# Tivo's back up plan for ATSC 3.0 or NO CABLE CARD



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

SO is there one, or will Rovi be the ones to make us all bastards?

Potential solution I can think of-

If TIVO can do switched digital with cable, why couldn't an ATSC 3.0 external tuner be able to handle this? Tivo stays on 1-4 ATSC 1.0 channels thats fed by the external tuner. The external tuner changes channels as commanded by the Tivo via USB. If sending 4 ATSC 1.0 streams from external tuner is not feasible, then use the ethernet port and sent it via IP streams. 

Same for Cable, DBS, IPTV ect ect..use the ethernet port. With an external gateway.

I believe what I'm describing is what DAN mentions here frequently. 
Wouldn't the current Tivos (Roams, Bolts) be able to handle this?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## cncb (Jul 4, 2013)

Yes, some kind of reassurance that we won't be left out to dry with ATSC 1.0 tuners would be nice but that probably is their "plan".


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Having some sort of external tuner for ATSC 3.0 would be possible. But honestly I doubt it will be necessary. The transition to ATSC 3.0 isn't going to happen that quickly and you'll still have access to ATSC 1.0 channels even after it does. By the time this is a real thing TiVo will likely have a unit with ATSC 3.0 tuners available. (could be why they scrapped the OTA only Bolt)


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

So in that case those with Tivo lifetimes should be able to upgrade to the new ones (ota only) with a small fee?

I hope!

If Tivo would give some re-assurance, I'm sure their sales on Bolts and OTA's would go way up.

Otherwise people will be thinking they are buying early door stoppers.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I doubt it. When the digital transition haooened they didn't offer people with old S2 units, which didn't have ATSC tuners, any sort of upgrade deal. The upgrade isn't going to happen over night. It'll likely happen in big markets first. If you happen to be in one of those you'll probably be able to sell your TiVo to someone who's not and get a decent percentage of your money back.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I doubt it. When the digital transition haooened they didn't offer people with old S2 units, which didn't have ATSC tuners, any sort of upgrade deal. The upgrade isn't going to happen over night. It'll likely happen in big markets first. If you happen to be in one of those you'll probably be able to sell your TiVo to someone who's not and get a decent percentage of your money back.


Dan, You're a man of integrity and smart in any universe!


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> I doubt it. When the digital transition haooened they didn't offer people with old S2 units, which didn't have ATSC tuners, any sort of upgrade deal. The upgrade isn't going to happen over night. It'll likely happen in big markets first. If you happen to be in one of those you'll probably be able to sell your TiVo to someone who's not and get a decent percentage of your money back.


If a station has to change frequencies from UHF to VHF, what would be the cost differential to continue broadcasting using ATSC 1.0 versus switching over to ATSC 3.0? It seems like many stations will change frequencies irrespective of market size. Also, it seems like ATSC 3.0 would allow a station to broadcast more sub channels which would translate to increased revenue.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They are still required by law to transmit at least an SD version of their main feed as ATSC 1.0. 

The plans I've seen for transitioing to ATSC 3.0 involve markets where the various stations cooperate. One of them will transmit all the ATSC 1.0 strams required by law, either as SD or heavily compressed HD, and the rest will pool together to transmit ATSC 3.0 versions of the channel.Not sure if they'll be 4K or not though as one ATSC 3.0 channel barely has enough bandwidth to do one 4K channel.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The break even point on all my TiVo hardware including my OTA is in a little over two years. I'm not the least bit worried that HD versions of the channels I care about on ATSC 1.0 OTA are going away anytime in the next 10 years.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

What the heck does support for SDV have to do with the ability to support an external tuner? SDV still uses the TiVos tuners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

series5orpremier said:


> The break even point on all my TiVo hardware including my OTA is in a little over two years. I'm not the least bit worried that HD versions of the channels I care about on ATSC 1.0 OTA are going away anytime in the next 10 years.


Then you're essentially betting that ATSC 3.0 isn't going to happen (at least in your local market). Because if it does, it will be in place in the next several years and HD on ATSC 1.0 will be gone in less than a decade. Heck, ATSC 1.0 (along with FM and AM radio) could be gone completely in a decade.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> ... (along with FM and AM radio) could be gone completely in a decade.


I'll take that bet!

(AM and FM)


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Then you're essentially betting that ATSC 3.0 isn't going to happen (at least in your local market). Because if it does, it will be in place in the next several years and HD on ATSC 1.0 will be gone in less than a decade. Heck, ATSC 1.0 (along with FM and AM radio) could be gone completely in a decade.


It might happen; I don't care if it happens... if it does it might even encourage me to buy a UHD to play around with it. My attitude is based more on I'm in a relativity smaller market that my intuition tells me both will still have plenty of bandwidth AND will not be the most progressive early adopting community both in terms of station ownership cheapness and average consumers having little desire or need to go out of their way to make a special $1000+ main TV purchase just for 3.0. Try to tell a community they HAVE to throw out old electronics and/or spend bucks on new equipment just to get at least the HD quality they're accustomed to and hell hath no fury like the political backlash you'll see.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Then you're essentially betting that ATSC 3.0 isn't going to happen (at least in your local market). Because if it does, it will be in place in the next several years and HD on ATSC 1.0 will be gone in less than a decade. Heck, ATSC 1.0 (along with FM and AM radio) could be gone completely in a decade.


In a decade I could be dead, the sun could go super nova, aliens could invade, and the world could end. Worrying about future events that we have zero control over is a complete waist of time and ones life.

We are watching TV today, watching with a good DVR enhances that experience by a significant amount. Living without a good DVR today because we may have to replace it in a few years (likely with something better) is complete foolishness.

