices must be suggested retail placeholders, reserving the right to go up to $500 but acknowledging not above that. I'm sure actual retail differential would be much more in line with capabilities, at least $100.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> Tuner quantity is no guarantee of tuner quality. There are a lot of people using ota that don't even record anything. The market potential for ota recorders is there but only for a lot less money than what we are seeing now.


More tuners means split signal and tends to lower quality. 


tenthplanet said:


> Build a 100 dollar ota recorder with two tuners you might have something, much more that you have a niche market like we have now. most of the players in this niche will bail out.


There are $30 Homeworx class DVRs already. You can get three of those for $100. They are very functional, but I do not know anyone who loves his HW-150PVR.

I was reading up on this Magnavox DVR. I think it will find a niche...


2/6 tuners
2t disk
Media server
Stream to external devices
Share shows among DVRs
Start in one room/continue in another
Save files to mobile device

There's no reason they could not add a diskless remote device (Mini) later.

I think $450 is a lot for a DVR. Personally, I prefer a box that does it all, but to each his own. Suspect this thing requires internet connection for Rovi Guide. Looks like CM, TiVo, and Magnavox are attacking different parts of the market. This is great for choice while avoiding a price war.

The DVR+ remains the strong price leader at 3/5 the cost of this box and having no fees. It's CM's Linear OTT plus Sling vs TiVo's Netflix/Prime/Hulu vs a roku or fire tv addon for this.

In my house we have TiVos and DVR+s. Wife prefers the TiVo and I the DVR+ -- both marginally. We have had Netflix and currently have Prime, but I am interested in Sling TV. Both of us could live without any streaming service. I like a lot of the streaming apps on the DVR+.

Neither of us would be particularly interested in this box. I think it will appeal to people who are considering or tiring of a Tablo.


----------



## ClearToLand (Jul 10, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> Frankly the best deal/option I have seen to date for an OTA DVR was the TiVo Roamio OTA at $300 with lifetime...


For me the TiVo $300 Refurb Roamio Basic w/Lifetime sealed the deal. I'm just so glad that someone over on the AVS Forum mentioned it in one of the threads that I was subscribed to / reading daily. Then comes the Woot $25 Refurb Roamio OTA for spare parts - I bought 3. Finally the Woot $70 Refurb Mini v1 for the bedroom completed my new setup.



atmuscarella said:


> ...That said unlike cable & satellite there are allot of ways for OTA users to skin the DVR cat. And my take is the more the better. But this concept that someone is going to sell you a new fully function OTA DVR for a hundred or even 2 hundred dollars is just nuts. Of course you can buy a very good OTA DVR for $1-200 - it's called a used Series 3 or TiVo HD with lifetime. Add in a low cost streaming device and/or good Blu-ray player and you pretty much have everything you need.


Before the $300 TiVo deal I was heading towards an HTPC with a couple of SiliconDust networked tuners and a spare PC running NextPVR w/Schedules Direct. But this Refurb Roamio was even less than my new Series 1 w/Lifetime (and upgraded HDDs) *YEARS* ago.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

series5orpremier said:


> I think the entire market just isn't interested in any hardware that is overpriced, whether via recurring fees or otherwise.
> 
> How come Magnavox can do 6 OTA tuners but it's prohibitive for TiVo?


It is not the cost of the hardware, but the FEES that scare away cord cutters. They are willing to put down hundreds for the hardware, but REFUSE to pay any fees. They see the fees as blood sucking that never ends. The very popular Channel Master+ aint no bargain price and is comparable to TiVo Roamio in price for the hardware, but people LOVE CMDVR+ because it has NO FEES.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

bradleys said:


> Available chip sets... I think TiVo could do 6 OTA tuners now, but have to measure it against cost and the market.
> 
> Is a six tuner OTA DVR really worth the expense? The base Roamio sold more units than the Pro and Plus... Cost is more a consideration than tuners for most, and I doubt the number of available OTA channels really isn't DEMANDING a six tuner device @ a premium price.


Channels on OTA:
ABC
CBS
NBC
Fox
WB
MyTV
IonTV
other numerous commercial local main channel broadcasters (English and Foreing on main channel)
pubic broadcasters (I get FOUR of them on my OTA)
This TV
Antenna TV
LAFF
Living Well
Cozi TV
Decades
Buzzer
Movie
Heroes & Icons
Link
NHK (English)
Megahertz World
Bounce
GetTV
Escape
Grit
Plus
World
MeTV
The Works
CreateTV
First Nations TV

And those are only the English language ones I get and all but maybe 1 of those have very compelling good content of movies and TV shows. Adding the foreign language OTA's bring the total to 170 OTA chanels I get.

YES, there can be a need for 6 tuners in an OTA DVR. I often want to record more than the 4 tuner TiVo I have is capable of recording at one time. I use additional TiVo's for the coverage. Again, OTA ONLY.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> YES, there can be a need for 6 tuners in an OTA DVR. I often want to record more than the 4 tuner TiVo I have is capable of recording at one time. I use additional TiVo's for the coverage. Again, OTA ONLY.


That's an extreme niche. Most people don't need more than 4 tuners on a cable DVR with may more channels.

Most people only care about the big four and PBS, especially those who are cord cutters, who are people who don't watch much TV in the first place, but still want some network shows, PBS, news, whatever.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> That's an extreme niche. Most people don't need more than 4 tuners on a cable DVR with may more channels.
> 
> Most people only care about the big four and PBS, especially those who are cord cutters, who are people who don't watch much TV in the first place, but still want some network shows, PBS, news, whatever.


Most people? On what authority do you state that?

This thing streams to DLNA clients. If it streams to a Roku (Media Player) or Fire TV (Kodi) then six tuners could feed a whole house.


----------



## connie_w (Jan 10, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Most people? On what authority do you state that?
> 
> This thing streams to DLNA clients. If it streams to a Roku (Media Player) or Fire TV (Kodi) then six tuners could feed a whole house.


I agree, it's rather frustrating to be told that OTA folks don't need more than 4 tuners. There are tons of great programs, OTA. Plus, as I mentioned in another post, if you have mini's they borrow a tuner to watch tv, which may make you short a tuner for your recording.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Most people? On what authority do you state that?
> 
> This thing streams to DLNA clients. If it streams to a Roku (Media Player) or Fire TV (Kodi) then six tuners could feed a whole house.


There are only 5 channels OTA that many people actually watch. There are dozens on cable.



connie_w said:


> I agree, it's rather frustrating to be told that OTA folks don't need more than 4 tuners. There are tons of great programs, OTA. Plus, as I mentioned in another post, if you have mini's they borrow a tuner to watch tv, which may make you short a tuner for your recording.


I haven't tied up 4 tuners in a long time, and I have Xfinity Premiere Triple Play right now. When I had roommates, we occasionally had to get creative managing tuners, but that was with 70 HD channels, not 6 or 7.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

One wonders what all these budget sensitive OTA DVR owners will do after the FCC Spectrum Auction and repack - which will likely convert everything to ATSC 3.0 - making every OTA DVR as worthless as the NTSC TiVos.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> One wonders what all these budget sensitive OTA DVR owners will do after the FCC Spectrum Auction and repack - which will likely convert everything to ATSC 3.0 - making every OTA DVR as worthless as the NTSC TiVos.


 I don't know, but the carnage will be fun to watch


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> One wonders what all these budget sensitive OTA DVR owners will do after the FCC Spectrum Auction and repack - which will likely convert everything to ATSC 3.0 - making every OTA DVR as worthless as the NTSC TiVos.


I think it will take a few years to convert if it happens an even at that a few years is a lifetime in Tech years. I use a Tivo Roamio Basic for OTA but have no illusion that this is a permanent or long term solution. I believe like it or not the current Tivo models will be all but obsolete anyways as tech moves more and more to the cloud and streaming based.
I have been saying for some time now Tivo has to evolve or it will become irrelevant. Tivo lovers will hang on till the bitter end but the rest of us will just move on to the next big tech devices. I do not think this will all happen overnite but one day in the not to distant future its going to happen.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> One wonders what all these budget sensitive OTA DVR owners will do after the FCC Spectrum Auction and repack - which will likely convert everything to ATSC 3.0 - making every OTA DVR as worthless as the NTSC TiVos.





davefred99 said:


> I think it will take a few years to convert if it happens an even at that a few years is a lifetime in Tech years. I use a Tivo Roamio Basic for OTA but have no illusion that this is a permanent or long term solution. I believe like it or not the current Tivo models will be all but obsolete anyways as tech moves more and more to the cloud and streaming based.
> I have been saying for some time now Tivo has to evolve or it will become irrelevant. Tivo lovers will hang on till the bitter end but the rest of us will just move on to the next big tech devices. I do not think this will all happen overnite but one day in the not to distant future its going to happen.


Time table and what is actually going to happen is near pure speculation. Sure ATSC 3.0 should be settled by end of 2016 and FCC spectrum auction and re-packing of channels is also going to happen this year. But what is unclear (and is what matters to us consumers) is if/when broadcasters are going to be forced to convert over to ATSC 3.0 transmissions. As far as I can tell the Government isn't planning on paying for equipment upgrades by either business or the consumer so I am guessing there will be no forced change over until business sees a way to make money doing so, which is going to require a few years of equipment (TVs, DVRs, Tablets, phones, etc.) being sold that can receive ATSC 3.0 transmission. Not a very good business model for OTA broadcasters to change to a broadcast standard with no hardware to receive it.

My guess is it will end up being like analog to digital, at some point they will set a date for full conversion several years in the future, require any device built with an OTA tuner (and all "TVs") to include one that will work with ATSC 3.0 transmission for a few years and then change over will happen.

For a time frame my guess is 5 years before I can get UHD via ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. I would be happy if it happened faster but I don't expect it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

davefred99 said:


> I think it will take a few years to convert if it happens an even at that a few years is a lifetime in Tech years.
> 
> I do not think this will all happen overnite but one day in the not to distant future its going to happen.


FCC has stated a 39 Month Transition period. That will not change as the Companies buying the spectrum want it - unlike the NTSC to ATSC change.

People who a price sensitive - and as a result have moved away from cable - and also howl at $100 extra for 500GB of storage - not to mention monthly subscription fees.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I'm glad I stuck with my old S3s and S4 for OTA.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I thought that the spectrum auctions will just move channels around and continue to use ATSC? Are they going to do a whole new round of converter boxes?!?

If the gateway model is successfully implemented by the FCC, then the gateway-capable DVRs should be able to have OTA gateways just as well as IPTV via FTTN, FTTH, or HFC, as well as HFC linear, HFC/SDV, DirecTV or DISH tuners.


----------



## connie_w (Jan 10, 2015)

Actually, the FCC is aware there has been growth in the OTA market and is doing nothing that should jeopardize OTA. It's more likely that stations will change to different channels. Per the FCC, there should not be a change to any consumer equipment needed for OTA other than new channel scans.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> Frankly the best deal/option I have seen to date for an OTA DVR was the TiVo Roamio OTA at $300 with lifetime. If someone who new about that deal didn't buy one then they really don't want an OTA DVR.





ClearToLand said:


> For me the TiVo $300 Refurb Roamio Basic w/Lifetime sealed the deal.


If only we had a time machine, right?

At 2/$300, the Black Friday DVR+ deal belongs on this list.

Some of the posts in this thread hold cord cutters in contempt. Cord cutters are the ONLY reason there was a TiVo with Lifetime for $300.

Chances are we will not see ATSC 3.0 for another five or more years. Even then there will be converters. Chances are ATSC 3.0 hardware will tune ATSC 1.0 broadcasts. There's no reason why stations that would most benefit from ATSC 3.0 can't rebroadcast 1.0.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wizwor said:


> Chances are we will not see ATSC 3.0 for another five or more years. Even then there will be converters. Chances are ATSC 3.0 hardware will tune ATSC 1.0 broadcasts. There's no reason why stations that would most benefit from ATSC 3.0 can't rebroadcast 1.0.


With the upcoming spectrum auction of broadcast channels above 30, I doubt there will be enough channel space left, particularly in certain markets, for all channels to do simulcasting in both ATSC 3.0 and 1.0 during a transition period.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I thought that the spectrum auctions will just move channels around and continue to use ATSC? Are they going to do a whole new round of converter boxes?!?


