# ATSC 3.0 TimeTable



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

for those who chose to mock and ridicule, not knowing what they were talking about - and not listening to someone who did.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/hpa-2016-atsc-30-update/277950

HPA 2016: ATSC 3.0 Update
New standard looks like a bigger, badder Internet
February 16, 2016

By Deborah D. McAdams

1
INDIAN WELLS, CALIF.-Over-the-air TV is on its way to resembling a more robust version of the Internet with the realization of ATSC 3.0, the so-called "next-generation" transmission standard being developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee.

"It's not just a transmission standard, but a suite of technologies," said Dave Siegler, vice president of technical operations for Cox Media and board member of the ATSC. He and other key contributors in the development of 3.0 provided an update on what stage the standard is in and further details on what can be done with it, at the HPA Technology Retreat in Indian Wells on Monday.

ATSC Technology Group 3 is the overarching section of the membership developing 3.0. Five specialist groups within TG3 are working on each of the five system layers of 3.0, and each has made preliminary decisions about what technologies to approve, according to Jerry Whitaker, ATSC vice president for standards development. All are subject to approval of the full TG3 and the voting membership, he said.

*Technology for the physical layer of ATSC 3.0-essentially the signal form-was elevated to Candidate Standard status Sept. 29, 2015, allowing for the creation of prototype equipment and testing. It will remain a Candidate Standard until the end of March, when it will be fine-tuned, then put up to vote. *

TESTING
The most recent tests of this physical layer CS were carried out in Las Vegas during the Consumer Electronics Show. Those tests yielded high-dynamic range, over-the-air 4KTV signals picked up by prototype equipment that included contributions from Samsung and LG. Such consumer electronics makers are considered crucial to the successful adoption of 3.0 because it is not backward-compatible. In other words, it will not work with any television set in the market today, noted Madeleine Noland, consultant to the LG Standard Technology and Development Team, and Convergence R&D Lab.

"Every TV set in the U.S. can interpret an ATSC 1.0 signal," she said. "That's not expected to be the case with 3.0."

The Federal Communications Commission required consumer electronics makers to build over-the-air reception into TVs with the adoption of ATSC 1.0. The same may not hold for 3.0. *The commission has yet to weigh in, but is said to generally welcome the development of 3.0 because it is more spectrally efficient than 1.0.* The commission is not, however, expected to mandate the type of sweeping change that led up to the national digital transition to ATSC 1.0 in June of 2009.

ATSC 3.0 SET-TOPS
In the absence of such mandates and tuner requirements, ATSC 3.0 developers envision a market-by-market transition, further complicating adoption. Noland said that perhaps instead of 3.0-capable TVs, the transition will begin with peripherals.

"We may have a gateway device or a set-top box attached to an antenna and a Wi-Fi network, for example," she said.

She also said the Consumer Technology Association-formerly the Consumer Electronics Association-"is looking at ATSC 3.0 as it's developing and looking at the type of receiver profiles to introduce into the market... There is excellent cross-communication between CTA and ATSC."

ATSC 3.0 TVs will need to display advanced capabilities, including supplemental and personalized content, hybrid (broadcast-broadband) delivery synchronization, alternate audio and video track selection, interactive applications, watermark detection, advanced emergency alert features, advanced accessibility and companion device support.

Whitaker noted that ATSC needs to be a "whole" technology.

"We can't make consumers adopt it," he said. "It needs to be a 'pull' technology."

Creating a new TV experience is at the heart of generating that pull, he said. The two chief characteristics of TV-audio and video-would be the foundation of that experience, and would be boosted by 3.0 to next-level engineering, including high dynamic range video and immersive audio.

ATSC 3.0 VIDEO
Alan Stein, vice president of Technology, Corporate Development and the Technology Office for Technicolor, described 3.0 video requirements.

It will use HEVC Main 10 profile compression, said to yield a 35 to 50 percent performance gain over AVC/H.264, which has roughly twice the efficiency of the compression technology used in ATSC 1.0. The high-efficiency 10-bit compression codec is necessary to support high-dynamic range, which makes a brighter picture.

HDR is said to be more immediately detectable to the human eye than higher-than-HD resolutions such as 4K, but 4K and HDR are both benchmarks for ATSC 3.0. So is mobile HD reception, high-frame rate capabilities, more color and simultaneous broadcast-broadband transmission capabilities.

This type of hybrid transmission would be enabled in part by the use of a scalable high-efficiency video codec, or SHVC. SHVC provides for two spatial layers, with a base layer optimized for mobile reception, and an enhancement layer optimized for UHD (almost 4K) resolution. The mobile capabilities of the base layer technology have been tested successfully on an Amtrak train going 120 miles per hour between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Reception was achieved up to 30 miles from the transmitter, Stein said.

*The HDR technology for the A/341 ATSC Video Candidate Standard is expected to be selected and specced by July 31, 2016, Stein said. *

ATSC 3.0 AUDIO
Jim Starzynski, director and principal audio engineer for NBCUniversal, said ATSC S34-2, the ad hoc group working on audio, is "drafting candidate standard now."

That standard will lay out the framework for new audio and language features. Starzynski said he likes to stay away from the term "immersive" for audio, "because it implies enhanced surround sound, and this is more."

ATSC 3.0 audio will be able to do more things with languages, video descriptive services and loudness, for example, he said. It can also enable "dialog enhancement" for those actors with a mouthful of tissue.

Certainly, immersive surround sound will be part of the mix, capable of playback on speaker arrays, soundbars and even headphones.

In terms of efficiency, Starzynski said that in ATSC 1.0, audio uses 576 Kbps for a main audio soundtrack, stereo or 5.1, and a complete main AL or VDS mono. ATSC 3.0 can support up to four complete audio channels at 384 Kbps, for about 50 percent more bitrate efficiency.

In terms of audio synchronization, Starzynski said timing is always an issue, but that "the choices made by crew putting together content will take care of some of the timing issues. We can't determine what will happen on every receiver, but have pretty much been able to achieve synchronization."

There have also been discussions about "robust audio," i.e., audio that continues in the absence of a picture-the way the old NTSC analog TV system worked.

"In ATSC 1.0, when you lose the signal, you lose the signal," he said. "With analog; not so. We felt like audio should be preserved if video is lost. We'll be able to be fairly robust with the audio, without having to go through any great compromise of the bits allocated to video."

Every individual broadcaster would determine the robustness of their audio channels, he said.

ATSC 3.0 audio also would support accessibility features such as video descriptive services for the blind, as well as something Chris Homer of PBS referred to as "dialog intelligibility" for the hard of hearing. Homer, vice president of Operations & Engineering at PBS said chair of the ATSC accessibility group said its first working draft will cover closed captioning. (See "ATSC 3.0 Expands Closed Caption Offerings," Aug. 20, 2015.)

ATSC 3.0 CONTENT ECOSYSTEM 
Steve Bartkowicz, vice president of studio post engineering at NBCUniversal, described a 3.0-capable audio post workflow that could support up to 108 audio "objects," or the discrete sounds that create immersive audio. Each object would have metadata attached he said. Different renders could be pulled out of the immersive audio track, e.g., a dialog-only render. *A studio upgrade would run from $150,000 to $200,000*, he said. Production itself presents a challenge in that current "post-production budgets don't allow for extra stage time for immersive content," he said. "Immersive content must be mixed natively with downmix capabilities due to time constraints."

Josh Limor, senior director of technology development at Technicolor spoke to the full production workflow for ATSC 3.0. He emphasized the pace of advanced TV adoption. Of 34.8 million TVs shipped last year, just 4 million were 4KTVs, he said. By the end of this year, 4 percent of TVs shipped will be HDR-capable, with penetration rising to 32 percent by 2019.

"Content has to pay attention to this&#8230; in feeding this ecosystem," he said.

In recorded production, achieving HDR essentially involves using an HDR-capable monitor, and coloring and processing accordingly. For live events, however, standard-dynamic range cameras would have to be replaced with HDR cameras, plus colorists would have to be grading them. Limor said it also would be necessary to have SDR/HDR duplicate distribution, which isn't logical. He said one alternative possibility might be single-stream distribution, with just a portion of the camera complement switched from SDR to HDR.

INTERACTIVITY
Pete Van Peenen of Pearl covered some of the interactive features possible with ATSC 3.0, like coupon texting, social media integration and an L-bar display with live links similar to the Internet. One application might be a "Player Watch" type pop-up with athlete stats. Another is companion-screen capability, e.g., a travel show with an interactive map.

Bhanu Srikanth, founder and CEO of Jargon Media, described a multiscreen app that could be downloaded to a tablet or a smartphone, and that shares information on actors in a scene, or lets a viewer buy accessories worn by characters.

She said the technology also enables targeted advertising as well as director commentary in a two-way communication, for example. The second screen can pause the first screen while director is explaining something, she said.

Jargon also has done games across multiple screens, and created technology that can print clips or frames from a Blu-ray to a home printer.

Easing app development for ATSC 3.0 is a goal of its creators, because "so many devices function there," said Skip Pizzi, senior director of New Media Technologies for the National Association of Broadcasters, and chair of TG3.

Pizzi said the use of Web-compatible technology opens ATSC 3.0 to "a huge group of developers," and that most broadcasters already have teams working on the Web in HTML.

LG's Noland said, "We want to align with the Web as much as possible. Ideally, app authors will be able to adapt Web apps for TV, and vice versa, easily."

*Work on ATSC 3.0 has been on a fast track to coincide with the FCC's TV spectrum incentive auction, set to commence March 29, 2016. The goal is to have the standard ready in time for the post-auction channel repack. ATSC President Mark Richer told TV Technology in October that it is targeted for completion in the first quarter of 2017. (See, "ATSC 3.0: Mark Richer Details Phys Layer CS," Oct. 7, 2015)*


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

So, basically never?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Unless congress approves spending a bunch of money on subsidizing replacement digital converter boxes for the poor I can't see how any of this matters. And given the current makeup of congress I can't that happening.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wmcbrine said:


> So, basically never?


So that's your takeaway?

At least it's here for eternity.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> Unless congress approves spending a bunch of money on subsidizing replacement digital converter boxes for the poor I can't see how any of this matters. And given the current makeup of congress I can't that happening.


AGain, that's not happening. Congress knows last converter giveaway was boondoggle.

And that was in 2009 before Obama doubled the National debt in 8 years.

FCC will approve the ATSC 3.0 Bootstrap. No Congressional Action needed.

As I stated, first ATSC 3.0 stations on air in 18 months...24 Max.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

What "bootstrap"? I see no mention of this being able to coexist with ATSC 1.0. Since ATSC 1.0 is required by the FCC, and all additional spectrum has been auctioned off already, where are they going to be able to bootstrap this? The only thing I see mentioned is a "market by market conversion" but they don't explain how that's even possible.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> What "bootstrap"? I see no mention of this being able to coexist with ATSC 1.0. Since ATSC 1.0 is required by the FCC, and all additional spectrum has been auctioned off already, where are they going to be able to bootstrap this? The only thing I see mentioned is a "market by market conversion" but they don't explain how that's even possible.


It cannot coexist on same frequency.

I have explained in other threads how it will work.

Congress approved digital conversion, not ATSC 1.0


SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah but doesn't the FCC currently require them to use ATSC 1.0? At least for their main channel? (although it could be SD)

I guess if several channels partnered up and used a single ATSC 1.0 frequency to broadcast an SD version of their main channel and then converted their other frequencies to ATSC 3.0 it could work. But probably only in markets where a single conglomerate owns multiple stations. I can't imagine multiple independent stations partnering up like that.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think I had read pretty much everything in that article somewhere else already. I am certainly interested in the tech if it means I will get UHD OTA broadcasts. Not sure it tells us much, they are working on specs, seems like it is going well, and we should have something in a few years. It does not appear to have any Government support/mandate and if/when a local broadcaster converts from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0 appears to be up to them. I wouldn't bet to much on when any conversions are going to happen but I vote that Rochester NY converts the year I buy a UHD TV


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah but doesn't the FCC currently require them to use ATSC 1.0? At least for their main channel? (although it could be SD)
> 
> I guess if several channels partnered up and used a single ATSC 1.0 frequency to broadcast an SD version of their main channel and then converted their other frequencies to ATSC 3.0 it could work. But probably only in markets where a single conglomerate owns multiple stations. I can't imagine multiple independent stations partnering up like that.


Congress approved digital conversion from analog (not to ATSC 1.0) and left tech specs to the FCC.

FCC was looking at Japan's Analog HD in the late 80s, but tabled it for digital.

Actually you do not need co-owned stations. It's just an easy example of a possibility.

Another possibility of 2 independents.

Cox and Meredith partnered up last month to bid for syndication rights of programming together. Together they cover 19% of USA Instead of single digits separately. This gives them an advantage to buy Programming they want instead of stations groups with similar coverage having first shot.

In Atlanta, Cox owns WSB-TV (ABC) and Meredith owns WGCL (CBS). Because of their relationship I could see them doing the same thing with their stations in Atlanta. Again, not saying it will happen with these stations this way, saying it could.

Then you have left out the Pearl Group.

Thus group was comprised of a number of Groups who wanted M-DTV (mobile) 7 years ago. This is something ATSC 3.0 provides.

http://www.pearltv.com/pearl/

Pearl TV is a partnership of U.S. broadcast companies with a shared interest in exploring forward-looking broadcasting opportunities, including innovative ways of promoting local broadcast TV content and developing digital media and wireless platforms for the broadcast industry.

Its membership, comprising more than 200 network-affiliated TV stations, consists of nine of the largest broadcast companies in America including: Cox Media Group, the E.W. Scripps Company, Graham Media Group, Hearst Television Inc., Media General Inc., Meredith Local Media Group, Schurz Communications, Raycom Media, and TEGNA, Inc.

Members
Cox Media Group
The E. W. Scripps Company (NYSE: SSP)
Graham Media Group (NYSE: GHC)
Hearst Television Inc.
Media General Inc. (NYSE: MEG)
Meredith Local Media Group. (NYSE: MDP)
Raycom Media
Schurz Communications
TEGNA Inc. (NYSE: TGNA)

Reach
111 million households representing 63% of the U.S. population
43 of the top 50 U.S. markets
173 stations in 98 markets

Affiliations
57 NBC
40 CBS
35 ABC
17 FOX
10 MyNetwork
6 CW
8 Unaffiliated

% of U.S. Total
40% NBC
30% ABC
28% CBS
9% FOX
9% MyNetwork
6% CW
11% Unaffiliated

This group will absolutely do what I have listed.

For example, Media General owns WFLA (NBC) Tampa, Scripps owns WFTS (ABC) Tampa, Tenga owns WTSP (CBS) Tampa.

Two Stations go ATSC 3.0 and put all 3 on the 2, while all 3 put their ATSC 1.0 on the last remaining one for several years until around 2019-2020.

How do you think that will look OTA on ATSC 1.0 with 3 main channels and diginets on it?

Likewise in Atlanta you have WSB, WGCL AND Tegna's NBC, ALL pearl members. Guess what will happen there to the ATSC 1.0 OTA.

Cox owns ABC in Orlando, Hearst owns NBC and Graham owns CBS.

Cox owns ABC Charlotte, Raycom as well etc.

You see how this is playing out?

This is being organized at the highest Corporate levels, so all these "sources" that posters think know what is happening are clueless.

This is happening and it's happening quick.

The people buying OTA Tivos now are in for a big surprise in less than 2 years.

By the way, someone owes me a Gaziilion Dollars.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> FCC will approve the ATSC 3.0 Bootstrap. No Congressional Action needed.
> 
> As I stated, first ATSC 3.0 stations on air in 18 months...24 Max.


At least your stance is here too.

Lets revisit in 18 months, say October 2017. Until then, there's nothing more to talk about.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Even with ATSC 3.0 the max bandwidth for a single frequency is still only 28Mbps. That's not even really enough for a 4K station. At least not with today's encoders. They're looking at 35-40Mbps for a live 4K stream at 60fps.

So I'm not sure what advantage this really gives users. It'll allow stations to cram more crappy sub stations into the pipe, but for users it won't do much. (all the interactive and mobile stuff is of no interest to me)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> At least your stance is here too.
> 
> Lets revisit in 18 months, say October 2017. Until then, there's nothing more to talk about.


So you just want to wake up one day and go WTF? Why does my picture look like hell?

The fallout goes further than you or most posters here have even thought about...



mickinct said:


> HARTFORD CBS 3 WFSB, MY NBC 30 AND FOX 61 have no issues with pix. I'm using a RCA Compact Outdoor Yagi HDTV Antenna CHECK out the AVS FORUM under local ota hdtv hartford and see what other people are saying about it.I recorded Super Bowl L via antenna. I also noticed the picture faults you mentioned. Should they drop channel 3-4 and make their Fairfield County feed cable-only? Take that bandwidth and put it back on channel 3-1.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The Virtual Channel you list means nothing.
> 
> Fox is on RF 31, CBS on RF 33 and NBC on RF 35. So they are all very close frequency wise
> 
> ...


So, let's say WFSB in Hartford is the ATSC 1.0 station for several years.

NBC and Fox join CBS on the worse signal for ATSC 1.0.

Now besides a crappy picture, Mickinct has a bad signal on Fox, NBC and CBS!

If your problem station is the ATSC 1.0 anchor, then you get signal issues as well as a crapoy picture!

So sure, go bury your head in the ground for 18 months Go spend thousands on equipment with ATSC 1.0 tuners.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> Even with ATSC 3.0 the max bandwidth for a single frequency is still only 28Mbps. That's not even really enough for a 4K station. At least not with today's encoders. They're looking at 35-40Mbps for a live 4K stream at 60fps.
> 
> So I'm not sure what advantage this really gives users. It'll allow stations to cram more crappy sub stations into the pipe, but for users it won't do much. (all the interactive and mobile stuff is of no interest to me)


Nope. HVEC .h265 Is plenty

Not .h264

What do you think Netflix is running anyway?

HVEC is roughly 4x as efficient at current MPEG2.

.h264 roughly 2x as MPEG2

,h265 roughly 2x as MPEG4


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's theoretical. Right now a realtime encoder encoding [email protected] requires about 40Mbps. 

Netflix uses H.264. A 1080p stream at 24fps requires 6-8Mbps. Those are pre-encoded, using multipass encoding which is much, much, more efficient then realtime encoding.

Let's look at the average OTA broadcast using MPEG-2 as an example. An average 1080i broadcast stream is about 12Mbps. A [email protected] stream has 8x as many pixels per second to encode. So even if H.265 could reduce that by 200% we'd still be looking at 24Mbps. But in reality H.265 is only about 30% more efficient then H.264 when doing realtime encoding, and H.264 is only about 40% more efficient then MPEG-2. Which leaves you with a stream that's about 40Mbps.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> That's theoretical. Right now a realtime encoder encoding [email protected] requires about 40Mbps.
> 
> Netflix uses H.264. A 1080p stream at 24fps requires 6-8Mbps. Those are pre-encoded, using multipass encoding which is much, much, more efficient then realtime encoding.
> 
> Let's look at the average OTA broadcast using MPEG-2 as an example. An average 1080i broadcast stream is about 12Mbps. A [email protected] stream has 8x as many pixels per second to encode. So even if H.265 could reduce that by 200% we'd still be looking at 24Mbps. But in reality H.265 is only about 30% more efficient then H.264 when doing realtime encoding, and H.264 is only about 40% more efficient then MPEG-2. Which leaves you with a stream that's about 40Mbps.


Someone in an effort to rebuff my posts put up this link last week.

The writer was correct on some things, yet clueless on the timeline and what was going on behind the scenes - like most who laughed at my timeline.

But he did get the diagram right. You should look at it.

Quit thinking about 8VSB.

OFDM is capable of up to 90Mbps in a 6Mhz RF Channel.

http://www.displaydaily.com/display-daily/35246-atsc-3-0-is-us-broadcasting-doomed


----------



## DallasGG (May 5, 2015)

Once this becomes common knowledge to the general public (which it isn't now), you'll see people complaining and calling their congressman because they know they'll either have to buy an expensive converter or get stuck with a bunch of paperweight electronics. I for one will be writing and calling my congressman to ask them to slow down the "ATSC 3.0 - only" adoption. And ask them to find a way to continue to broadcast ATSC 1.0 for several more years so people will have time to adjust.

Some people think this will be adopted quickly. As I said above, it is not common knowledge yet and once it is, people WILL complain! I think you underestimate public opinion and what power that has.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Read the "update" part of this post....

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88877/kim-luplow-extol-atsc-30-progress/page/3

According to LG the maximum achievable bitrate of a 6Mhz OFDM signal is only 26.4Mbps. I've read many, many, other places that state the max is 28Mbps. 90mbps is the theoretical maximum, but not achievable in the real world. Just like how H.265 being 4x as efficient as MPEG-2 is theoretically true, but not attainable in the real world.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> Read the "update" part of this post....
> 
> http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/88877/kim-luplow-extol-atsc-30-progress/page/3
> 
> According to LG the maximum achievable bitrate of a 6Mhz OFDM signal is only 26.4Mbps. I've read many, many, other places that state the max is 28Mbps. 90mbps is the theoretical maximum, but not achievable in the real world. Just like how H.265 being 4x as efficient as MPEG-2 is theoretically true, but not attainable in the real world.


I agree that is more realistic.

However, the encoders will be able to be 4x more efficient than MPEG2 within 18 months - Moore's Law.

BTW, very little will be in 4k. Especially Live Newscasts etc in the beginning.

PreRecorded Network Prime Time stuff can be compressed more efficiently anyway.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Not true for realtime encoding. Even H.264 can't reach it's 2x efficiency rating in realtime. It takes multipass encoding to achieve that. In reality we'll be lucky if we can fit a single 4k/60 stream into a single ATSC 3.0 frequency, and that will eliminate all the extra bandwidth they intend to use for all those other fancy features.

More likely we'll see it used for 1080p broadcasts so tht they can upgrade the resolution a little without sacraficing all their bandwidth to a single 4K stream. Or worse we'll get 4k/30 streams instead. :down:


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

It doesn't matter. Consumers are not going to upgrade their televisions/set top boxes to get uhd OTA and broadcasters are not going to broadcast to no audience.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

This is all the NAB publicity machine in hopes of pressuring the FCC to move on this. The problem is, the FCC never moves swiftly, and often complicates stuff like the NAB dream of ATSC 3.0. FCC will require REAL addressing of LEGACY ATSC 1.0 for those who use it today. Well, I'm ahead of myself as the FCC hasn't even given ATSC 3.0 any REAL thought.

What do we expect consumers groups and current cord cutters to say during public comments, and what will we TiVo owners who use TiVo for ATSC 1.0 have to say about it? No doubt NAB wants ATSC 3.0 yesterday, but look for all this phony momentum to come to a creepy crawl once this proposed new standard get vetted and beaten up by nearly every other party, but the NAB, and ATSC 1.0 was fully implemented just "yesterday." I don't know if even Congress is looking forward to using taxpayer money to pay for NAB members costs to transition as they did with ATSC 1.0, nor another coupon program paid for by taxpayers to pay for cord cutters and TiVo users of OTA to buy one of those presumably nifty converter/streaming boxes we need for ATSC 3.0 direct viewing. NAB would rather not have to pay Roku or Amazon to join this new party, but being that they hold licenses in the "public trust" they can't just do whatever they want. However, they are free to give up their licensees, give at NO CHARGE by the public, let us auction them off to local entities for programming, finally getting some money back for the FREE LUNCH our government has provided for decades, and develop an app for their station. That could be adopted far sooner than ATSC 3.0, and it may even have more support than NAB's current scheme.

By the way, it's gonna be at least until 2018 before we even see an opportunity to do the switch, but knowing how deliberative the FCC is on such matters, we are really looking at 2019-2020!! And by then, NAB will be proposing ATSC 4.0 because so much has changed in tech, 3.0 just won't cut it anymore, like we thought it would be good for 20 years.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

ATSC Approves ATSC 3.0 Bootstrap As Full Standard

BTW, as I had previously stated, the Bootstrap /A321 is the only thing the FCC will need to approve

As I also stated this would happen at the end of Q1 2016 - right on time.

http://www.radioworld.com/article/first-element-of-atsc-30-approved-for-standard/278482

The Advanced Television Systems Committee has voted to approve the Bootstrap mechanism of the ATSC 3.0 as a full standard for the physical layer of the next-gen TV system.

Developed by One Media, a joint venture of Sinclair Broadcast Group and Coherent Logix, at the suggestion of Samsung, the Bootstrap is the discovery and signaling feature of the standard that allows receivers to process and decode information. The Pearl TV consortium also supported the design throughout the standardization effort.