If my Roamio and Bolt blow up I would be ordering another Bolt or Roamio OTA with in a few days (just long enough to verify I couldn't fix them myself), and I have a Series 3, TiVo HD, & Premiere that all still work just fine.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Add to that with all the talk of what MIGHT happen I think some people are greatly underestimating the socioeconomic political obstacles of making it happen.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 will coexist. You will add an ATSC 3.0 router to your network and stream those channels to set top hardware. ATSC 1.0 will continue to get there as it always has. Some stations in some markets will add UHD capability via ATSC 3.0, but most of the ATSC 3.0 use will be by subscription services so that people without uncapped, unthrottled high speed internet will be able to get HBO and Netflix. TiVo will add an app to their boxes which renders the ATSC 3.0 stream as delivered by the router.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

series5orpremier said:


> It might happen; I don't care if it happens... if it does it might even encourage me to buy a UHD to play around with it. My attitude is based more on I'm in a relativity smaller market that my intuition tells me both will still have plenty of bandwidth AND will not be the most progressive early adopting community both in terms of station ownership cheapness and average consumers having little desire or need to go out of their way to make a special $1000+ main TV purchase just for 3.0. Try to tell a community they HAVE to throw out old electronics and/or spend bucks on new equipment just to get at least the HD quality they're accustomed to and hell hath no fury like the political backlash you'll see.


But the reverse auctions that start at the end of May are structured to pay out the most money to the first stations that agree to sell their frequency. The longer a station waits to sell, the less money they could get for their frequency.

Once the station moves from UHF to VHF they need new equipment to broadcast the VHF signal. Are you saying station that has to move to VHF would invest in new equipment to broadcast in ATSC 1.0?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> They are still required by law to transmit at least an SD version of their main feed as ATSC 1.0.
> 
> The plans I've seen for transitioing to ATSC 3.0 involve markets where the various stations cooperate. One of them will transmit all the ATSC 1.0 strams required by law, either as SD or heavily compressed HD, and the rest will pool together to transmit ATSC 3.0 versions of the channel.Not sure if they'll be 4K or not though as one ATSC 3.0 channel barely has enough bandwidth to do one 4K channel.


Do you think it's possible that stations that have to change frequencies would broadcast ATSC 1.0 from the new frequency?


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

shwru980r said:


> Do you think it's possible that stations that have to change frequencies would broadcast ATSC 1.0 from the new frequency?


They have no choice. This is a repack of the frequencies, not a change to the broadcast standard. Until the FCC approves a new standard and gives them approval to broadcast in said standard aka ATSC 3.0. The stations that move will be broadcasting in 1.0 on their new assignments.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> But the reverse auctions that start at the end of May are structured to pay out the most money to the first stations that agree to sell their frequency. The longer a station waits to sell, the less money they could get for their frequency.
> 
> Once the station moves from UHF to VHF they need new equipment to broadcast the VHF signal. Are you saying station that has to move to VHF would invest in new equipment to broadcast in ATSC 1.0?





shwru980r said:


> Do you think it's possible that stations that have to change frequencies would broadcast ATSC 1.0 from the new frequency?


Each market is going to be affected differently. For me it is basically a none issue and basically nothing much has to change do to Governments repurchase. Of the 6 frequencies currently being used for OTA (10, 13, 16, 23, 28 & 45 ) only one of them (45) is being bought back by the Government and removed from OTA use, if that channel (my CBS station) goes to an open VHF (it was on frequency 8 in the analog days) or open UHF frequency seems like a pretty easy thing as we have plenty open in the range being left for OTA.

In big cities where allot more frequencies are being used I am sure it will be more difficult.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

osu1991 said:


> They have no choice. This is a repack of the frequencies, not a change to the broadcast standard. Until the FCC approves a new standard and gives them approval to broadcast in said standard aka ATSC 3.0. The stations that move will be broadcasting in 1.0 on their new assignments.


Both legally and economically. Why would anybody, unless they're an idiot or have deep pockets with money to burn (which by the way aren't mutually exclusive), rush to invest money to broadcast in a standard that nobody is watching (the electronics to receive it either doesn't exist yet or doesn't have any market penetration). That's flushing money down the toilet while waiting for the consumer market to catch up to you, and there's no guarantee it will quickly.


----------



## jeff_rigby (Apr 30, 2016)

wizwor said:


> ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 will coexist. You will add an ATSC 3.0 router to your network and stream those channels to set top hardware. ATSC 1.0 will continue to get there as it always has. Some stations in some markets will add UHD capability via ATSC 3.0, but most of the ATSC 3.0 use will be by subscription services so that people without uncapped, unthrottled high speed internet will be able to get HBO and Netflix. TiVo will add an app to their boxes which renders the ATSC 3.0 stream as delivered by the router.


It's even simpler. LG has a combo ATSC 1 & 3 network tuner that serves the Home WiFi network. Any UHD Blu-ray with digital bridge can be a ATSC 1 & 3 STB that can up and down scale to support 4K and 1080P TVs. UHD Blu-ray players with digital bridge also have a hard disk which can be used as a DVR.

Sony wanted the UHD Blu-ray digital bridge to be mandated. In Panasonic PDFs on the digital bridge, it uses Playready ND which is the 1080P and 4K streaming DRM for Vidipath.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

series5orpremier said:


> Both legally and economically. Why would anybody, unless they're an idiot or have deep pockets with money to burn (which by the way aren't mutually exclusive), rush to invest money to broadcast in a standard that nobody is watching (the electronics to receive it either doesn't exist yet or doesn't have any market penetration). That's flushing money down the toilet while waiting for the consumer market to catch up to you, and there's no guarantee it will quickly.


http://current.org/2016/05/atsc-spells-progress-for-public-television/

"Broadcasters would be able to invest in this new technology of the future, buying 3.0-compatible equipment for which they will be compensated during the FCCs channel repacking process."

Congress has allocated $1.75 Billion to compensate broadcasters for transition expenses.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

I guess I'm missing something in this grand plan...

As it has been explained here, the plan is to move an entire market's television channels to either extremely compressed HD or SD broadcasts on one frequency, while all the other channels convert their stations and begin broadcasting ATSC 3.0.

So, at that point, almost no one can receive the high quality ATSC 3.0 broadcast (why buy something that receives a signal no one broadcasts), but virtually everyone will suddenly see the quality of all the channels they DO receive deteriorate significantly. 