You thought correct. The spectrum auction this March and the ensuing channel repack is definitely happening and it's all ATSC 1.0. The new ATSC 3.0 standard should be finalized within a year but it will be longer before it actually gets implemented (IF it gets implemented) and we have UHD HDR OTA broadcasts over ATSC 3.0. The repack and ATSC 3.0 are two completely separate events.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

NAB is on fire for ATSC 3.0. They are all in, NAB, that is, not necessarily the big 4 broadcasters. Anyway, it is quite likely to occur sooner than we might think. However, there is a way current OTA services could be preserved so that consumers can still tune to the current OTA, and still allow for ATSC 3.0, but it would require tremendous cooperation among local channels using common carriers and be taxing the limit in NY and LA. So, I do believe current ATSC devices will continue to receive what they do today, and I expect the FCC to require that for any final approval of ATSC 3.0.

Keep in mind, most of the public using ATSC devices have no clue there could be a chance the equipment they have invested in could be useless, but once it hits the mainstream press, the FCC will hear loud and clear the screams.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

connie_w said:


> Actually, the FCC is aware there has been growth in the OTA market and is doing nothing that should jeopardize OTA. It's more likely that stations will change to different channels. Per the FCC, there should not be a change to any consumer equipment needed for OTA other than new channel scans.


 But most of that growth is junk SD sub-channels.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

tenthplanet said:


> But most of that growth is junk SD sub-channels.


The broadcasters who make money off broadcasting those junk channels aren't going to want to let them go.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Series3Sub said:


> NAB is on fire for ATSC 3.0. They are all in, NAB, that is, not necessarily the big 4 broadcasters. Anyway, it is quite likely to occur sooner than we might think. However, there is a way current OTA services could be preserved so that consumers can still tune to the current OTA, and still allow for ATSC 3.0, but it would require tremendous cooperation among local channels using common carriers and be taxing the limit in NY and LA. So, I do believe current ATSC devices will continue to receive what they do today, and I expect the FCC to require that for any final approval of ATSC 3.0.
> 
> Keep in mind, most of the public using ATSC devices have no clue there could be a chance the equipment they have invested in could be useless, but once it hits the mainstream press, the FCC will hear loud and clear the screams.


Actually they won't be screaming about that. More screaming about loss of signals than ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 conversion.

There are expected to be a USB Plugin (think Google Chrome) for TVs that can convert OTA ATSC 3.0 to MPEG that the TV can view for less than $100.

That leaves consumer owned OTA DVRs like TiVos/Magnavox/ et al the only other thing junked in the transition.

There is no Spectrum or time available for a NTSC to ATSC transition. Stations will do the ATSC 3.0 conversion when they are forced to update their equipment for the Repack in 39 months or less.

A Temporary Station was authorized by the FCC in Vegas last week that Broadcast OTA ATSC 3.0 AND DOLBY VISION HDR to live TV's in the Convention Hall at the LG, Samsung and other Booths.

The current FCC plan is the Repack will just be to ATSC 1.0....but Broadcasters are on the fast track to do ATSC 3.0, which the FCC will no doubt approve.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

connie_w said:


> Actually, the FCC is aware there has been growth in the OTA market and is doing nothing that should jeopardize OTA. It's more likely that stations will change to different channels. Per the FCC, there should not be a change to any consumer equipment needed for OTA other than new channel scans.


Better check your sources. The FCC Chairman came from wireless and is out to gut OTA TV as much as possible - thus this repack and selling the Spectrum to the Wireless Companies to charge you more for Bandwidth every month.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> With the upcoming spectrum auction of broadcast channels above 30, I doubt there will be enough channel space left, particularly in certain markets, for all channels to do simulcasting in both ATSC 3.0 and 1.0 during a transition period.


I don't think there is going to be a cutover like there was with analog to digital. I expect ATSC 3.0 broadcasters to come online slowly in big markets and buy up additional bandwidth as required.

According to ATSC TG3 Chairman Rich Chernock, these are the major problems addressed by ATSC 3.0...

- Spectrum is becoming increasingly scarce
- Major improvements have been made in video coding efficiency
- A strong desire exists for higher-resolution images
- Audio has become more efficient and immersive
- Interactivity has become expected on the part of consumers
- Delivery paths other than broadcast have become commonplace
- Mobile devices have proliferated
- Tablets are in widespread use

Benefits include multi-rate transmissions and 4k.

Flip through your channels and ask yourself which ones will benefit from any of these. The answer is not many. Certainly, not in the next five years. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the benefit of ATSC 3.0 will be less necessary because Comcast is going to be able to deliver gigabit to the home with a simple modem upgrade and mobile carriers are going to gain a lot of bandwidth from the auction.

Headwinds faced by the ATSC 3.0 team include the fact -- F A C T -- that OTA first consumers will be very reluctant to upgrade their equipment. OTA consumers ARE price/value sensitive. Don't expect them to line up for AVRs, 4K televisions, and new TiVos to enjoy marginally better AV quality.

The major reasom for ATSC 3.0 is that ATSC 2.0 doesn't offer benefits that top box makers aren't already pulling off (OTA/OTT integration, for instance).

I expect the process to go like this...

1. ATSC 3.0 is defined and locked down 
2. Television and set top box makers integrate ATSC 3.0 tuners
3. ATSC 3.0 broadcasts offer high end features
4. [maybe] Government mandates ATSC 3.0 cutover
5. ATSC 4.0 is announced

It was four years between the fed's ATSC tuner mandate and the analog cutoff. And that was with subsidized A/D converters. The FCC has allocated 39 months for 'repacking'. NAB says it could take ten years.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ........... There are expected to be a USB Plugin (think Google Chrome) for TVs that can convert OTA ATSC 3.0 to MPEG that the TV can view for less than $100.
> 
> That leaves consumer owned OTA DVRs like TiVos/Magnavox/ et al the only other thing junked in the transition. .......


Couldn't the OTA DVRs possibly use the same USB stick in their USB ports, maybe with a software/firmware update? Maybe TiVo can lead the charge for this, the same way they did with tuning resolvers/adapters.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> Couldn't the OTA DVRs possibly use the same USB stick in their USB ports, maybe with a software/firmware update? Maybe TiVo can lead the charge for this, the same way they did with tuning resolvers/adapters.


Technically, it depends, but no. When I read that, I thought it was kind of impractical since most OTA devices do not record except via the coax in. The device would need to pass all the atsc 3.0 as atsc 1.0 and have rf out.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

wizwor said:


> Technically, it depends, but no. When I read that, I thought it was kind of impractical since most OTA devices do not record except via the coax in. The device would need to pass all the atsc 3.0 as atsc 1.0 and have rf out.


Couldn't the USB device be similar to a USB PC Tuner device that has it's own RF coax connector and tuner and then convert it to a USB ATSC 1.0 stream into the DVR/TiVo?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Couldn't the OTA DVRs possibly use the same USB stick in their USB ports, maybe with a software/firmware update? Maybe TiVo can lead the charge for this, the same way they did with tuning resolvers/adapters.





wizwor said:


> Technically, it depends, but no. When I read that, I thought it was kind of impractical since most OTA devices do not record except via the coax in. The device would need to pass all the atsc 3.0 as atsc 1.0 and have rf out.


Ethernet attached tuners are not new and building a USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 tuner module that a TiVo DVR could access/record isn't hard. But I believe part of the ATSC 3.0 spec is that they will be using h.265. So if TiVo did make a USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 OTA tuner module it could only be used with the Bolt - unless it also trans-coded the streams to h.264 which would be nearly impossible cost wise.

My guess is that the by the time TiVo releases another DVR that does OTA ATSC 3.0 tuners will be included and by the time the cut over actually happens the Bolts will be too old to even bother with especially without lifetime being common any more.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah, my guess is if the broadcasters want to pursue ATSC 3.0, then they either leave a small ATSC 1.0 SD channel up if they can be mixed, if not, one ATSC 1.0 channel per market will offer all the stations in SD, and the broadcasters use their own channels for ATSC 3.0.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, my guess is if the broadcasters want to pursue ATSC 3.0, then they either leave a small ATSC 1.0 SD channel up if they can be mixed, if not, one ATSC 1.0 channel per market will offer all the stations in SD, and the broadcasters use their own channels for ATSC 3.0.


No bandwidth. A SD channel takes up the same 6Mhz a HD Channel takes up.

It won't happen - just a no NTSC Channel was left up.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

HarperVision said:


> Couldn't the OTA DVRs possibly use the same USB stick in their USB ports, maybe with a software/firmware update? Maybe TiVo can lead the charge for this, the same way they did with tuning resolvers/adapters.


1 tuner in USB stick - feeding uncompressed baseband video/audio to TV.

1 tuner does not help a DVR very much

Also, DVRs cannot record uncompressed baseband mpeg (if they did, it would be incredibly large and inefficient anyway.)


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 1 tuner in USB stick - feeding uncompressed baseband video/audio to TV. 1 tuner does not help a DVR very much Also, DVRs cannot record uncompressed baseband mpeg (if they did, it would be incredibly large and inefficient anyway.)


Last I heard, ATSC 3.0 was supposed to use h.265 COMPRESSION?

I'm really starting to wonder if you know what you're really talking about and aren't just a troll stirring up the pot around here?

I could be wrong, but I don't know........


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

HarperVision said:


> Last I heard, ATSC 3.0 was supposed to use h.265 COMPRESSION?
> 
> I'm really starting to wonder if you know what you're really talking about and aren't just a troll stirring up the pot around here?
> 
> I could be wrong, but I don't know........


Your point? You think all 2000-2015 HDTV's have have h.265 Compression built in?

One cannot transcode h.265 to MPEG2. It has to be taken to BaseBand and ReCompressed.

The USB concept for ATSC 3.0 only works if it can output BaseBand Video or MPEG2.

Geez. You sure you even qualified for ISF?

I'll have to ask Joel.

You certainly do not seem to know much of what is going on in the TV Industry, despite listing you are in TV and Radio Broadcasting!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think people should play a little nicer in this thread. Lots of posts with insufficient information for most people to understand what is being talked about. Sure fire way to have people become miss-informed. Unless that is the intention I would recommend stopping it. 

Regarding adding ATSC 3.0 OTA tuners to existing TVs, DVRs, Computers, etc., what can be done depends on if the device can decode h.265. 

For devices that can not decode h.265 all that can really be done is to use a stand alone ATSC 3.0 STB and of course that only works for TVs not DVRs or Computers. 

For devices that can decode h.265 (like 4K TVs, TiVo Bolt, Computers with right software) you can use USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 tuner modules, where the h.265 stream(s) is/are then fed to the device. 

I don't think this is all that complicated and my guess is what becomes available will depend on when the conversion actually happens.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Your point? You think all 2000-2015 HDTV's have have h.265 Compression built in? One cannot transcode h.265 to MPEG2. It has to be taken to BaseBand and ReCompressed. The USB concept for ATSC 3.0 only works if it can output BaseBand Video or MPEG2. Geez. You sure you even qualified for ISF? I'll have to ask Joel. You certainly do not seem to know much of what is going on in the TV Industry, despite listing you are in TV and Radio Broadcasting!


I didn't bring up the concept of a USB stick for older ATSC 1.0 TVs, someone else did. I merely asked the question whether this same concept could be applied to STBs, DVRs, etc. as well. Do these same TVs have the same capability of going to baseband and back to mpeg2? (Even though it would only have to really go to mpeg4, since that's been around a few years already). You're not very clear in your responses. They're just all condescending and smug and elitist and trolling.

This is what I'm talking about (below). I left TV/radio broadcasting back in 2005 when I retired from the US Government, BTW. I assisted with designing a new aircraft for them and for a small period, a local NBC affiliate with their ATSC conversion. That's where my professional experience pretty much ended. I went into ISR after that in Afghanistan for four years



atmuscarella said:


> I think people should play a little nicer in this thread. Lots of posts with insufficient information for most people to understand what is being talked about. Sure fire way to have people become miss-informed. Unless that is the intention I would recommend stopping it. Regarding adding ATSC 3.0 OTA tuners to existing TVs, DVRs, Computers, etc., what can be done depends on if the device can decode h.265. For devices that can not decode h.265 all that can really be done is to use a stand alone ATSC 3.0 STB and of course that only works for TVs not DVRs or Computers. *For devices that can decode h.265 (like 4K TVs, TiVo Bolt, Computers with right software) you can use USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 tuner modules, where the h.265 stream(s) is/are then fed to the device.* I don't think this is all that complicated and my guess is what becomes available will depend on when the conversion actually happens.