The ATSC approval of the Bootstrap as part of the next-gen TV standard physical layer clears the way for the FCC to adopt new rules for television broadcast transmission, said Jerald Fritz, ONE Media EVP for strategic and legal affairs.

The timing is critical so that new equipment can be in place for the expected deployment to coincide with the repack of broadcast stations as a result of the upcoming Broadcast Incentive Auction. Giving broadcasters, who will be updating their facilities, the option of including Next Gen capabilities is both wise public policy and an important competitive boost with positive benefits for our industry and our viewer, he said in the press release.

I realize that most news items have called this "Standard" and not Proposed Standard - and I am trying to get clarification if they moved even quicker than I was expecting (and planned) bypassing the Proposed Standard 6 month period.

EDIT: It is the Standard, not proposed. The move was accelerated faster than anyone expected.

The Candidate Standard for the Physical Layer ends April 4th and then it moves to the final stages for 6 months (unless it is accelerated) - meaning both Boot Strap and Physical Layer would be set as the Standard the first week in September.

EDIT: As noted above, A321 Bootstrap is Standard - and is the only item the FCC will need to approve for ATSC 3.0 Broadcasts to begin.

The committee that has been working with the FCC is already preparing the Documents for submission to the FCC for Broadcast Approval.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Random idiots suppose broadcasters will invest in new hardware to broadcast programming no one will watch. The rest of us are skeptical. While some markets will undoubtedly showcase ATSC 3.0, most will not bother. What we will wake up to find is that HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/ESPN will offer a 4k stream using their own set top box a la Roku and that OTA customers will have access to for fee programming. The premium providers will wake up to find that OTA'ers are not interested.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Random idiots suppose broadcasters will invest in new hardware to broadcast programming no one will watch. The rest of us are skeptical. While some markets will undoubtedly showcase ATSC 3.0, most will not bother. What we will wake up to find is that HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/ESPN will offer a 4k stream using their own set top box a la Roku and that OTA customers will have access to for fee programming. The premium providers will wake up to find that OTA'ers are not interested.


Once again, as proven in your previous posts, you have no global view, only your myopic view.

Suggest you do something you always fail to do.

A little research.

Find out how many stations Sinclair owns who is mentioned in the stories.

Find out what the Pearl Group is also mentioned in the story.

And realize that your narrow view of what you think does not always play out the way you think, just as you proved again this weekend stating nothing would change for you after the repack while forgetting that Markets within 100 miles of you are not going off the air completely so nothing will change in your market.


----------



## neurocutie (Mar 14, 2016)

How does ATSC 3.0 affect rural consumers? I can see a real need to improve their reception as they have been negatively affected by the move to digital/ATSC 1.0...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

neurocutie said:


> How does ATSC 3.0 affect rural consumers? I can see a real need to improve their reception as they have been negatively affected by the move to digital/ATSC 1.0...


Could be positive, especially if SFN is used in your market (think of an OTA Translator, except more powerful and on the same frequency as the original).

If implemented correctly, no translators on additional digital rf channels would be needed. That means those approximately 3,800 translators can be removed (which the repack was most likely going to do away with anyway).

More error correction (when used) can make reception better as well.

Of other note, today starts the first day of the Reverse Auction. In 3-4 weeks we will have a good idea of how much Spectrum they are planning to reclaim.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/tv-spectrum-auction-fcc-1201740467


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Pain is coming for those not in a market where the networks own their stations. But by then OTA might not matter. OTA skews old in market where young customers have no interest in it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Most people watch their OTA stations from cable or Satellite anyway. I know around here the local stations typically have a fiber feed to the cable companies like, Comcast and FiOS. So no matter what they do with OTA, it doesn't affect their 90%? or so of viewers that watch from cable/satellite.

To me it seems like ATSC 3.0 is a way for them to keep using their spectrum and to maximize their income from it. The current system seems terrible for the broadcasters(for bringing money in) since it is so limited.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/tv-spectrum-auction-fcc-1201740467


Yawn. Thanks for helping me call it a night.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> Most people watch their OTA stations from cable or Satellite anyway. I know around here the local stations typically have a fiber feed to the cable companies like, Comcast and FiOS. So no matter what they do with OTA, it doesn't affect their 90%? or so of viewers that watch from cable/satellite.
> 
> To me it seems like ATSC 3.0 is a way for them to keep using their spectrum and to maximize their income from it. The current system seems terrible for the broadcasters(for bringing money in) since it is so limited.


you get it...others will be the last to get it....and wondering what happened.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> Most people watch their OTA stations from cable or Satellite anyway. I know around here the local stations typically have a fiber feed to the cable companies like, Comcast and FiOS. So no matter what they do with OTA, it doesn't affect their 90%? or so of viewers that watch from cable/satellite.





LATimesLastMay said:


> There are now more than 12.3 million homes that depend solely on over-the-air broadcasting for their live TV viewing, a net gain of 1 million over the last year, according to audience measurement service Nielsen.
> 
> That's about 11% of all U.S. households with TV  hardly a mass migration to the old-school technology.


11% is not an insignificant number. Broadcasting to them is virtually free -- no infrastructure, no set top boxes, no service -- all sunk costs.



aaronwt said:


> To me it seems like ATSC 3.0 is a way for them to keep using their spectrum and to maximize their income from it. The current system seems terrible for the broadcasters(for bringing money in) since it is so limited.


How exactly does broadcasting programming no one can tune 'maximize their income'? Any broadcaster that switches from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 loses 11% of viewers in addition to incurring the costs associated with upgrading their hardware.

You may be in the crowd that thinks that SD programming is junk, but, as of last march, one third of US TVs are SD. Earlier this month, NAB said...



NAB said:


> Currently, most 4K content is available via streaming services such as Netflix, which revealed 14 new 4K shows and films slated for release through the end of 2016.


A _whopping_ (14) 4k shows and films. http://4k.com/movies lists eleven Netflix 4k products including three documentaries and Smurfs II. They list ten Amazon titles -- three of which are also on the Netflix list. None of the 4k sets sold have ATSC 3.0 tuners.

There is a lot going on right now. Mostly, this change is about monetizing free tv and accommodating the mobile carriers (who spend as much on lobbying as the top defense contractors). There are some practical limitations on how fast things can happen and there are very real limits on return on investment absent significant government subsidy.



NAB said:


> 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. In that respect, converting grandma from an OTA TV to ATSC 3.0 is fairly inexpensive and easy. On the other hand, it may be clumsy at first with maybe yet another remote control to deal with.


Except for that third of sets which do not have HDMI inputs or the 100% of OTA DVRs that do not have HDMI in, right?



NAB said:


> From the viewpoint of the least interested in TV among us, ATSC 3.0 poses a small price and likely will allow some ATSC 1.0 lighthouse stations to operate for some time.
> 
> The VHF spectrum is not so hotly contested, so a likely scenario is for lighthouse stations to set up temporary ATSC 1.0 condos where upwards of six or so stations occupy a given VHF ATSC 1.0 multiplex, even if only at standard definition levels.


Of course, most antennas are UHF antennas, so this is pie in the sky.

It's interesting that this writer expects repacking to come before ATSC 3.0. So, we are going to ask people to replace antennas then we are going to ask them to replace televisions and set top boxes. These guys could actually kill off OTA.

But they won't. The auction will eliminate broadcasters without viewers, relocate stations within the same band, and not impact viewers very much if at all. ATSC 3.0 will roll out as pay channels with their their own boxes, then ad supported super channels. The lighthouses will be integrated into ATSC 3.0 infrastructure until they don't matter anymore.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...sbe-ennes-workshop-to-focus-on-atsc-30/277680
http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...-brings-flexibility-of-ip-to-broadcast/277732
http://www.tvtechnology.com/broadca...atsc-30-fit-in-a-multichannel-universe/277836


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> Unless congress approves spending a bunch of money on subsidizing replacement digital converter boxes for the poor I can't see how any of this matters. And given the current makeup of congress I can't that happening.


And let's not forget Congress also providing tax payer money to nearly every OTA broadcaster to pay for new transmitters (and possibley other related equipment). I belive Sen. John McCain's quote at the time the committee approved the plan was, "Shall we give them a free lunch, too?" Both Dems and Repubs. voted in favor. The full Congress later approved.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah but doesn't the FCC currently require them to use ATSC 1.0? At least for their main channel? (although it could be SD)
> 
> I guess if several channels partnered up and used a single ATSC 1.0 frequency to broadcast an SD version of their main channel and then converted their other frequencies to ATSC 3.0 it could work. But probably only in markets where a single conglomerate owns multiple stations. I can't imagine multiple independent stations partnering up like that.


Right. And this was considered, but even if competitiors cooperated in such a scheme, it would be impossible in the big cites because they lack the bandwidth for the current high number of broadcast "channels" and the high amount of content because too much of the legacy bandwidth has or will be auctioned off.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

This is all before the public comment period when we can expect consumer groups to denounce the impact that the move to ATSC 3.0 is NOT backward compatable (they have alrady displayed hostility in some press reports when asked about ATSC 3.0) and all those TiVo, Channel Master DVR's and all those HDTV's will no longer function for those consumers. Every gramps and grandma cord-cutter will also make their wrath known to their members of Congress. Umm. ATSC 3.0 is so FAR from even being close to a done deal. The only place we will see further innovation is OUTSIDE the publically owned broadcast spectrum.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Why would the USA build out a public ATSC 3 ? for the few people that have UHD TV over 60" ? Most people have room for 60" or less size HDTV and don't need UHD OTA, people with home theaters and big UHD TV are not going to be so called cord cutters in any great numbers.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

lessd said:


> Why would the USA build out a public ATSC 3 ? for the few people that have UHD TV over 60" ? Most people have room for 60" or less size HDTV and don't need UHD OTA, people with home theaters and big UHD TV are not going to be so called cord cutters in any great numbers.


Click the links I posted. There are other features -- better compression, better penetration, mobile reception, encryption (for fee), etc.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

ATSC 3 is beginning to sound a lot like HD radio.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> Why would the USA build out a public ATSC 3 ? for the few people that have UHD TV over 60" ? Most people have room for 60" or less size HDTV and don't need UHD OTA, people with home theaters and big UHD TV are not going to be so called cord cutters in any great numbers.


UHD is one of least reasons for ATSC 3.0


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> 11% is not an insignificant number. Broadcasting to them is virtually free -- no infrastructure, no set top boxes, no service -- all sunk costs.
> 
> How exactly does broadcasting programming no one can tune 'maximize their income'? Any broadcaster that switches from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 loses 11% of viewers in addition to incurring the costs associated with upgrading their hardware.


So many uneducated assumptions.

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

If Nielsen DQs OTA only Household, does a station lose any measured viewers?

If a station does not lose any measured viewers, does it lose any revenue?


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> [...]all those TiVo, Channel Master DVR's and all those HDTV's will no longer function for those consumers.


Actually, they very well could (at least for a set amount of time). The changeover to ATSC 3.0 is a lot simpler than the switchover from analog to digital.

Take my market of Albany, Georgia:

10-1 - NBC (1080i)
10-2 - ABC (720p)
10-3 - GRIT (480i)
14-1 - PBS (1080i)
14-2 - PBS (480i)
14-3 - PBS (480i)
25-1 - PBS (1080i)
25-2 - PBS (480i)
25-3 - PBS (480i)
31-1 - FOX (720p)
31-2 - Bounce (480i)
31-3 - Comet (480i)
44-1 - CBS (1080i)
44-2 - MNTV (480i)
44-3 - The CW+ (720p)
51-1 - IND (480i)

Let's say that WSWG (44) owned by Gray decided to switch to ATSC 3.0. They could potentially strike a deal with WSST (55) to offer their CBS feed via WSST's tower in ATSC 1.0. WSST, which is a small town independent station could also strike up deals with WFXL (31) to offer their FOX feed via ATSC 1.0 allowing WFXL to switch to ATSC 3.0. Even one of these deals could dramatically increase WSST's revenue.

Technically, given the number of OTA-only subs (at this time... I actually expect this number to increase in the future), a station could easily strike a deal with all the local stations to offer a 480i signal ATSC 1.0 signal of their primary feeds in order to allow them to switch to ATSC 3.0. Heck, the PBS stations could do this on their sub-channel (for the public!). If people wanted HD feeds, they could buy an ATSC 3.0 tuner...

Lots of different scenarios...



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> UHD is one of least reasons for ATSC 3.0


Where I live, it's all about the sub-channels!! ATSC 3.0 means more room for sub-channels which means more $$$$$


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> Actually, they very well could (at least for a set amount of time). The changeover to ATSC 3.0 is a lot simpler than the switchover from analog to digital.
> 
> Take my market of Albany, Georgia:
> 
> ...


I've already described in detail what you are saying, which is how it will go down with ATSC 1.0 picture quality (bitrate) taking a hit in ~18 months and then getting worse and worse as more signals move to ATSC 3.0 and multicast on the few remaining ATSC 1.0 signals until the final remaining ATSC 1.0 signal goes away by ~2020. Of course, there might be a few LPTV stations that can find a LP LoVHF Frequency that could continue for a long time past 2020, if anyone really wanted to view them.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I've already described in detail what you are saying


Think of it as me backing you up! I've been saying this for almost a year... the repack is going to be the most difficult transition. ATSC 3.0 shouldn't be a big deal.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> which is how it will go down with ATSC 1.0 picture quality (bitrate) taking a hit in ~18 months and then getting worse and worse as more signals move to ATSC 3.0 and multicast on the few remaining ATSC 1.0 signals until the final remaining ATSC 1.0 signal goes away by ~2020.


ATSC 1.0 is already taking more and more hits... at least in my area, with more and more sub-channels being added.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> Think of it as me backing you up! I've been saying this for almost a year... the repack is going to be the most difficult transition. ATSC 3.0 shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> ATSC 1.0 is already taking more and more hits... at least in my area, with more and more sub-channels being added.


Just wait until you get MORE channels on the ATSC 1.0 signals starting in ~18!months. Pretty soon all on ATSC 1.0 will look like NTSC.


----------



## jkovach (Feb 17, 2000)

wizwor said:


> The lighthouses will be integrated into ATSC 3.0 infrastructure until they don't matter anymore.


I understood everything until this. Lighthouses?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

jkovach said:


> I understood everything until this. Lighthouses?


Reread post 43.

Multiple Stations will start dumping all their programming at much lower bitrates on the remaining ATSC 1.0 stations until those also go to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

jkovach said:


> I understood everything until this. Lighthouses?


Lighthouses are the ATSC 1.0 stations that remain after the ATSC 3.0 transition begins. The question is how will these coexist. You will need two tuners or a hybrid tuner to get both sets of stations. All televisions have ATSC 1.0 tuners. All DVRs have ATSC 1.0 tuners. Initially, ATSC programming will have to be watched on a new box with an ATSC 3.0 tuner. This box will plug into an HDMI port like a Roku. ATSC 3.0 transmissions can be sent over other media than coax, so you might have a device in your home that streams ATSC 3.0 to legacy hardware -- including FTVs, Rokus, and even TiVos -- much the way a Tablo does today.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

This boondoggle needs a stake through its heart. Immediately. Especially given how the last "conversion" boondoggle went in 2009. Total cluster.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

RoamioJeff said:


> This boondoggle needs a stake through its heart. Immediately. Especially given how the last "conversion" boondoggle went in 2009. Total cluster.


Some characterize the analog->digital transition as a walk through for what is ahead -- the repacking and then ATSC 3.0. To a certain extent this may well be the case. Certainly moving stations from UHF to VHF could lead to this. A lot of people do not have VHF antennas, so moving a station to VHF from UHF would require the addition of an antenna. Even those with VHF antennas may find themselves forced to rethink their pointing. I do not believe many (if any) stations will change bands for these reasons. To a certain extent, such a move would effectively take a station off the air. ATSC 3.0 will be less disruptive simply because it can (and will) co-exist with ATSC 1.0. While there are many benefits to ATSC 3.0, the important one is encrypted/pay programming. This will further disrupt the cable industry, but should only arrive as additional programming for those of us already using an antenna -- additional programming decrypted by an additional box for a fee. Since this programming can be delivered via ethernet/wifi, there is no reason a netflix type app cannot put that signal on your set.

The fact is that some white collar gangsters (I'm looking at YOU Bill Binnie) are going to cash out of the broadcast television business and some REAL channel numbers are going to change, but the repacked spectrum will not have much of an impact on most OTA'ers.

ATSC 3.0 is not going to be required -- ever. With ATSC 1.0, the government mandated digital tuners be built into televisions YEARS before the transition. No such mandate is coming for ATSC 3.0. Madeleine Noland, consultant to the LG Standard Technology and Development Team, and Convergence R&D Lab said, We may have a gateway device or a set-top box attached to an antenna and a Wi-Fi network, for example. Jerry Whitaker, ATSC vice president for standards development said, We cant make consumers adopt it, he said. It needs to be a pull technology.

So you will subscribe to a service like Sling TV or Vue which requires authentication and handles integration of ATSC 3.0 UHD channels, 'add-on' programming, and services like Netflix and Prime. These are streamed from a single box (maybe a router eventually) to set top boxes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Madeleine Noland, consultant to the LG Standard Technology and Development Team, and Convergence R&D Lab said, We may have a gateway device or a set-top box attached to an antenna and a Wi-Fi network, for example. Jerry Whitaker, ATSC vice president for standards development said, We cant make consumers adopt it, he said. It needs to be a pull technology.
> 
> So you will subscribe to a service like Sling TV or Vue which requires authentication and handles integration of ATSC 3.0 UHD channels, 'add-on' programming, and services like Netflix and Prime. These are streamed from a single box (maybe a router eventually) to set top boxes.


This is consistent with the stuff I've been reading too. Because ATSC 3.0 is fully IP-based, it should easily integrate with the sort of streaming content we already have. Having your ATSC 3.0 tuner plugged into your home's internet service will also allow for interactivity with live OTA TV content, both the actual programming as well as the ads. I can imagine viewers being incentivized in some way to opt into targeted advertising too; provide some basic demographic and location-based info and instead of seeing the standard ads broadcast from the OTA towers, you'll instead get served up targeted ads streaming in from the internet and dynamically inserted into your live TV viewing. This kind of richer, data-based targeted advertising is part of the incentive for broadcasters to get on board with ATSC 3.0. Consumers will be incentivized to buy ATSC 3.0 set-tops or "gateways" in order to get free UHD HDR programming on their big screen TVs as well free HD programming on all their other screens (phones, tablets, laptops, etc.), hopefully with OTA signals that are more reliable and easier to tune in than what we have now with ATSC 1.0.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly about pay TV though. Are you suggesting that some OTA broadcasts will be encrypted and require a paid subscription to receive? If so, what are you basing that on? I've read nothing of the sort. The only thing along those lines I've read about so far is Airbox. (If you haven't heard of it, I'm not surprised. It's been a failure.) Airbox broadcasts SD feeds of Showtime, Starz and some Spanish-language channels in encrypted MPEG4 and requires a special set-top box receiver (from RadioShack!) and a paid subscription. I'm not sure I see why subscription-based video services would try to make a push into OTA broadcasting with ATSC 3.0 when they are already going direct to consumers with internet streaming and having success there.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly about pay TV though. Are you suggesting that some OTA broadcasts will be encrypted and require a paid subscription to receive? If so, what are you basing that on? I've read nothing of the sort. The only thing along those lines I've read about so far is Airbox. (If you haven't heard of it, I'm not surprised. It's been a failure.) Airbox broadcasts SD feeds of Showtime, Starz and some Spanish-language channels in encrypted MPEG4 and requires a special set-top box receiver (from RadioShack!) and a paid subscription. I'm not sure I see why subscription-based video services would try to make a push into OTA broadcasting with ATSC 3.0 when they are already going direct to consumers with internet streaming and having success there.


It's one of the stated goals...


atsc.org said:


> APPLICATIONS AND PRESENTATION LAYER
> 
> The applications and presentation layer represents essentially the elements that the viewer experiences, including video coding, audio coding and the run-time environment. The service model for ATSC 3.0 allows for more complex services to allow broadcasters to evolve their business. Major elements include:
> 
> ...


And it makes sense. The presumption that everyone will one day stream everything over high speed internet is inconsistent with what is happening all around us. The smart phone is one of the enabling technologies supporting the growth of broadcast television. The fact is that smart phones are replacing computers as our primary communication, information, and commerce devices allows people to forego high speed internet in favor of broadcast television and a cell phone. It's also illogical. Multiple 4k (or higher) streams into every home continuously is going to require compression and infrastructure improvements which are probably not in our immediate future. There is no reason HBO, Netflix, et al won't pursue OTA subscriptions.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> It's one of the stated There is no reason HBO, Netflix, et al won't pursue OTA subscriptions.


There's a big reason, which is that people want to view programming on-demand rather than watch live linear tv. I see no way that ATSC 3.0 could accommodate the Netflix distribution model. It's still about live linear broadcasting. Sure, people may be able to connect a hard drive to their OTA gateway and record stuff to watch later but I'm not sure I see that conquering the Internet streaming on-demand model firmly entrenched among younger generations.

Beyond that, broadband internet is far more reliable for me than is OTA reception. (And I live only 6 - 13 miles from my city's towers.) I'm not sure I see many folks putting up an antenna and dealing with the hassles of OTA reception to watch HBO when they can just pay the same amount and stream it with HBO Now.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> There's a big reason, which is that people want to view programming on-demand rather than watch live linear tv. I see no way that ATSC 3.0 could accommodate the Netflix distribution model. It's still about live linear broadcasting. Sure, people may be able to connect a hard drive to their OTA gateway and record stuff to watch later but I'm not sure I see that conquering the Internet streaming on-demand model firmly entrenched among younger generations.
> 
> Beyond that, broadband internet is far more reliable for me than is OTA reception. (And I live only 6 - 13 miles from my city's towers.) I'm not sure I see many folks putting up an antenna and dealing with the hassles of OTA reception to watch HBO when they can just pay the same amount and stream it with HBO Now.


Same quote highlighted differently...



atsc.org said:


> APPLICATIONS AND PRESENTATION LAYER
> 
> The applications and presentation layer represents essentially the elements that the viewer experiences, including video coding, audio coding and the run-time environment. The service model for ATSC 3.0 allows for more complex services to allow broadcasters to evolve their business. Major elements include:
> 
> ...


Plus you are incorrect about linear vs on demand...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

There are lots of possibilities with ATSC 3.0. The problem is no one knows what is actually going to happen or when. Add in that the timing and what actually happens may be significantly different from market to market and the result is we are in a time of relative confusion and lots of speculation. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds over the next 5 years or so.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Right. The big thing is that it is not revolutionary. No one is killing off ATSC 1.0 (except some random idiot). ATSC 3.0 will arrive and supplement then replace. Along the way, we will figure out how to make it affordable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Same quote highlighted differently...
> 
> Plus you are incorrect about linear vs on demand...


Thanks for the info, including your previous post about pay/subscription broadcasts via ATSC 3.0. That was the first I'd read about that. I still question the economic incentive for a national pay broadcaster with zero local content, such as Showtime or HBO, to get into the game of distributing their linear channels through a network of local OTA towers. (Frequency licensing costs, tower costs, etc.)

The chart you provided indicates that the trend for linear TV viewing is downward and the trend line for streaming/on-demand is upward. And as the older Americans die and younger ones mature, do we really expect that trend to reverse? (And surely that linear TV hour count in your chart includes content that has been recorded and time-shifted by DVR, no?)

As for ATSC 3.0 allowing for on-demand viewing, I'd love to know how it's technologically possible, outside of recording with an in-home DVR or via internet streaming (not actual OTA distribution) that is integrated through a home gateway connected to the internet. If there were individual on-demand IP streams of video going out of the OTA towers to viewers, that wouldn't really be broadcast TV; it would be wireless internet, the stuff already provided by cell service providers like Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks for the info, including your previous post about pay/subscription broadcasts via ATSC 3.0. That was the first I'd read about that.


You're welcome. I linked to the sources. There's lots more to read.

Bear in mind this is mostly speculation based on a few publications. atmuscarella is correct that we do not know what is going to happen.

The best way to think about ATSC 3.0 is as a one way ISP which is free and low latency. To content providers, it is no different than OTT.

ATSC is defining a physical layer. ATSC 3.0 is kind of like the internet before the world wide web. Right now, no one can use whatever gets put out there. What is being put out there is mostly for demonstration purposes.