To get the high definition data stream back, they have 3 options:

1) Go out and buy a new TV (and DVR, if they have any) that has an ATSC 3.0 tuner
2) Go out and buy an ATSC 3.0 adapter for each TV (and DVR, if they have any) 
3) Subscribe to cable

And this is supposed to reinvigorate broadcast TV? Seems like a plan to reverse the cord-cutting trend to me.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Long term ATSC 3.0 is better for the broadcasters. Unfortunately it uses a completely different modulation scheme so it's not backward compatible. Which means they either would have to cut everyone off and just switch to ATSC 3.0 outright (also against current government regulations) or they have to figure out some way to deploy it while allowing the transition to happen slowly. With the current plan I think they're hoping to eliminate the chicken/egg conundrum. By having a signal available they're hoping that CE manufactures will start including ATSC 3.0 into new products. Once that reaches critical mass then they can eliminate the ATSC 1.0 broadcasts and convert entirely to ATSC 3.0.

Sort term it will likely hurt cord cutters as they will see a decrease in the quality of the programming they receive OTA. But on the plus side they're likely only going to do this in a few major markets where the various broadcasters can cooperate, so unless you live in one of those your market will likely just make the whole sale switch some time in the future when all your hardware is already ATSC 3.0 compatible anyway.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think there is allot of spin going on with this. If the FCC really wanted to support ATSC 3.0 they wouldn't be taking more than half of the current OTA frequencies away from OTA broadcasters. Instead they would be doing just like they did during the analog to digital conversion, allow broadcasters to have another channel to start broadcasting ATSC 3.0 on while retaining the one they are using now for ATSC 1.0 broadcast both for a few years, require all new devices that tune OTA to have a built in ATSC 3.0 tuner, then providing subsidies to the general public to buy converters for existing TVs. 

The FCC/Government has done none of that, instead they are taking away channels and doing nothing to help financial with the transition except for the money they will be providing because of the lost channels. And regardless of how much support the people spinning this say they are getting from the FCC the fact is ATSC 3.0 isn't approved yet. 

It will be interesting to see if ATSC 3.0 saves or destroys OTA TV.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Diana Collins said:


> I guess I'm missing something in this grand plan...
> 
> As it has been explained here, the plan is to move an entire market's television channels to either extremely compressed HD or SD broadcasts on one frequency, while all the other channels convert their stations and begin broadcasting ATSC 3.0.


Well, this is the problem. Please provide industry sources saying this. That is not what is going to happen.



Diana Collins said:


> So, at that point, almost no one can receive the high quality ATSC 3.0 broadcast (why buy something that receives a signal no one broadcasts), but virtually everyone will suddenly see the quality of all the channels they DO receive deteriorate significantly.


The reverse auction is designed to compact the overall spectrum not individual channels. The only possible loss during this exercise is that stations go off the air because they cannot make money comparable to the buyout (no great loss) or that a UHF station will move to VHF and be blacked out for those with UHF antennas. I do not see this happening since the impact on the broadcaster would be great and the feds would not pay much for this since there is plenty of UHF bandwidth in most markets.



Diana Collins said:


> To get the high definition data stream back, they have 3 options:
> 
> 1) Go out and buy a new TV (and DVR, if they have any) that has an ATSC 3.0 tuner
> 2) Go out and buy an ATSC 3.0 adapter for each TV (and DVR, if they have any)
> ...


Right. Ain't gonna happen. Broadcasters know that 720p is good enough for most and that cord cutters are price sensitive.

There is no doubt in my mind that the FCC will make every effort to accommodate ATSC 3.0 during the repacking, but there is no point killing off OTA in the process. The stations that shut down will be low value broadcasters -- shopping channels, religious channels, and overlapping PBS channels. I do not expect any station to move from UHF to VHF except maybe situations like Portland Maine where all the major channels are VHF.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

wizwor said:


> Well, this is the problem. Please provide industry sources saying this. That is not what is going to happen...


I'm just trying to understand what has been said here and in other ATSC 3.0 "timeline" posts. There is simply not enough bandwidth in many markets (particularly after the repack) for both full bandwidth ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 broadcasts. So, as I have read, the plan is to have local broadcasters cooperate and pack a bunch of sub-channels onto one or two ATSC 1.0 broadcasts while simulcasting, on their regular frequencies, a new ATSC 3.0 signal.

If you pack more than 4 or 5 sub channels onto one ATSC 1.0 carrier, even at 720p, picture quality will suffer. When you consider that many broadcasters are employing 3 or 4 sub channels already, even in smaller markets you could have upwards of 12 or more channels to accommodate.

So, I go back to the results. OTA viewers will either see a reduction in picture quality, or a reduction in available channels, or both.

To remedy this, they have the 3 options noted previously. Having already invested in TVs with ATSC 1.0 tuners (some of them shiny new UHD TVs), and in many cases multiple such sets, I just don't see people rushing out to replace them all because broadcasters want a new broadcasting standard they can monetize. They will either watch the degraded 1.0 feeds or subscribe to lifeline cable. Which means broadcasters will have to wait for normal end of life replacements of TVs to get any significant ATSC 3.0 penetration. Even if they started migration tomorrow, it will be close to 10 years before there is anything close to a majority of 3.0 capable sets in the field. By that time there may no longer be any such thing as linear broadcasting in the first place.

I'm just trying to figure out how this really helps broadcasters in the long run. It seems like they are assuming that their content is so compelling that people will do almost anything to get it, in as high quality as possible. That runs counter to almost every trend in the market.

Just explain to me why a current OTA viewer cares about ATSC 3.0. What does the viewer get for replacing their equipment? The ability to watch UHD broadcasts? That's questionable, since even with 3.0 that would leave little space for sub-channels or other services. Mobile TV? Seems like a niche market when you can stream a whole lot of content to your phone or tablet today (and will soon be getting live TV over IP). Additional services? What are they and what will they cost?