Thanks......if the name fits.........


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ............ There are expected to be a USB Plugin (think Google Chrome) for TVs that can convert OTA ATSC 3.0 to MPEG that the TV can view for less than $100. That leaves consumer owned OTA DVRs like TiVos/Magnavox/ et al the only other thing junked in the transition. ..........


Holy crap, I read back in the thread and YOU'RE the one that posted that about the USB plugin dongles!!! And NOW you're saying the concept is crap and can't convert h.265 to mpeg2??? Please explain mr expert.

Geez, I only was trying to add to that concept with the question of whether that same USB plugin could be used on a DVR!

What's your issue man?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

One of the best online sources for info on developments with ATSC 3.0 is TV Technology. Here are a couple of recent articles there that I've enjoyed:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...-brings-flexibility-of-ip-to-broadcast/277732

http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadcast-engineering/0029/all-about-atsc-30-part-3-of-many/277561

BTW, the first of those two articles (which isn't too technical but still interesting) briefly references both OTA DVRs (built into a combined OTA/IP gateway router) as well as ATSC 3.0 to 1.0 converter dongles for legacy TVs.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> One of the best online sources for info on developments with ATSC 3.0 is TV Technology. Here are a couple of recent articles there that I've enjoyed:
> 
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...-brings-flexibility-of-ip-to-broadcast/277732
> 
> ...


Which is exactly why I asked if those same dongles could possibly be used with legacy DVRs with a FW and/or SW update, spurned by the "randomidiot's" mention of it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> One of the best online sources for info on developments with ATSC 3.0 is TV Technology. Here are a couple of recent articles there that I've enjoyed:
> 
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...-brings-flexibility-of-ip-to-broadcast/277732
> 
> ...


Interesting articles. Thanks for the post. Terminology is sometimes hard to get the right meaning across but from the top link:

"Certainly, there will be ATSC 3.0 dongles with an F-connector on one end and an HDMI connector on the other end that will allow those older flat screens to continue to receive basic OTA TV."​I call that a ATSC 3.0 STB even if it is as small as a dongle.

"With ATSC 3.0, you connect your new ~$250 household gateway/router that probably includes some storage and DVR features to that OTA antenna."​While not exactly the same as an Ethernet attached ATSC 3.0 tuner module - it effectively provides similar functions (broadcasts OTA to anything on your LAN that can handle h.265).

What is interesting is this plays into what Dan and others have said should replace cable cards (gateway devices). I just call them Network attached tuners. If the FCC forced the Pay TV providers to replace cable card with gateway devices, in the near future you could simple be attaching an OTA, Cable, Dish, and/or Direct gateway device (Ethernet attached tuners) to your router for access. You would have Network attached storage for recording content and you would access live or recorded content directly with your viewing device (or with something like a Mini/Roku).

TiVo's system becomes Minis with a network attached storage device/tuner-less DVR. Sounds good to me


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> TiVo's system becomes Minis with a network attached storage device/tuner-less DVR. Sounds good to me


Yes. Should the scenario described in that article come to pass, I could see TiVo essentially becoming a software-as-a-service provider and no longer directly in the hardware business. Imagine a "whole home digital gateway" from brands like TP-Link and ASUS that serve as a combined internet router, ATSC 3.0 multi-tuner, and home network hard drive server with TiVo software built-in. Any screen on the network would essentially be a full-fledged TV. Although, as you say, there may still be a need for some kind of TiVo Mini-like dongle to plug into a TV or receiver's HDMI input, unless the TV had a built-in TiVo client app or some sort of standard HTML5 "receptor" that would let the gateway "publish" the TiVo UI to the screen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No bandwidth. A SD channel takes up the same 6Mhz a HD Channel takes up.
> 
> It won't happen - just a no NTSC Channel was left up.


Well actually that's completely wrong. An SD channel, if it could be mixed with UHD on ATSC 3.0, would be significantly less than a 6mhz channel. If you have one channel in a market shared by several broadcasters to keep an ATSC 1.0 channel up, you could fit at least 5 or more SD channels in it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Well actually that's completely wrong. An SD channel, if it could be mixed with UHD on ATSC 3.0, would be significantly less than a 6mhz channel. If you have one channel in a market shared by several broadcasters to keep an ATSC 1.0 channel up, you could fit at least 5 or more SD channels in it.


You are wrong this time.

If an SD Channel is mixed in on a ATSC 3.0 mux, you still need an ATSC 3.0 adapter to receive the mux.

So to leave a single SD ATSC 1.0 station on the air still requires 6Mhz, as my post was in reference to a poster who said a SD channel would be left up in every market.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are wrong this time.
> 
> If an SD Channel is mixed in on a ATSC 3.0 mux, you still need an ATSC 3.0 adapter to receive the mux.
> 
> So to leave a single SD ATSC 1.0 station on the air still requires 6Mhz, as my post was in reference to a poster who said a SD channel would be left up in every market.


I said *IF*. So that won't work. But you're still wrong, because 5-6 SD channels in a market can be put on a single ATSC 1.0 transmitter using a single 6mhz channel for backwards compatibility. Several markets already do this, or have two 720p locals on one 6mhz channel.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I said *IF*. So that won't work. But you're still wrong, because 5-6 SD channels in a market can be put on a single ATSC 1.0 transmitter using a single 6mhz channel for backwards compatibility. Several markets already do this, or have two 720p locals on one 6mhz channel.


Bottom line.

The original post was leaving 1 ATSC SD Channel up in a market for Emergencies.

As I originally said, the SD Channel would take up 6 MHz just like the HD Channels - so it would be no savings.

The Original question was not about All the stations putting All their signal on a SD Channel. This has more issues technical, political and legal issues than I would even start to discuss here.

I also pointed out that this was NOT going to happen anyway. When ATSC 3.0 becomes the standard, all will move to ATSC 3.0. There is simply no benefit to funding an ATSC 1.0 "hold over".

Bottom line. FCC wants TV Channels to a minimum. It will never happen, so while you can spin any imaginable scenario, I stand by my answers - living in reality.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Customers who bought a Bolt to use for OTA might find themselves without a functional DVR in in a few years. I definitely wouldn't pay for all in service for a bolt to use for OTA.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Customers who bought a Bolt to use for OTA might find themselves without a functional DVR in in a few years. I definitely wouldn't pay for all in service for a bolt to use for OTA.


While I wouldn't recommend lifetime/all in at it's current $600 price, when/if ATSC 3.0 happens OTA Bolt owners have achance of something happening (USB or Ethernet attached ATSC 3.0 tuners) to make the Bolt still usable. But there really is no viable path for Series 3, TiVo HD, Premiere, & Roamio OTA users. But my guess is by that time most of us will have moved on perhaps even past the Bolt.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> Ethernet attached tuners are not new and building a USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 tuner module that a TiVo DVR could access/record isn't hard. But I believe part of the ATSC 3.0 spec is that they will be using h.265. So if TiVo did make a USB/Ethernet ATSC 3.0 OTA tuner module it could only be used with the Bolt - unless it also trans-coded the streams to h.264 which would be nearly impossible cost wise.
> 
> *My guess is that the by the time TiVo releases another DVR that does OTA ATSC 3.0 tuners will be included and by the time the cut over actually happens the Bolts will be too old to even bother with especially without lifetime being common any more.*


This is it. ATSC 3.0 isn't that close and will not happen until the market is ready. I expect ATSC 3.0 tuners will be mainstream for five years before the broadcasters join in. I have to say, though, that this discussion and subsequent reading has left me cautious about acquiring new OTA hardware.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> But my guess is by that time most of us will have moved on perhaps even past the Bolt.


I agree. At any rate, if you're in the market right now for an OTA DVR, you can't do better value-wise than a TiVo Roamio OTA with lifetime service for $300, which is now available again at Amazon until they sell out of them. You'll for sure get $300 worth of use out it before any switchover to ATSC 3.0 several years down the road.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> Customers who bought a Bolt to use for OTA might find themselves without a functional DVR in in a few years. I definitely wouldn't pay for all in service for a bolt to use for OTA.


There are a lot of reasons not to go all in on a Bolt -- the suggestion that better models are on the way (lower prices even if you do not want the better hardware), cost, and, yes, the potential of a short window of use.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wizwor said:


> There are a lot of reasons not to go all in on a Bolt -- the suggestion that better models are on the way (lower prices even if you do not want the better hardware), cost, and, yes, the potential of a short window of use.


I think there is a big difference between potential obsolescence versus improved features and functionality.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I agree. At any rate, if you're in the market right now for an OTA DVR, you can't do better value-wise than a TiVo Roamio OTA with lifetime service for $300, which is now available again at Amazon until they sell out of them. You'll for sure get $300 worth of use out it before any switchover to ATSC 3.0 several years down the road.


I am currently using both a Bolt and base Roamio for OTA, if you remove price the Bolt is the clear choice, if you way a Bolt with 1 year of service at $300 against a Roamio OTA with lifetime for the same $300 the value purchase is very clear and it isn't the Bolt. Even if you were going to buy a Stream and MoCA adapter they are only going to cost you a little more than 1 more year's service for the Bolt and I am guessing lots of people will not need either.

My Bottom line is that anyone who wants an OTA DVR who thinks they are going to find a better deal than a Roamio OTA with lifetime for $300 is just kidding themselves and/or really doesn't want a DVR.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> This is it. ATSC 3.0 isn't that close and will not happen until the market is ready. I expect ATSC 3.0 tuners will be mainstream for five years before the broadcasters join in. I have to say, though, that this discussion and subsequent reading has left me cautious about acquiring new OTA hardware.


I guess it depends how sensitive you are to having to replace something before it dies. I have no belief anything is going to happen with in the next few years. Which is both good and bad, it means all these DVRs I have laying around will continue to work, but it also means no UHD TV broadcasts.

For me I seem to keep getting TiVo's newest even though I don't need them while being to lazy to sell the old ones. The reality is I haven't needed a new DVR since I got my TiVo HD & Series 3 units they work fine and my Roku works just fine for stream. Another sad reality is that if I had sold my Series 2, TiVo HD, Series 3, & Premiere, and even the Roamio now (all with lifetime) when I no longer needed them I would have had more money than a new Bolt with lifetime actually costs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Bottom line.
> 
> The original post was leaving 1 ATSC SD Channel up in a market for Emergencies.
> 
> ...


That's a ridiculous statement. Several markets already have shared channels, either two 720p channels, or several 480i channels. This is not a hypothetical idea. It has been done. Will it be done for ATSC 3.0? I don't know. But considering how long the converter boxes from the first go-around will be around, it would make logical sense to get all the major channels in SD onto a single ATSC 1.0 channel for legacy compatibility purposes.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> That's a ridiculous statement. Several markets already have shared channels, either two 720p channels, or several 480i channels. This is not a hypothetical idea. It has been done. Will it be done for ATSC 3.0? I don't know. But considering how long the converter boxes from the first go-around will be around, it would make logical sense to get all the major channels in SD onto a single ATSC 1.0 channel for legacy compatibility purposes.


The "Shared" channels you speak of for the most part Educational/Not For Profit Stations that had to do this to cut expenses or go off the air. Lots of luck with getting emergency information from them!

Again, reality is your scenario (or the OP) will not happen (Leaving 1 ATSC 1.0 Channel on the air for Emergencies when ATSC 3.0 becomes the standard).


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Yeah. In my market we have three PBS stations and three ION broadcasters. There are a bunch of spanish language channel plus a couple religious channels. We also have a couple low power local stations and a bunch of empty ones. Despite this, I have 40ish channels


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The "Shared" channels you speak of for the most part Educational/Not For Profit Stations that had to do this to cut expenses or go off the air. Lots of luck with getting emergency information from them!
> 
> Again, reality is your scenario (or the OP) will not happen (Leaving 1 ATSC 1.0 Channel on the air for Emergencies when ATSC 3.0 becomes the standard).