The economics is simply that this 'pipe' is free for consumers. Right now, if I am an OTA'er and I want to add HBO, Sling TV, or Vue, I have to get an ISP first ($50/month). 70% of my cost is for the ISP.

I used to work for a cable company. All our programming came in via satellite. We remodulated the incoming content. Pay-per-view came in on tape. We cued the tapes up in the head end and modulated that. Adult entertainment came in over satellite but had to be tuned each night. We modulated that. Users subscribed to ongoing content and pay per view over the phone. We sent a signal to their box. They got the content until we stopped enabling the box. I suspect ATSC 3.0 premium content will resemble that except that you will be able to subscribe via a browser instead of a telephone. Instead of paying Comcast to deliver the content, the provider will pay a broadcaster. Maintaining a single broadcast station has to be less expensive than maintaining a fabric of cell phone towers or a copper/fiber network.

Time will tell. All I can say right now is what ATSC says they can do -- enhanced linear TV, on-demand, subscription and pay-per-view (PPV), conditional access, and DRM.

I just don't see any of this happening in the next five years. I think they are going to have trouble completing the auction and repacking the spectrum in five years and ATSC 3.0 really can't happen until after that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> I just don't see any of this happening in the next five years. I think they are going to have trouble completing the auction and repacking the spectrum in five years and ATSC 3.0 really can't happen until after that.


I *hope* ATSC 3.0 happens and is a success. Free UHD HDR programming via more robust OTA signals would be awesome. But I'm also worried that OTA TV will collapse under the weight of too many challenges at once: narrowing spectrum, the repack, a rush to adopt ATSC 3.0 during the repack, lack of an FCC mandate, the need to purchase separate 3.0 tuners/gateways, a smaller spectrum and user base split between 1.0 and 3.0, all at a time when streaming more than OTA is increasingly the default choice for non-cable/sat subscribers.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

You know, as I read about all the machinations over so-called "ATSC 3.0", a little historical perspective is in order. Those seeking to drastically revise the ATSC standard so soon after the 2009 conversion need to be reminded that the NTSC color TV construct remained the gold standard for _55 years_.

Did technology progress during those 55 years? Of course it did. Were improvements in consumer television technology developed and fielded during those 55 years? Of course they were. But what we did not have was a bunch of chinese fire drill "upgrade" excercises that hobbled peoples' devices and forced them to buy new stuff on a regular basis.

Starting with the infamous digital "conversion" in 2009, the entire installed base of NTSC gear was rendered useless in one fell swoop. Everyone had run out and buy new stuff, or get one of those dubious converter boxes (subsidized with taxpayer money). And now, in some quarters, we're talking about it potentially happening again. Madness.

During the 55 year run of the NTSC standard, we did not hobble the installed based every few years with a version "upgrade". Heck, even with the transition from black and white to color, the new color transmission standard was 100% backward compatible. Billions of dollars in consumer gear was not prematurely junked. People in ivory towers dreaming up new stuff need to have a little compassion towards other people's money (consumers).

During the 55-year run of the NTSC standard, technology did not stagnate - it continued to progress. But it progressed around a common sense, stable, and predictable standard that did not unnecessarily introduce churn every few years. New innovations were deployed, around the standard. VCRs, Laser discs, and DVD players, around the standard. Gaming systems, around the standard. Projection systems, around the standard. New audio innovations, around the standard. Even DVRs, around the standard. The tail did not wag the dog.

Perhaps people working on updates to the ATSC standard today should sit down and have a discussion with those still with us who invented and established television. And maybe those discussions should be philosophical, and not technical.

The lesson here is that people who forget (or ignore) history are doomed to repeat it. And the 2009 conversion debacle was not that long ago.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> You know, as I read about all the machinations over so-called "ATSC 3.0", a little historical perspective is in order. Those seeking to drastically revise the ATSC standard so soon after the 2009 conversion need to be reminded that the NTSC color TV construct remained the gold standard for _55 years_.
> 
> Did technology progress during those 55 years? Of course it did. Were improvements in consumer television technology developed and fielded during those 55 years? Of course they were. But what we did not have was a bunch of chinese fire drill "upgrade" excercises that hobbled peoples' devices and forced them to buy new stuff on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Looking forward to 2064, I will not have to purchase any new stuff then as I will be dead or 123 years old.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

RoamioJeff said:


> And the 2009 conversion debacle was not that long ago.


I keep on seeing people here saying that. But I (and what 90% ? of people) didn't notice a thing, I was using cable tv

What was so terrible ?


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

I do not subscribe to the idea there will be a change in less than five years. However it is obvious to me what is being proposed is going to happen. There comes a point where technology and consumer preferences change enough to where you can't move forward and be backwards compatible. But that doesn't mean people will be quite left in the lurch as they were before.

Likely you will be able to convert the new standard to the old and unlike what happened to the digital change it does not require you to manually change channels with an external box making DVR's almost useless mainly because both are digital. Likely it would be a stick that connects to an antenna lead. 
Unless the idea is to kill off OTA, make no doubt if people are literally turned off from getting OTA with sets in perfectly good working condition that will reduce and perhaps permanently stop people watching the networks OTA because on that point we agree, it can't happen again and so soon as the digital changeover.

I'm not sure the 7 to 8% figure of people who rely solely on OTA takes into account streaming. Solely OTA may be something like 10% but how many use OTA and streaming?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jth tv said:


> I keep on seeing people here saying that. But I (and what 90% ? of people) didn't notice a thing, I was using cable tv
> 
> What was so terrible ?


It wasn't. You just needed to make sure you had an add on Box to continue receiving the content with a TV that only had an NTSC tuner. And you could easily get the boxes discounted.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

jth tv said:


> I keep on seeing people here saying that. But I (and what 90% ? of people) didn't notice a thing, I was using cable tv
> 
> What was so terrible ?


A lot of OTA folks did notice it, and it was a major irritation. People who, in many cases, had not so long ago purchased new gear and set up home theater systems under the former standard had their equipment with tuning capability lobotomized by the requirement of having to hook up one of those silly converter boxes. Another remote ... NTSC-based recording devices hobbled ... and on and on.

When the simple fact was that there were technically competent competing proposals for a new system in the begining that would have allowed for backward compatibility. But special interests exerted undue influence and we ended up with what is now ATSC.

And then, a few years later it happened all over again with folks on NTSC gear using cable when providers began dropping NTSC channels, requiring the rental of a "box". Even those who had recently gone out and bought a set that also could tune QAM were not spared, as providers began to drop transmission of clear QAM channels. Another forced method to rent a box ... at every single outlet in someone's private home. Madness.

The whole industry has been taken over by special interests whose model is revenue extraction and forced obsolescence.

Perhaps if these antics were tried against the national television system in the 1970s, the perpetrators would have been laughed out of town. Or dragged out of their offices and lined up against a wall. But the great uneducated masses of today are perfectly susceptible to the Jedi mind tricks of the special interests.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

lessd said:


> Looking forward to 2064, I will not have to purchase any new stuff then as I will be dead or 123 years old.


LOL, but that misses the point.

Imagine yourself, and millions of other consumers, in 1961... about seven years after the implementation of NTSC. Everyone has been spending hard-earned dollars on color television equipment, based on a standard. Don't look now, but let's say that a cabal of special interests starts driving something called "NTSC 3.0", which might not be backward compatible with billions of dollars worth of gear that you and your fellow Americans have shelled out hard-earned dollars for. You might not be able to tune your existing device without paying for some infernal "converter box" or appliance, and/or paying to subscribe to some encrypted channels folks here have been mentioning as a possibility. I doubt that con job on the American public would have succeeded in 1961.

But here we are in 2016, a mere seven years after the imposition of ATSC. Millions of people have invested billions in hard-earned dollars in devices that can tune the current regime of ATSC. And we have folks actually entertaining a construct whereby backward compatibility might require shelling out money to the usual suspects for another freaking converter box. Or entirely new devices. Madness.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Right. The big thing is that it is not revolutionary. No one is killing off ATSC 1.0 (except some random idiot). ATSC 3.0 will arrive and supplement then replace. Along the way, we will figure out how to make it affordable.


Hope you like viewing programming via ATSC 1.0 with a MPEG2 3Mbps bitrate - and most likely, any planning to stay with ATSC 1.0 will take the money to move to Low VHF as well.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> You know, as I read about all the machinations over so-called "ATSC 3.0", a little historical perspective is in order. Those seeking to drastically revise the ATSC standard so soon after the 2009 conversion need to be reminded that the NTSC color TV construct remained the gold standard for _55 years_.
> 
> Did technology progress during those 55 years? Of course it did. Were improvements in consumer television technology developed and fielded during those 55 years? Of course they were. But what we did not have was a bunch of chinese fire drill "upgrade" excercises that hobbled peoples' devices and forced them to buy new stuff on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


How many times has the Wireless Standards been revised since 1984 making past equipment unusable?

Analog, Digital,GSM, Nextel, CDMA and more,1- now on 4G LTE...5G testing...

Sorry, but technology is waiting for no one any longer.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

RoamioJeff said:


> LOL, but that misses the point.
> 
> Imagine yourself, and millions of other consumers, in 1961... about seven years after the implementation of NTSC. Everyone has been spending hard-earned dollars on color television equipment, based on a standard. Don't look now, but let's say that a cabal of special interests starts driving something called "NTSC 3.0", which might not be backward compatible with billions of dollars worth of gear that you and your fellow Americans have shelled out hard-earned dollars for. You might not be able to tune your existing device without paying for some infernal "converter box" or appliance, and/or paying to subscribe to some encrypted channels folks here have been mentioning as a possibility. I doubt that con job on the American public would have succeeded in 1961.
> 
> But here we are in 2016, a mere seven years after the imposition of ATSC. Millions of people have invested billions in hard-earned dollars in devices that can tune the current regime of ATSC. And we have folks actually entertaining a construct whereby backward compatibility might require shelling out money to the usual suspects for another freaking converter box. Or entirely new devices. Madness.


I don't see how. Since such a small percentage of people use any ATSC tuners, the vast majority of people will not have any problems.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> I don't see how. Since such a small percentage of people use any ATSC tuners, the vast majority of people will not have any problems.


Exactly. Only 11.8% OTA only Nationwide.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> How many times has the Wireless Standard been revised since 1984 making past equipment unusable?
> 
> Sorry, but technology is waiting for no one.


False. New wireless standards have been added, to wireless routers for example, while retaining support for the old. It has been common practice to include support for previous standards. For example, we have seen 802.11a, b, g, n, ac, and on. But with each new addition, older wireless standards are supported and backward compatibility is usually provided for a generous amount of time. This way everyone does not have to throw away perfectly good devices all at once, and can move forward gradually.

Smart technology does not have to wait. Smart technology supports existing users, and also builds new incentives through new features. If you build it people may come, but if you build it smartly you provide a bridge for people to walk across to get people to your new product in an easier manner. That's called backward compatibility, and is the basis for the vast majority of technology.

And your extreme example of 32 years ago, that I assume refers to cellular, is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a one single transmission standard for the entire nation, not a group of competing transmission standards of different types and vintages. When a consumer buys a TV, he does not have to check and see how many of the national television transmission standards it is compatible with. There is only one.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> I don't see how. Since such a small percentage of people use any ATSC tuners, the vast majority of people will not have any problems.


So, it's only a minority, so screw them? Is that the opinion? Is that the logic?

With that logic why don't we just ban OTA and sell off the frequencies to the cell phone companies? I mean, according to the aforementioned logic, it would only hurt a minority of Americans who get their programming OTA. Screw them, right?

Tyranny of the majority is so easy.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> False. New wireless standards have been added, to wireless routers for example, while retaining support for the old. It has been common practice to include support for previous standards. For example, we have seen 802.11a, b, g, n, ac, and on. But with each new addition, older wireless standards are supported and backward compatibility is usually provided for a generous amount of time. This way everyone does not have to throw away perfectly good devices all at once, and can move forward gradually.
> 
> Smart technology does not have to wait. Smart technology supports existing users, and also builds new incentives through new features. If you build it people may come, but if you build it smartly you provide a bridge for people to walk across to get people to your new product in an easier manner. That's called backward compatibility, and is the basis for the vast majority of technology.
> 
> And your extreme example of 32 years ago, that I assume refers to cellular, is not what we're talking about.


Every key date and format I mentioned was Cellular, but then again, that was
obvious to everyone except those who think of them as "cellular".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> So, it's only a minority, so screw them? Is that the opinion? Is that the logic?
> 
> With that logic why don't we just ban OTA and sell off the frequencies to the cell phone companies? I mean, according to the aforementioned logic, it would only hurt a minority of Americans who get their programming OTA. Screw them, right?
> 
> Tyranny of the majority is so easy.


Some people do not have cars.

Perhaps we should shut down all roads and highways as well.

Why should they pay taxes for roads!

And why sell it all to Wireless? As I have noted, Wireless has outdated over 4 Generations of Equipment that had to be replaced since 1984.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Every key date and format I mentioned was Cellular.
> 
> That was obvious to just about all, with one exception.


Sure, after you edited it your post, which was after my reply.

And cellular (whose versions did overlap on the air at the same time) versus one national televison transmission standard is apples and oranges.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> Sure, after you edited it your post, which was after my reply.
> 
> And cellular (whose versions did overlap on the air at the same time) versus one national televison transmission standard is apples and oranges.


Sorry, but post #68 was not editted.

Need glasses?

And the Cellular Technologies updated and incompatible today WAS NATIONAL. In fact, in the 80s, ALL Cellular Companies Nationwide used the same National Analog Format (just like the 1 TV Standard).

Digital and PCS came about in the early 90s.

And with Digital different companies went different ways.

However, AT&T and Verizon, the 2 majors, have gone through 4 different outdated technologies since the 80s.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Some people do not have cars.
> 
> Perhaps we should shut down all roads and highways as well.
> 
> Why should they pay taxes for roads!


More faulty straw man logic. Let me fix it for you:

Some people do not have cars. A portion of tax dollars funds sidewalks and bike lanes. The system is backward / cross-compatible.

And, in line with this discussion, no one is forced to buy a new car every few years because the roads are all redesigned and rendered incompatible with their existing vehicle.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> More faulty straw man logic. Let me fix it for you:
> 
> Some people do not have cars. A portion of tax dollars funds sidewalks and bike lanes. The system is backward / cross-compatible.
> 
> And, in line with this discussion, no one is forced to buy a new car every few years because the roads are all redesigned and rendered incompatible with their existing vehicle.


It's just as faulty as your logic for OTA.

Again, major tax money saved if roads done away with and only spend on Sidewalks. Only you would think maintaining sidewalks would cost as much as maintaining streets and highways!

I don't own a bike so they should be done away with as well!


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sorry, but post #68 was not editted.
> 
> Need glasses?


Dude, I hit the QUOTE button responding to #68. Read #71.

Busted.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> It's just as faulty as your logic for OTA.
> 
> Again, major tax money saved if roads done away with and only spend on Sidewalks. Only you would think maintaining sidewalks would cost as much as maintaining streets and highways!
> 
> I don't own a bike so they should be done away with as well!


Okay, based upon the content of your last two responses, I have to question the age/maturity of the person posting from your account. I'm done with you.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

RoamioJeff said:


> Okay, based upon the content of your last two responses, I have to question the age/maturity of the person posting from your account. I'm done with you.


I can same the same for you based on your comments of how 100% of the population have to have no disruption for technology to move forward.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://advanced-television.com/2016/04/05/japan-adjusts-4k-plans/


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

A lot of the enthusiasm for ATSC 3.0 comes from South Korea, both in the private tech sector (LG & Samsung) and in the government, where it seems likely to be implemented before the US. While there are still questions about whether it will come to fruition here in the US, I don't think there's any doubt that ATSC 3.0 is the future of Korean TV broadcasting. If it does well there, I wonder if Europe or other areas will consider it for their next-gen standard to succeed DVB-T.


----------



## kucharsk (Feb 2, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Exactly. Only 11.8% OTA only Nationwide.


But that 11.8% are often lower income.

Do you want to be on the other end of the "broadcasters want to make TVs go blank for the poor!" news stories?

I know a number of people using a 4:3 tube TV with their "free" ATSC converter box as well; all those who "just" bought a new Vizio or something similar would NOT be happy if broadcasters suddenly switched to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

kucharsk said:


> But that 11.8% are often lower income.
> 
> Do you want to be on the other end of the "broadcasters want to make TVs go blank for the poor!" news stories?
> 
> I know a number of people using a 4:3 tube TV with their "free" ATSC converter box as well; all those who "just" bought a new Vizio or something similar would NOT be happy if broadcasters suddenly switched to ATSC 3.0.


Don't worry. A certain Political Party has already been lining up subsidies for Internet. No TV needed.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> A lot of the enthusiasm for ATSC 3.0 comes from South Korea, both in the private tech sector (LG & Samsung) and in the government, where it seems likely to be implemented before the US. While there are still questions about whether it will come to fruition here in the US, I don't think there's any doubt that ATSC 3.0 is the future of Korean TV broadcasting. If it does well there, I wonder if Europe or other areas will consider it for their next-gen standard to succeed DVB-T.


It's comical that everyone ignores the biggest USA Broadcaster is the one putting the most into the ATSC 3.0 research, standards and design. In fact, they have actually signed up as bidders in the Spectrum Forward AUction for more bandwidth.

And then no one bothers to investigate what the Pearl Group is that is in on the ATSC 3.0 Standards, not to mention CBS Les Moonves came out with support of it yesterday.


----------



## Scooter Scott (Jun 1, 2015)

kucharsk said:


> But that 11.8% are often lower income.
> 
> Do you want to be on the other end of the "broadcasters want to make TVs go blank for the poor!" news stories?
> 
> I know a number of people using a 4:3 tube TV with their "free" ATSC converter box as well; all those who "just" bought a new Vizio or something similar would NOT be happy if broadcasters suddenly switched to ATSC 3.0.


I'm part of that 11.8% solely because I'm tired of providers overcharging for service. My Directv was about $120-$130 a month. Antenna = free. Its amazing the free time I have now that we aren't binge watching Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Hope you like viewing programming via ATSC 1.0 with a MPEG2 3Mbps bitrate - and most likely, any planning to stay with ATSC 1.0 will take the money to move to Low VHF as well.


You've raised this issue before, several times.

Is the Broadcast Industry's plan for the future REALLY based upon the notion of making their existing product, which everyone can get today for pretty close to free, so horrible that they go out and buy new equipment to get additional services they will have to pay extra for?

You seem to like to quote precedents...can you come up with a case where a similar strategy has worked successfully in the past?

ATSC 3.0 is great boon to broadcasters, that's clear. Since they are faced with dwindling advertising revenue, they have to find ways to monetize their frequencies and the pay-services that ATSC 3.0 will support is a possible solution.

But what is the incentive for consumers? As you point out, only 10% or so of households rely upon OTA television reception today. The rest get their broadcast content some other way. So far, all I see ATSC 3.0 being touted for is the sorts of things we can already get via wired or wireless services today. The only "upside" for consumers is the potential of 4K broadcast (which will also be available via cable, satellite or internet) and mobile TV (which may be a solution in search of a problem).

The biggest effect the migration to ATSC 3.0 (at least as you have described it here) may well be stemming the tide of "cord-cutting" and/or accelerating the delivery of all content via IP based services.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

I mentioned before, I am not convinced that 11% figure is what we think. Sole way of getting TV OTA to me is different than the many chord cutters who get their major networks OTA but pay for streaming also. Do they mean all TV by just OTA?


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

OTA-only AFAIK.

More like 20% for those who are OTA & also use OTT:
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Study-204-Dont-Have-Traditional-TV-Up-From-188-in-2014-136646

In poorer, more rural markets, that 11% OTA-only figure easily doubles or triples.



tampa8 said:


> I mentioned before, I am not convinced that 11% figure is what we think. Sole way of getting TV OTA to me is different than the many chord cutters who get their major networks OTA but pay for streaming also. Do they mean all TV by just OTA?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tampa8 said:


> I mentioned before, I am not convinced that 11% figure is what we think. Sole way of getting TV OTA to me is different than the many chord cutters who get their major networks OTA but pay for streaming also. Do they mean all TV by just OTA?





ncbill said:


> OTA-only AFAIK.
> 
> More like 20% for those who are OTA & also use OTT:
> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Study-204-Dont-Have-Traditional-TV-Up-From-188-in-2014-136646
> ...


Incorrect.

The number is 11.8% National Average. Others have posted market by market numbers from TVB.

I would point out that TVB is pushing to advertise on Broadcast Stations v Cable - as they point out you miss x% of the population with cable only on the same webpages.

IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST to show 20% OTA only, as that would benefit their position - almost double it.

However studies that look at a sample of 1,000-3,000 and are not well designed and executed are not that accurate - and the most accurate data shows the number at 11.8%.

Period.

And then again, if one is to count all the Household Cable Subs reported to the FCC and by the Companies to the SEC in their filings - against the number of Households which is a known number, 20% is not close to reality or possible.

That is, unless you think the Cable Companies CEO and CFO among others are willing to go to prison submitting false info to the US Government on subscribers.

And since Cable is looked at by APRU, why would a Cable Exec want to risk prison as well as OVERCOUNT subs, which would reduce their APRU, which would make them look worse!?!?!

Simple Logic is against your 20% claim.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Diana Collins said:


> You've raised this issue before, several times.
> 
> Is the Broadcast Industry's plan for the future REALLY based upon the notion of making their existing product, which everyone can get today for pretty close to free, so horrible that they go out and buy new equipment to get additional services they will have to pay extra for?
> 
> ...


Again, only 11.8% of people will have this issue as that's how many use OTA Nationwide. Period.

The only other option is to sign the ATSC 1.0 off completely ASAP. That is a worse option for those 11.8%.

As new TVs will begin to include ATSC 3.0 tuners, eventually the issue will be immaterial. Just like TiVo apps, no on said that you would be able to view YouTube forever.

A Company that did it successfully? Sprint Nextel comes to mind recently. In fact, all the wireless companies come to mind as digital voice sounded far worse
Than analog when the switch began in the early 90s....not to mention the lag time!

Sorry that you don't see Mobile as a solution to a problem.

Might want to tell that to the people locally who lost power this morning just as a tornado was coming in....and could not get the Broadcast Stations with no power as the Meteorologist zoomed in a followed it showing block by block path and information.

Even if you could get block level detail online (you couldn't), you paid the wireless company for the data. But those with tablets and no Data Connection were SOL.

Would you like nothing....or this in an emergency:


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, only 11.8% of people will have this issue as that's how many use OTA Nationwide. Period.


Per Nielsen, that 11.8% is ONLY 14 million households.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The only other option is to sign the ATSC 1.0 off completely ASAP. That is a worse option for those 11.8%.



Do nothing -- ATSC 1.0 is fine
Supplement ATSC 1.0 with ATSC 3.0 via in home streaming
Only ;-)



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As new TVs will begin to include ATSC 3.0 tuners, eventually the issue will be immaterial. Just like TiVo apps, no on said that you would be able to view YouTube forever.


When will new televisions begin shipping with ATSC 3.0 tuners? How long between the first shipment and meaningful penetration? Five years? Ten? Lots of CRTs still in service and modern LCDs have a longer life.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Might want to tell that to the people locally who lost power this morning just as a tornado was coming in....and could not get the Broadcast Stations with no power as the Meteorologist zoomed in a followed it showing block by block path and information.


In 2010 I bought an antenna because we wanted to have news and entertainment during weather emergencies. I installed a generator and an antenna for this purpose. Have not been without since. This emergency solution convinced me that I did not need a premium provider at all.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Would you like nothing....or this in an emergency:


We listen to a radio in the car.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Sure, let me edit that line:

In poorer, more rural markets, that 11% *national average* OTA-only figure easily doubles or triples.

SRI must live & work in a highly-urbanized area (there are plenty where OTA viewers are under 5%) to repeatedly assert that OTA is meaningless in markets where it represents 1/4 or more of total viewers.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

ncbill said:


> Sure, let me edit that line:
> 
> In poorer, more rural markets, that 11% *national average* OTA-only figure easily doubles or triples.
> 
> SRI must live & work in a highly-urbanized area (there are plenty where OTA viewers are under 5%) to repeatedly assert that OTA is meaningless in markets where it represents 1/4 or more of total viewers.