I repeat: What am I missing?


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Start the KILL ATSC 3.0 REVOLOTION NOW, because I believe its the industries way of killing OTA as we know it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ATSC 3.0 is the ONLY way we're ever going to see 4K OTA. If they don't make the transition, and 4K catches on, then OTA is dead. I personally think real 4K content is a bit further out then most people think, but I think it has a better chance of catching on then 3D. It's less of a gimmick and really does improve things like football where the higher resolution and higher frame rate make a big difference.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Football and its associated costs is why people cut their paid services in the first place.

Really, what good content are we really going to get in 4k so people with 70" screens can sit 3 feet in front of their TV's. Dancing with the Stars?

I know, we really need to see the jock strap bulges on those football players.

KILL 3.0 NOW! Before it kills OTA altogether!!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Honestly OTA is on borrowed time anyway. Eventually everything is going to transition to IP. ATSC 3.0 is an attempt to extend the life of OTA by adding emerging trends like 4K and mobile. Wether it actually helps or ultimately hastens the death of OTA remains to be seen, but OTA has got one foot in the grave either way.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Honestly OTA is on borrowed time anyway.


They said that about AM radio 40 years ago. It still exists, augmented by an "HD radio" protocol.

Decades ago they said the "paperless office" would take over and purge all paper from workplaces. If anything, paper is a nearly equal partner with technology in the majority of business settings.

And in the 1960's folks back then were told that we would have flying cars now. Nope.

You see, I do not put much weight into market hype. The big things are usually new things that are not predicted, and work along side with traditional technologies.

If ATSC 3.0 happens, it will probably serve in a limited auxiliary role. It will compliment what currently exists, not replace it. Any grander predictions belong in my garage next to my flying car.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This is a little different. The spectrum those OTA channels are using is too valuable. If the entire video market has transitioned to IP, which it's going to do, then those OTA channels are just wasting that precious spectrum. We are not going to be still broadcasting ATSC 1.0 twenty years from now. ATSC 3.0 may not be the answer, but it would keep the concept of linear multicast broadcasting relevant longer then ATSC 1.0 will.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I just meant too valuable in a general sense to be taken up by a technology no one is using. ATSC 1.0 is a poor spec. It's too limited in both features and bandwidth to be useful long term. ATSC 3.0 attempts to fix those shortcomings, but I'm not sure if it's really a long term solution either. Perhaps the government should reclaim that spectrum and offer free public wireless internet. That would probably be more useful to more people long term.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

AM is poor spec, and Duche Limburger made millions off it.

Its the gobment picking winners and chooses again.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If I understand the situation, the analogy to 3D fails for at least 2 reasons:

1. 3D wasn't mandated by the FCC.

2. The primary purpose isn't ATSC 3.0 per se, it's to reduce the bandwidth used by OTA and re-allocate the freed up bandwidth elsewhere..


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

So ATSC 3.0 is mandated by the FCC?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> ATSC 3.0 is the ONLY way we're ever going to see 4K OTA. If they don't make the transition, and 4K catches on, then OTA is dead. I personally think real 4K content is a bit further out then most people think, but I think it has a better chance of catching on then 3D. It's less of a gimmick and really does improve things like football where the higher resolution and higher frame rate make a big difference.


Yes. And, aside from UHD/4K, ATSC 3.0 will allow for broadcasting HDR (high dynamic range) content. Many observers say that HDR is a more noticeable picture advancement over current HD than is as the increased resolution of UHD. So we may see some programming broadcast over ATSC 3.0 in high-frame-rate 1080p HDR rather than UHD HDR. Who knows. It's a question of the trade-off in terms of discernable PQ improvement vs. bandwidth requirements.

If I understand correctly, stations will be able to dynamically reallocate bandwidth between subchannels under ATSC 3.0, so they could broadcast two 1080p channels during the day (along with several 720p or 480p channels, plus some audio-only music/talk channels) and then replace those two 1080p channels with one UHD (2160p) channel during primetime.

How quickly ATSC 3.0 will be implemented in the US and how popular it will prove to be are hard to predict but it seems like a pretty safe bet at this point that ATSC 3.0 WILL happen. South Korea, home of LG and Samsung, is a big proponent of the new standard and they are sticking to their public commitment to begin airing UHD on ATSC 3.0 in less than a year, by Feb. 2017. So all the necessary hardware, both on the broadcaster and the consumer side, will be ready by then. Meanwhile, the FCC is poised to approve the necessary regulatory moves here in the US this year to allow ATSC 3.0 to move forward.

All the major local TV station broadcast owner groups in the US are public proponents of ATSC 3.0 and they will certainly take the move to ATSC 3.0 into account as they plan their necessary moves during the current spectrum repack. It would not surprise me at all to see at least a few stations in the US broadcasting in ATSC 3.0 at some point in 2018, with lots doing so in time for the 2020 Olympic Games.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> So ATSC 3.0 is mandated by the FCC?


It isn't _*mandated*_ by the FCC and probably won't be any time soon. TV broadcasters are currently asking the FCC to allow ATSC 3.0 to co-exist with ATSC 1.0 and there's no reason to believe the FCC won't amend current regulations in order to let that happen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Just read a 3.0 propaganda piece. I loved the part about tiny antennas connected to TVs rather than big ones on the roof. Just how does a new encoding spec change physics?


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

TV manufacures' Pipe Dreams sounds like.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Just read a 3.0 propaganda piece. I loved the part about tiny antennas connected to TVs rather than big ones on the roof. Just how does a new encoding spec change physics?


What I have read (no idea if it is correct) is that ATSC 3.0 allows for the ability to broadcast on the same frequency from multiple broadcast antennas/sites. So part of the switch over is for a channel owner to install additional smaller broadcast antennas as need throughout their service area to provide much better coverage. If they will or not is another matter.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Am I wrong in thinking that the FCC's goal is re-allocate bandwidth away from OTA?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the FCC's goal is re-allocate bandwidth away from OTA?