Wrong. There are major networks with shared stations in several markets. I wasn't talking about emergencies, I was talking about people who wouldn't want to upgrade to new converter boxes and have their ancient 19" TVs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Wrong. There are major networks with shared stations in several markets. I wasn't talking about emergencies, I was talking about people who wouldn't want to upgrade to new converter boxes and have their ancient 19" TVs.


Yes, there are Networks on the SAME CHANNEL (.1 and .2). And as thus, same owners putting the SAME NEWS on both .1 and .2.

Again, your idea will not happen....just as they did not leave a NTSC channel up for "emergencies" in 2009 (though LPTV was exempted from moving for a while - and multiple exceptions have been made with the digital repack and probable move to ATSC 3.0. They will be forced to transition shortly after the Full Power Stations have completed their move 39 months after the auction).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, there are Networks on the SAME CHANNEL (.1 and .2). And as thus, same owners putting the SAME NEWS on both .1 and .2.
> 
> Again, your idea will not happen....just as they did not leave a NTSC channel up for "emergencies" in 2009 (though LPTV was exempted from moving for a while - and multiple exceptions have been made with the digital repack and probable move to ATSC 3.0. They will be forced to transition shortly after the Full Power Stations have completed their move 39 months after the auction).


We'll see what they actually do. It certainly would be possible to keep ATSC1.0 alive for the 19" TV crowd. Are we going to see a whole new government converter box program now for ATSC 3.0? Good god.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

It get the feeling TV Networks want this less than the FCC does. Technically wonderful idea, but somebody has to pay for it. The stations owned by networks will convert on a timely basis, but what about the affiliates that will be a much harder sell.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> We'll see what they actually do. It certainly would be possible to keep ATSC1.0 alive for the 19" TV crowd. Are we going to see a whole new government converter box program now for ATSC 3.0? Good god.


There will be no convertor program for ATSC 3.0

The FCC wants as many stations off the air as possible. Adding more is not the goal or option. They are paying big money to get these OFF the air and will take that money....not giving 6Mhz back for ATSC 1.0 holdovers.

In fact, any leftover frequencies will go to LPTV who are not part of the auction and are not allowed to,participate in it. Expect to see many LPTVs go away after repack, regardless of ATSC 1.0 or 3.0. There just isn't the room for them.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> It get the feeling TV Networks want this less than the FCC does. Technically wonderful idea, but somebody has to pay for it. The stations owned by networks will convert on a timely basis, but what about the affiliates that will be a much harder sell.


You have it reversed.

The affiliates want ATSC 3.0.

The networks are dragging their feet on support.

The FCC has not made any feelings known on ATSC 3.0...but the have approved on air testing of ATSC on vacant TV Channels in Cleveland and Vegas, among a few other markets.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There will be no convertor program for ATSC 3.0
> 
> The FCC wants as many stations off the air as possible. Adding more is not the goal or option. They are paying big money to get these OFF the air and will take that money....not giving 6Mhz back for ATSC 1.0 holdovers.
> 
> In fact, any leftover frequencies will go to LPTV who are not part of the auction and are not allowed to,participate in it. Expect to see many LPTVs go away after repack, regardless of ATSC 1.0 or 3.0. There just isn't the room for them.


There will have to either be SD ATSC 1.0 stations remaining, or another converter box program. There will be a revolt if people's free TV is taken away. Remember, the folks who will be most upset are the ones who are using convertor boxes on SDTVs today.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> There will have to either be SD ATSC 1.0 stations remaining, or another converter box program. There will be a revolt if people's free TV is taken away. Remember, the folks who will be most upset are the ones who are using convertor boxes on SDTVs today.


Incorrect, but you just keep making up additional details that have no bearing on what us in the works, so just bookmark this thread so you can see all the mistakes down the road.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Incorrect, but you just keep making up additional details that have no bearing on what us in the works, so just bookmark this thread so you can see all the mistakes down the road.


There would have been a revolt last time around, why would it be any different this time around?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> There would have been a revolt last time around, why would it be any different this time around?


"would have". There you go with speculation again on what might have happened in your scenarios.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> "would have". There you go with speculation again on what might have happened in your scenarios.


And your point is what? Everything any of us are saying about a conversion to a new OTA broadcasting standard is speculation until it happens. Doesn't matter what that speculation is based on, after all none of us have direct control over what happens. So it is all speculation based on information provided by other sources, which may or may not have gotten it correct and even if they have it "correct" today until the conversion happens things are subject to change. It's not like the Government, Companies, or people never make changes to future plans.

All that said with our current Government grid lock I find it highly unlikely that the Government will pay for convert boxes, not on anyone's priority list and not likely something both sides would compromise on to have happen.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If it's possible to manufacture a converter box to convert ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0 for $50 - $100 they will be available. Best Buy still sells the Digtal to Analog converter boxes and the government has long since stopped subsidizing them.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> All that said with our current Government grid lock I find it highly unlikely that the Government will pay for convert boxes, not on anyone's priority list and not likely something both sides would compromise on to have happen.


And therefore, ATSC 1.0 will probably be around basically forever.



shwru980r said:


> If it's possible to manufacture a converter box to convert ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0 for $50 - $100 they will be available. Best Buy still sells the Digtal to Analog converter boxes and the government has long since stopped subsidizing them.


That would cost thousands to make. BUT if they made an ATSC 3.0 tuner box like the current round of them, they could probably make one with RF, composite, or even HDMI for $50-$100.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> And your point is what? Everything any of us are saying about a conversion to a new OTA broadcasting standard is speculation until it happens. Doesn't matter what that speculation is based on, after all none of us have direct control over what happens. So it is all speculation based on information provided by other sources, which may or may not have gotten it correct and even if they have it "correct" today until the conversion happens things are subject to change. It's not like the Government, Companies, or people never make changes to future plans.
> 
> All that said with our current Government grid lock I find it highly unlikely that the Government will pay for convert boxes, not on anyone's priority list and not likely something both sides would compromise on to have happen.


FREE Convertor boxes for NTSC to ATSC 1.0 were on the books from the beginning.

They are not in the current proposals for moving forward with ATSC 3.0 - nor is there any allocation of funds for them.

The only funds being allocated are to Class A TV Stations and above for expenses from the repacking of the forthcoming Auction.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> And therefore, ATSC 1.0 will probably be around basically forever.


Keep believing that. If that is the case, OTA TV will be gone in the not to distant future.



shwru980r said:


> If it's possible to manufacture a converter box to convert ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0 for $50 - $100 they will be available. Best Buy still sells the Digtal to Analog converter boxes and the government has long since stopped subsidizing them.


Incorrect. A .h265 to BaseBand decoder and then MPEG to MPEG2 realtime encoder would cost much more than $100.



Bigg said:


> BUT if they made an ATSC 3.0 tuner box like the current round of them, they could probably make one with RF, composite, or even HDMI for $50-$100.


Incorrect.

To have one with an ATSC 3.0 decoder to Baseband then Real Time MPEG to MPEG2 /ATSC 1.0 Transmitter built in would cost a thousand easily.

To have an ATSC 3.0 to MPEG decoder / usb socket would cost as much as a Google Chrome USB Puck....or roughly $50.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Keep believing that. If that is the case, OTA TV will be gone in the not to distant future.


Huh? ATSC 1.0 can exist indefinitely if no one can come up with a path to migrate to ATSC 3.0 that includes funding for convertors and such. There's nothing wrong with ATSC 1.0, and most of the people who use OTA don't really care about features or quality, they just want free TV. The people who care about the quality and features and such have DirecTV or cable.



> Incorrect.
> 
> To have one with an ATSC 3.0 decoder to Baseband then Real Time MPEG to MPEG2 /ATSC 1.0 Transmitter built in would cost a thousand easily.
> 
> To have an ATSC 3.0 to MPEG decoder / usb socket would cost as much as a Google Chrome USB Puck....or roughly $50.


You said incorrect. I said the same thing you're saying, except with a decoding box outputting to RF/composite/HDMI instead of through USB. Of course modulating to ATSC 1.0 is ridiculous and pointless, but a decoder doesn't have to go through USB. It could just put out HDMI like Comcast's cheap HD DTAs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Huh? ATSC 1.0 can exist indefinitely if no one can come up with a path to migrate to ATSC 3.0 that includes funding for convertors and such. There's nothing wrong with ATSC 1.0, and most of the people who use OTA don't really care about features or quality, they just want free TV. The people who care about the quality and features and such have DirecTV or cable.


Trolley cars service could also exist indefinitely. You missed the big picture.

If ATSC 1.0 is the final step, OTA TV is dead.



Bigg said:


> You said incorrect. I said the same thing you're saying, except with a decoding box outputting to RF/composite/HDMI instead of through USB. Of course modulating to ATSC 1.0 is ridiculous and pointless, but a decoder doesn't have to go through USB. It could just put out HDMI like Comcast's cheap HD DTAs.


As I have explained multiple times (and you are just trying to spin to make you self feel like you are correct), RF would require many more steps and as thus would not be cost effective, costing $1000+. Your original statements were ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0. ATSC is an RF scheme requiring demodulators, real time encoders and modulators.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Trolley cars service could also exist indefinitely. You missed the big picture.
> 
> If ATSC 1.0 is the final step, OTA TV is dead.


1. Terrible analogy. Historic streetcars are still in service in several cities, and modern light rail is being built and expanded in a numerous other cities.

2. To the real point, by that logic, SD channels and DVDs and all sorts of other things should be dead, but they aren't. Some people still use them. There are millions of people who are using converter boxes who would have been perfectly happy using NTSC OTA forever. I don't understand it, I want DirecTV or cable with the best quality possible, but there are people out there... Heck, if it weren't for TiVo, I'd just have DirecTV, since it's the ultimate TV service, but I digress.



> As I have explained multiple times (and you are just trying to spin to make you self feel like you are correct), RF would require many more steps and as thus would not be cost effective, costing $1000+. Your original statements were ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0. ATSC is an RF scheme requiring demodulators, real time encoders and modulators.


No ****ing DUH! That's what I said in post #91. Pay attention! In that post, I suggested RF (NTSC), composite, or HDMI outputs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> 1. Terrible analogy. Historic streetcars are still in service in several cities, and modern light rail is being built and expanded in a numerous other cities.
> 
> 2. To the real point, by that logic, SD channels and DVDs and all sorts of other things should be dead, but they aren't. Some people still use them. There are millions of people who are using converter boxes who would have been perfectly happy using NTSC OTA forever. I don't understand it, I want DirecTV or cable with the best quality possible, but there are people out there... Heck, if it weren't for TiVo, I'd just have DirecTV, since it's the ultimate TV service, but I digress.
> 
> No ****ing DUH! That's what I said in post #91. Pay attention! In that post, I suggested RF (NTSC), composite, or HDMI outputs.


Yes, you suggested RF first, AND above you mention NTSC of which is Analog SD while ATSC 1.0 is DIGITAL and up to 1080i resolution. No HD owner will want 640x480 when they had 1080.

And proving my point, yes, ATSC 1.0 COULD continue like in San Francisco, but as you don't not understand the Broadcast Community, as I stated, if OTA REMAINS ATSC 1.0, it is the END of OTA Free Broadcasts.....just as Street Cars are ineffective and history.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, you suggested RF first, AND above you mention NTSC of which is Analog SD while ATSC 1.0 is DIGITAL and up to 1080i resolution. No HD owner will want 640x480 when they had 1080.
> 
> And proving my point, yes, ATSC 1.0 COULD continue like in San Francisco, but as you don't not understand the Broadcast Community, as I stated, if OTA REMAINS ATSC 1.0, it is the END of OTA Free Broadcasts.....just as Street Cars are ineffective and history.