All depends on how or what you count. Sure, the percentage of OTA viewers in rural areas might be higher, but the number of viewers could be but a handful, which would be statistically irrelevant.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

If you live in a area where Tornadoes are generally possible you should know once the Warning is made and you can see the path then watching TV or the block by block probably isn't the option to take anyway. Yesterday we used streaming on my Tablet and Cell phone and of course the radio while we stayed in a safer area of the house.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tampa8 said:


> If you live in a area where Tornadoes are generally possible you should know once the Warning is made and you can see the path then watching TV or the block by block probably isn't the option to take anyway. Yesterday we used streaming on my Tablet and Cell phone and of course the radio while we stayed in a safer area of the house.


Good thing you actually had power, which others did not.

And the radio, lol, they have less live and local news people (or even hosts) everyday.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

ncbill said:


> Sure, let me edit that line:
> 
> In poorer, more rural markets, that 11% *national average* OTA-only figure easily doubles or triples.
> 
> SRI must live & work in a highly-urbanized area (there are plenty where OTA viewers are under 5%) to repeatedly assert that OTA is meaningless in markets where it represents 1/4 or more of total viewers.


Great use of words. Too bad no numbers or data to back them up.

Triples....interesting, as NO MARKET IN AMERICA HAS 11.8% x3 or 35.4% OTA only.

Doubles? also interesting as on 7 Markets in America have 2x 11.8% OTA Only or 23.6% OTA Only, and I am not sure I would call Miami, San Antonio, Corpus Christi or El Paso rural.

Furthermore, DBS is big in Truly "rural" areas of a market with no cable.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Per Nielsen, that 11.8% is ONLY 14 million households..


Correct Households as I have stated previously, although as people live in Households - it all averages out to roughly the same number.



wizwor said:


> Do nothing -- ATSC 1.0 is fine
> Supplement ATSC 1.0 with ATSC 3.0 via in home streaming
> Only ;-)


I heard the same argument for NTSC.



wizwor said:


> When will new televisions begin shipping with ATSC 3.0 tuners? How long between the first shipment and meaningful penetration? Five years? Ten? Lots of CRTs still in service and modern LCDs have a longer life.


And only around 62% of TV households have a DVR in their household. Should we take those off the market? Your point?



wizwor said:


> In 2010 I bought an antenna because we wanted to have news and entertainment during weather emergencies.  I installed a generator and an antenna for this purpose. Have not been without since. This emergency solution convinced me that I did not need a premium provider at all.
> .


Good thing you will be able to get it on a tablet or phone down the road.



wizwor said:


> We listen to a radio in the car.


Again, a picture is worth a 1,000 words. Lots of luck in real emergencies.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And only around 62% of TV households have a DVR in their household. Should we take those off the market? Your point?


No one can watch ATSC 3.0. With ad supported television, viewers are important.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

ncbill said:


> In poorer, more rural markets, that 11% *national average* OTA-only figure easily doubles or triples.


I live in a poor rural market (Albany, GA), and OTA is an estimated 9.5%:

ADS, Wired-Cable and Over-The-Air Penetration by DMA

Dallas-Forth Worth, TX market has an estimated 18.6% OTA penetration.

Don't assume that poor and rural equals more OTA viewers.

While it's not pertinent to this discussion as it's a very subjective sampling, I know several people who have "cut the cord" this past year, but none of them use an antenna. Same with the "cord-nevers" I know. In fact, I only know ONE individual (besides myself) who uses OTA.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If ATSC 3.0 provides more channels, then I would be willing to pay the one time fee for new TVs, DVRs or set top boxes. More channels was an incentive for me to switch from NTSC to ATSC 1.0.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> No one can watch ATSC 3.0. With ad supported television, viewers are important.


Incorrect. 88.2% of the USA Households can watch ATSC 3.0 OTA Programming.

Those with MVPD subscriptions will not notice a difference between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0.

And as ads are sold based on Nielsen Ratings - and Nielsen does not allow OTA only in Sample, there is no loss in ratings or revenue from Ads!

So close to 30% of the Households can watch ATSC 3.0 OTA Broadcast than have a DVR!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ... and Nielsen does not allow OTA only in Sample, there is no loss in ratings or revenue from Ads! ...


Is this a recent change? I did what ever you call filling out all my viewing info and supplying it back to Nielsen within the last year and I was OTA only. They had a bunch of rules for how to count stuff I watched via a DVR or streamed but they new up front I was OTA and didn't sub to a pay TV provider.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Is this a recent change? I did what ever you call filling out all my viewing info and supplying it back to Nielsen within the last year and I was OTA only. They had a bunch of rules for how to count stuff I watched via a DVR or streamed but they new up front I was OTA and didn't sub to a pay TV provider.


http://www.fiercecable.com/story/espn-touts-nielsens-revised-cord-cutting-data/2016-02-01

_*Bowing to what the New York Post called "client pressure," Nielsen removed broadband-only homes from its sample....*_

There are other stories as well if you want to search for it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/espn-touts-nielsens-revised-cord-cutting-data/2016-02-01
> 
> _*Bowing to what the New York Post called "client pressure," Nielsen removed broadband-only homes from its sample....*_
> 
> There are other stories as well if you want to search for it.


Interesting but are you sure "broadband-only homes" excludes OTA homes and isn't talking about streaming only homes?

What I also find interesting is this from the article:

"Nielsen removed broadband-only homes from its sample, and is now reporting that 1.2 million homes cut the cord in 2015. Earlier, the research company had reported 4.33 million homes lost for the pay-TV ecosystem."​
How does changing what homes you are sampling change the actual number of people who dropped Pay TV? (assuming that is what they mean when they say "cut the cord") and why does anyone need Nielsen to figure that out, don't the Pay TV providers report their numbers in their companies financial reports?

Something sounds fishy to me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/espn-touts-nielsens-revised-cord-cutting-data/2016-02-01 Bowing to what the New York Post called "client pressure," Nielsen removed broadband-only homes from its sample.... There are other stories as well if you want to search for it.


I don't interpret that article the same way you do but either way, it is an egregious decision by Nielsen. This means they massage data rather than being the source of real data. What is extremely disturbing is that the FCC uses Nielsen to determine neighboring markets among other official data.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Incorrect. 88.2% of the USA Households can watch ATSC 3.0 OTA Programming.
> 
> Those with MVPD subscriptions will not notice a difference between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0.
> 
> ...


This is so f'n stupid. There is no need for any ATSC if you are not broadcasting to antennas. I'm done with this. Let's get together in five years and see how things are going.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I don't interpret that article the same way you do but either way, it is an egregious decision by Nielsen. This means they massage data rather than being the source of real data. What is extremely disturbing is that the FCC uses Nielsen to determine neighboring markets among other official data.


That was just the first post in the search. I confirmed it through another Source /Nielsen Subscriber.

I found it strange as OTA Stations would have an overall advantage with no cable channels to compete with for eyeballs, but apparently cable channels demanded it as a level playing field for that reason.

And actually it would make no difference in anything the FCC uses it for.

For example, for a County to move from one market DMA to another would require the majority of the TV Viewers in that County to primarily watch programming from another DMA.

With 11.8% Average OTA, no way now a County will ever move to another DMA as cable/dbs would have the programming of the current DMA, so a new DMA would not have a prayer.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> That was just the first post in the search. I confirmed it through another Source /Nielsen Subscriber. I found it strange as OTA Stations would have an overall advantage with no cable channels to compete with for eyeballs, but apparently cable channels demanded it as a level playing field for that reason. And actually it would make no difference in anything the FCC uses it for. For example, for a County to move from one market DMA to another would require the majority of the TV Viewers in that County to primarily watch programming from another DMA. With 11.8% Average OTA, no way now a County will ever move to another DMA as cable/dbs would have the programming of the current DMA, so a new DMA would not have a prayer.


Sorry. I misspoke. I meant nearby significantly viewed not moving DMAs. That does not require a majority. Although Nielsen does not actually define what significantly viewed means, I do know that they include a DC station in my zip that is not on any cable or satellite system here, so they had to determine it from OTA.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> This is so f'n stupid. There is no need for any ATSC if you are not broadcasting to antennas. I'm done with this. Let's get together in five years and see how things are going.


They will continue to Broadcast to antennas.

Next you will saying to get rid of handicapped parking because less than 10% are handicapped - and empty most of the time.

Just because you forgot that 88.2% of Households get ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC from an MVPD in your claim that no one could receive ATSC 3.0, it just proves as I have maintained people are not looking at the big picture.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> Sorry. I misspoke. I meant nearby significantly viewed not moving DMAs. That does not require a majority. Although Nielsen does not actually define what significantly viewed means, I do know that they include a DC station in my zip that is not on any cable or satellite system here, so they had to determine it from OTA.


I should remember this for DC Baltimore but do you get the ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC Network Programming (like at 8pm) from both markets or just 1.

I know for example in Palm Springs, KNBC in Los Angeles is Significantly Viewed on cable, yet the signal is cut at 8pm when network programming is on, soi t must be watched on the local Palm Springs Affilliate.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I should remember this for DC Baltimore but do you get the ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC Network Programming (like at 8pm) from both markets or just 1. I know for example in Palm Springs, KNBC in Los Angeles is Significantly Viewed on cable, yet the signal is cut at 8pm when network programming is on, soi t must be watched on the local Palm Springs Affilliate.


I live in Columbia which is about 20 miles form the DC beltway and I am about 5 miles from the Baltimore beltway (straight line). Different parts of the area are different. Metro DC only has DC. The other side of Baltimore has less DC than I do in the SV list.

I get all of Baltimore plus ABC, CBS, NBC,Fox, Ion, PBS, and a couple of Spanish stations from DC on fios.

I live in a ground floor condo but can get CW and others with an indoor antenna. If I could put one at any height or outdoors, I'd get a lot more. But they don't really add programming so I don't try.

The channel I was thinking of is WDCA which was on cable systems here about 20 years ago. Nielsen still considered it SV for my zip as recently as last year when I checked. It was never on fios, directv or dish for my zip. It was taken off Comcast in the 1990s. It is one of the channels I can get with an indoor antenna.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I live in Columbia which is about 20 miles form the DC beltway and I am about 5 miles from the Baltimore beltway (straight line). Different parts of the area are different. Metro DC only has DC. The other side of Baltimore has less DC than I do in the SV list.
> 
> I get all of Baltimore plus ABC, CBS, NBC,Fox, Ion, PBS, and a couple of Spanish stations from DC on fios.
> 
> ...


The reality is Significantly Viewed does not really matter any longer.

As I pointed out in Palm Springs, KNBC (which isn't even really available OTA because of a major mountain range in the way) is licensed with the cable system for their programming that they produce (think local news etc) however, they are forced to blackout their Network Programming that a Palm Springs Affiliate is licensed for.

In reality, FiOS could sign an agreement with WABC, WCBS, WNYW and WNBC out of New York at your location in Maryland. HOWEVER, they would be forced to blackout the Network Programming/Syndication that is only licensed to those stations for the NY DMA so you would need to watch those on the local Affiliate.

Which is why significantly viewed does not have the impact as it once did.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The reality is Significantly Viewed does not really matter any longer. As I pointed out in Palm Springs, KNBC (which isn't even really available OTA because of a major mountain range in the way) is licensed with the cable system for their programming that they produce (think local news etc) however, they are forced to blackout their Network Programming that a Palm Springs Affiliate is licensed for. In reality, FiOS could sign an agreement with WABC, WCBS, WNYW and WNBC out of New York at your location in Maryland. HOWEVER, they would be forced to blackout the Network Programming/Syndication that is only licensed to those stations for the NY DMA so you would need to watch those on the local Affiliate. Which is why significantly viewed does not have the impact as it once did.


It does here.

SV does not allow for blackouts. Your New York example has nothing to do with SV. And I would think a mountain between markets means they are not SV. They are more like your New York example. In fact, that is why we don't get the old superstations that went small network. Most of their programming is duplicated and would have to be blacked out.

I grew up in NE Pa. They still bring in Philadelphia and New York stations and black out duplicated programming or switch in the local station. There is enough interest in news etc for them to do it. That is not SV either.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I live in Columbia which is about 20 miles form the DC beltway and I am about 5 miles from the Baltimore beltway (straight line). Different parts of the area are different. Metro DC only has DC. The other side of Baltimore has less DC than I do in the SV list.
> 
> I get all of Baltimore plus ABC, CBS, NBC,Fox, Ion, PBS, and a couple of Spanish stations from DC on fios.
> 
> ...


The significantly viewed list for Howard County is:

WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD
WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD
WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD
+WNUV, 54, Baltimore, MD
WRC-TV, 4, Washington, DC
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC
WJLA-TV, 7, Washington, DC (formerly WMAL)
WUSA, 9, Washington, DC (formerly WTOP)
WDCA, 20, Washington, DC

The only station added since the original 1972 list is WNUV (thus the +)

If calls have been changed since the original 1972 list, they are in ( ).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The significantly viewed list for Howard County is:
> 
> WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD
> WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD
> ...


Looks familiar.

I am in the Baltimore DMA so add WBFF 45 and WUTB 24. WNUV started as a pay channel with movies and Oriole games in 1979 or 1980.

WDCA is the channel I referred to. It is not on cable systems so they must be judging it from OTA.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> Looks familiar.
> 
> I am in the Baltimore DMA so add WBFF 45 and WUTB 24. WNUV started as a pay channel with movies and Oriole games in 1979 or 1980.
> 
> WDCA is the channel I referred to. It is not on cable systems so they must be judging it from OTA.


No, those are the ONLY SV for Howard County. WBFF and WUTB are not on the list.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No, those are the ONLY SV for Howard County. WBFF and WUTB are not on the list.


That's because SV is for out of market. WBFF and WUTB are in market.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> That's because SV is for out of market. WBFF and WUTB are in market.


If you believe that to be true, why are:

WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD
WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD
WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD
+WNUV, 54, Baltimore, MD

All from Baltimore on the SV list?

Either All Baltimore is in-market or All Baltimore is out of market.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you believe that to be true, why are: WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD +WNUV, 54, Baltimore, MD All from Baltimore on the SV list? Either All Baltimore is in-market or All Baltimore is out of market.


I couldn't tell you. It makes no sense but I know historically cable systems in western Howard county had more DC stations. I think that doesn't exist any more since Comcast bought up all the systems.

The SV list is supposed to be used only for out of market. Perhaps they just have a cutoff and list the channels but if they are in market they don't matter. I haven't found a good explanation.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I couldn't tell you. It makes no sense but I know historically cable systems in western Howard county had more DC stations. I think that doesn't exist any more since Comcast bought up all the systems.
> 
> The SV list is supposed to be used only for out of market. Perhaps they just have a cutoff and list the channels but if they are in market they don't matter. I haven't found a good explanation.


Again, any stations added since 1972 have a + and only 1 station has been added.

If you look at the most recent 2015 FCC SV list, you will find the main stations in EVERY Metro in the SV list for that County, so it DOES NOT JUST CONTAIN out of Market Station.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, any stations added since 1972 have a + and only 1 station has been added. If you look at the most recent 2015 FCC SV list, you will find the main stations in EVERY Metro in the SV list for that County, so it DOES NOT JUST CONTAIN out of Market Station.


I never said it did. I said it is significant for out of market SV because it allows them to be included without blackout.

Also what is significant is that WDCA which is on NO cable or satellite system in Howard County is listed which means Nielsen is not ignoring OTA which you claimed earlier.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/broadcasters-petition-fcc-atsc-30-rollout/155504


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

So, wait, voluntary, market based roll-out? And they want to simulcast so there is no interruption of service to ATSC 1.0 viewers? Symbiotic?



> "Second, we ask the Commission to approve certain rule changes to permit local simulcasting to *enable Next generation TV to be deployed while ensuring that broadcasts in the current DTV standard remain available to viewers*.


How about that?


----------



## jeff_rigby (Apr 30, 2016)

Supporting the first two pages of this thread:

The FCC is considering using STBs to accelerate the adoption of ATSC 3; you think someone has a plan? PS4, XB1 as UHD Blu-ray with digital bridge can be those STBs when connected to a Vidipath network Antenna TV Tuner.

*Vidipath from Cable TV DVRs with tuners* and after Cable Moves to all IPTV from a Cable Modem without DVR or Tuner using a Downloadable Security scheme & Sony Passage (1.8 years)
*Vidipath from Antenna TV tuners *(May optionally include Hard disk for DVR) = Sony Nasne
*Vidipath from UHD Blu-ray Digital bridge* (Has mandated Hard Disk can support DVR) = PS4 & XB1

*LG Demos ATSC 1 & 3.0 Wireless Network Antenna. Delivers TV via IPTV over WiFi 
*
*Any UHD Blu-ray player that supports the Digital bridge that Sony proposals wanted to MANDATE, can support being a STB for ATSC 3 able to downscale for 1080P TVs. * It would need a network to IPTV tuner as would every other 4K TV on the market till they are included internally. Fortunately there is a standard for that called Vidipath using Playready ND that is also in Sony proposals for the Digital bridge.

Microsoft mentions Game consoles using Playready ND (Vidipath DTCP-IP DRM for in home Streaming of 1080P and 4K) for Game consoles of DVR and Live content and both the XB1 and PS4 (from 2013) are listed in Official papers as UHD Capable and will be UHD blu-ray players after (Jan 2016 mentioned in a April 2015 paper) firmware update. UHD Capable is all that is mentioned but it includes all UHD media delivery schemes because they all use the same Open source delivery software stack. Only the DRM on Disk for Blu-ray differs (AACS 2 & BD+ which are slighty changed from what is in HD Blu-ray except for the requirement that they run in the same TEE the UHD media DRM requires. Modern HD Blu-ray drives can be firmware updated to support Version 2 disks (33 GB/layer) and all blu-ray players can read 3 layers[/URL].

There is a BDA Licence for UHD Blu-ray game consoles and Sony has a License for a BD-ROM4 Movie Player/BD-ROM Game Console/BD-ROM Test Player and a License for a UHD Blu-ray PC application.[/URL].

Key is understanding that UHD in all it's forms and Vidipath use the same open source standards >> HTML5 and a UHD TV display is a web page. ALL UHD including TV supports DRM via HTML5 MSE EME standard and a common DRM chosen for Vidipath is Playready.

Note: I have all this sourced with links to proof but as I am a new poster I can't link the proofs which is the reverse of what I would think as Junior posters should have to prove every statement.

We can work around this with Google searches and I can provide the key words but it's a little clumsy. Search for NeoGAF 4K blu-ray player

Sony's getTV Signs Major Affiliation Deal With Sinclair Broadcast Group which was mentioned in the first two pages as a group that will push ATSC 3 as will Sony in their TVs.

Timetable as I see it.

*October 2016*
UHD Blu-ray
Vidipath for UHD Blu-ray digital bridge and/or Cable TV

*Quarter 1 2017*
ATSC 1 & 3 Vidipath Antenna TV tuners

*Q3 2017 at the earliest* 
ATSC 3 in selected markets. Korea wants to broadcast the Olympics Feb 2018 using ATSC 3 (Assumes significant infrastructure so do so)


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

It looks like the Broadcasters are moving in the direction of using 1080p HDR broadcasts instead as it will save a lot of money as they can use the equipment they currently have. They are more focused on HDR with HD and not 4k.
Fox Exec Bullish on HDR, CBS VP Says Network "Hasn't Made Any Decision Yet"


> Hollywood has started to produce some high dynamic range (HDR) motion pictures and home entertainment. And at January's CES, all of the major set makers showed TVs with HDR capabilities and touted its potential. But what do the broadcasters think?
> 
> Speaking Wednesday at the Hollywood Professional Association (formerly Hollywood Post Alliance) Tech Retreat in Palm Springs, a panel of broadcasters expressed strong interest in HDR - meaning a wider range between the whitest whites and blackest blacks - though not all have specific plans to deliver this feature.
> 
> ...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Jed1 said:


> It looks like the Broadcasters are moving in the direction of using 1080p HDR broadcasts instead as it will save a lot of money as they can use the equipment they currently have. They are more focused on HDR with HD and not 4k.
> Fox Exec Bullish on HDR, CBS VP Says Network "Hasn't Made Any Decision Yet"


Honestly, I think that would be much better. A full 1080p HDR stream with low compression would be better than some over-compressed 4k stream crammed into the available channel space. They can always upgrade to 4k later, or do a 4k stream for special events like the Super Bowl or the Olympics.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Why aren't they broadcasting in 1080P now ? Do they have to use ATSC 3.0 to broadcast it ?


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

jth tv said:


> Why aren't they broadcasting in 1080P now ? Do they have to use ATSC 3.0 to broadcast it ?


The current configuration does not have the bandwidth to pass 1080p right now. The standard 8VSB modulated 6Mhz channel using MPEG2 can only pass 19.4mbps. As stated with the new standard they will be able to do 1080p and HDR and also have some sub channels. You also have to remember that UHD is something the TV manufacturers came up with.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I don't think ATSC 3.0 is going to be adopted quickly. It will be many years before we see widespread adoption, as there just isn't enough spectrum to broadcast full ATSC 3.0 channels alongside ATSC 1.0 channels in a lot of markets. Broadcasters make money through ads and retrans fees, and ATSC 3.0 goes against both of those business models. They need to reach the widest possible audience, especially OTA, so they won't want to cut off or significantly degrade ATSC 1.0 transmissions (like shared SD transmitters) in order to to go ATSC 3.0, as that will lose them the eyeballs that see the ads.

In terms of retransmission fees, they don't want to spend a bunch of dough to offer a superior signal OTA, when they are making a lot of money off of retrans fees. In terms of pay tv, DISH doesn't have the bandwidth, DirecTV can't put up 205 markets of 4k TV stations, they might be able to do 10 on the RB without spots, but that would serve 25% of the households in the country, and would introduce a lot of problems in terms of SV locals where the SV is 4k and the local market isn't. Cable companies might be able to do 4k 5 or 10 years down the line when they convert a lot of stuff to IP, but right now, they could probably only put a handful of channels up in 4k, if any at all.

If we do see ATSC 3.0 stations pop up, I think they will largely offer the same service that the main transmitter offers, maybe 1080p, plus a bunch of additional subchannels, or put multiple stations on the same bandwidth using HD resolution and H.265 encoding in order to eventually bring costs down and coverage up for the broadcasters. 1080p would be a huge upgrade for ABC and FOX, not so much for NBC and CBS. That being said, if FOX and ABC are looking for a PQ upgrade they would do best to switch to 1080i, but I'm not sure how entrenched they are with 720p equipment that would have to be replaced.

Considering all the factors, I don't see ATSC 1.0 going anywhere for a very, very long time. As cord cutting happens, and a lot of people are cost conscious, whether out of necessity, choice, or because they just aren't that interested in TV, the broadcasters need the lowest barrier to entry for households looking to tune into some network programming.



Diana Collins said:


> The biggest effect the migration to ATSC 3.0 (at least as you have described it here) may well be stemming the tide of "cord-cutting" and/or accelerating the delivery of all content via IP based services.


I know that ATSC 3.0 was designed to be compatible with IP-based distribution, but if the broadcaster is just interested in streaming, why do they need ATSC 3.0? It is primarily a broadcast standard, and if they want to do streaming, they could do streaming totally independently of what they are broadcasting. I think the big issue for just throwing a channel's broadcast up via streaming would be getting the rights to streaming, and that they want retransmission fees, so they'd be more likely to leave it to OTT services like PS Vue or SlingTV.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Incorrect. 88.2% of the USA Households can watch ATSC 3.0 OTA Programming.
> 
> Those with MVPD subscriptions will not notice a difference between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0.


That is completely illogical. There is no law saying that the best quality signal has to be OTA. If cable companies at some point in the future have the bandwidth for 4k, then the local broadcasters could send them 4k via fiber and continue broadcasting 1080i via ATSC 1.0. Many cable companies already have fiber feeds, so the broadcast system is for people receiving via broadcast.

I don't think we'll see networks going to 4k because of the costs involved, and lack of distribution medium. They have invested heavily in HD, and don't really want to do a whole new round of upgrades. As it is, they don't seem terribly interested in maximizing picture quality, as Fox and ABC could convert to 1080i, and all the networks could dump the subchannels if they were really that interested in PQ, but they aren't.

If ATSC 3.0 succeeds, we're going to see way more subchannels alongside probably better PQ, but not 4k.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm a little more bullish on ATSC 3.0 adoption, although I do think it will be several years before more hours of OTA TV are viewed via 3.0 than 1.0 signals. Broadcasters (Sinclair particularly) seem pretty enthused about 3.0 and the new business opportunities it will offer them via targeted ads, pay services, seamless integration with the internet, better and easier reception (hopefully), and the ability to reach mobile screens. I think broadcasters know they face a chicken-and-egg scenario, so they will have to begin broadcasting in 3.0 even when very few viewers can tune in, advertising it as a better experience for the public so that they will willingly upgrade their tuners. (And I expect pretty much all name-brand TVs to have a dual 3.0/1.0 tuner built in with HEVC-decoding capabilities by 2019. We'll probably see at least some sets boasting that feature next year.)