ATSC 3.0 uses the same spectrum as they're using now. It just uses different modulation to increase the bandwidth offered by each frequency from 19.2Mbps to ~28Mbps.

There is another discussion in this thread (or the other one) about an upcoming spectrum auction that is intended to compress the spectrum available to TV broadcasters but I'm not up on the exact details of how that's going to work exactly. I think it's market by market rather then national though.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> ATSC 3.0 uses the same spectrum as they're using now. It just uses different modulation to increase the bandwidth offered by each frequency from 19.2Mbps to ~28Mbps.
> 
> There is another discussion in this thread (or the other one) about an upcoming spectrum auction that is intended to compress the spectrum available to TV broadcasters but I'm not up on the exact details of how that's going to work exactly. I think it's market by market rather then national though.


A lot of my thinking is based on this post (and others) that you wrote.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

TonyD79 said:


> Just read a 3.0 propaganda piece. I loved the part about tiny antennas connected to TVs rather than big ones on the roof. Just how does a new encoding spec change physics?


Yeah, that's a chuckle. Proper antenna size is related to wavelength. Physics rules


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> What I have read (no idea if it is correct) is that ATSC 3.0 allows for the ability to broadcast on the same frequency from multiple broadcast antennas/sites. So part of the switch over is for a channel owner to install additional smaller broadcast antennas as need throughout their service area to provide much better coverage. If they will or not is another matter.


Same frequency + multiple broadcast locations = multipath. Usually a bad thing.

That sounds like marketing speak. I wonder what they really mean and how it is actually intended to work.

Unless this is talking about a type of cellular implementation.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that the FCC's goal is re-allocate bandwidth away from OTA?





Dan203 said:


> ATSC 3.0 uses the same spectrum as they're using now. It just uses different modulation to increase the bandwidth offered by each frequency from 19.2Mbps to ~28Mbps.
> 
> There is another discussion in this thread (or the other one) about an upcoming spectrum auction that is intended to compress the spectrum available to TV broadcasters but I'm not up on the exact details of how that's going to work exactly. I think it's market by market rather then national though.


The spectrum buy back and resale (and then repacking) is going on now. The buy back & resale should not take that long, but the actual time frame is unknown as the Government has to get enough money from the resale or they can not proceed. AFter all that is settled the stations actually have something like 3+ years to move off their current frequency. Those in the Private sector pushing ATSC 3.0 have said they would like to see broadcasters move to ATSC 3.0 in the same time frame that all of this is occurring. With the result being that some people have tied the 2 things together.

ATSC 3.0 is not tied to the spectrum buy back, resale, & repacking and the Government/FCC isn't mandating any ATSC 3.0 conversion or providing any funds to do so.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> Same frequency + multiple broadcast locations = multipath. Usually a bad thing.
> 
> That sounds like marketing speak. I wonder what they really mean and how it is actually intended to work.
> 
> Unless this is talking about a type of cellular implementation.


I know nothing of the tech. It is just one of the benefits ATSC 3.0 is supposed to provide over ATSC 1.0. Just like increase the bandwidth from 19.2 Mbps to something north of 25 Mbps again I have no understanding of the tech just that is what they are claiming. If you are able to look at technical specs and have them mean anything you could check out this site: http://atsc.org/newsletter/atsc-3-0-where-we-stand/

If you go back through some of the older newsletters they talk about how the broadcasting works (again way beyond me).


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> The spectrum buy back and resale (and then repacking) is going on now. The buy back & resale should not take that long, but the actual time frame is unknown as the Government has to get enough money from the resale or they can not proceed. AFter all that is settled the stations actually have something like 3+ years to move off their current frequency. Those in the Private sector pushing ATSC 3.0 have said they would like to see broadcasters move to ATSC 3.0 in the same time frame that all of this is occurring. With the result being that some people have tied the 2 things together.
> 
> ATSC 3.0 is not tied to the spectrum buy back, resale, & repacking and the Government/FCC isn't mandating any ATSC 3.0 conversion or providing any funds to do so.


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1395A1.pdf

"The Spectrum Act establishes a $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund (Fund) to be used for reimbursement of eligible relocation costs."

http://current.org/2016/05/atsc-spel...ic-television/

"Broadcasters would be able to invest in this new technology of the future, buying 3.0-compatible equipment for which they will be compensated during the FCCs channel repacking process."


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

foghorn2 said:


> Football and its associated costs is why people cut their paid services in the first place.
> 
> Really, what good content are we really going to get in 4k so people with 70" screens can sit 3 feet in front of their TV's. Dancing with the Stars?
> 
> ...


For most shows I don't really care if it's HD, but for sports I can't stand to watch football or baseball in SD anymore. MLB.com improved the resolution this year to 60fps and it's noticible to me and I find the games more enjoyable. Maybe at some point it won't make a difference to me, but I would definitely consider 4K for sports.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RoamioJeff said:


> Same frequency + multiple broadcast locations = multipath. Usually a bad thing. That sounds like marketing speak. I wonder what they really mean and how it is actually intended to work. Unless this is talking about a type of cellular implementation.


It would have to be but as I read it, all the tests so far were from a single tower.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1395A1.pdf
> 
> "The Spectrum Act establishes a $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund (Fund) to be used for reimbursement of eligible relocation costs."
> 
> ...


The 1.75 fund is being funded by the resale of the reclaimed spectrum. That's why they don't know how fast the whole processing is going to take, if they don't get enough money from the spectrum auction to pay the channels that have decided to take the money offered they can not proceed. Back when SRI was posting day and night he posted a nation wide list the showed what each channel was being offered by the FCC, it depended on what frequency they were on and what market they where in.

The second article is just saying there is nothing stopping a station getting money from the spectrum repurchase from using it to convert to ATSC 3.0. The money they are receiving is for the spectrum repurchase not to necessarily convert to ATSC 3.0. Also any station not going off the air or moving from a frequency that will no longer be used for OTA pretty much gets nothing.