Wow. You completely missed the point. I was talking about replacing the existing converter boxes, which are 480i SD output. Yes, there is a market for that, and that's the market that would be most up in arms about the switchover. We're talking old, low-income, or both. Also, for HDTV owners who for some strange reason don't have a DVR, it wouldn't be hard to make a box with component or HDMI outputs a la an OTA version of Comcast's DTAs, *like I already mentioned in post #91. *

Why would keeping ATSC 1.0 mean the end of OTA? That makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. I'm suggesting that a single ATSC 1.0 channel would be kept per market to provide SD feeds to the converter box crowd, alongside ATSC 3.0. BUT, even if ATSC 3.0 were never implemented, ATSC 1.0 will still be around. It will still work. The world will not end. Just because it doesn't have 4k is completely irrelevant, as the 4k crowd is streaming Netflix, and will be getting their 4k via cable and satellite for some time to come.

People who are too cheap to pay for cable or DirecTV probably can't tell the difference or don't care about the difference between 720p and anything higher, so it doesn't matter that it doesn't support 4k. The OTA channels could easily provide 4k fiber feeds to cable and DirecTV for cable and satellite LiL purposes if they have enough R-DBS bandwidth to support it, and keep the OTA signals themselves in HD.

And those street cars. Yes, they are making a big comeback. Light rail is being implemented in several cities, as cities realize that being entirely car-centric doesn't work. Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles have, among others, expanded their light rail and/or streetcar systems in the past decade, and in some cases are continuing to do so.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Wow. You completely missed the point. I was talking about replacing the existing converter boxes, which are 480i SD output. Yes, there is a market for that, and that's the market that would be most up in arms about the switchover. We're talking old, low-income, or both. Also, for HDTV owners who for some strange reason don't have a DVR, it wouldn't be hard to make a box with component or HDMI outputs a la an OTA version of Comcast's DTAs, *like I already mentioned in post #91. *
> 
> Why would keeping ATSC 1.0 mean the end of OTA? That makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. I'm suggesting that a single ATSC 1.0 channel would be kept per market to provide SD feeds to the converter box crowd, alongside ATSC 3.0. BUT, even if ATSC 3.0 were never implemented, ATSC 1.0 will still be around. It will still work. The world will not end. Just because it doesn't have 4k is completely irrelevant, as the 4k crowd is streaming Netflix, and will be getting their 4k via cable and satellite for some time to come.
> 
> ...


TL;DR

I'll let you continue this alone since you clearly cannot admit you don't have a clue when it comes to business or the TV Industry.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> TL;DR
> 
> I'll let you continue this alone since you clearly cannot admit you don't have a clue when it comes to business or the TV Industry.


Who knows what deal the federal regulators and TV stations will come to. I was addressing what is technically possible, and thus, what options are on the table. Of course you didn't bother to actually read what I was posting, but I digress...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Who knows what deal the federal regulators and TV stations will come to. I was addressing what is technically possible, and thus, what options are on the table. Of course you didn't bother to actually read what I was posting, but I digress...


A lot of things are technically possible. However, only what is what is being considered is relative.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

No responsible politician would miss the opportunity to take up the cause of the downtrodden citizens having their TVs bricked by the greedy cell phone industry. There will have to be some sort of converter box for existing TVs or an ATSC 1.0 signal in parallel.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> No responsible politician would miss the opportunity to take up the cause of the downtrodden citizens having their TVs bricked by the greedy cell phone industry. There will have to be some sort of converter box for existing TVs or an ATSC 1.0 signal in parallel.


There will be plenty of money from the spectrum auctions that they can use for another converter box coupon program.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There will be plenty of money from the spectrum auctions that they can use for another converter box coupon program.


Sell all the spectrum to subsidize boxes that can't be used because all the spectrum has been sold. Sounds like the Gift of the Magi.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> A lot of things are technically possible. However, only what is what is being considered is relative.


They'll probably do another round of converter box coupons if they really are serious about moving to ATSC 3.0. My bet is ATSC 1.0 is around for a long, long time.


----------



## jericko (Dec 31, 2015)

This could force Channel Master to start getting some much needed features on their DVR+!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> They'll probably do another round of converter box coupons if they really are serious about moving to ATSC 3.0. My bet is ATSC 1.0 is around for a long, long time.


Again, no money for it.

Debt is double what it was in 2009....thanks Obama.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There will be plenty of money from the spectrum auctions that they can use for another converter box coupon program.


Incorrect. Congress only authorized the Spectrum Auction on the premise of the money that would come into the Federal coffers - not for Converters/Coupons.

And now it appears that the Spectrum Auction will NOT pull in as much as they projected - imagine that - since several wireless companies have decided against bidding.

And after the 2009 Coupon screwup with most boxes POS and being sold on eBay and Craigslist, no way they are going down that route again. You 'll be seeing Cash for Guzzlers first.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, no money for it.
> 
> Debt is double what it was in 2009....thanks Obama.


Aside from your clear lack of knowledge of US government economic history, the money would come out of a little piece of the spectrum sale, just like it did the last time around, so the federal government's budget has nothing to do with a converter box program.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Incorrect. Congress only authorized the Spectrum Auction on the premise of the money that would come into the Federal coffers - not for Converters/Coupons.
> 
> And now it appears that the Spectrum Auction will NOT pull in as much as they projected - imagine that - since several wireless companies have decided against bidding.
> 
> And after the 2009 Coupon screwup with most boxes POS and being sold on eBay and Craigslist, no way they are going down that route again. You 'll be seeing Cash for Guzzlers first.


Maybe they should just not sell the spectrum. The telcos have TONS of spectrum already.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Aside from your clear lack of knowledge of US government economic history, the money would come out of a little piece of the spectrum sale, just like it did the last time around, so the federal government's budget has nothing to do with a converter box program.
> 
> Maybe they should just not sell the spectrum. The telcos have TONS of spectrum already.


Clearly you are the one that has not followed ANY of this.

I suggest you read this from Friday, confirming what I have posted and you have disputed.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/friedel-richer-on-atsc-30-transition/277850


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Clearly you are the one that has not followed ANY of this.
> 
> I suggest you read this from Friday, confirming what I have posted and you have disputed.
> 
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/friedel-richer-on-atsc-30-transition/277850


If the government does nothing, and leaves it up to the broadcasters, then some smaller markets may or may not get it as duplicate channels, and the larger, spectrum-crunched markets probably never will, as the broadcasters can't afford to alienate viewers that don't have the equipment to pick it up.

Most likely, only a handful of channels anywhere will have it, as the channels know that their OTA viewers are either low-end or cheap, and don't care much about quality or whatnot, and they can just give an awesome fiber feed to DirecTV and FIOS for the high end viewers like they already do.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Does it make sense to replace a working ATSC 1.0 device or buy a new Roamia OTA or Bolt for OTA? It might be bricked in a few years or else have to pay hundreds of dollars for a USB receiver or a gateway receiver.

Would the courts allow a gateway receiver, given that it's similar to what Aereo was doing, but on a smaller scale?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Does it make sense to replace a working ATSC 1.0 device or buy a new Roamia OTA or Bolt for OTA? It might be bricked in a few years or else have to pay hundreds of dollars for a USB receiver or a gateway receiver.

Would the courts allow a gateway receiver, given that it's similar to what Aereo was doing, but on a smaller scale?

I think I would want some sort of commitment from Tivo that they will make the newer DVRs work with ATSC 3.0, before buying one.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> Does it make sense to replace a working ATSC 1.0 device or buy a new Roamia OTA or Bolt for OTA? It might be bricked in a few years or else have to pay hundreds of dollars for a USB receiver or a gateway receiver.
> 
> Would the courts allow a gateway receiver, given that it's similar to what Aereo was doing, but on a smaller scale?


A Gateway Reciever would be in your house. No issue.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> If the government does nothing, and leaves it up to the broadcasters, then some smaller markets may or may not get it as duplicate channels, and the larger, spectrum-crunched markets probably never will, as the broadcasters can't afford to alienate viewers that don't have the equipment to pick it up.
> 
> Most likely, only a handful of channels anywhere will have it, as the channels know that their OTA viewers are either low-end or cheap, and don't care much about quality or whatnot, and they can just give an awesome fiber feed to DirecTV and FIOS for the high end viewers like they already do.


Again, FCC wants Spectrum for wireless. They certainly will not be giving ADDITIONAL spectrum to TV so they can simulcast ATSC 1.0 and 3.0.

Some argue that. OTA are higher end as the picture is better than rate shaping on MSOs.

As I have plenty of access to the Network Feeds at rates that a cable QAM can handle 38.78 Mbps compared to 19.39Mbps for OTA ATSC) I have maintained that local TV and MSOs should send the higher bit rate via fiber to the headend and have the MSO look much better than OTA.

At the same tom, move DBS Mpeg 4 Encoders to Station so they could encode higher bitrate a station and transmit on same fiber feed the ASI 19.39 MPEG2 signal is using at no additional cost.

That way MVPD look far better than OTA with the sub channels.

But that has gone nowhere.

Even Fios caved in and started putting more than 2 HD Channels on QAM.

People voted and wanted more Channels instead of better Quality.

What can you do?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Does it make sense to replace a working ATSC 1.0 device or buy a new Roamia OTA or Bolt for OTA? It might be bricked in a few years or else have to pay hundreds of dollars for a USB receiver or a gateway receiver.
> 
> Would the courts allow a gateway receiver, given that it's similar to what Aereo was doing, but on a smaller scale?


ATSC 1.0 isn't going to be gone within the reasonable lifespan of a TiVo, so it's not something I'd worry about. Plus, you could just sell it if that became the case, assuming CableCard is still around, which it probably still will be as well.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, FCC wants Spectrum for wireless. They certainly will not be giving ADDITIONAL spectrum to TV so they can simulcast ATSC 1.0 and 3.0.


That's why I think ATSC 1.0 is basically entrenched at this point if a hypothetical transition is left to the broadcasters. They know that most people don't care, and are fine with over-compressed 1080i or 720p, so they'll send the eventual 4k feeds out to DirecTV and the cable/fiber companies when the time comes for that, since the viewers who want that are on those systems anyway. Plus, the broadcasters want to make every reason to make people pay retrans fees.



> Some argue that. OTA are higher end as the picture is better than rate shaping on MSOs.


WRONG. It varies market to market, and it's possible that is true in a handful of markets, but the pattern that seems to be most common is retransmitting the OTA signals bit for bit on cable, so that they still look like crap with all the subchannels fighting for bandwidth, and a direct feed to DirecTV, who does their own compression, so their HD LiL service has the highest quality feed of them all.



> As I have plenty of access to the Network Feeds at rates that a cable QAM can handle 38.78 Mbps compared to 19.39Mbps for OTA ATSC) I have maintained that local TV and MSOs should send the higher bit rate via fiber to the headend and have the MSO look much better than OTA.


The cable companies don't want to give more bandwidth to them. DirecTV, with MPEG-4 HD LiL service ends up with the best picture.



> At the same tom, move DBS Mpeg 4 Encoders to Station so they could encode higher bitrate a station and transmit on same fiber feed the ASI 19.39 MPEG2 signal is using at no additional cost.


DirecTV is already doing this with HD-SDI feeds to their own encoders. You know something is weird when the best quality signal is the one that gets beamed 26,000 miles into space and back from a station that might only be a few miles away from where you live.



> Even Fios caved in and started putting more than 2 HD Channels on QAM.


You mean 3 channels?



> People voted and wanted more Channels instead of better Quality.


That's not at all the issue. The companies just don't want to spend the money to upgrade plants, upgrade technologies, and transmit everything at higher bitrates. DirecTV already has excellent PQ, FIOS could use MPEG-4 with linear QAM, since they have an entire 860mhz system with no internet or voice or VOD to worry about, and cable could use SDV with MPEG-4. But only DirecTV has really put the pieces together on picture quality, and even they are running bitrates that are half what is coming off of C-band for some channels.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 4, 2016)

I'll need to keep an eye on this. My parents are still using a VCR / DVD combo recorder that is showing its age.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> ATSC 1.0 isn't going to be gone within the reasonable lifespan of a TiVo, so it's not something I'd worry about. Plus, you could just sell it if that became the case, assuming CableCard is still around, which it probably still will be as well.
> 
> That's why I think ATSC 1.0 is basically entrenched at this point if a hypothetical transition is left to the broadcasters. They know that most people don't care, and are fine with over-compressed 1080i or 720p, so they'll send the eventual 4k feeds out to DirecTV and the cable/fiber companies when the time comes for that, since the viewers who want that are on those systems anyway. Plus, the broadcasters want to make every reason to make people pay retrans fees.
> 
> ...