ATSC 3.0 signals will have to be better than 1.0, otherwise no one will bother with it, and broadcasters have to know this. Perhaps high-quality 1080p (i.e. Netflix/Amazon quality) will become the new baseline for stations' main channels, although I think most people (including the FCC -- see the chairman's remarks on Thur.) will expect at least some shows to be in UHD. (I'll be surprised if both the Super Bowl and the Olympics in 2020 aren't broadcast in UHD.)

Frequency sharing will have to happen in a lot of markets during the long multi-year transition from 1.0 to 3.0 as stations broadcast in both standards. I don't see how many markets avoid losing at least a few SD subchannels on the 1.0 dial, although stations will try not to cut too many because that means fewer ad dollars on the 1.0 side, where the majority of viewers will be for quite some time. I imagine we'll also see a reduction in picture quality across the board too, although perhaps it won't be too bad for those stations that upgrade to the final generation of ATSC 1.0 MPEG-2 encoders. In the case of two stations partnering together, I would imagine the 1.0 tower would offer one 720p and one 480i channel from each station. There should be plenty of bandwidth for a mix of 1080p, 720p and/or SD channels from each on the 3.0 tower, although I don't know if both could broadcast in 2160p UHD at the same time. One 2160p channel and one 1080p channel may be all that could be simultaneously broadcast. That said, there are tricks that ATSC 3.0 allows so that the video signal can be encoded into different component layers, so the main tower could beam out a 1080p signal while a complementary UHD "upgrade" signal could possibly be streamed to viewers over broadband or maybe from a separate low-power tower. (Low power stations will prove to be a key part of the ATSC 3.0 puzzle, both in helping to fill in coverage gaps and also in offering additional bandwidth.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> It looks like the Broadcasters are moving in the direction of using 1080p HDR broadcasts instead as it will save a lot of money as they can use the equipment they currently have. They are more focused on HDR with HD and not 4k.
> Fox Exec Bullish on HDR, CBS VP Says Network "Hasn't Made Any Decision Yet"


To go along with the article linked to in Jed1's post there is this:
Dolby Vision software promises HDR on more of your devices
Seems many older devices will now be able to get Dolby Vision HDR via a software upgrade.

Would be nice if TiVo moved to support HDR on the Bolt's. They supposedly can already do HDR 10 with a software upgrade and now it appears they could also be upgraded to support Dolby Vision HDR via a software upgrade.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> It looks like the Broadcasters are moving in the direction of using 1080p HDR broadcasts instead as it will save a lot of money as they can use the equipment they currently have. They are more focused on HDR with HD and not 4k.
> Fox Exec Bullish on HDR, CBS VP Says Network "Hasn't Made Any Decision Yet"


Sounds like a great choice!!


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

But the trend seems to be to delete tuners from newer sets.

Think of how that simplifies things for the manufacturer.

The large Vizio's 4K "television" prominently on display as I enter my local Costco is a tunerless "UHD Smart Display."



NashGuy said:


> I'm a little more bullish on ATSC 3.0 adoption...(I expect pretty much all name-brand TVs to have a dual 3.0/1.0 tuner built in with HEVC-decoding capabilities by 2019. We'll probably see at least some sets boasting that feature next year.)


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

ncbill said:


> But the trend seems to be to delete tuners from newer sets.
> 
> Think of how that simplifies things for the manufacturer.
> 
> The large Vizio's 4K "television" prominently on display as I enter my local Costco is a tunerless "UHD Smart Display."


So it's useless for OTA?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

RoamioJeff said:


> So it's useless for OTA?


You just have to get an external tuner box, or use a TiVo Roamio OTA or similar. But no, there's no NTSC/ATSC tuner built-in. It's also partly to due with import tariffs or something, because a PC display is taxed differently than a TV. The Vizio is considered a "display", if it had a tuner it would be a "TV", simply because it can tune/demodulate ATSC-8VSB, NTSC, and ATSC-QAM. On the one hand, most TVs are used only as displays these days, as most MSOs are all-digital, so the tuners are largely redundant anyway, but at the same time, I have used TV tuners several times, once as a backup for cable after a storm to get a local news station when cable was days away from being fixed, and now for analog NTSC channels on my local overbuilder, which still has a few analog channels that my TiVo can't pick up (most have HD versions, but a couple don't).

The other major change on these "displays" is that they use the Chromecast system for their smarts, and, in some cases, don't have traditional remotes. I don't like Chromecast as a movie/TV show watching system, and I like having a physical remote. However, I also detest my Samsung's built-in apps, so I guess Chromecast is more useful than those. I use a Roku for my streaming due to the easy to use remote, and I have a Chromecast Ultra which I use for YouTube and screen mirroring from time to time.

In a way, it is sort of backwards to call it purely a "display" when it has Chromecast built in, to me a display is like a computer monitor, in that it has no intelligence or tuner, and everything is done externally. That's basically how I use my TV, as I rarely use the internal TV tuner (it wasn't hooked up when I had Comcast), I no longer use the internal apps, and I don't even use the speakers. 99% of the time, it truly is a dump display to me.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ncbill said:


> But the trend seems to be to delete tuners from newer sets.
> 
> Think of how that simplifies things for the manufacturer.
> 
> The large Vizio's 4K "television" prominently on display as I enter my local Costco is a tunerless "UHD Smart Display."


I wished they did this with TVs over twenty years ago. I've rarely had a need to use the tuner in the TVs since I started using VCRs in the 80's. Because it meant watching TV in real time.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

The market driven, less expensive approach sounds pretty good. Early adopters with money to burn can keep up with the joneses while most can wait until the price comes down. Sounds good.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I wished they did this with TVs over twenty years ago. I've rarely had a need to use the tuner in the TVs since I started using VCRs in the 80's. Because it meant watching TV in real time.


Twenty years ago cable did not have the penetration it has today, so it would not have made sense to have two models of TVs one with a tuner one without, today with streaming, cable, etc. making a TV without any tuners does make some sense, although the added cost of a built in tuner is not that much money today, as it was when tuners were mechanical.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

lessd said:


> Twenty years ago cable did not have the penetration it has today, so it would not have made sense to have two models of TVs one with a tuner one without, today with streaming, cable, etc. making a TV without any tuners does make some sense, although the added cost of a built in tuner is not that much money today, as it was when tuners were mechanical.


And maybe good to have, as a back-up?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Twenty years ago cable did not have the penetration it has today, so it would not have made sense to have two models of TVs one with a tuner one without, today with streaming, cable, etc. making a TV without any tuners does make some sense, although the added cost of a built in tuner is not that much money today, as it was when tuners were mechanical.


I'm not positive, but I think the import tariff difference on a TV vs a display is more than the cost of the tuner hardware itself.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> The current configuration does not have the bandwidth to pass 1080p right now. The standard 8VSB modulated 6Mhz channel using MPEG2 can only pass 19.4mbps. As stated with the new standard they will be able to do 1080p and HDR and also have some sub channels. You also have to remember that UHD is something the TV manufacturers came up with.


There was actually an addendum to the original ATSC 1.0 spec that allowed for 1080p 60 using H.264 encoding. It was approved in 2009 but it was never picked up by the broadcasters.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What I want to know is why ABC and FOX haven't switched to 1080i? It's a clearer, betting looking picture in the era of large 1080p flat panel TVs. Would have they have replace their entire production pipeline with new equipment to handle it, or would it be relatively simple to implement? What format is their product done in today? What about transmission to affiliate stations? Are ABC stations that use 1080i taking a 720p master network feed and scaling it, or are they getting the feed in 1080i or 1080p?

We're sitting here talking about 4k broadcasts, and the biggest improvement could be done today, on ATSC 1.0 with 1080i and good bitrates. It's clearly not 4k quality, but my local NBC looks pretty darn amazing with 1080i broadcasts.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There is still a belief out there that progressive video, even at lower resolution, is better for sports.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Bigg said:


> We're sitting here talking about 4k broadcasts, and the biggest improvement could be done today, on ATSC 1.0 with 1080i and good bitrates. It's clearly not 4k quality, but my local NBC looks pretty darn amazing with 1080i broadcasts.


My NBC and CBS stations looked great also. Then they added two sub-channels. Now, not so much. Your station has two sub-channels. I used to get over 18Mbps, now it's down to 15Mbps. But ABC is half that.


----------



## formulaben (Jan 27, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> There is still a belief out there that progressive video, even at lower resolution, is better for sports.


Well, there may be other issues involved but as far as *my* eyeballs on *my* Tivo with *my* provider...it ain't no "belief." It's a fact.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

So for you 720p is better then 1080i? 

I don't watch sports, so I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, but I have seen a few football games in both formats and to me, on my equipment, the 1080i looks better. But I tend to focus more on overall detail then motion artifacts, so it's possible someone with the opposite priorities could see things differently.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> So for you 720p is better then 1080i?
> 
> I don't watch sports, so I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, but I have seen a few football games in both formats and to me, on my equipment, the 1080i looks better. But I tend to focus more on overall detail then motion artifacts, so it's possible someone with the opposite priorities could see things differently.


I am not a big sports person either, but from what I have watched on my plasma there is no motion issues on either 1080i or 720p stations. At one time when there were no sub channels both Fox 720p and CBS 1080i where both excellent pictures, now they are both degraded with CBS having 3 subs and Fox 2 of course they are both still better than ABC (720p) that share a frequency with CW (720p) and another SD channel, NBC & PBS have also always had sub channels but look better than ABC & CW ever have.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> ... on my equipment ....


That does matter. What you feed a TV is less important than how the TV handles that content. The more expensive the TV, the more features it will have to mess up a good picture.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> We're sitting here talking about 4k broadcasts, and the biggest improvement could be done today, on ATSC 1.0 with 1080i and good bitrates. It's clearly not 4k quality, but my local NBC looks pretty darn amazing with 1080i broadcasts.


That's how I feel about my local CBS station with 1080i MPEG2 at about 15 Mbps. It should be a pretty easy matter for every station's main feed to look even better using 1080p HEVC at, say, 5 Mbps. Hopefully we'll see that kind of quality once ATSC 3.0 gets off the ground when they're not airing UHD 2160p. I imagine it would take several years before UHD becomes the norm for content from the major broadcast nets.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> There is still a belief out there that progressive video, even at lower resolution, is better for sports.


Right, even though it is largely not true. The only case where it would be is for people with lousy de-interlacers. I think bitrate is more important, I'd rather watch a nice 720p feed than a bit-starved 1080i feed, but if you take two feed with decent bitrates and compare them, the 1080i feed will look better.



JoeKustra said:


> My NBC and CBS stations looked great also. Then they added two sub-channels. Now, not so much. Your station has two sub-channels. I used to get over 18Mbps, now it's down to 15Mbps. But ABC is half that.


Yes, WVIT-DT has two subchannels, but their main feed, which is around 12mbps, looks pretty darn good. Obviously more bitrate would be good, but it's not deficient by any means. WTIC-DT broadcasts at around 13mbps on their main channel, which looks great for 720p. I believe both use a stat mux for their main channel and subchannels. WEDH-DT (PBS) has a problem where their encoder is giving too much bitrate to one of the subchannels, so they only give about 9mbps to their main channel, and it struggles a lot in motion scenes. Not sure about ABC and CBS, as I can't pick them up right now.

I would much rather have no subchannels and give the full 19.3mbps to the main feed, but if we have to have subchannels, I wish they would limit them to two subchannels (we have one local ION station with 5 I think) and set their stat mux to really crush the subchannels hard, and leave 13mbps or more for the main channel.

For comparison, before the MPEG-4 disaster, Comcast was using 9mbps CBR for most of their MPEG-2, which to me is bit starved, but not horrendous. Their MPEG-4 is horrendous.


----------



## formulaben (Jan 27, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> So for you 720p is better then 1080i?
> 
> I don't watch sports, so I don't have a lot of first hand knowledge, but I have seen a few football games in both formats and to me, on my equipment, the 1080i looks better. But I tend to focus more on overall detail then motion artifacts, so it's possible someone with the opposite priorities could see things differently.


For some reason, the CBS feed is horrible for me. I've seen it elsewhere too. When the "scene" is more stagnant, it looks good but as soon as the action starts it all goes to heck. But again, YMMV.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

formulaben said:


> For some reason, the CBS feed is horrible for me. I've seen it elsewhere too. When the "scene" is more stagnant, it looks good but as soon as the action starts it all goes to heck. But again, YMMV.


Easy test. Record one hour of CBS. In my shows, highlight the program, move right, then hit Info. Scroll down to the end and post the file size. BTW, the length isn't that important, but post the length if it's not 60 minutes. May I ask the call letters?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Audio bitrate is negligable so you can roughly calculate video bitrate by using this formula

(SizeInBytes/LengthInSeconds)*8 = BitsPerSecond


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> There was actually an addendum to the original ATSC 1.0 spec that allowed for 1080p 60 using H.264 encoding. It was approved in 2009 but it was never picked up by the broadcasters.


I always thought it would have been better if the US waited 5 or more years to start the roll out of digital TV. H264 standards were finalized in 2003 and if the industry waited until the delayed shutdown of analog OTA signals to roll out the CableCard, I believe it would have been extremely successful.
J6P was not interested in HDTV at that time and was still satisfied with their analog sets as they still worked. The general population actually misse3d the CableCard since they only started widespread adoption of digital TVs in 2009. By that time the TV industry gave up on CableCard as there was very little interest in them. Also if we would have waited MPEG 4 coulkd have been used as the standard compression method used instead of MPEG2.

I am glad now though that the broadcasters have at least committed to looking at 1080p HDR as now we have a direction to move in when making electronic purchases. I hope the TV manufacturers will start to roll out 1080p HDR TVs now instead of UHD. I never had any faith in UHD to begin with as that was something the TV makers came up with to sell more TVs or more realistically to sell TVs to those who have already bought new TVs. I really don't see UHD becoming any type of standard since the increased pixel resolution is not really that significant improvement over HD. It is HDR and the wide color gamut that is the big improvement and that will work fine with 1080.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> I always thought it would have been better if the US waited 5 or more years to start the roll out of digital TV. H264 standards were finalized in 2003 and if the industry waited until the delayed shutdown of analog OTA signals to roll out the CableCard, I believe it would have been extremely successful.
> J6P was not interested in HDTV at that time and was still satisfied with their analog sets as they still worked. The general population actually misse3d the CableCard since they only started widespread adoption of digital TVs in 2009. By that time the TV industry gave up on CableCard as there was very little interest in them. Also if we would have waited MPEG 4 coulkd have been used as the standard compression method used instead of MPEG2.


I don't think delaying CableCard or changing the method of allowing you to bring your own box would have changed much. People just aren't interested in buying their own DVRs in large enough numbers to make a good market for these devices. It's too bad that we didn't get a new standard based on IP transport with gateways, although in some ways, it would have been too late anyway, as the pay tv market is crumbling.



> I am glad now though that the broadcasters have at least committed to looking at 1080p HDR as now we have a direction to move in when making electronic purchases. I hope the TV manufacturers will start to roll out 1080p HDR TVs now instead of UHD. I never had any faith in UHD to begin with as that was something the TV makers came up with to sell more TVs or more realistically to sell TVs to those who have already bought new TVs. I really don't see UHD becoming any type of standard since the increased pixel resolution is not really that significant improvement over HD. It is HDR and the wide color gamut that is the big improvement and that will work fine with 1080.


1080p HDR is never going to catch on as a standard for displays. The displays that are HDR capable will be UHD displays, and they will upscale 1080p HDR if anyone actually broadcasts it widely. A lot of people are saying HDR adds more to the experience than 4k, I disagree, I love 4k without HDR, and HDR is just icing on the cake to me, but to each their own. 4k is here, and it's here to stay. Netflix in 4k looks stunning, UHD BD in 4k looks even more amazingly stunning, and even if we don't see much linear content available in 4k, there is still a veritable plethora of amazing 4k content out there. I personally hope that we do see some linear channels go up, since DirecTV has the bandwidth sitting there idle for 50 4k channels, and the HS17-100 can handle multiple 4k clients.

The good part for display technology here is the a 4k HDR display can handle 1080i, 720p, 1080p, 1080p HDR, 4k, and 4k HDR equally as well, so we don't have to pick and choose, we can get the best that any given source is willing to feed us. For OTA TV, I'm perfectly happy with ATSC 1.0 and MPEG-2, and I think it will serve our needs well into the future. That being said, if stations that I actually watch in my local market offer better noticeably better PQ (not just HDR) via ATSC 3.0, then I'll evaluate my ATSC 3.0 DVR options at that point. All that being said, I see zero reason for broadcasters to go to ATSC 3.0 unless they broadcast in 4k, as I don't think 1080p HDR is any improvement over 1080i MPEG-2, as long as the 1080i MPEG-2 isn't too bit starved, but they'll do what they feel like doing, when they feel like doing it.

Based on my discussions with Comcast and their testing, I don't believe that there is any market for enhanced picture quality broadcasts. Most people can't tell the difference between anything and anything else, so the quality of the current ATSC 1.0 broadcasts are more than good enough for the vast majority of viewers. I believe that if anything, ATSC 3.0 will be used to offer a veritable plethora of subchannels or multiple HD channels in order to drive up ad revenue or drive down costs. If they really can get 36mbps on one transmitter with OFDM, and can use HEVC, they could put the equivalent of 8 of today's stations, including subchannels, on a single transmitter, or put up to 12 HD feeds on a single transmitter. With stat muxing, that number could even be higher.


----------



## formulaben (Jan 27, 2003)

JoeKustra said:


> Easy test. Record one hour of CBS. In my shows, highlight the program, move right, then hit Info. Scroll down to the end and post the file size. BTW, the length isn't that important, but post the length if it's not 60 minutes. May I ask the call letters?


I'll do that. It's KBOI.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Most people can't tell the difference between anything and anything else


Maybe they can tell, but the difference in HD's is not worth that much to them/me. Style, technique and how a show is lighted makes as big or maybe even a bigger difference than resolution.

If someone made ATSC 3.0 version of the Mediasonic Homeworx for less than $100, I'd buy one as soon as one TV station started broadcasting in ATSC 3.0. More than $100 though, probably not.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Most people can't tell the difference between anything and anything else


This is true. I am silently shocked at how often I visit people and see them watching SD versions of channels, with a distorted aspect ratio, in torch mode, and it is all fine and normal for them.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Interesting article on the ATSC 3.0 rollout here. As I suspected, looks like 1080p with HDR will be the main broadcast format on the new system for quite awhile. Hopefully it won't be too many years before we see lots of primetime network series in UHD, as I see a bigger improvement between HD and UHD than between SDR and HDR, although most industry pundits argue the opposite.
HPA Tech Retreat: Broadcasters Look Ahead to ATSC 3.0 Transition - Studio Daily


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I don't think delaying CableCard or changing the method of allowing you to bring your own box would have changed much. People just aren't interested in buying their own DVRs in large enough numbers to make a good market for these devices. It's too bad that we didn't get a new standard based on IP transport with gateways, although in some ways, it would have been too late anyway, as the pay tv market is crumbling.
> 
> 1080p HDR is never going to catch on as a standard for displays. The displays that are HDR capable will be UHD displays, and they will upscale 1080p HDR if anyone actually broadcasts it widely. A lot of people are saying HDR adds more to the experience than 4k, I disagree, I love 4k without HDR, and HDR is just icing on the cake to me, but to each their own. 4k is here, and it's here to stay. Netflix in 4k looks stunning, UHD BD in 4k looks even more amazingly stunning, and even if we don't see much linear content available in 4k, there is still a veritable plethora of amazing 4k content out there. I personally hope that we do see some linear channels go up, since DirecTV has the bandwidth sitting there idle for 50 4k channels, and the HS17-100 can handle multiple 4k clients.
> 
> ...


You just hit the crux of all the problems when it comes to video quality today. People are just plain satisfied with SD as it is the cheapest alternative. Most people will not pay extra for HD and definitely will not pay a ultra premium price for UHD. The DVD redbox at my local supermarket is always out of DVDs. The few Bluray titles never rent out. My local Walmart is now back to 90% DVDs and they even have to giant DVD grab bins.
I had a person who bought a 2015 Vizio M50 last year and kept telling everybody in town that my cable companies video feed was to slow. When I went to look at it he had the one free box, Motorola DCT1700 digital to analog converter box, hooked to the coax input on the UHD TV and tuned to channel 3. Of course it will look like crap but he then refused to pay the $4.95/month for the HD box, Pace RNG110, so he ended up with a DTA box which is no different than what he had.
If TiVo were $50 with lifetime at Walmart and were plug and play, everybody would have one. Nobody is going to pay $500 to $1000 for a cable box.
Also this is why I say UHD has already failed as people will just refuse to pay any extra price for it. So if it is not free or cheap then the format will go nowhere and eventually fail as the studios, who are also the broadcasters, will stop producing the discs and content.
Same with streaming most people I know only have Netflix because they are sharing some family members account. If Netflix forces everybody to get their own account most will drop the service. Streaming will have to free or godly cheap in order for the masses to accept it. And if the content owners lose money on sat/cable subs then they will just make it up on the streaming content. Consumer will not win this game. The content owners rule the day no matter the delivery system.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Based on my discussions with Comcast and their testing, I don't believe that there is any market for enhanced picture quality broadcasts. Most people can't tell the difference between anything and anything else, so the quality of the current ATSC 1.0 broadcasts are more than good enough for the vast majority of viewers.


I see your point but it's not simply about what people can tell with their eyes. For many, it's about what marketers and the press tell them is "better" or "the latest technology". The current adoption rate of UHD TVs in the US is outpacing that of HD TVs from several years ago and consumers now know to look for "HDR" as the new marketing buzzword. So if broadcasters can boast that they offer UHD and/or HDR content that makes use of those advanced features on new TVs, it will influence consumers, at least to some extent. I imagine ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will advertise other features besides just better PQ to drive adoption too, though, particularly integrated on-demand streaming, as is common on the UK's Freeview TV system.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I see your point but it's not simply about what people can tell with their eyes. For many, it's about what marketers and the press tell them is "better" or "the latest technology". The current adoption rate of UHD TVs in the US is outpacing that of HD TVs from several years ago and consumers now know to look for "HDR" as the new marketing buzzword. So if broadcasters can boast that they offer UHD and/or HDR content that makes use of those advanced features on new TVs, it will influence consumers, at least to some extent. I imagine ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will advertise other features besides just better PQ to drive adoption too, though, particularly integrated on-demand streaming, as is common on the UK's Freeview TV system.


That is a scam by the CE manufacturers as there really is no HD set available to purchase. Even at Walmart, most TV are UHD so the industry can claim this big uptake of UHD TVs. People are not buying TV because of UHD but because their current one broke and needs to be replaced and UHD TVs are their only choice. I hear absolutely nobody talking about HDR except on tech forums and we only represent less than 1% of the population.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Does someone know what the HPA Tech Retreat article means by this - "Everything above channel 36 is no longer TV" ?

Currently here CBS is RF 43, Ion is 38, PBS is 48. That's just the majors.... Are they going to be able to squish them in ?


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

jth tv said:


> Does someone know what the HPA Tech Retreat article means by this - "Everything above channel 36 is no longer TV" ?
> 
> Currently here CBS is RF 43, Ion is 38, PBS is 48. That's just the majors.... Are they going to be able to squish them in ?


That part of the TV spectrum has been sold to wireless operators for those dumb cell phones that are permanently connected to people hands. The OTA broadcaster will have to move their signals into a smaller frequency spectrum if they want to continue using the public airwaves. The FCC will also pay them money if they decide to give up their OTA signals. My local PBS affiliate made a deal with my local ABC affiliate to share their spectrum so now I will have two HD channels on one 6Mhz frequency. Picture quality will go to hell as between both they have 7 SD channels on top of their HD channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Jed1 said:


> That is a scam by the CE manufacturers as there really is no HD set available to purchase. Even at Walmart, most TV are UHD so the industry can claim this big uptake of UHD TVs. People are not buying TV because of UHD but because their current one broke and needs to be replaced and UHD TVs are their only choice. I hear absolutely nobody talking about HDR except on tech forums and we only represent less than 1% of the population.


A "scam"? Ha! You sound like someone who enjoys a good conspiracy theory. (And, btw, there are plenty of 1080p and 720p TVs still available, especially below 50 inches. Just check Walmart, Target, BestBuy and Amazon.)