Go search the FCC's web sit for ATSC 3.0 - you will find the only thing the FCC is currently doing is taking comments on the proposed rules change that the privet sector wants so they can begin using ATSC 3.0.

That is the only involvement the FCC/Government has at this time with ATSC 3.0.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> I'm just trying to understand what has been said here and in other ATSC 3.0 "timeline" posts. There is simply not enough bandwidth in many markets (particularly after the repack) for both full bandwidth ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 broadcasts. So, as I have read, the plan is to have local broadcasters cooperate and pack a bunch of sub-channels onto one or two ATSC 1.0 broadcasts while simulcasting, on their regular frequencies, a new ATSC 3.0 signal.
> 
> If you pack more than 4 or 5 sub channels onto one ATSC 1.0 carrier, even at 720p, picture quality will suffer. When you consider that many broadcasters are employing 3 or 4 sub channels already, even in smaller markets you could have upwards of 12 or more channels to accommodate.
> 
> ...


When not broadcasting 4K, ATSC 3.0 allows more subchannels than ATSC 1.0. I think that would be a selling point for paying for new ATSC 3.0 equipment, because it's a one time fee that would be recouped over paying a cable bill every month. During the first digital transition, I bought a new TV because I could get a few extra channels.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> When not broadcasting 4K, ATSC 3.0 allows more subchannels than ATSC 1.0. I think that would be a selling point for paying for new ATSC 3.0 equipment, because it's a one time fee that would be recouped over paying a cable bill every month. During the first digital transition, I bought a new TV because I could get a few extra channels.


Unless those new sub channels are going to be cable replacements, most large markets have all the general subs already. I doubt more 1950s reruns will drive the tv market.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> A lot of my thinking is based on this post (and others) that you wrote.


That is something the broadcasters are doing among themselves. They want ATSC 3.0, but current regulations require them to broadcast at least their primary channel as ATSC 1.0. So the plan is for them to cooperate among themselves in certain markets so that they can use one broadcaster's spectrum for an ATSC 1.0 version of all of their required streams, then they would share the rest of the broadcasters' spectrum for ATSC 3.0. This allows them to start transitioning to ATSC 3.0 without running afoul of the current regulations and eliminates the chicken/egg scenario with this type of switch over.

And that plan is not set in stone. If they have cooperation from 5+ broadcasters in an area they might use 2 to broadcast ATSC 1.0 and 3 for ATSC 3.0. The idea though is to share their spectrums so they can simulcast both at the same time. You can't simulcast both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 on a single spectrum so this only works if they share.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Seeking clarification on the entire situation, I have a question. If the frequency repacking occurs, will the stations be able to broadcast _*exactly*_ as they are today in ATSC 1.0 - same quality and number of sub-channels?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> Seeking clarification on the entire situation, I have a question. If the frequency repacking occurs, will the stations be able to broadcast _*exactly*_ as they are today in ATSC 1.0 - same quality and number of sub-channels?


OK, there are a few things to consider here. Let's say that in your market, none of the current broadcasters are choosing to sell their spectrum/broadcast license in the auction and completely go off the air. So all of them will continue broadcasting, even though some of them may shift to a different frequency. And now let's say that, during the repack following the auction, none of the broadcasters in your market choose to begin broadcasting in ATSC 3.0 but instead stick solely with ATSC 1.0. So long as those conditions are met, my understanding is that nothing would change for you as a viewer (except that you may need to reposition your antenna or get a different one capable of both UHF and VHF reception) -- you would still see the same channel line-up with the same picture quality (given good reception by your antenna), so long as your local broadcasters chose to continue sending out those signals.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> OK, there are a few things to consider here. Let's say that in your market, none of the current broadcasters are choosing to sell their spectrum/broadcast license in the auction and completely go off the air. So all of them will continue broadcasting, even though some of them may shift to a different frequency. And now let's say that, during the repack following the auction, none of the broadcasters in your market choose to begin broadcasting in ATSC 3.0 but instead stick solely with ATSC 1.0. So long as those conditions are met, my understanding is that nothing would change for you as a viewer (except that you may need to reposition your antenna or get a different one capable of both UHF and VHF reception) -- you would still see the same channel line-up with the same picture quality (given good reception by your antenna), so long as your local broadcasters chose to continue sending out those signals.


What you have posted is my understanding also.

What I don't understand is why in markets (like mine) where all frequencies remaining after the buy back will not be used why stations can not use those open frequencies to start ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. Perhaps it is a cost thing but given the driving reason behind ATSC 3.0 is that the broadcasters think it will be more profitable seems like they would want to find away to transition to ATSC 3.0 even if they had to spend extra on dual broadcasts for awhile.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ATSC uses a technology called PSIP that sort of works like CableCARDs in that it maps friendly channel numbers to frequencies. So it doesn't really matter which frequency, or sub channel, CBS is on because when you type in channel 2 (or 2.1) your TV will be redirected to the right frequency. So as long as your local channels don't completely sell out and go off the air nothing should really change for you. (not sure if TiVo uses PISP or their own guide data to map though, so it might have an effect on TiVo users if they don't stay on top if the changes) The biggest complaint about this buy back thing is that a lot of channel will likely move from UHF to VHF, which requires a different antenna to tune. In some markets all channels are UHF so people have invested in UHF only antennas. This will screw them up.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> What I don't understand is why in markets (like mine) where all frequencies remaining after the buy back will not be used why stations can not use those open frequencies to start ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. Perhaps it is a cost thing but given the driving reason behind ATSC 3.0 is that the broadcasters think it will be more profitable seems like they would want to find away to transition to ATSC 3.0 even if they had to spend extra on dual broadcasts for awhile.


Why do you think they cannot? They can and some might. But it's not going to be ION or ThisTV. And it's probably not going to be your CBS affiliate. It's going to be Amazon Prime, Netflix, or HBO.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> What I don't understand is why in markets (like mine) where all frequencies remaining after the buy back will not be used why stations can not use those open frequencies to start ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. Perhaps it is a cost thing but given the driving reason behind ATSC 3.0 is that the broadcasters think it will be more profitable seems like they would want to find away to transition to ATSC 3.0 even if they had to spend extra on dual broadcasts for awhile.