You have so many factual errors in this it really is ridiculous to try and discuss this with someone who is convinced the world is flat and the moon landing was faked.

You clearly have no idea what is going on inside TV plants, back hauls and providers.


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

As a clueless European - is there any reason why they can't look at DVB-T2 as the replacement for ATSC, rather than spending years on inventing their own thing (again)?

ATSC 3.0 will need new hardware anyway, and DVB-T2 combines greater efficiency with economy of scale (it's in widespread use worldwide) and maturity


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

i.hardon said:


> As a clueless European - is there any reason why they can't look at DVB-T2 as the replacement for ATSC, rather than spending years on inventing their own thing (again)?
> 
> ATSC 3.0 will need new hardware anyway, and DVB-T2 combines greater efficiency with economy of scale (it's in widespread use worldwide) and maturity


Somewhat Political. Somewhat Technical.

Tech Companies were involved with ATSC Specs....and note the Countries that use the DVB-T standard with the exception of Taiwan are not the major tech Countries.

There are some other technical reasons as well

1. ATSC 3.0 is built to be upgradeable in the future - as changes/enhancements are made in the underlying technologies.

2. The Bootstrap of ATSC 3.0 enables future changes of the standard - with versioning.

3. ATSC 3.0 is an IP based standard - I believe that DVB is MPEG Transport stream based. Limits flexibility.

4. DVB-T2 is not built to allow the Hybrid model (Over the Air and Internet) of distribution and customization that ATSC has envisioned for ATSC 3.0.

Likewise, not sure if DVB-T2 supports ad insertion and other services that allow customization / personalization.

5. DVB-T2 does not have the number of modulation/codec choices that are in the ATSC 3.0 physical layer. Enables broadcaster to choose best mod/cod for the market and business.

6. DVB-T2 does not support LDM - a big increase in overall efficiency and enables scalable video

7. DVB-T2 has some limitations in its flexibility for both FDM and TDM.

8. I don't think DVB-T2 has LDPC codes built in. (FEC)

9. Transmitter Diversity Filter Code Set (TDFCS) allows optimum deployment of sparse SFN.

Transmitter manufacturers will be showing 3.0 ready exciters (software switch-on) at NAB in Las Vegas this April.

The full ATSC 3.0 standard should be complete this year. Some early stations will probably begin broadcasting in ATSC 3.0 next year, during the first repacking installations.

Suspect all will have switched within 5-7 years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You have so many factual errors in this it really is ridiculous to try and discuss this with someone who is convinced the world is flat and the moon landing was faked.
> 
> You clearly have no idea what is going on inside TV plants, back hauls and providers.


Then why don't you try to refute my post point by point? Until you do, you've got nothing.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> ATSC 1.0 isn't going to be gone within the reasonable lifespan of a TiVo, so it's not something I'd worry about. Plus, you could just sell it if that became the case, assuming CableCard is still around, which it probably still will be as well.


How much are you going to get for a Roamio OTA once it is bricked by ATSC 3.0? Plus the apps could eventually disappear like they did on the S3.

The sunset for ATSC 1.0 and cable cards is on the horizon and there are no provisions to enable backwards compatibility like there was for the first digital transition.

Economics would suggest going with the lowest common denominator with Tivo, since the basic functionality of recording and watching shows is similar among all models.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> How much are you going to get for a Roamio OTA once it is bricked by ATSC 3.0? Plus the apps could eventually disappear like they did on the S3.
> 
> The sunset for ATSC 1.0 and cable cards is on the horizon and there are no provisions to enable backwards compatibility like there was for the first digital transition.
> 
> Economics would suggest going with the lowest common denominator with Tivo, since the basic functionality of recording and watching shows is similar among all models.


True, the OTA would, in theory, be made useless by such a transition. But considering that this idea of a transition isn't even a real thing yet, and it would take a decade if mandated by the government, and won't happen at all if not mandated by the government, I don't think people have much to worry about.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> True, the OTA would, in theory, be made useless by such a transition. But considering that this idea of a transition isn't even a real thing yet, and it would take a decade if mandated by the government, and won't happen at all if not mandated by the government, I don't think people have much to worry about.


I thought the ATSC 3.0 transition was only a few years away.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I thought the ATSC 3.0 transition was only a few years away.


When is pure speculation, if is nearly certain.

The spec isn't even complete yet - but should be completed this year. We don't even completely know what ATSC 3.0 is going to provide yet.

That said I have 5 lifetimed TiVos used for OTA and would Gladly trash them all and buy a new one if ATSC 3.0 means UHD broadcasts from the OTA broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC, & PBS).

Unfortunately my guess is we are at least 5 years out from anything happening.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> When is pure speculation, if is nearly certain.
> 
> The spec isn't even complete yet - but should be completed this year. We don't even completely know what ATSC 3.0 is going to provide yet.
> 
> ...


OK thanks. Five years is a little better. Since we don't even get 1080P broadcasts now, I'm not sure if they would broadcast in 4K.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> When is pure speculation, if is nearly certain.
> 
> The spec isn't even complete yet - but should be completed this year. We don't even completely know what ATSC 3.0 is going to provide yet.
> 
> ...


So basically it's probably 10-15 years off. Cable will get UHD locals first, I don't think DirecTV has that kind of LiL bandwidth, although maybe they have something up their sleeve with R-DBS on the Ka band that is going to provide way more spot beam bandwidth, and then they would be it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> I thought the ATSC 3.0 transition was only a few years away.


The full standard should be complete this year.

Transmitter manufacturers will be showing 3.0 ready exciters (software switch-on) at NAB in April of this year. In other words, any changes at this point are so small a simple software update can take care of it.

You will see first ATSC 3.0 stations on air in 18-24 months with some stations that a forced to change frequencies in the repack, with a downgrade of picture quality on ATSC 1.0 beginning at the same time. Complete move to all ATSC 3.0 will be in approximately 60 months which most viewers will flock to as the remaining ATSC 1.0 will be downgraded to such a severe state.

After seeing ATSC 3.0 live in the air in Las Vegas during a private demonstration at this years CES, 11 South Korean delegates went home and just this past weekend committed 5 ADDITIONAL ATSC 3.0 Channels Nationwide to be on the air by Feb 8, 2018 in time to Broadcast the Olympics in UHD they are hosting.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> with some stations that a forced to change frequencies in the repack, with a downgrade of picture quality on ATSC 1.0 beginning at the same time.


I a have seen you post this a few times. Can you explain why current OTA signals picture quality is going to be down graded?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> I a have seen you post this a few times. Can you explain why current OTA signals picture quality is going to be down graded?


Because in ~18 months when the first ATSC 3.0 goes on the air, groups have decided to pair up temporarily on both. When both put all their current ATSC Main and Diginets on 1 ATSC 1.0 signal, what do you think happens to the signal quality?

Let me explain it a little more for those interested. I am going to use a specific scenario that could happen, but I am not saying these specific stations will do this.

CBS owns KCBS and KCAL in LA. KCBS is on RF Channel 42 and KCAL is on Channel 9. Due to repacking, KCBS has to move RF Channels. So they build KCBS-TV out on Channel Whatever....15. They fire it up using ATSC 3.0 and put KCBS and SubChannels and KCAL and SubChannels on it.

Remember this is easy to do with the PSIP even on same RF Channel.

Then they put all the KCBS main and Diginets and KCAL Main and Diginets on Channel 9 for the time being using ATSC 1.0 that is already there.

Obviously, OTA need to rescan, but they will find all the Virtual Channels on RF Channel 9, just like they will using ATSC 3.0 on Channel Whatever 15. The ATSC 3.0 has newer encoding (HVEC is about 4x as efficient as MPEG2) as well as about 25Mbps as compared to ATSC 1.0 19.3Mbps.

So ATSC 3.0 Broadcast looks pretty good. ATSC 1.0 looks about as good as SD when they put the two 19.3Mbps signals on 1 Channel or we can say, 19.3Mbps on 9.65Mbps.

Which will end up with people using OTA getting motivated to get an ATSC 3.0 device/tuner in short order. As time goes on, they will put more on the Fewer and fewer remaining ATSC 1.0 stations until you end up with really Worse than SD on the channels for those continuing to use ATSC 1.0 tuners.

And then everyone switches their facilities in roughly 60 months from now and nothing left transmitting ATSC 1.0 for those left with no ATSC 3.0 device/tuner.

But bottom line, when first ATSC 3.0 Stations go on air in roughly 18 months, OTA on ATSC 1.0 partners goes down hill and continually gets worse from then on out on the ATSC 1.0 signal until it eventually disappears.

Make sense?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Ok so you are saying they will end up decreasing the bit rate to accommodate more channels in the same frequency space. I guess I could buy that in crowded markets, as the conversion to ATSC 3.0 happens, but in Rochester NY they are only using 7 frequencies inn use now, seems like they would have enough room to continue broadcasting at the current bit rates while converting over to ATSC 3.0. 

How many frequencies are going to be left for OTA after the up coming sale? Are the VHF frequencies going to be acceptable for ATSC 3.0 broadcasts? Will ATSC 3.0 make it so they can use all the frequencies or will they still need to leave unused ones between the ones being used.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Ok so you are saying they will end up decreasing the bit rate to accommodate more channels in the same frequency space. I guess I could buy that in crowded markets, as the conversion to ATSC 3.0 happens, but in Rochester NY they are only using 7 frequencies inn use now, seems like they would have enough room to continue broadcasting at the current bit rates while converting over to ATSC 3.0.
> 
> How many frequencies are going to be left for OTA after the up coming sale? Are the VHF frequencies going to be acceptable for ATSC 3.0 broadcasts? Will ATSC 3.0 make it so they can use all the frequencies or will they still need to leave unused ones between the ones being used.


Does not matter only 7, because as one moves to ATSC 3.0 they will partner up with another so the other gets on ATSC 3.0 immediately, and then they will cripple the ATSC 1.0 signal with both sets of programming.

The FCC wants to clear up to 125Mhz of Frequency....where it actually ends up depends on several factors, but low 30s should be top of the TV RF Frequencies after the Spectrum Auction.

VHF is not as good as UHF, but works much better with ATSC 3.0 because of several different factors and better error correction. ATSC 3.0 will work great on mobile devices, which tells you how robust it is.

As for the channel spacing, remember that TV channels are not continuous in terms of Spectrum, so its hard to make a sweeping one size fits all statement like that.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Does not matter only 7, because as one moves to ATSC 3.0 they will partner up with another so the other gets on ATSC 3.0 immediately, and then they will cripple the ATSC 1.0 signal with both sets of programming.


Well I can live with that as long as TiVo has released a TiVo with ATSC 3.0 built in or an add on device for my Bolt. I thought you meant the signals were going to be degraded before they where also broadcasting an ATSC 3.0 signal.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The FCC wants to clear up to 125Mhz of Frequency....where it actually ends up depends on several factors, but low 30s should be top of the TV RF Frequencies after the Spectrum Auction.
> 
> VHF is not as good as UHF, but works much better with ATSC 3.0 because of several different factors and better error correction. ATSC 3.0 will work great on mobile devices, which tells you how robust it is.
> 
> As for the channel spacing, remember that TV channels are not continuous in terms of Spectrum, so its hard to make a sweeping one size fits all statement like that.


Good to hear about VHF, I have 2 channels that broadcast on VHF but they are fine, my problem child channels are all UHF - which is funny seeing all the towers are in the same place.

The reason I asked about being able to use all the frequencies is because Rochester is between the Buffalo & Syracuse broadcast markets. So Rochester can not use any frequencies being used by either of those markets. If we end up with 25+ usable ATSC 3.0 frequencies it should be more than enough to cover everything being broadcast in the 3 markets now with no over lap.

In the Analog days I could get stations from all 3 markets now it is only Rochester, do you think that will change with ATSC 3.0?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I can live with that as long as TiVo has released a TiVo with ATSC 3.0 built in or an add on device for my Bolt. I thought you meant the signals were going to be degraded before they where also broadcasting an ATSC 3.0 signal.
> 
> In the Analog days I could get stations from all 3 markets now it is only Rochester, do you think that will change with ATSC 3.0?