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> A "scam"? Ha! You sound like someone who enjoys a good conspiracy theory. (And, btw, there are plenty of 1080p and 720p TVs still available, especially below 50 inches. Just check Walmart, Target, BestBuy and Amazon.)


Can you point me to a 1080p Ultra HDR Premium TV at 40" or below? I'm in the market and don't want UHD/4k.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> You just hit the crux of all the problems when it comes to video quality today. People are just plain satisfied with SD as it is the cheapest alternative. Most people will not pay extra for HD and definitely will not pay a ultra premium price for UHD. The DVD redbox at my local supermarket is always out of DVDs. The few Bluray titles never rent out. My local Walmart is now back to 90% DVDs and they even have to giant DVD grab bins.
> I had a person who bought a 2015 Vizio M50 last year and kept telling everybody in town that my cable companies video feed was to slow. When I went to look at it he had the one free box, Motorola DCT1700 digital to analog converter box, hooked to the coax input on the UHD TV and tuned to channel 3. Of course it will look like crap but he then refused to pay the $4.95/month for the HD box, Pace RNG110, so he ended up with a DTA box which is no different than what he had.
> If TiVo were $50 with lifetime at Walmart and were plug and play, everybody would have one. Nobody is going to pay $500 to $1000 for a cable box.
> Also this is why I say UHD has already failed as people will just refuse to pay any extra price for it. So if it is not free or cheap then the format will go nowhere and eventually fail as the studios, who are also the broadcasters, will stop producing the discs and content.
> Same with streaming most people I know only have Netflix because they are sharing some family members account. If Netflix forces everybody to get their own account most will drop the service. Streaming will have to free or godly cheap in order for the masses to accept it. And if the content owners lose money on sat/cable subs then they will just make it up on the streaming content. Consumer will not win this game. The content owners rule the day no matter the delivery system.


The problem is most people don't pay $500 to $1k for a cable box. they pay more than that when all the fees are added up over the years.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> Can you point me to a 1080p Ultra HDR Premium TV at 40" or below? I'm in the market and don't want UHD/4k.


Sony is bringing HDR to its entire lineup of 1080P TVs

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> Can you point me to a 1080p Ultra HDR Premium TV at 40" or below? I'm in the market and don't want UHD/4k.


No, there are no non-UHD TVs that offer HDR (at least that I've seen). HDR is marketed essentially as an upgrade option on top of UHD. If a TV offers UHD and HDR and also meets certain benchmarks for contrast/peak brightness, then it qualifies for the "Ultra HD Premium" designation from the UHD Alliance trade group.

Edit: As aaronwt points out, all of Sony's 2017 model 1080p TVs in the US will include HDR. Those will be the first non-UHD TVs sold here to offer the feature.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> ...
> Same with streaming most people I know only have Netflix because they are sharing some family members account. If Netflix forces everybody to get their own account most will drop the service. Streaming will have to free or godly cheap in order for the masses to accept it. ...


I hate to break it to you but the masses already pay for Netflix, over a year ago Netflix had over 47 million paying subscribers in the US. That means almost half of all US households are paying for a Netflix subscription.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> Sony is bringing HDR to its entire lineup of 1080P TVs


Thanks. I guess that will be the "F" series. Right now, Sony only has 4k HDR in their E series. I can go 43", not 55". I'll wait.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> I hate to break it to you but the masses already pay for Netflix, over a year ago Netflix had over 47 million paying subscribers in the US. That means almost half of all US households are paying for a Netflix subscription.


Actually this keeps coming up when Netflix reports their earnings. That is the number of overall users and not actual subscribers. The shareholders wants Netflix to start going after those piggyback subs that don't pay a monthly subscription. I don't recall what they estimate the actual number of households that have a Netflix subscription. It is nowhere that high. They kind of pull the same Bull Crap TiVo did when reporting retail subs, they would show the number of units connecting to the service and not the actual number of homes that have one or more TiVo's.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> You just hit the crux of all the problems when it comes to video quality today. People are just plain satisfied with SD as it is the cheapest alternative. Most people will not pay extra for HD and definitely will not pay a ultra premium price for UHD. The DVD redbox at my local supermarket is always out of DVDs. The few Bluray titles never rent out. My local Walmart is now back to 90% DVDs and they even have to giant DVD grab bins.


I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but they just see HD and figure it's good enough, and don't look critically at what they are watching. I think that widescreen also plays a part, as it is a more natural format that 4:3, but that's something that DVD has without HD. I don't understand the love of DVDs, but people are still buying them like crazy. I'd think if you're going to shell out the dough for a movie, and go to the hassle of using physical media, you'd want a Blu-Ray, but apparently not.



> I had a person who bought a 2015 Vizio M50 last year and kept telling everybody in town that my cable companies video feed was to slow. When I went to look at it he had the one free box, Motorola DCT1700 digital to analog converter box, hooked to the coax input on the UHD TV and tuned to channel 3. Of course it will look like crap but he then refused to pay the $4.95/month for the HD box, Pace RNG110, so he ended up with a DTA box which is no different than what he had.


LOL. Unbelievable the stupidity. I don't understand why SD channels and SD service still exists on pay tv. If you're shelling out the big bucks for pay TV, you'd think you'd want it in HD.



> If TiVo were $50 with lifetime at Walmart and were plug and play, everybody would have one. Nobody is going to pay $500 to $1000 for a cable box.


Yeah, people don't realize that the cable company is renting them a $500 box that the average person is going to probably $1000+ for over the time that they have it.



> Also this is why I say UHD has already failed as people will just refuse to pay any extra price for it. So if it is not free or cheap then the format will go nowhere and eventually fail as the studios, who are also the broadcasters, will stop producing the discs and content.
> Same with streaming most people I know only have Netflix because they are sharing some family members account. If Netflix forces everybody to get their own account most will drop the service. Streaming will have to free or godly cheap in order for the masses to accept it. And if the content owners lose money on sat/cable subs then they will just make it up on the streaming content. Consumer will not win this game. The content owners rule the day no matter the delivery system.


I don't think it's cost so much as people think HD is "good enough", and there isn't enough demand for linear content in 4k. I could see ESPN or HBO doing a 4k channel, but I can't foresee DirecTV filling up those 50 UHD slots that they have on the RB unless they just fill them up with PPV and movie channels for the sake of filling them up. UHD-BD is here to stay, as the studios want top dollar for their movies, and the way to do that is to offer the best format possible. Whether they stay in mainstream retail outlets is another story, but I think they will to serve that niche market, at least in the Best Buys of the world, if not the Wal-Marts and Targets of the world.

I disagree about the content providers owning it. I think that people are sick and tired of paying the big bucks for cable, and they will go where it's cheap, and I think more and more people are willing to sacrifice a show here or there for a service that has enough things that interest them, like Netflix, or an V-MVPD that has most of the channels that they want. I think that we'll see the most people completely cutting the cord, and not getting a V-MVPD, as they're just not that interested in cable content and a big, bloated bundle. I think the industry is long overdue for some fat trimming in terms of content on cable, and with better metrics, a lot of the garbage is just going to disappear on streaming, and the services will have less content, but higher quality content, and more in tune with what their audiences want. I think we are just at the very beginning of a massive purge of cable channels. NBC already shut down 3 cable channels, and I think we could see dozens or hundreds more go kaput over the course of the next few years. The bundles just can't support that many channels when the big players in the room, like ESPN, are demanding more money to delay the inevitable on the death spiral that they are currently in.

We have a series of bloated industries in this country that have managed to force themselves through various means, into being a "necessity" or something near that, and I think the pay TV industry is one of them, and it's finally starting to have to come to terms with 2 or 3 decades of bloat and low-value content coming along for the ride in giant, bloated bundles that started out simply as a re-transmission of local network TV stations with better reception, and has morphed into this 400-channel morass that we have today. It's going to take a while to unwind the mess, but now that there are other ways to watch "TV", the market is finally starting to affect it. The sports side of things could take a decade or more to unwind, as it's tied up in long term contracts that are going to bite ESPN in the butt when their death spiral finally implodes.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jth tv said:


> Maybe they can tell, but the difference in HD's is not worth that much to them/me.


I'm saying they just can't tell the difference, or don't pay attention. This is why the providers often heavily degrade the quality of pay-tv services. Most people can't tell the difference. Most are not the 1% hanging out on AVSForum tweaking the settings of their UHD-BD players and calibrating their TVs to get reference quality audio and video. I'm in the latter group, although I'm not quite that picky.



NashGuy said:


> I see your point but it's not simply about what people can tell with their eyes. For many, it's about what marketers and the press tell them is "better" or "the latest technology". The current adoption rate of UHD TVs in the US is outpacing that of HD TVs from several years ago and consumers now know to look for "HDR" as the new marketing buzzword. So if broadcasters can boast that they offer UHD and/or HDR content that makes use of those advanced features on new TVs, it will influence consumers, at least to some extent. I imagine ATSC 3.0 broadcasters will advertise other features besides just better PQ to drive adoption too, though, particularly integrated on-demand streaming, as is common on the UK's Freeview TV system.


I think a lot of people are buying into 4k not knowing what the actual source options are, and what content is or isn't 4k. It's like HD all over again. Part of the adoption rate is how fast the prices have come down, and how large the TVs are. I'd bet a lot of them never good hooked up to a 4k source, or only do 4k when it's available on Netflix just by chance on a show they want to watch. But they want a big, bright, cheap TV to watch football or something on, and that's what 4k TVs are now. I don't think HDR is going to sell a whole lot of TVs on it's own, as it's hard to understand, hard to see what the difference is, and hard to explain. I think broadcasters will stay at 1080i60, maybe 1080p60, just because that has been driven into people's heads for so long, even though it's only marginally better than 1080i60, and use ATSC 3.0, HEVC, and aggressive stat muxes to load up a whole new explosion of subchannels to sell ads on.



Jed1 said:


> That is a scam by the CE manufacturers as there really is no HD set available to purchase. Even at Walmart, most TV are UHD so the industry can claim this big uptake of UHD TVs. People are not buying TV because of UHD but because their current one broke and needs to be replaced and UHD TVs are their only choice. I hear absolutely nobody talking about HDR except on tech forums and we only represent less than 1% of the population.


Why is it a bad thing? Sure, people are buying UHDTVs just because that's what's there, but they are better TVs than 1080p TVs. I'd bet that a majority of people watching Netflix in 4k don't even know or care that it is in 4k, but they get really amazing picture quality nonetheless. HDR is really hard to explain, because it's even more subjective than 4k resolution, and it's not just more pixels, which is easy to explain to Americans; "Bigger number equals more equals better".



Jed1 said:


> That part of the TV spectrum has been sold to wireless operators for those dumb cell phones that are permanently connected to people hands. The OTA broadcaster will have to move their signals into a smaller frequency spectrum if they want to continue using the public airwaves. The FCC will also pay them money if they decide to give up their OTA signals. My local PBS affiliate made a deal with my local ABC affiliate to share their spectrum so now I will have two HD channels on one 6Mhz frequency. Picture quality will go to hell as between both they have 7 SD channels on top of their HD channels.


Jeez, that's a negative look on smartphones and technology. That's basically the idea of it. I'm not a fan of selling off more of our TV spectrum, although it will clear a lot of junk broadcasters off the air who just sold out. The bigger issue now is that there isn't a lot of room left to do ATSC 3.0. We used to have a huge number of channels, and they've been converted to other uses in the 1980's, in the 700mhz auction, and now the 600mhz auction. We actually could have lost more, but no one wanted to pay for them, so the auction ended at channel 38 basically, 37 is useless, so we have 36 and below. Unfortunately, there will be some transmitter sharing, although most channels will keep their own transmitters, at least until ATSC 3.0 comes along. My local PBS affiliate got rid of one of their 3 redundant transmitters, I'm not sure what else is happening in the repack here. Because 30-36 didn't go, our repack will be a lot less eventful than it could have been, as we have several stations in the RF 30-36 range.



JoeKustra said:


> Can you point me to a 1080p Ultra HDR Premium TV at 40" or below? I'm in the market and don't want UHD/4k.


There is no reason not to get a UHDTV. There are UHDTVs as small as 40", although I'm not sure if those models have HDR. If you're looking at a small TV, I'm not sure why you'd want the enhanced features like HDR. You need a bigger screen to really make this stuff all shine.



aaronwt said:


> The problem is most people don't pay $500 to $1k for a cable box. they pay more than that when all the fees are added up over the years.


Yup. People are too used to paying various fees, and also having one number to call when something breaks. Most people's heads would explode if they had to troubleshoot a problem with CableCard and their MSO.



Jed1 said:


> Actually this keeps coming up when Netflix reports their earnings. That is the number of overall users and not actual subscribers. The shareholders wants Netflix to start going after those piggyback subs that don't pay a monthly subscription. I don't recall what they estimate the actual number of households that have a Netflix subscription. It is nowhere that high. They kind of pull the same Bull Crap TiVo did when reporting retail subs, they would show the number of units connecting to the service and not the actual number of homes that have one or more TiVo's.


They may tier out the number of streams even more, but they can't really do IP blocking or anything else, as it just ends up messing up the experience that they worked to create. Cable companies have the same problem with their streaming platforms. If they restrict them to avoid sharing, they make them virtually useless. I shore mine with my Dad, mostly because I'm mad at Netflix for forcing me up into the 4 stream package just because I have a UHDTV.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> The problem is most people don't pay $500 to $1k for a cable box. they pay more than that when all the fees are added up over the years.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


No the actual problem is 99% of the population doesn't care about box fees. Most systems now bury that in the package they subscribe to or stick it in the below the line fee.. It is us that will have to get used to renting a box because we are the severely tiny minority in this country.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> Actually this keeps coming up when Netflix reports their earnings. That is the number of overall users and not actual subscribers. The shareholders wants Netflix to start going after those piggyback subs that don't pay a monthly subscription. I don't recall what they estimate the actual number of households that have a Netflix subscription. It is nowhere that high. They kind of pull the same Bull Crap TiVo did when reporting retail subs, they would show the number of units connecting to the service and not the actual number of homes that have one or more TiVo's.


The data I have looked at clearly is talking about subscribers. Financial analysis is concerned about subscribers, not how many individual people use Netflix which is impossible to measure anyways as it is impossible to tell how many different people login with a individual subscribers account.

The word "user" is not well defined as one person might be using it to mean an individual person and another person might be using to reference one login ID.

Effectively with Netflix one subscriber (a paying account) is one house hold. So yes 47+ million US households are Netflix subscribers.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I hate to break it to you but the masses already pay for Netflix, over a year ago Netflix had over 47 million paying subscribers in the US. That means almost half of all US households are paying for a Netflix subscription.


Those are _amazing_ stats. Just think what Netflix could do, through subliminal messaging inserted into the feeds.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

I haven't read anything in this thread, but someone is interviewing one of the architects of the 3.0 Standard soon and is asking people to submit questions to ask in the comments of the article.

ATSC-3 Will Bring the Next Generation of Television - Android TV News


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

mrizzo80 said:


> I haven't read anything in this thread, but someone is interviewing one of the architects of the 3.0 Standard soon and is asking people to submit questions to ask in the comments of the article.
> 
> ATSC-3 Will Bring the Next Generation of Television - Android TV News


From the article:


> One of the big goals is to allow for broadcasts to be received by traditional TVs as well as mobile devices. This may require TV tuners to be added to the hardware of phones, similar to adding FM radios.


Almost every wireless carrier demands that the FM radios that are in many phones be disabled, because they would rather the customer pay for data to get music, rather than get it for free. I expect them to see video no differently. TV tuners may get built into phones and tablets, but I bet no user in the U.S. ever gets to use one.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lessd said:


> Twenty years ago cable did not have the penetration it has today, so it would not have made sense to have two models of TVs one with a tuner one without, today with streaming, cable, etc. making a TV without any tuners does make some sense, although the added cost of a built in tuner is not that much money today, as it was when tuners were mechanical.


A "TV" w/o a tuner is not a TV, it's a monitor.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> A "TV" w/o a tuner is not a TV, it's a monitor.


I know that, but some people don't, I think what I posted was clear, I just left out that a no tuner TV is called a monitor. My HDTV with a tuner could be used as a computer monitor as my desktop computer output is HDMI, I guess than (if I did that) my computer display should be called a computer display TV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Almost every wireless carrier demands that the FM radios that are in many phones be disabled, because they would rather the customer pay for data to get music, rather than get it for free. I expect them to see video no differently. TV tuners may get built into phones and tablets, but I bet no user in the U.S. ever gets to use one.


The Galaxy S7, for example, has an FM tuner. The carriers don't need to disable the tuner, it has horrible reception, doesn't tune AM anyway, and most people would rather stream in the first place or don't know the FM tuner is even there.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Any update on the timetable ? When will the first ATSC 3.0 broadcasts begin in the US ? Not just limited experiments but actual commercial TV.

As spectrum auction winds down, some public TV stations must plan moves to new channels
"Public broadcasters who learned that their TV stations will be moving to new channels during the "repack" phase of the FCC's spectrum auction are questioning how to manage the costs of the engineering projects, which must be completed no later than the middle of 2020."

2020 ? Is that it ?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

That's just the deadline for affected stations to change frequencies, not to go to ATSC 3.0, but it seems like that would be a first step.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Earlier this month, the FCC made the first step to approving ATSC 3.0 commercial broadcasts (to be done voluntarily by the broadcasters, who must continue to maintain their ATSC 1.0 broadcasts too). It's widely expected that the FCC will issue the final go-ahead by year-end. I would imagine we'll see at least a handful of stations across the country actually beaming out 3.0 signals before the end of 2018, but who knows at this point. I'd further expect 3.0 broadcasts to be fairly widespread by mid-2020, at which point the repack is supposed to be completed. It's expected that stations will largely try to incorporate plans for rolling out the new ATSC 3.0 broadcasts in with the moves that must be done for the repack. Assuming the next-gen system gets off the ground and is successful, I would anticipate ATSC 1.0 broadcasts to cease in the 2025-28 range.


----------



## jeff_rigby (Apr 30, 2016)

Diana Collins said:


> From the article:
> 
> Almost every wireless carrier demands that the FM radios that are in many phones be disabled, because they would rather the customer pay for data to get music, rather than get it for free. I expect them to see video no differently. *TV tuners may get built into phones and tablets, but I bet no user in the U.S. ever gets to use one*.


From what I have been reading, the FCC will mandate ATSC 3.0 tuners in Cell phones to support Emergency alert. The idea is to have TVs and Cell Phones turn on automatically and play the broadcast alert with further information available with interactive XTV apps (Internet Xtended TV).

In further support of this, ATSC 3.0 was designed to support Mobile in car and in Cell phones with robust delivery (no fluttering while moving) and Network Frequency Synced TV towers that allow one to view programming uninterrupted in a car as it travels from city to city.

Millions of new TV screens in Cell phones offer new screens for advertising. This will benefit broadcasters and draw what are now conventional cable channels to OTA.

Cell phone companies and Cable TV will shift to delivering TV Programming as supplements to that offered by local OTA TV channels. This is the market that Playstation Vue and others will be servicing.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

What a wonderful idea. Enable people to more easily watch TV on their cell phones while driving. Much better than texting.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Adoption will be opt-in, no mandate as with ATSC 1.0.

Meanwhile the broadcast industry, especially local stations, aren't in a position to invest in new broadcasting equipment?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Adoption will be opt-in, no mandate as with ATSC 1.0.
> 
> Meanwhile the broadcast industry, especially local stations, aren't in a position to invest in new broadcasting equipment?


Well, broadcasters will receive around $12 billion from selling off some of their spectrum to wireless phone/data providers in the FCC auction that's just wrapping up. I'd imagine some of that money will end up getting plowed into new equipment.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jeff_rigby said:


> Millions of new TV screens in Cell phones offer new screens for advertising. This will benefit broadcasters and draw what are now conventional cable channels to OTA.


Do we have any evidence people want to watch network channels in the car? Kids programming and cable channels seem more likely, if anything at all. The networks broadcast a lot of crap during the day, and the good stuff during primetime, when people tend to be home occupying their couches.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Not too long ago I read one of the reasons Netflix was growing was that parents like that their children are Not subjected to commercials.

ATSC 3.0 is supposed to do all these wonderful things, but other than a possibly better picture, I do Not see me using them.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Earlier this month, the FCC made the first step to approving ATSC 3.0 commercial broadcasts (to be done voluntarily by the broadcasters, who must continue to maintain their ATSC 1.0 broadcasts too). It's widely expected that the FCC will issue the final go-ahead by year-end. I would imagine we'll see at least a handful of stations across the country actually beaming out 3.0 signals before the end of 2018, but who knows at this point. I'd further expect 3.0 broadcasts to be fairly widespread by mid-2020, at which point the repack is supposed to be completed. It's expected that stations will largely try to incorporate plans for rolling out the new ATSC 3.0 broadcasts in with the moves that must be done for the repack. Assuming the next-gen system gets off the ground and is successful, I would anticipate ATSC 1.0 broadcasts to cease in the 2025-28 range.


Regarding a Tivo HD and ATSC OTA compatibility: how long before these Tivo's can't record an ATSC signal due to incompatibility?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tvmaster2 said:


> Regarding a Tivo HD and ATSC OTA compatibility: how long before these Tivo's can't record an ATSC signal due to incompatibility?


I don't think any industry watchers think that the current format broadcast signals (ATSC 1.0) will cease before several more years, so you don't have anything to worry about. My guess is 2025 at the very earliest, and that's assuming ATSC 3.0 takes off in the next few years.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think any industry watchers think that the current format broadcast signals (ATSC 1.0) will cease before several more years, so you don't have anything to worry about. My guess is 2025 at the very earliest, and that's assuming ATSC 3.0 takes off in the next few years.


We have to avoid this churn spiral of junking all our gear every 10 years. Not everyone likes being told "you have to buy new stuff" or obtain yet another converter box. Madness.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I would have no problems upgrading to ATSC 3.0 compatible gear right now.

My Roamio and Mini are about 3-4 years old.

Of course this assumes there would be 4k HDR content to record on an ATSC 3.0 DVR, which would also support whatever the cable companies are supporting.

More likely we'll be stuck with streaming options and "cloud DVRs" where we won't be able to record the same content we can now or keep recordings indefinitely on local storage that only I control.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RoamioJeff said:


> We have to avoid this churn spiral of junking all our gear every 10 years. Not everyone likes being told "you have to buy new stuff" or obtain yet another converter box. Madness.


10 years? ATSC 1.0 broadcasts began in the late 90s and analog signals pretty much completely shut down by 2009, with both systems co-existing during that period. ATSC 3.0 signals will start in 2018 or 2019. That's about 20 years after 1.0 launched. I would expect 1.0 signals to exist until the late 2020s. Two decades is a long time in the world of technology and seems like a very reasonable timeframe for consumer upgrades if we hope to use our public spectrum in anything resembling an efficient manner.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tvmaster2 said:


> Regarding a Tivo HD and ATSC OTA compatibility: how long before these Tivo's can't record an ATSC signal due to incompatibility?


While I have no idea how long ATSC 1.0 will last or how long before anyone will have ATSC 3.0, I find NashGuy's time estimates a reasonable guess.

When in comes to TiVos and ATSC 3.0, no existing units have an ATSC 3.0 tuner built in. Plus ATSC 3.0 will be using h.265 and only the Bolts can hand that video codec. So even if TiVo was willing to provide external add on ATSC 3.0 tuners the only TiVos that could use them are the Bolts.

Bottom line is everyone can figure on buying new equipment if they want to view/record ATSC 3.0 signals. My guess is that we have maybe 5ish years left that our existing TiVos will be fully useful for cable or OTA, after that I think tech changes will have obsoleted our equipment to some extent.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

And if you have equipment older than 10 years, what are you doing on this forum?


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

The broadcasters have 3 years to finish their moves from the now closed spectrum repack. Some of the broadcasters (Sinclair) will probably take that opportunity to start some ATSC 3.0 upgrades and broadcasts. I think 3-5 years for ATSC 3.0 and 8-10 for ATSC 1.0 to cease


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

It does seem like lots of filling of the landfills (yes, I know, parts get recycled/scavenged, but still).


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

BTW, Sinclair's role in ATSC 3.0 is regrettable, given their role in trying to derail the ATSC 1.0 rollout, their business practices and their politics.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

wco81 said:


> I would have no problems upgrading to ATSC 3.0 compatible gear right now.
> 
> My Roamio and Mini are about 3-4 years old.
> 
> ...