Yes, cost is definitely a deterrent (a second broadcast license and a second transmitter), although maybe some stations will choose to dual broadcast in ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 anyway. Decreased TV spectrum post-auction could also be a deterrent to doing that. Stations ideally want to broadcast on frequencies that don't interfere with any of the stations in surrounding markets, so there are only so many "good" frequencies to choose from.

And as I've said before, if station owners really want ATSC 3.0 to take off, I think they'll need both incentives for viewers to adopt 3.0 and disincentives to remain on 1.0. If all the major stations' 1.0 signals get grouped onto a single "lighthouse" tower, then you're looking at SD-only for ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS and The CW. Yuck. (I'm not sure I even see My Network TV and ION surviving.) Of course, there are definitely folks out there who can't really tell the difference between HD and SD, so that won't be disincentive for them. But they may notice if they lose Me-TV, WeatherNation, Antenna TV, Escape, etc.

I would bet, however, that some of the small independent and Christian broadcasters won't have any near-term plans to transition to 3.0 and wouldn't choose to participate in the broadcast-sharing arrangement, so they wouldn't switch to the "lighthouse" tower but rather continue full broadcasting in 1.0 on their own tower as before. I imagine some of the diginets (Me-TV, etc.) that get dropped as subchannels by the major stations would look to get picked up by the independent stations.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

TonyD79 said:


> Unless those new sub channels are going to be cable replacements, most large markets have all the general subs already. I doubt more 1950s reruns will drive the tv market.


Most of the shows are newer than the 1950's and many are from the 21st century. You're overstating your case.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> The 1.75 fund is being funded by the resale of the reclaimed spectrum. That's why they don't know how fast the whole processing is going to take, if they don't get enough money from the spectrum auction to pay the channels that have decided to take the money offered they can not proceed. Back when SRI was posting day and night he posted a nation wide list the showed what each channel was being offered by the FCC, it depended on what frequency they were on and what market they where in.


I disagree. The $1.75 Billion is a separate fund allocated by congress. From what I've read, the process is working exactly the opposite from what you are stating. The FCC is initially buying the frequencies from the local broadcasters in a reverse auction before they get any money from the second auction to sell the frequencies to the cellular industry.



atmuscarella said:


> The second article is just saying there is nothing stopping a station getting money from the spectrum repurchase from using it to convert to ATSC 3.0. The money they are receiving is for the spectrum repurchase not to necessarily convert to ATSC 3.0. Also any station not going off the air or moving from a frequency that will no longer be used for OTA pretty much gets nothing.
> 
> Go search the FCC's web sit for ATSC 3.0 - you will find the only thing the FCC is currently doing is taking comments on the proposed rules change that the privet sector wants so they can begin using ATSC 3.0.
> 
> That is the only involvement the FCC/Government has at this time with ATSC 3.0.


I think they have already tested ATSC 3.0 in California and the FCC commissioner as stated he fully supports the adoption of ATSC 3.0. Any station that has to move to VHF Lo will have to buy new transmission equipment. Basic business principles would require a comparison of the cost of staying with ATSC 1.0 or transitioning to ATSC 3.0.

The private sector wants ATSC 3.0. The private sector donates money to congressmen. Congress allocates the money for transition expenses. I think there will be extreme bias in favor of transitioning to ATSC 3.0 as long as there is one other station that can handle all the legacy ATSC 1.0 transmission requirements.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Most of the shows are newer than the 1950's and many are from the 21st century. You're overstating your case.


I was figuring that that is about all that is left to add more sub channels.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I disagree. The $1.75 Billion is a separate fund allocated by congress. From what I've read, the process is working exactly the opposite from what you are stating. The FCC is initially buying the frequencies from the local broadcasters in a reverse auction before they get any money from the second auction to sell the frequencies to the cellular industry.
> 
> I think they have already tested ATSC 3.0 in California and the FCC commissioner as stated he fully supports the adoption of ATSC 3.0. Any station that has to move to VHF Lo will have to buy new transmission equipment. Basic business principles would require a comparison of the cost of staying with ATSC 1.0 or transitioning to ATSC 3.0.
> 
> The private sector wants ATSC 3.0. The private sector donates money to congressmen. Congress allocates the money for transition expenses. I think there will be extreme bias in favor of transitioning to ATSC 3.0 as long as there is one other station that can handle all the legacy ATSC 1.0 transmission requirements.


This is a quote from the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction Web site:

"The auction does not have a set end date. The auction will conclude when forward auction proceeds meet the threshold established in the Commissions rules and are sufficient to cover the prices awarded to TV stations in the reverse auction, a $1.75 billion relocation fund for eligible TV stations moving to a new channel, and other administrative costs related to designing and conducting the auction."​Unless you think the FCC is lying - they say the funds are coming from the resale proceeds. The above quote comes from the "Consumer Q&A: How Will the Incentive Auction Impact Viewers?" section and is under the "When will the auction end?" bullet item.

I have also search the above site and gone through most of it and ATSC 3.0 isn't mentioned anywhere.

Which doesn't mean the FCC isn't supportive of ATSC 3.0 (I believe they are as they are proposing to change rules to allow it), it just means what I have said many times. ATSC 3.0 and the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction (spectrum buy back, resale, and repacking) are not connected in the eyes of the FCC and the FCC is not providing any special funds to convert to ATSC 3.0.

As a side note this process will not force any station off the air in any market. If stations do not take buy outs any spectrum needed stays with OTA TV and they will not be forced to move off UHF if that is where they are now.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> As a side note this process will not force any station off the air in any market. If stations do not take buy outs any spectrum needed stays with OTA TV and they will not be forced to move off UHF if that is where they are now.