No joy on distant channels in most cases.

Until the actual auction and seeing how much space is actually cleared, as well as the repack layout is determined, it's really impossible to be definitive though.

Other thing is you have Canadian Stations to consider, so not as clear cut as you are portraying

Also, even with ATSC 3.0, as additional channels being packed onto 1 channel, OTA will not look as good as it can.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No joy on distant channels in most cases.
> 
> Until the actual auction and seeing how much space is actually cleared, as well as the repack layout is determined, it's really impossible to be definitive though.
> 
> ...


You are correct about Canada, I am far enough south of Rochester so I never could pick up Canadian Stations but people up along Lake Ontario could.

We have pretty heavy frequency sharing now, I have one that has 2 720p & 1 480i channels on it now, another with 1 720p & 5 more 480i channels, and we no longer have any frequencies with just one channel on it. In any event if they don't increase the number of channels with the increased band width and going to h.265 there really should be no issue getting significantly better quality - and one can hope it means UHD .


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> You are correct about Canada, I am far enough south of Rochester so I never could pick up Canadian Stations but people up along Lake Ontario could.
> 
> We have pretty heavy frequency sharing now, I have one that has 2 720p & 1 480i channels on it now, another with 1 720p & 5 more 480i channels, and we no longer have any frequencies with just one channel on it. In any event if they don't increase the number of channels with the increased band width and going to h.265 there really should be no issue getting significantly better quality - and one can hope it means UHD .


Better quality? LOL. They'll just stuff 20 channels on it instead. Half of them will be shopping channels, but more free channels must be good, right?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Better quality? LOL. They'll just stuff 20 channels on it instead. Half of them will be shopping channels, but more free channels must be good, right?


My cynical side fears that is what is going to happen. But Rochester is a pretty small market hopefully not big enough for advertisers to pay for any more junk stations.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> My cynical side fears that is what is going to happen. But Rochester is a pretty small market hopefully not big enough for advertisers to pay for any more junk stations.


They'll hit all 210 or so markets with junk channels!


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Atsc 3.0 comes with a bill nobody wants, including most of us.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Yep, my problem with futurist predictions has always been they never seem to take into account basic economics. No matter how exciting you think the technology is you can't hold a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy into it ASAP. And new equipment that isn't widely implemented is needed just to produce 4K content.

If every futurist pronouncement I've ever heard in my life turned out to be true we'd be driving flying cars and there would have been human colonies on Mars 15 years ago.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

series5orpremier said:


> Yep, my problem with futurist predictions has always been they never seem to take into account basic economics. No matter how exciting you think the technology is you can't hold a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy into it ASAP. And new equipment that isn't widely implemented is needed just to produce 4K content.
> 
> If every futurist pronouncement I've ever heard in my life turned out to be true we'd be driving flying cars and there would have been human colonies on Mars 15 years ago.


Sorry, but UHD production is not some vapor ware.

My iPhone 6s can even shoot in 4K


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> Yep, my problem with futurist predictions has always been they never seem to take into account basic economics. No matter how exciting you think the technology is you can't hold a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy into it ASAP. And new equipment that isn't widely implemented is needed just to produce 4K content.
> 
> If every futurist pronouncement I've ever heard in my life turned out to be true we'd be driving flying cars and there would have been human colonies on Mars 15 years ago.


Correct, the problem and reason HDTV took off with little problem is because it got the thin TV and got rid of the heavy deep CRT TV, people wanted the flat screen wall hanging, and light weight TVs, and got HD at the same time, the difference between analog SD and digital HD is dramatic, the different between a high end 1080P HDTV and a 4K HDTV is no so dramatic, and does nothing for the TV size or weight. I have friends with 4K OEL HDTV and the picture is very good, but without them telling me it was a 4K HDTV I would not have known, side by side one could (most likely) tell the difference, but is no big deal as SD to HDTV was.
I have a 2011 80" Sharp 3D 1080P high end HDTV (at the time I purchased the Sharp) and have no planes to change it out for 4K HDTV, my last 720P DLP HDTV lasted 7 years, I am hoping this Sharp will last at least that long. By that time there may be more 4K programs to watch, and the HDR spec. may be figured out.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Revisionist history. Adoption of HDTV was very slow. I was at a NAB conference where the reasons for the slow adoption of HDTV was the topic of a panel discussion. I sat in because I was thinking of getting a new television. The panel convinced me to get one more 4:3 CRT. Reasons given...


Cost of equipment
Lack of content
Incompatibility

4k flies into two of these and ATSC 3.0 runs into all three. 4k sets are less expensive than HD sets were at launch, but the improvement is less dramatic and, with lifespans in decades, most people are not replacing a failing set. While new content is the right shape (16:9), none of it is 4k. Most of the content being broadcast is SD. The incompatibility conversation changes, but it remains at the center of the discussion. No television station is going to switch from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 if it means losing viewers.



lessd said:


> Correct, the problem and reason HDTV took off with little problem is because it got the thin TV and got rid of the heavy deep CRT TV, people wanted the flat screen wall hanging, and light weight TVs, and got HD at the same time, the difference between analog SD and digital HD is dramatic, the different between a high end 1080P HDTV and a 4K HDTV is no so dramatic, and does nothing for the TV size or weight. I have friends with 4K OEL HDTV and the picture is very good, but without them telling me it was a 4K HDTV I would not have known, side by side one could (most likely) tell the difference, but is no big deal as SD to HDTV was.
> I have a 2011 80" Sharp 3D 1080P high end HDTV (at the time I purchased the Sharp) and have no planes to change it out for 4K HDTV, my last 720P DLP HDTV lasted 7 years, I am hoping this Sharp will last at least that long. By that time there may be more 4K programs to watch, and the HDR spec. may be figured out.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sorry, but UHD production is not some vapor ware.
> 
> My iPhone 6s can even shoot in 4K


You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing about the viability, just the cost. If content producers have perfectly good HD equipment they won't spend the extra $$$ to produce in 4K just like broadcasters won't spend the extra $$$ to send out 4K just like consumers won't spend the extra $$$ for a 4K television UNTIL each party thinks there's enough value in it for THEM, whether that means not lowering their profits or (for consumers) enough true 4K content being available to justify it, or they just need a new TV anyway.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think we tend to forget how small of a niche market we (TiVo users) are and how out of tune with the masses we are. When I look around at family and friends most of the stuff we are concerned about isn't even a thought in their minds. Here are some of my observations: 
A friend in her 40s who had Direct TIVos back in the early days, loved them and always recorded & watch lots of stuff told me her family (sons & Husband) mostly play video games and stream stuff from Netflix & Amazon - if it weren't for sport they might drop Direct all together. ($100,000+ income)
Another friend (early 50s) said they were going to drop Netflix streaming nothing on it anymore that they wanted to watch, they have 2 TWC DVR they never use, they watch live TV and some VoD. ($150,000 income)
I convinced another firend to get a nice HD TV a few years back, has a no STB basic lifeline cable from TWC only because analog to digital messed up their reception they are fine with live TV and renting few movies from Amazon ($100,000+ income).
My Sister & her husband (mid 50s) refuse to buy a HD TV & use a converter box for OTA,. They use a Roku I gave them for PBS and Vudu (share my UV account). ($150,000+ income)
MY brother (mid 50s) is OTA only, gets disks from Netflix & buys a fair amount of Blu-ray disks (great for our UV account ), I finally got him to buy an OTA Roamio when they were $300 - he likes it but still watches live TV more than recordings. ($100,000+ income)
My Parents (early 80s) have dish finally got them to get HD receivers last fall (they have 2 nice HD TVs). Before they upgraded to HD I had their TVs attached too an antenna so they got all the locals in HD, most of the time my father didn't even bother switching his 55 inch HD TV to the antenna just watched the channel via the SD dish receiver. My mother hates commercials told her for $15/mo they could get a Dish DVR. She said no wasn't worth $15/mo - they have $60,000+ annual income and enough assets that if they paid $1000/mo till they were a 100 for a DVR they wouldn't notice the difference. 
What does this all mean? Who knows but most of the people I know don't care enough about TV to worry about any of the stuff we do on these forums. They simple want to turn the TV on and watch something.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I think we tend to forget how small of a niche market we (TiVo users) are and how out of tune with the masses we are. When I look around at family and friends most of the stuff we are concerned about isn't even a thought in their minds. Here are some of my observations:
> A friend in her 40s who had Direct TIVos back in the early days, loved them and always recorded & watch lots of stuff told me her family (sons & Husband) mostly play video games and stream stuff from Netflix & Amazon - if it weren't for sport they might drop Direct all together. ($100,000+ income)
> Another friend (early 50s) said they were going to drop Netflix streaming nothing on it anymore that they wanted to watch, they have 2 TWC DVR they never use, they watch live TV and some VoD. ($150,000 income)
> I convinced another firend to get a nice HD TV a few years back, has a no STB basic lifeline cable from TWC only because analog to digital messed up their reception they are fine with live TV and renting few movies from Amazon ($100,000+ income).
> ...


:up:


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> I think we tend to forget how small of a niche market we (TiVo users) are and how out of tune with the masses we are. When I look around at family and friends most of the stuff we are concerned about isn't even a thought in their minds.


TiVo is a brand not a niche. Within the TiVo universe, there are lots of separate divisions -- OTA, OTT, cable, satellite, and FiOS. Each, while wildly enthusiastic about the TiVo brand, probably has more in common with non-TiVo members of their division than with TiVo cohorts in another division.



atmuscarella said:


> A friend in her 40s who had Direct TIVos back in the early days, loved them and always recorded & watch lots of stuff told me her family (sons & Husband) mostly play video games and stream stuff from Netflix & Amazon - if it weren't for sport they might drop Direct all together. ($100,000+ income)


We have a teen and a recent college graduate. Both are steeped in the OTT culture and mostly watch on a PC. My oldest did not even bring a TV to college his senior year. Both gather in front of a television with friends and family for events. College boy is the main consumer of my Netflix account.



atmuscarella said:


> Another friend (early 50s) said they were going to drop Netflix streaming nothing on it anymore that they wanted to watch, they have 2 TWC DVR they never use, they watch live TV and some VoD. ($150,000 income)


This is probably the biggest cohort. I am finding more people are interested in video on demand and open to getting that via a purchased streamer these days -- especially with all the authenticated apps.



atmuscarella said:


> I convinced another firend to get a nice HD TV a few years back, has a no STB basic lifeline cable from TWC only because analog to digital messed up their reception they are fine with live TV and renting few movies from Amazon ($100,000+ income).


For all intents and purposes, these people are cord cutters. They have more in common with a guy with an antenna on the roof than with the typical cable customer. One of the things I have discovered about these people is that they do not need 'extras'. I have shown people my DVRs and streamers and they politely shrug their shoulders. Some think they don't watch much tv or don't like tv. That's incorrect. They are just content to channel surf and watch whatever happens to be on -- we all used to do this.



atmuscarella said:


> My Sister & her husband (mid 50s) refuse to buy a HD TV & use a converter box for OTA,. They use a Roku I gave them for PBS and Vudu (share my UV account). ($150,000+ income)


I don't know a lot of people like this. I have a 36" tube in my basement, but we are mostly HD these days. I do know a lot of people who do this with cable. They got the free converters (which they now pay for) and never looked back.



atmuscarella said:


> MY brother (mid 50s) is OTA only, gets disks from Netflix & buys a fair amount of Blu-ray disks (great for our UV account ), I finally got him to buy an OTA Roamio when they were $300 - he likes it but still watches live TV more than recordings. ($100,000+ income)


This is my cohort. I have a lot of DVRs, but mostly watch live OTA. I mostly appreciate the trick play and EPG features. If I like a movie or show enough, I buy it once he price settles.



atmuscarella said:


> [*]My Parents (early 80s) have dish finally got them to get HD receivers last fall (they have 2 nice HD TVs). Before they upgraded to HD I had their TVs attached too an antenna so they got all the locals in HD, most of the time my father didn't even bother switching his 55 inch HD TV to the antenna just watched the channel via the SD dish receiver. My mother hates commercials told her for $15/mo they could get a Dish DVR. She said no wasn't worth $15/mo - they have $60,000+ annual income and enough assets that if they paid $1000/mo till they were a 100 for a DVR they wouldn't notice the difference.