UHD....NO but 1080p HDR......YES. It looks like the broadcasters are moving in the direction of 1080p HDR as it is more cost effective for them moving to UHD would mean replacing a lot of new equipment in their studios so UHD is out of the question. I wouldn't be running out right now and making any investment in UHD at all if the broadcasters are going in this direction. Remember companies like CBS and Fox own content and movie studios, so if they decide on 1080p HDR then that is what the content will be produced in. UHD is a fad that was thought up by the CE manufacturers just like 3D was.

Fox Exec Bullish on HDR, CBS VP Says Network "Hasn't Made Any Decision Yet"


> Hollywood has started to produce some high dynamic range (HDR) motion pictures and home entertainment. And at January's CES, all of the major set makers showed TVs with HDR capabilities and touted its potential. But what do the broadcasters think?
> 
> Speaking Wednesday at the Hollywood Professional Association (formerly Hollywood Post Alliance) Tech Retreat in Palm Springs, a panel of broadcasters expressed strong interest in HDR - meaning a wider range between the whitest whites and blackest blacks - though not all have specific plans to deliver this feature.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tvmaster2 said:


> Regarding a Tivo HD and ATSC OTA compatibility: how long before these Tivo's can't record an ATSC signal due to incompatibility?


Incompatibility isn't the issue. The issue is when stations start to combine channels for ATSC 1.0 and degrade the quality in order to make room for 3.0. That won't happen for a few more years though.\



RoamioJeff said:


> We have to avoid this churn spiral of junking all our gear every 10 years. Not everyone likes being told "you have to buy new stuff" or obtain yet another converter box. Madness.


First, we would have to make crap that lasts even 10 years. The quality of our electronics has gone way downhill. Some of it is cheapness and commoditization. I also think RoHS reduced the quality and longevity of circuit boards, at least initially, but its not like I want lead in electronics either, so I'm not sure what the solution is there.



NashGuy said:


> Two decades is a long time in the world of technology and seems like a very reasonable timeframe for consumer upgrades if we hope to use our public spectrum in anything resembling an efficient manner.


The public interest would have been keeping the entire TV spectrum intact up to channel 69, but no, we auctioned them off to the highest bidders, the cell phone companies. The cell phone companies could have built out better, denser networks to work with less low-band spectrum, and inter-operated on those low-band assignments be regulating the technology used and roaming agreements, as well as re-aligning spectrum to avoid 50mhz CLR ownership, but no, we have the mess that we have instead.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

That spectrum repack is pretty much a bust - not nearly the money was spent on frequencies than was hyped. It only has some affect on the most major of major markets. I think my local FOX affiliate was counting their money before it hatched. They created a mirror FOX channel on their ABC frequency with picture quality as bad as the same station on Charter - creating only one-third the file sizes of the same programs on their FOX frequency. They've even had their main FOX frequency down for weeks at a time multiple times this year (in anticipation?). Well, nobody threw millions of dollars at them for their FOX frequency and they have no need to abandon it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

wco81 said:


> And if you have equipment older than 10 years, what are you doing on this forum?


----------



## idksmy (Jul 16, 2016)

wco81 said:


> And if you have equipment older than 10 years, what are you doing on this forum?


People with older gear can be arrogant, condescending pontificating keyboard bullies just like people with newer equipment.

They can also call people stupid if they disagree with them and call what they subscribe to as garbage.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> That spectrum repack is pretty much a bust - not nearly the money was spent on frequencies than was hyped. It only has some affect on the most major of major markets.


Granted, I'm next to DMA #1, so our spectrum is a hot mess, but we're going to see a bunch of moves from the repack.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The station movement is a little worse than I thought. Even if a station didn't win any bidding they are still being forced to move to a lower frequency if they are currently on frequency 37 or above. Congress allocated $2 billion in corporate welfare for that. It still doesn't affect my market but it should pretty much affect the major ones.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> The station movement is a little worse than I thought. Even if a station didn't win any bidding they are still being forced to move to a lower frequency if they are currently on frequency 37 or above. Congress allocated $2 billion in corporate welfare for that. It still doesn't affect my market but it should pretty much affect the major ones.


Even some lower than 37 were forced to move. In my area channels 13.,13.2,&13.3 broadcast on frequency 13. For some unknown reason they are moving to frequency 9, which is just crazy as there is another set of stations on frequency 10 broadcasting from the same tower cluster. I am assuming I will end up having problems receiving both until/unless they move to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

[QUOTE="Bigg, post: 11214481, member: 59672

"The public interest would have been keeping the entire TV spectrum intact up to channel 69, but no, we auctioned them off to the highest bidders ..."[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. 3.0 could have been rolled out much more easily if the TV spectrum hadn't been sold off. The auction would have made more sense after the transition to 3.0. But money (and greed) talks.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm in a smaller market but because there are two other markets about 50 miles away they need to squeeze three different cities' stations into the remaining spectrum. Looks like they are cramming all the channels together in clumps so I expect reception will likely suffer. We are also losing our CW affiliate station that also carries ION, and Bounce. I'm hoping CW can figure out a way to share frequencies and someone picks them up. But of course the plus side is people can now spend even more time starring at their phones in every nook, cranny, and basement everywhere! Yay!


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

Some stations are moving to reduce interference from adjacent markets. Tulsa has half of the stations moving around. 4 of them are up in the 40-53 range and have no choice but to move, the others are moving to accommodate adjacent market moves


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> The station movement is a little worse than I thought. Even if a station didn't win any bidding they are still being forced to move to a lower frequency if they are currently on frequency 37 or above. Congress allocated $2 billion in corporate welfare for that. It still doesn't affect my market but it should pretty much affect the major ones.


We have a very real corporate welfare problem in this country, whether it's energy, farms, etc, but this isn't corporate welfare. This money comes from the money paid for the 600mhz licenses, and the government gets to keep some of that too.



TeamPace said:


> Absolutely. 3.0 could have been rolled out much more easily if the TV spectrum hadn't been sold off. The auction would have made more sense after the transition to 3.0. But money (and greed) talks.


Definitely. I would have kept it all TV indefinitely, and promoted more independent OTA TV stations and networks to pop up with the extra space, but the money won out over what I consider to be the public interest. That would also, however, have required a lot of government intervention to ensure competitiveness in the cell phone market without the 700 band however.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

osu1991 said:


> Some stations are moving to reduce interference from adjacent markets. Tulsa has half of the stations moving around. 4 of them are up in the 40-53 range and have no choice but to move, the others are moving to accommodate adjacent market moves


I can understand some of the moves but fail to see how moving moving 2 high power and major networks next to each other when their broadcast towers are on the same hill makes any sense. In my area ABC & CW will be on frequency 9 (moved from 13) and NBC will be on frequency 10 (not moving). Use of a neighboring frequency (like 12 or 14) in a neighboring market could not possible be worse and the next closest station using frequency 13 is well over a 130 miles away and based on the terrain not a problem. Oh well guess I will find out.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The public interest would have been keeping the entire TV spectrum intact up to channel 69, but no, we auctioned them off to the highest bidders, the cell phone companies. The cell phone companies could have built out better, denser networks to work with less low-band spectrum, and inter-operated on those low-band assignments be regulating the technology used and roaming agreements, as well as re-aligning spectrum to avoid 50mhz CLR ownership, but no, we have the mess that we have instead.


From the perspective of an OTA TV viewer (and I am one), I can understand you thinking that keeping all that spectrum for TV was in the "public interest". But only about 17% of the US watches OTA TV. What percentage do you think use cell phones?


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I can understand some of the moves but fail to see how moving moving 2 high power and major networks next to each other when their broadcast towers are on the same hill makes any sense. In my area ABC & CW will be on frequency 9 (moved from 13) and NBC will be on frequency 10 (not moving). Use of a neighboring frequency (like 12 or 14) in a neighboring market could not possible be worse and the next closest station using frequency 13 is well over a 130 miles away and based on the terrain not a problem. Oh well guess I will find out.


We've had KTUL (ABC) and OETA (PBS) on channels 10 and 11 since the final digital switchover with no problems. All the major stations broadcast from the same location SE of Tulsa.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> From the perspective of an OTA TV viewer (and I am one), I can understand you thinking that keeping all that spectrum for TV was in the "public interest". But only about 17% of the US watches OTA TV. What percentage do you think use cell phones?


Sure, cell phone penetration is like 103% or something, but at the same time, the cell phone companies already had plenty of spectrum, it was/is just poorly managed. The cell providers don't want to build out and densify networks if they can avoid it, so instead they just pile on more spectrum. I would have rather seen better spectrum management of what was already available and forcing the carriers to build denser networks.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

osu1991 said:


> The broadcasters have 3 years to finish their moves from the now closed spectrum repack. Some of the broadcasters (Sinclair) will probably take that opportunity to start some ATSC 3.0 upgrades and broadcasts. I think 3-5 years for ATSC 3.0 and 8-10 for ATSC 1.0 to cease


Although, if the cable companies have a say, high-quality, free content will be their enemy: ACA to Hill: ATSC 3.0 Rollout Could Hurt Emergency Alerts


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Unbelievable. The cable lobby is trying to slow down the rollout of a broadcast technology which has virtually no effect on them.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Oh I don't know, they're going to get increasing requests for 4K content, as more and more people are exposed to 4K HDR content, if not from ATSC 3.0, then from streaming services which are their direct competitors.


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Unbelievable. The cable lobby is trying to slow down the rollout of a broadcast technology which has virtually no effect on them.


The "effect" is because they know once people see how good it is (and FREE), they'll have far more choice's of things to watch to make it easier to leave paid satellite and cable for sure.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If a station has to move to a new frequency, I would think they would switch to ATSC 3.0, since congress has allocated $2 billion for moving expenses and ATSC 3.0 has a 100/1 subchannel to main channel ratio. One of the features of ATSC 3.0 is to allow reception on a mobile device without counting against the data plan. 77% of the population own a smartphone. I think stations would lose some Luddite viewers, but would more than make up for that with younger viewers who don't watch video on a TV anyway.

Also, they may set aside one legacy ATSC 1.0 station to broadcast all the channels at VCR quality, so that would only require retuning the legacy TVs and DVRs.

OTT boxes like fire tv already have software that can control a network tuner device. When the network ATSC 3.0 tuners are released, it shouldn't be that difficult to upgrade a legacy tv with a fire tv and a network tuner. Mabye these apps could run directly on legacy smart TVs also.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

How expensive would an ATSC 3.0 tuner be for mobile phones?

Not just in terms of added cost but also battery drain?

I would also wonder if carriers like Verizon wouldn't offer phones which had ATSC 3.0 tuners since they have some mobile video exclusives like NFL streaming I believe.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ATSC 3.0 is still a big unknown for consumers. 

When is it going to show up and what is it going to provide (at this point no network has committed to broadcasting 4K/UHD TV)? When are TVs, or mobile devices going to start showing up with built in tuners and how much more are they going to cost? How well are stations going to build out the mess network antennas that are going to be needed for mobile and many homes? When are add on tuners for existing TVs going to show up and how much are they going to cost (remember the first HD ATSC 1.0 tuners cost hundreds of dollars)? When are DVRs that function with ATSC 3.0 going to show up and how much are they going to cost? 

Without any type of Government mandate I think many of us are going to be more than a little unhappy with how the switch over happens. Plus I still think there is a good chance of it not happening in many of the smaller markets.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Many stations are repacking with ATSC 1.0, since they have to repack for the auction, and none of their viewers can yet access 3.0. I would think that larger markets or markets adjacent to larger markets may actually be slower, since they have so few channels available to do this, with barely enough just to keep 1.0 running. More isolated markets will have an easier time running both. We'll see, but I think like 4k broadcasts of any type, there's still a big *IF* this will happen at all, and *IF* the answer is yes, the timetable may be very slow.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 4, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> ATSC 3.0 is still a big unknown for consumers.
> 
> When is it going to show up and what is it going to provide (at this point no network has committed to broadcasting 4K/UHD TV)?


Actually WRAL in Raleigh is already testing ATSC 3.0 broadcasts and the Sinclair Broadcast Group is pushing hard for ATSC 3.0. Supposedly they want to be rolling out by late 2018 with mostly complete rollout by the end of 2019.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Quantum said:


> Actually WRAL in Raleigh is already testing ATSC 3.0 broadcasts and the Sinclair Broadcast Group is pushing hard for ATSC 3.0. Supposedly they want to be rolling out by late 2018 with mostly complete rollout by the end of 2019.


Like I said and just exactly what are they going to provide? Neither Sinclair Broadcast Group or any other local broadcaster produces prime time content. None of the major OTA broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC, or PBS) have committed to producing 4K/HUD content. FOX said they are looking at 1080p content, but that is it. If all they are after is the ability to broadcast another 20-30 stations of old repeats or have found some way to send encrypted pay stations they can keep the whole thing.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Actually Sinclair plan to do something like Fox News but more to the right. They just hired as a "political analyst" one of the infamous pundits from the last election.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

wco81 said:


> Actually Sinclair plan to do something like Fox News but more to the right. They just hired as a "political analyst" one of the infamous pundits from the last election.


I was just thinking what's missing from my life is something like this in my car, and in 4k.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

I am expecting in DMA's where Sinclair has a duopoly, that one station will go ATSC 3.0 and one will remain ATSC 1.0.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

series5orpremier said:


> I was just thinking what's missing from my life is something like this in my car, and in 4k.


Do they really care about 4k?

When they pushed a last minute alternative to ATSC 1.0, I remember a lot of HT enthusiasts were skeptical about their proposal because their proposal was thought o be less conducive to HD broadcasts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wco81 said:


> Do they really care about 4k?
> 
> When they pushed a last minute alternative to ATSC 1.0, I remember a lot of HT enthusiasts were skeptical about their proposal because their proposal was thought o be less conducive to HD broadcasts.


That's my point - what is the consumer going to get out of this? When I thought we were going to get 6ish high quality 4k/UHD stations out of this I was for it. But so far it looks like we will get nothing but a bill for more equipment so we can maybe keep getting the same HD stations we have now. And that is starting to seems like a best case scenario. The only reason some piece of sh** company like Sinclair is pushing this is to make more money. That money has to come from either advertisers or consumers. Well OTA broadcast advertising spending has peaked and is likely going to decline, so that only leaves consumers. I do not fully understand how that is going to happen, but they must.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Like I said and just exactly what are they going to provide?


Subchannels. Lots of subchannels. Lots of ads.



atmuscarella said:


> That's my point - what is the consumer going to get out of this? When I thought we were going to get 6ish high quality 4k/UHD stations out of this I was for it. But so far it looks like we will get nothing but a bill for more equipment so we can maybe keep getting the same HD stations we have now. And that is starting to seems like a best case scenario.


I'm still not sure this will get past the chicken/egg stage, but if it does, we may still see quality benefits on HD. A lot of stations are down to 10-12mbps on MPEG-2, with an HEVC stat mux, we could see better HD quality, even with a metric crapton of subchannels, and we may get some nice looking HD subchannels. If you take 12mbps MPEG-2 as the benchmark, with a good encoder running a stat mux, we could see better quality from a 3mbps average HEVC encode than a 12mbps MPEG-2, since there is more room to adapt the various streams in the stat mux as needed. And they're going to have, what 30mbps or more per 6mhz channel, so they could, in theory, have 10 or more HD channels on a 6mhz transmitter?

Either that, or they do about the same quality as now, but condense an entire market onto one transmitter to reduce costs.

They can put two HDs on an ATSC 1.0 transmitter and have them look OK-ish, but once they try to cram subchannels in with he two (ahem, NBC Boston), then everything goes down the drain, so hopefully, if they do combine channels, they do two HD feeds only, without subchannels, but who knows.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> The only reason some piece of sh** company like Sinclair is pushing this is to make more money.


This kind of comment always amuses me. The only reason any company in the TV business (or any private company in any business, anywhere) exists is to make money, to provide a good or service that people are willing to pay for. If they fail to offer something people want at a price they'll pay, they'll fail to make money. If they do, then they'll be profitable.

All advancements in the entertainment industry have happened because profit-seeking companies were offering something that they thought people would want and which they could make a profit off of.

What sort of arrangement would you prefer? If you want non-profit TV that's supported (in part) by voluntary contributions from viewers and various organizations, there's PBS. But I don't foresee any other similar non-profit players popping up in the US television landscape.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

But how does owned a set of TV stations get them such a prominent role in determining digital TV transmissions standards?

They actually do R&D into codecs and modulation schemes? Or did they buy an engineering company?

I thought broadcast TV wasn't as lucrative a business, with advertising shifting to cable TV and online media.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They can put two HDs on an ATSC 1.0 transmitter and have them look OK-ish, but once they try to cram subchannels in with he two (ahem, NBC Boston), then everything goes down the drain, so hopefully, if they do combine channels, they do two HD feeds only, without subchannels, but who knows.


This depends on the quality of their ATSC 1.0 MPEG-2 encoder. Current-gen encoders can cram a lot of stuff into a 6 MHz channel and still make it look acceptable. Check out this story (from nearly two years ago) about an encoder that can handle two 1080i and four 480i subchannels.

No idea how much those encoders cost and whether it's economically worthwhile for stations to upgrade to them as part of the transition though.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> This kind of comment always amuses me. The only reason any company in the TV business (or any private company in any business, anywhere) exists is to make money, to provide a good or service that people are willing to pay for. If they fail to offer something people want at a price they'll pay, they'll fail to make money. If they do, then they'll be profitable.
> 
> All advancements in the entertainment industry have happened because profit-seeking companies were offering something that they thought people would want and which they could make a profit off of.
> 
> What sort of arrangement would you prefer? If you want non-profit TV that's supported (in part) by voluntary contributions from viewers and various organizations, there's PBS. But I don't foresee any other similar non-profit players popping up in the US television landscape.


Yes my comment was being lazy as I choose not to explain why I think they are a piece of sh**. It isn't because they are trying to make money, all companies are trying to make money and I think that is a good thing. It is how they try to make money that determines if I think they are a piece of sh** or not.

There are fundamentally 2 different paths companies can decide to take to make money - and yes most companies do some of both. They can decide to be highly competitive and make money by being superior to their competitors ether by offering a superior product and/or a superior price point. The other way they can decide to make money is to actively work to create non-competitive markets and/or to influence Government to unduly favor their interests over consumers interests.

I see Sinclair as solidly using the second method, which earns them being on my list of piece of sh** companies. Or simple if they see away to benefit from ATSC 3.0 it is likely to not be by providing a better product or service to the consumer, but likely by finding something that will end being of very low (or no) benefit to the consumer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The problem with the affiliates is that they have a monopoly over the market for that network. It's too bad you can't get multiple markets via satellite (other than SV).



NashGuy said:


> This depends on the quality of their ATSC 1.0 MPEG-2 encoder. Current-gen encoders can cram a lot of stuff into a 6 MHz channel and still make it look acceptable. Check out this story (from nearly two years ago) about an encoder that can handle two 1080i and four 480i subchannels.
> 
> No idea how much those encoders cost and whether it's economically worthwhile for stations to upgrade to them as part of the transition though.


I don't think the cost is much in comparison to the benefits of being able to cram that much stuff on a channel. I just have to wonder what impact that will have on PQ. Comast got down to 9mbps for MPEG-2, which would be two per ATSC channel, Comcast of course was doing 4 per QAM. Comcast, however, was using CBR so that they could mix and match channels, maybe with a stat mux, you can cram a few more things in there, but I'm still skeptical that you can go that low and not lose a lot of detail, even if they really are getting the artifacts to look less ugly.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I see Sinclair as solidly using the second method, which earns them being on my list of piece of sh** companies. Or simple if they see away to benefit from ATSC 3.0 it is likely to not be by providing a better product or service to the consumer, but likely by finding something that will end being of very low (or no) benefit to the consumer.


Not sure I agree as ATSC 3.0 isn't a mandate, it's simply the government giving broadcasters the freedom to voluntarily use a more modern set of standards. They still have to broadcast in 1.0 and none of them are being forced to use 3.0. And while Sinclair is the biggest proponent, they're not alone at all in really wanting 3.0. Nexstar, Raycom and other members of the Pearl group are behind 3.0 in a big way.

While I'd love to have lots of content in UHD HDR, that's probably not in the cards in the next few years, and that decision is as much up to the networks as the broadcasters (whose bandwidth will be constrained as they simulcast in both 1.0 and 3.0). But if we get full primetime line-ups in 1080p HDR, with occasional big live events and specials in UHD HDR, that will still be a big step up in viewing experience from the current HD we have (especially 720p). And whether or not one's local affiliates participate in 3.0, I'm hopeful that the coming debut of 3.0 will spur the networks to offer their content in at least high-quality 1080p HDR through paid distribution channels (cable, streaming services). I already watch most broadcast network content on Hulu, and if Hulu could get stuff from ABC, Fox and NBC in 1080p HDR (or, better yet, UHD HDR), that would be great!

My read is that Sinclair sees broadcasting as a no-growth industry that's probably in secular decline. I think they see 3.0 as an absolute necessity to revitalize their industry. Grow or die. This interview with the heads of Sinclair, Nexstar, Raycom and Fox is interesting. You can watch the video or read the transcript.
3 Of 4 Broadcast CEOs Agree: 3.0 Is A Winner | TVNewsCheck.com

And here's another good read about the different visions that Sinclair has for 3.0 versus other broadcasters (an emphasis on mobile vs. living room). It also raises the question of the extent to which the major networks are going to support 3.0.
The Three Disparate Visions Of ATSC 3.0 | TVNewsCheck.com


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm still a little skeptical of 3.0. They keep talking about mobile and interactivity, which to me seems like nonsense. If they wanted to do that stuff, they've either already launched an app to do it, or they will launch an app to do it. They don't need ATSC 3.0 for that. As a broadcast standard, I think we'll just end up seeing a ton of subchannels, if it gets rolled out at all.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> And here's another good read about the different visions that Sinclair has for 3.0 versus other broadcasters (an emphasis on mobile vs. living room). It also raises the question of the extent to which the major networks are going to support 3.0.
> The Three Disparate Visions Of ATSC 3.0 | TVNewsCheck.com


So no commitments from the main 4 broadcast networks. Without them producing content, whether it's 4K HDR or 1080p HDR, there will be little incentive for people to get ATSC 3.0 tuners, unless the tuner hardware is so cheap that it has negligible effect on 4K HDR TV set prices.

People can get 4K HDR content from Netflix and other streaming services but to really push 4K adoption, they need to broadcast all NFL, NBA and MLB games, as well as other major sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup.

As for Sinclair's vision of mobile ATSC 3.0 broadcasts, the article referenced a chip. That's a nonstarter unless they can cut a deal with a company like Qualcomm to get it integrated into the SOCs that most Android smartphones use.

And I would guess there's little to no chance that Apple will add ATSC 3.0 silicon to their devices, unless there's some business deal they make, like they offer the elusive skinny bundle for Apple TV that Apple has reportedly sought in the past. But Sinclair, which is the party that is pushing mobile, doesn't have that kind of clout, certainly can't make big media companies like Viacom, NBC/Universal, etc. agree to offer their channels to Apple.

You also have carriers like Verizon, which already has their own video content deals, including some mobile-exclusive deals like streaming of NFL games. Unlikely Verizon is going to distribute phones which can receive video content without going through their networks.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> So no commitments from the main 4 broadcast networks. Without them producing content, whether it's 4K HDR or 1080p HDR, there will be little incentive for people to get ATSC 3.0 tuners, unless the tuner hardware is so cheap that it has negligible effect on 4K HDR TV set prices.
> 
> People can get 4K HDR content from Netflix and other streaming services but to really push 4K adoption, they need to broadcast all NFL, NBA and MLB games, as well as other major sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup.
> 
> ...


Yeah, from a business standpoint, I think getting ATSC 3.0 into phones (particularly iPhones) would be the most difficult part of the plan to implement. That said, the article did note that Sinclair has offered to give millions of free 3.0 chips to mobile phone manufacturers. I think I read that they're in serious talks with at least one.

We'll see what the broadcast nets do, which is obviously very important, because without them, all local broadcasters really have to offer are local news and syndicated stuff (reruns, judge shows, etc.). Fox has stated that they intend to offer 1080p HDR for prime time broadcast. Given the percentage of their affiliates owned by Sinclair (who's very much a partner at this point), that's no surprise. I could see ABC (currently at 720p, like Fox), doing the same. It will be interesting to see what CBS and NBC (both currently 1080i) do. CBS has their own direct-to-consumer streaming service, CBS All Access, so I'm not sure they're super-committed to the free OTA broadcast TV model. And NBC, of course, is owned by Comcast. I could imagine them making better quality VOD versions of their shows (maybe even UHD HDR) available only through pay TV services (particularly Comcast, as well as their forthcoming NBC OTT service) while still just giving their broadcast affiliates 1080i. Or perhaps ABC, CBS and NBC will only provide 3.0 broadcast affiliates enhanced versions of live content (sports, awards shows, etc.), and keep enhanced versions of series for distribution as VOD through pay TV sources (cable, Hulu, etc.). Lots of unanswered questions.

We'll see...


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I'm still a little skeptical of 3.0. They keep talking about mobile and interactivity, which to me seems like nonsense. If they wanted to do that stuff, they've either already launched an app to do it, or they will launch an app to do it. They don't need ATSC 3.0 for that. As a broadcast standard, I think we'll just end up seeing a ton of subchannels, if it gets rolled out at all.


Whatever they end up doing with ATSC 3.0, you can bet that some, if not most, will be monetized. Advertising revenue is down, partly because of reduced effectiveness and partly because of competition for ad dollars from the internet. Broadcasters need to make up for that revenue and so will try to offer subscription services, as well as standard broadcast TV.

The interesting bit will be if they really do implement 1080P HDR...that could deliver a picture that has the punch and depth of UHD on all but the largest displays, at 1/4 of the bandwidth. That could establish 1080P HDR as the defacto standard for HD transmissions of all types.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Whatever they end up doing with ATSC 3.0, you can bet that some, if not most, will be monetized. Advertising revenue is down, partly because of reduced effectiveness and partly because of competition for ad dollars from the internet. Broadcasters need to make up for that revenue and so will try to offer subscription services, as well as standard broadcast TV.
> 
> The interesting bit will be if they really do implement 1080P HDR...that could deliver a picture that has the punch and depth of UHD on all but the largest displays, at 1/4 of the bandwidth. That could establish 1080P HDR as the defacto standard for HD transmissions of all types.


I really think 1080p HDR as the new standard for broadcast TV is where we're headed, at least for the next few years. (I'd say for streaming too, except that Netflix and Amazon have already moved pretty much all their originals to UHD HDR.) I've read things in a few places that make me think that, including this article:

_The BBC has started trials of streaming HDR content at UHD resolution, but broadcasters in the U.S. are considering HDR+, a 10-bit 1080p HDR image with much lower bandwidth requirements than UHD, as a money-saving option._

Assuming you don't over-compress it, 1080p HDR with 10-bit color should look pretty great upscaled to 2160p by a decent TV. Will it look like UHD Blu-ray with Dolby Vision HDR? No. But it should look noticeably better than what we have now, either OTA or via cable/satellite. Over and over, I see sources claiming that tests show viewers notice more improvement from the addition of HDR to HD than they do from the jump in resolution from HD to UHD. (I'm not sure I agree, but then my opinion is often at odds with the crowd.)

I don't think there will be many UHD TVs for sale by next year that don't also offer HDR. (Note to potential TV buyers: don't buy a set without HDR!) Even phones have begun to offer it, with the high-end LG G6 sporting Dolby Vision.

As for monetizing ATSC 3.0 broadcasts, yeah, there's speculation that some broadcasters will try to offer subscriptions to a skinny bundle of encrypted "cable" channels they broadcast. But, honestly, it seems like that horse has already left the barn via OTT streaming providers. If you don't have broadband, or are concerned about data caps, and assuming you get good 3.0 OTA reception, then maybe you'd want to go that route for a few pay channels. But I'm skeptical about the prospects for such packages.

The better bet for 3.0 broadcasters is that they'll be able to charge more for ads because they'll be able to target them and because they'll have far more reliable viewer metrics than Nielsen currently offers. Broadcasters want to make their ads more effective, and therefore more lucrative, by essentially making them work just like internet ads.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> The interesting bit will be if they really do implement 1080P HDR...that could deliver a picture that has the punch and depth of UHD on all but the largest displays, at 1/4 of the bandwidth. That could establish 1080P HDR as the defacto standard for HD transmissions of all types.


Call me skeptical, but I don't see the market for that. As it is, Comcast has found most people can't tell the difference between 1080i and 720p. Most people just don't care and don't notice. My prediction is that if ATSC 3.0 comes about, we will see a modest improvement in 1080i/720p picture quality, and lots and lots of subchannels. As long as we retain the current picture quality of 1080i I'd be OK with it- and I'll enjoy my UHD-BD movies when I want a real visual feast.



NashGuy said:


> The better bet for 3.0 broadcasters is that they'll be able to charge more for ads because they'll be able to target them and because they'll have far more reliable viewer metrics than Nielsen currently offers. Broadcasters want to make their ads more effective, and therefore more lucrative, by essentially making them work just like internet ads.


Are you suggesting that different viewers will get different ads injected from the internet? Like a micro-scale version of local ad injection on cable? That is a terrifying idea, as you no longer have a master OTA feed that everyone sees (or close to it on cable). Part of what I like about big events is seeing a broad range of ads for products I might not otherwise think about. It's a very powerful way of building mass brands.

If they do target ads, I hope there is a DVR or something that can be blocked from using the internet so that I can see the master feed. Considering cable will be able to do individual ad insertion within te next decade as they move to IP, satellite or ATSC 1.0, as long as that is running, might be the last option to see a single broadcast feed.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Call me skeptical, but I don't see the market for that. As it is, Comcast has found most people can't tell the difference between 1080i and 720p. Most people just don't care and don't notice. My prediction is that if ATSC 3.0 comes about, we will see a modest improvement in 1080i/720p picture quality, and lots and lots of subchannels. As long as we retain the current picture quality of 1080i I'd be OK with it- and I'll enjoy my UHD-BD movies when I want a real visual feast.


As I say above, most people DO seem to be able to see the impact of HDR. And considering that HDR with 10-bit wide color gamut doesn't cost broadcasters much in terms of additional bandwidth, it seems like a no-brainer.



Bigg said:


> Are you suggesting that different viewers will get different ads injected from the internet? Like a micro-scale version of local ad injection on cable? That is a terrifying idea, as you no longer have a master OTA feed that everyone sees (or close to it on cable). Part of what I like about big events is seeing a broad range of ads for products I might not otherwise think about. It's a very powerful way of building mass brands.
> 
> If they do target ads, I hope there is a DVR or something that can be blocked from using the internet so that I can see the master feed. Considering cable will be able to do individual ad insertion within te next decade as they move to IP, satellite or ATSC 1.0, as long as that is running, might be the last option to see a single broadcast feed.


Yessir, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. But you'll have to opt into letting them serve you targeted ads via the internet (and I assume they'll offer you something in exchange to induce you to opt in). And, yes, cable is moving in that direction too as it heads to IPTV.

If you want to see what the future of broadcast/cable TV looks like, check out what Hulu looks like today.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Bleh. I am opting out. I opt out of as many ad tracking things as I can, not beacuse I care if they passively collect my data, but because targeted ads are so annoying. I want general, bland, completely non targeted ads.

Considering that most people can't tell 720p from 1080i, all hope is lost for 4k, much less HDR. HDR is a pretty geeky thing.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

So, just to clarify, "HDR with 10-bit wide color gamut" is HDR10?

Also, isn't ATSC 3.0 supposed to be easier to receive with existing antennas?

I've got a large (8-bay, unamplified) UHF in the attic and currently it barely gets the locals 30-35 miles away.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

It's still UHF or VHF. Get the correct antenna for the frequencies your locals broadcast on. ATSC 3.0 theoretically will have better penetration through buildings than ATSC 1.0


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Yeah, I'm hoping locals will stay on UHF, otherwise I'll have to buy a VHF antenna and a diplexer.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Here is a fairly balanced take on ATSC 3.0 by Consumer Reports:

Free Over-the-Air TV Is Going to Get Better

Does not really tell us anything new but does cover the whole topic well, outlining what is known, +s, -s, and their estimates of what is going to happen and when.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 4, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> From the perspective of an OTA TV viewer (and I am one), I can understand you thinking that keeping all that spectrum for TV was in the "public interest". But only about 17% of the US watches OTA TV. What percentage do you think use cell phones?


I think that percent could start growing. My family dropped cable about a year and a half ago after loosing Viacom and a 20% price increase from our local provider. I would guess I've helped 30some friends, family members (and some of their friends), and neighbors all switch to pure OTA or OTA + OTT.



NashGuy said:


> I really think 1080p HDR as the new standard for broadcast TV is where we're headed, at least for the next few years. (I'd say for streaming too, except that Netflix and Amazon have already moved pretty much all their originals to UHD HDR.) I've read things in a few places that make me think that, including this article:
> 
> _The BBC has started trials of streaming HDR content at UHD resolution, but broadcasters in the U.S. are considering HDR+, a 10-bit 1080p HDR image with much lower bandwidth requirements than UHD, as a money-saving option._
> 
> ...


I was just discussing ATSC 3.0 with a friend that works for a local broadcaster with their own local news cast and such. When they move to ATSC 3.0 they are planning to have 4K HDR capability, not for their own content or affiliate content, but for their 24 hour movie channel. They have some movies from 2012/13 right now so by the time they get switched over they will likely be up to 2015/16. He also has a wild speculation - since ATSC 3.0 has subscriber / PPV "options", he wonders if Netflix (or other streaming providers) will setup stations / affiliated substations in major cities as a) another potential revenue stream and/or b) to circumvent ISPs and the whole Net Neutrality issues it kept making a stink about.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Quantum said:


> ...
> I was just discussing ATSC 3.0 with a friend that works for a local broadcaster with their own local news cast and such. When they move to ATSC 3.0 they are planning to have 4K HDR capability, not for their own content or affiliate content, but for their 24 hour movie channel. They have some movies from 2012/13 right now so by the time they get switched over they will likely be up to 2015/16. He also has a wild speculation - since ATSC 3.0 has subscriber / PPV "options", he wonders if Netflix (or other streaming providers) will setup stations / affiliated substations in major cities as a) another potential revenue stream and/or b) to circumvent ISPs and the whole Net Neutrality issues it kept making a stink about.


Just to be clear ATSC 3.0 can not do VoD it will still be linear broadcast channels. So I can not imagine VoD streaming services like Netflix being interested in setup OTA broadcast channels kind of defeats the whole purpose.

I could see some subscription stations being offered (HBO?) or PPV movie or special sporting events channels. But if they are going to broadcast in higher quality 1080p HD or UHD with HDR there isn't room for very many stations so it would be limited. But honestly I have no interest in having to have a special decryption STB for OTA so I can pay for those channels.

More likely we are going to get allot of SD or low quality HD channels as they can cram lots of those into one frequency and if anyone thinks I am going to pay for low quality anything via OTA broadcasts I can assure them they are wrong.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

What Netflix should do in order to deal with people out in the sticks with limited bandwidth is do a partnership with DirecTV and make 4k and 1080p linear channels out of their content, and then either offer a DVR with a giant hard drive to suck down a library of shows you'd be interested in, or just the ability to record stuff in binges of popular original content shows. You'd have to have a Netflix subscription to use it, and DirecTV would benefit by getting more people to use DirecTV.

I think trying to make PPV or subscription OTA is a recipe bound to fail. The people watching OTA are either cheap, or don't have that much interest in TV, or if they are savvy cord cutters, they're already streaming like crazy, and are paying for what they want on streaming.

They are just going to load up subchannels like crazy. Maybe they will do movie channels too with movies that have already made the rounds through everything else, and finally they will cram them chock full of ads and put them up OTA.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Bigg said:


> They are just going to load up subchannels like crazy. Maybe they will do movie channels too with movies that have already made the rounds through everything else, and finally they will cram them chock full of ads and put them up OTA.


If they do that, will the adoption of 3.0 equipment be strong?

Probably not.

Actually, I can't think of anything that will lead to broad adoption. If they put out 4K HDR, then the enthusiasts will adopt but what about the other 95% of the market?


----------



## Quantum (Feb 4, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> Just to be clear ATSC 3.0 can not do VoD it will still be linear broadcast channels. So I can not imagine VoD streaming services like Netflix being interested in setup OTA broadcast channels kind of defeats the whole purpose.
> 
> I could see some subscription stations being offered (HBO?) or PPV movie or special sporting events channels. But if they are going to broadcast in higher quality 1080p HD or UHD with HDR there isn't room for very many stations so it would be limited. But honestly I have no interest in having to have a special decryption STB for OTA so I can pay for those channels.
> 
> More likely we are going to get allot of SD or low quality HD channels as they can cram lots of those into one frequency and if anyone thinks I am going to pay for low quality anything via OTA broadcasts I can assure them they are wrong.


I understand that. What he was saying is have subchannels deadecated to some of their most popular content playing in loops for a period of time - say a month, and then change it to other content. And he only speculated this happening in major metropolitan areas if it all. This was mostly just theories possibilities based on the technology.

The only thing he knew for sure is his station would be getting hardware capable of 4K HDR if it's available when they begin transition to ATSC 3.0 in late 2018 / early 2019. No additional subchannels are planned beyond the two they currently have.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wco81 said:


> If they do that, will the adoption of 3.0 equipment be strong?
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> Actually, I can't think of anything that will lead to broad adoption. If they put out 4K HDR, then the enthusiasts will adopt but what about the other 95% of the market?


What the 95% or masses want/care about/will pay for is what I think is hard for most of us around here to understand. The simple fact we are TiVo users moves us out of the masses when it comes to TV. So I think most around here look at TV differently than the average Joe and would likely be considered enthusiasts.

It is hard for me to see why the masses will embraces (spend money on) ATSC 3.0, unless they have no choice. I am still hopefully I will end up with better reception and a higher quality picture from the major OTA networks I watch.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> If they do that, will the adoption of 3.0 equipment be strong?


It depends. If reception is better/easier, then maybe. If they degrade 1.0, maybe.



> Actually, I can't think of anything that will lead to broad adoption. If they put out 4K HDR, then the enthusiasts will adopt but what about the other 95% of the market?


As people buy new TVs over time it may start to get some decent adoption, but 3.0 missed a big opportunity with the first couple of generations of 4k TVs, so it will be slow. Most of the OTA users are very cost conscious, and as long as they don't degrade it too much, 1.0 is "good enough".



Quantum said:


> The only thing he knew for sure is his station would be getting hardware capable of 4K HDR if it's available when they begin transition to ATSC 3.0 in late 2018 / early 2019. No additional subchannels are planned beyond the two they currently have.


If they are replacing their whole production and transmission path from now dated HD-SDI equipment to IP-based equipment, it would make sense to have 4k-capable gear. I'm not sure that equates to actual 4k broadcasts, however, as there are as of now no plans for the networks to produce and transmit in 4k, and nowhere for those 4k signals to go, other than OTA, and they don't want OTA to be better on paper than cable and satellite, since they get retrans from the latter.



atmuscarella said:


> What the 95% or masses want/care about/will pay for is what I think is hard for most of us around here to understand. The simple fact we are TiVo users moves us out of the masses when it comes to TV. So I think most around here look at TV differently than the average Joe and would likely be considered enthusiasts.
> 
> It is hard for me to see why the masses will embraces (spend money on) ATSC 3.0, unless they have no choice. I am still hopefully I will end up with better reception and a higher quality picture from the major OTA networks I watch.


I agree. Reception could push "normal" users over, as will new TVs over time, but I think you're right about a rush of people going out to upgrade. Most OTA users are fine with whatever they have, as it's "good enough", unless something really cool comes out, or there are more subchannels that people want to watch. I also have a hard time seeing good subchannels on OTA, most of the ones out there now are junk, because they put the high value content on their cable networks, not via OTA subchannels that most people don't even know exist.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I don't think local stations have access to a lot of content that they'd broadcast for these new business models, would they?

Most successful stations are network affiliates so they depend on networks for prime time and sports programming. After that they can fill the rest with local news, some syndicated shows. Sure they play some older movies but nothing that people can't get on Netflix at their convenience.

So if they plan to broadcast 4K content, it's going to have to come from the networks. Same is true for 1080p HDR content. The location stations will be drafting on whatever the networks choose to distribute to them.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wco81: Assuming that the owners of OTA broadcast stations are motivated by profit, I have not been able to get a complete understanding on how moving to ASTC 3.0 is going to increase their profits anytime soon. There is the potential of mobile access via phones & tablets, but that assumes allot. There is the potential of more channels per frequency if they choose not to broadcast UHD with HDR and stick with the same level of HD & SD they are broadcasting now. There is the potential of some type of pay content again assuming they are not using the frequency for a UHD/HDR broadcast network. None of these make any sense to me and I really doubt they will end up driving increased profits anytime soon. 

Which just tells me I don't really understand what these broadcasters really think is going to happen. Of course this could be a mostly defensive move on the part of these broadcasters. If traditional cable does implode (Note: I don't think it will) completely and they have to rely on people watching their stations via actual OTA reception ATSC 3.0 should help with reception and perhaps 1080p or UHD with HDR content would get people to watch their channels. Or perhaps the projected time frames on how fast this conversion is going to happen are overly optimistic. I guess only time will tell.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I agree with atmuscarella. I just don't see a business case for this, unless they're going to crank up a whole bunch of new subchannels and cram them full of ads. Otherwise, I would see it in their best business interest to keep running ATSC 1.0. I guess the eventual plan could be to have just one or two physical 6mhz channels in a given market with a bunch of stations/networks on each, which would take advantage of the efficiency of 3.0, but that's a long transition for some marginal operational cost savings.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I agree with atmuscarella. I just don't see a business case for this, unless they're going to crank up a whole bunch of new subchannels and cram them full of ads. Otherwise, I would see it in their best business interest to keep running ATSC 1.0. I guess the eventual plan could be to have just one or two physical 6mhz channels in a given market with a bunch of stations/networks on each, which would take advantage of the efficiency of 3.0, but that's a long transition for some marginal operational cost savings.


If you use a Tivo, ads are of little consequence. If a station has more bandwidth for additional sub-channels, then there is a higher probability that viewers will find something of interest on that station. If a station moved to ATSC 3.0 there would be an instant demand for ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0 converters. Viewers would have the incentive of additional channels as a reward for purchasing a converter or a new tv. The additional channels provided by ATSC 1.0 motivated me to buy an HDTV back in 2005.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

People will want ATSC 3.0 tuners if they actually want to watch the new subchannels. It remains to be seen if anybody can come up with compelling subchannels that they broadcast for free.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> People will want ATSC 3.0 tuners if they actually want to watch the new subchannels. It remains to be seen if anybody can come up with compelling subchannels that they broadcast for free.


As you have pointed out previously, OTA viewers are cheapskates. If we haven't seen a program before it's new to us even if it is decades old. One channel here recently added a fourth sub-channel.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Problem is there aren't enough OTA viewers any more.

Plus those with money pay for services like HBO and Netflix because the best shows are on those and other cable channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> As you have pointed out previously, OTA viewers are cheapskates. If we haven't seen a program before it's new to us even if it is decades old. One channel here recently added a fourth sub-channel.


But then are they too much of a cheapskate to buy a new tuner/DVR? I think they may be.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

It's ridiculous to characterize people who have to make economic decisions based on factors which some people seem incapable of understanding as "cheapskates" and" Luddites".


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Yeah, I almost commented before - it's a total misuse of the word in that the context assumes everyone has plenty of money to pay whatever amount any subscription service asks for; whereas in fact the funds necessary for massive subscription revenue growth may not exist to begin with and may even be dwindling.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Making any economic assumptions about people who choose to not subscribe to pay TV and use OTA is likely fairly foolish. There are people who use OTA because they do not personally find enough value in Pay TV to pay for it and there are others who simple can not currently reasonably afford Pay TV. I know people using OTA on both ends of the economic spectrum.

That said their is some logic is assuming the many people who choose to not subscribe to Pay TV and use OTA that they are less likely to spend money of equipment because they either are currently having some economic restrictions or don't value TV as much as someone who is willing to subscribe to Pay TV. Of course their will be exceptions such as myself as I don't find enough value in Pay TV to Pay For it, but have no issues spending lots of money on equipment to view OTA content.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

As mentioned there are a number of reasons why people go OTA. Some simply can't afford pay TV but many of us simply don't find enough value in the pay TV offerings to subscribe. Personally I'm willing to invest in equipment when ultimately I'm still saving thousands of dollars in the long run. I will admit that many of the friends I've helped cut the cord are more hesitant to spend $ for equipment but if the saving justify the cost they generally will.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The people buying OTA Tivos now are in for a big surprise in less than 2 years.


TiVo is upselling the Roamio OTA with All In One Service to cable cutters. I just purchased one but can return it in the next 3 weeks. Your described 2 yr window is only a few months away now.

I am unable to follow the technical language in your previous post.

Can you explain to me in layman terminology exactly what the "surprise" is? Loss of OTA altogether? Purchasing another device that unscrambles OTA signals? Perhaps paying these Groups and mergers a subscription fee to receive OTA broadcasts?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

SandiMacD: SomeRandomIdiot is long gone from these forums. I recently started a new thread that has links to updated information: FCC Approves The Start of ATSC 3.0

Specifically note the links in Post 18 of the above thread, Tablo does a real good job of explaining things.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

neurocutie said:


> How does ATSC 3.0 affect rural consumers? I can see a real need to improve their reception as they have been negatively affected by the move to digital/ATSC 1.0...


Yep, my small Montana town of Clancy receives 2 stations OTA as of Nov 2017. And reption is so variable that many days you need to watch their news and weather broadcasts in a computer video link from their website.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

atmuscarella said:


> SandiMacD: SomeRandomIdiot is long gone from these forums. I recently started a new thread that has links to updated information: FCC Approves The Start of ATSC 3.0
> 
> Specifically note the links in Post 18 of the above thread, Tablo does a real good job of explaining things.


Thanks!


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

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

Phoenix To Serve As 'Model Market' For ATSC 3.0

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


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

SandiMacD said:


> Yep, my small Montana town of Clancy receives 2 stations OTA as of Nov 2017. And reption is so variable that many days you need to watch their news and weather broadcasts in a computer video link from their website.


Here's an example of where the technical capabilities of ATSC 3.0 could possibly help you. ATSC 3.0 is broadcast using "internet protocol," which basically means it speaks the same language as the internet. Video, audio and data coming through an ATSC 3.0 broadcast can interact and commingle with video, audio and data coming through your home's internet connection in various ways. _If a broadcaster wanted to_, they could embed a key in their OTA signal that would unlock an online streaming simulcast of their live channel (i.e. the exact same content at the exact same time, but over the internet instead of over the air). If your ATSC 3.0 tuner is connected to the internet, and if the tuner determined that the quality of the OTA signal wasn't good/reliable enough, it could then automatically switch over to the internet streaming version of the local channel and display it on your TV.


----------



## SandiMacD (Apr 19, 2017)

NashGuy said:


> If your ATSC 3.0 tuner is connected to the internet, and if the tuner determined that the quality of the OTA signal wasn't good/reliable enough, it could then automatically switch over to the internet streaming version of the local channel and display it on your TV.


DSL is the only available internet option. I wired the house with cat 5e from the router back in 2008 because of prolonged/stalled buffering over the home wifi. Would the ATSC 3.0 tuner be connected via Ethernet cable to the DSL?

While the rest of the US is moving quickly forward, the rural areas have little options. Our MT subdivision has been in negotiation for 2 years to bring out cable internet. A lot of talk and surveys and promises but now they don't respond to our calls.

We move to FL and were blown away with internet options. We still have the MT home as it is near our children and grandchildren. Hoping by the time we move back, internet will have improved.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

SandiMacD said:


> DSL is the only available internet option. I wired the house with cat 5e from the router back in 2008 because of prolonged/stalled buffering over the home wifi. Would the ATSC 3.0 tuner be connected via Ethernet cable to the DSL?


Depends on the tuner. Some will be wifi-only, I'm sure, but some will likely have Ethernet too.



SandiMacD said:


> While the rest of the US is moving quickly forward, the rural areas have little options. Our MT subdivision has been in negotiation for 2 years to bring out cable internet. A lot of talk and surveys and promises but now they don't respond to our calls.
> 
> We move to FL and were blown away with internet options. We still have the MT home as it is near our children and grandchildren. Hoping by the time we move back, internet will have improved.


Yeah, rural internet access isn't great. The best hope may be low earth orbit satellite internet. There are a couple companies planning to start launching satellites in the next year or two. Will still be awhile before service becomes available.

Home - OneWeb | OneWorld
SpaceX Satellite Broadband Network May Be Called 'Starlink' - ExtremeTech


----------