My mother is 80. She has Comcast. Her DVR is on a 40" HDTV she never watches. She mostly watches a 32" HDTV in the kitchen which is tethered to a Comcast SD box. On that, she mostly watches network channels available OTA. She pays $200/month for the pleasure.



atmuscarella said:


> [/LIST]What does this all mean? Who knows but most of the people I know don't care enough about TV to worry about any of the stuff we do on these forums. They simple want to turn the TV on and watch something.


LOL. I think someone who sits in a home theater watching 4k discs on a 90" screen surrounded by speakers would lift his nose in your direction as well. OnePass hardly qualifies as high culture. TV is probably at least as important to the guy who watches the news before work, after dinner, and falls asleep in front of an SD movie chock-full of commercials as it to the guy who has queued season passes for Seinfeld and Game of Thrones.

All of this simply means that we have more options today than we ever have had and that consumers are able to tailor their experience to suit their budget and tastes. That's a good thing.

The topic of this thread is 'Another OTA DVR debuting in 2016'. That DVR is really interesting because I do not believe it competes with any existing product directly. It is, in fact, filling another niche -- a whole house multi-tuner DVR with no monthly fees, no tethers, and no streaming. It's a little expensive, but, if well executed, could sap customers from TiVo, Channel Master, and Tablo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> 4k flies into two of these and ATSC 3.0 runs into all three. 4k sets are less expensive than HD sets were at launch, but the improvement is less dramatic and, with lifespans in decades, most people are not replacing a failing set. While new content is the right shape (16:9), none of it is 4k.


The adoption and removal of barriers to 4k is happening at double or triple the rate it happened for HD. With Netflix, streaming video, and UHD Blu-Ray in the game, we don't have to wait for TV to catch up, we can get UHD in other places. I'm not sure that it will be widely adopted quickly, but the experience for those who do adopt it will be much better much more quickly than for HD.



> Most of the content being broadcast is SD.


Say what? Virtually everything broadcast is either 720p or 1080i. There are almost no channels left that aren't HD.



atmuscarella said:


> What does this all mean? Who knows but most of the people I know don't care enough about TV to worry about any of the stuff we do on these forums. They simple want to turn the TV on and watch something.


I have a very different observation. Of the people my age (20s), about half have cable, half don't, the ones who do have it because of sports. Otherwise, they don't care. The people my parents' age (60s) all have cable. I also know several people, ranging from a friend who is a grad student to my grandparents who are in their 80's who have TV bundled through their rent or association fees in MDUs, or in a rental apartment/roommate type of situation.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Say what? Virtually everything broadcast is either 720p or 1080i. There are almost no channels left that aren't HD.


Is it possible that you are speaking of cable tv? Just scanning my channel list, I see 4.2 Decades, 5.2 MeTV, This TV, 8.2 Heroes and Icons, 25.2 Fox Movies!, 25.3 LAFF, 38.1 WSBK Boston (MyTV), 50.1 WBIN Derry, NH, 50.2 Antenna TV, 50.3 Grit, 56.1 WLVI Boston (CW), 56.2 BUZZER, 62.1 Cozi, 62.3 The Works, 62.4 Comet, 66.2 BounceTV, 66.3 GetTV, 66.4 Escape, 68.1 ION, and 68.3 ION Life which broadcast SD entirely or predominantly. We have nearly 100 years of SD content vs just a decade or so of HD content and almost no 4k.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> Is it possible that you are speaking of cable tv? Just scanning my channel list, I see 4.2 Decades, 5.2 MeTV, This TV, 8.2 Heroes and Icons, 25.2 Fox Movies!, 25.3 LAFF, 38.1 WSBK Boston (MyTV), 50.1 WBIN Derry, NH, 50.2 Antenna TV, 50.3 Grit, 56.1 WLVI Boston (CW), 56.2 BUZZER, 62.1 Cozi, 62.3 The Works, 62.4 Comet, 66.2 BounceTV, 66.3 GetTV, 66.4 Escape, 68.1 ION, and 68.3 ION Life which broadcast SD entirely or predominantly. We have nearly 100 years of SD content vs just a decade or so of HD content and almost no 4k.


Yeah, cable. And I don't count junk channels like OTA subchannels, which are also SD on cable. I'm counting the main OTA channels and cable channels, most of which are HD on cable.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Just because a cable channel is sending out a 1080i signal doesn't mean the program being shown wasn't produced in SD. You get no HD benefit when that happens. Just like if they send out 4K signals there's no benefit unless the program was also produced in 4K.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> Just because a cable channel is sending out a 1080i signal doesn't mean the program being shown wasn't produced in SD. You get no HD benefit when that happens. Just like if they send out 4K signals there's no benefit unless the program was also produced in 4K.


I would say it is pretty hard to generalize too much about existing video. It really depends on what the channel/studio is doing to the video.

Even if they are just up-scaling old video their equipment is likely much better than what is in your TV, so there would be some benefit having it done by the studio. If the show was filmed and they remaster as apposed to up-scaling it, the benefits can be great. The Blu-ray release of the original Star Trek TV show from the 60s is a great example of what they can do to old "SD" content.

All that said they do really pump out some really bad looking stuff that I couldn't stand watching.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, cable. And I don't count junk channels like OTA subchannels, which are also SD on cable. I'm counting the main OTA channels and cable channels, most of which are HD on cable.


Sorry, did not realize the discussion was limited to your personal tastes. Nevermind that the thread title is: Another OTA DVR debuting in 2016.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

series5orpremier said:


> You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing about the viability, just the cost. If content producers have perfectly good HD equipment they won't spend the extra $$$ to produce in 4K just like broadcasters won't spend the extra $$$ to send out 4K just like consumers won't spend the extra $$$ for a 4K television UNTIL each party thinks there's enough value in it for THEM, whether that means not lowering their profits or (for consumers) enough true 4K content being available to justify it, or they just need a new TV anyway.


And you fail to understand that 4k equipment is not that expensive when a $600 iPhone 6s can shoot 4k video as can a GoPro


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Revisionist history. Adoption of HDTV was very slow. I was at a NAB conference where the reasons for the slow adoption of HDTV was the topic of a panel discussion. I sat in because I was thinking of getting a new television. The panel convinced me to get one more 4:3 CRT. Reasons given...
> 
> 
> Cost of equipment
> ...


Quite frankly, lifespan in decades is generally a thing of the past. Even the IRS sets the life at 7 years. My last 2 units have not made it 7 years without major viewing defects that cannot be fixed.

As TVs dropped in price, and Companies look to save every penny possible due to low margins, the quality of the parts and builds have dropped dramatically.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And you fail to understand that 4k equipment is not that expensive when a $600 iPhone 6s can shoot 4k video as can a GoPro


People are upgrading their iPhones less now too. Improvement is incremental. Cost/Improvement is very high for most people.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> People are upgrading their iPhones less now too. Improvement is incremental. Cost/Improvement is very high for most people.


No doubt, but that nothing to do with the cost of moving to 4k.

Even looking at professional equipment such as the Red Camera, 4k is nowhere near as expensive as the switch to HD was.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Quite frankly, lifespan in decades is generally a thing of the past. Even the IRS sets the life at 7 years. My last 2 units have not made it 7 years without major viewing defects that cannot be fixed.
> 
> As TVs dropped in price, and Companies look to save every penny possible due to low margins, the quality of the parts and builds have dropped dramatically.


Your point is valid when discussing projection sets and early LCDs, but modern plasmas and LEDs are durable and retain their value for a very long time. I have given away three LCDs (all still in service), but disposed of none.

It's been almost eight years since I bought my first HDTV. Looks as good as the day I bought it. I have eight altogether. Two of which have been shuttled between my home and school with no ill effects. MTBFs are calculated on the panels not the sets, but even the Samsung power supply issue was repairable.

So far, the IRS has been OK with this. 

I think the quality problem was a momentary consequence of meeting higher than expected demand and using untested manufacturers in China. That has not been a problem lately. When I was researching my first television, pundits predicted panels would reach half life (70% brightness) in eleven years. Then they gained some experience and decided 22 years was more likely. Now, they are talking about 55 years.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No doubt, but that nothing to do with the cost of moving to 4k.
> 
> Even looking at professional equipment such as the Red Camera, 4k is nowhere near as expensive as the switch to HD was.


The important cost is consumers. If consumers do not embrace 4k, broadcasters will not absent a government mandate. I have a 60" 1080p plasma in my living room. The cost of improving on that is more than $1000 and the improvement is incremental. Not going to happen.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

And every hokey basic cable channel won't go out of their way to produce programming in 4K because they know no service provider is going to give them that kind of bandwidth anytime soon if ever. They're far down on the totem pole behind sports, premium movie, and perhaps broadcast channels to get the limited number of 4K channels that might be initially available to consumers at a premium cost.

I rarely use Redbox anymore but when I do it's only imperative to get blu-Ray for special effects driven movies. Otherwise for dialogue driven movies DVDs work fine. Most people only get DVDs regardless. I suspect similarly for 4K it's proliferation will remain limited to only certain channels with the types of programming that could really have some visual benefit from it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> I think the quality problem was a momentary consequence of meeting higher than expected demand and using untested manufacturers in China. That has not been a problem lately. When I was researching my first television, pundits predicted panels would reach half life (70% brightness) in eleven years. Then they gained some experience and decided 22 years was more likely. Now, they are talking about 55 years.


If you honestly believe this, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you honestly believe this, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.


I don't need a bridge -- just produce some statistics.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> I don't need a bridge -- just produce some statistics.


Considering the stats you have quoted, you need to get better sources.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> Just because a cable channel is sending out a 1080i signal doesn't mean the program being shown wasn't produced in SD. You get no HD benefit when that happens. Just like if they send out 4K signals there's no benefit unless the program was also produced in 4K.


Virtually all programs are produced in HD. That's been that case for at least 5-7 years.



atmuscarella said:


> Even if they are just up-scaling old video their equipment is likely much better than what is in your TV, so there would be some benefit having it done by the studio. If the show was filmed and they remaster as apposed to up-scaling it, the benefits can be great. The Blu-ray release of the original Star Trek TV show from the 60s is a great example of what they can do to old "SD" content.


Well, there's three different issues at hand here.

1. The scaling equipment they have is slightly better than what you have, but not much.

2. The big difference in quality between the SD and HD channels for a show shot in SD is that the HD channel means little loss in quality from the original 480i master, versus heavy compression on SD channels.

3. Stuff that was shot on film can easily be scanned at 2k, 4k, or 8k, and look really, really good in HD or even 4k.



wizwor said:


> Sorry, did not realize the discussion was limited to your personal tastes. Nevermind that the thread title is: Another OTA DVR debuting in 2016.


You can't count all the garbage channels in a discussion like this. If you're counting the garbage OTA subchannels, next you're into the religious and local access channels and crap like that. It's just not relevant. Presumably someone watches the garbage, but it's not significant in a discussion about what is available in HD or not.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And you fail to understand that 4k equipment is not that expensive when a $600 iPhone 6s can shoot 4k video as can a GoPro


That's a ridiculous argument. Sure, iPhone video gets into news broadcasts and stuff occasionally, but if you look at the costs of broadcasting in 4k, it's in the professional grade cameras, all of the switching and editing equipment, and then in encoding, transport, and finally broadcast, the last of which doesn't exist on a wide basis. I suppose a large channel could to DirecTV for broadcasting, but we're talking about a tiny number of people who could receive the signal.

Sure, transitioning to 4k is cheaper than the transition to HD. Sure, it will come, and faster than HD came. But it's not quite there yet.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Watch the industry purposely degrade 1080 quality and start a big push for 4k which would be hardly any better than good 1080/720p PQ.

I see it coming.

I will be skipping all this crap since all the good content I like was made before 720p


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> I will be skipping all this crap since all the good content I like was made before 720p


Sorry Forhorn2, that's all crap. Apparently, only you and I count that crap.


----------