Until they are. If the ultimate goal is to reallocate bandwidth, then eventually they will be. Maybe the local broadcasters are looking at ATSC 3.0 as the only way to stay on the air when they are reduced to sharing a frequency with another station.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Until they are. If the ultimate goal is to reallocate bandwidth, then eventually they will be. Maybe the local broadcasters are looking at ATSC 3.0 as the only way to stay on the air when they are reduced to sharing a frequency with another station.


Certainly the ultimate goal is to reallocate bandwidth - but the way the FCC is doing it is by voluntary buyouts. Not a forced take back, the reason stations will go off the air, or move to low or high VHF is because they decide the payout money is better than staying as is. The same is true for ATSC 3.0 the reason a station converts is because they decide to. Regarding frequency sharing, I already have 2 HD channels sharing one frequency (plus another SD channel on the same frequency). The file size for shows from the the 2 HD channels sharing a frequency are 1/2 the size of my other HD channels and are not as sharp put still look pretty good.

Personally I am in favor of ATSC 3.0, as I think it has the potential to keep OTA viable for longer, but any conversion has to be done in away that works for most people or it could end up killing OTA instead.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

That is the way the FCC is doing it now. If they don't accomplish their goals via voluntary actions on the part of the stations, do you really think they will hesitate pursue other avenues?

The FCC is an arm of the government. As such it is guided by the Golden Rule:

Whoever has the gold makes the rules.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> That is the way the FCC is doing it now. If they don't accomplish their goals via voluntary actions on the part of the stations, do you really think they will hesitate pursue other avenues?
> 
> The FCC is an arm of the government. As such it is guided by the Golden Rule:
> 
> Whoever has the gold makes the rules.


All depends on what the licensing agreements say. Plus who knows if congress would agree to a forced take over or fund it. The reason this whole process is happening is because it is nearly revenue neutral and isn't going to cause any litigation.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The government technically owns the frequencies anyway. I believe the broadcasters have leases on their particular frequency. If it comes to it the government could just wait for the leases to expire and just refuse to renew them.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> This is a quote from the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction Web site:
> 
> "The auction does not have a set end date. The auction will conclude when forward auction proceeds meet the threshold established in the Commissions rules and are sufficient to cover the prices awarded to TV stations in the reverse auction, a $1.75 billion relocation fund for eligible TV stations moving to a new channel, and other administrative costs related to designing and conducting the auction."​Unless you think the FCC is lying - they say the funds are coming from the resale proceeds. The above quote comes from the "Consumer Q&A: How Will the Incentive Auction Impact Viewers?" section and is under the "When will the auction end?" bullet item.


This quote does not indicate that the $1.75 comes from the forward auction. The $1.75 Billion initially comes from the treasury and is authorized by congress along with the billions paid in the reverse auction.

The forward auction doesn't start until after the reverse auction is complete. The FCC is putting preconditions on the Forward auction based on what they expect to have already paid out.



atmuscarella said:


> I have also search the above site and gone through most of it and ATSC 3.0 isn't mentioned anywhere.


This site mentions that the transition fund can be used to pay for ATSC 3.0

http://current.org/2016/05/atsc-spel...ic-television/



atmuscarella said:


> Which doesn't mean the FCC isn't supportive of ATSC 3.0 (I believe they are as they are proposing to change rules to allow it), it just means what I have said many times. ATSC 3.0 and the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction (spectrum buy back, resale, and repacking) are not connected in the eyes of the FCC and the FCC is not providing any special funds to convert to ATSC 3.0.
> 
> As a side note this process will not force any station off the air in any market. If stations do not take buy outs any spectrum needed stays with OTA TV and they will not be forced to move off UHF if that is where they are now.


Have you seen the opening bid prices for a station to move off the air or move to VHF? Stations are being offered hundreds of millions of dollars to move and even more to go off the air. And then there is the additional $1.75 billion fund for transition expenses.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-1191A2.pdf

Please explain why a station would not move?


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> Any station that has to move to VHF Lo will have to buy new transmission equipment. Basic business principles would require a comparison of the cost of staying with ATSC 1.0 or transitioning to ATSC 3.0.


Most antennas sold today are UHF only. Moving to VHF High or Low will require viewers purchase a new/additional antenna. A lot of customers will be lost. There is a basic business principle that says customers are good.



shwru980r said:


> The private sector wants ATSC 3.0. The private sector donates money to congressmen. Congress allocates the money for transition expenses. I think there will be extreme bias in favor of transitioning to ATSC 3.0 as long as there is one other station that can handle all the legacy ATSC 1.0 transmission requirements.


AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are among the top twenty lobbyists in 2016. They have no interest in OTA never mind ATSC 3.0.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> This quote does not indicate that the $1.75 comes from the forward auction. The $1.75 Billion initially comes from the treasury and is authorized by congress along with the billions paid in the reverse auction.
> 
> The forward auction doesn't start until after the reverse auction is complete. The FCC is putting preconditions on the Forward auction based on what they expect to have already paid out.


I haven't found anything that says that specifically, but it maybe available from treasury upfront, the FCC's administrative cost certainly are. However what I quoted clearly says the sale has to cover the 1.75 billion along with, what is being paid to broadcasters for their spectrum or to move to VHF, along with administrative expenses. The net affect is the Government isn't funding this through taxes they are funding it from spectrum sales proceeds.



shwru980r said:


> This site mentions that the transition fund can be used to pay for ATSC 3.0
> 
> http://current.org/2016/05/atsc-spel...ic-television/


There is a big difference between not preventing them from using it for a ATSC 3.0 conversion and paying them to do a ATSC 3.0 conversion. The FCC is not specifically paying any broadcaster to convert to ATSC 3.0.



shwru980r said:


> Have you seen the opening bid prices for a station to move off the air or move to VHF? Stations are being offered hundreds of millions of dollars to move and even more to go off the air. And then there is the additional $1.75 billion fund for transition expenses.
> 
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-1191A2.pdf
> 
> Please explain why a station would not move?


The amounts seem extremely high to me personally but I have no idea what type of revenue the broadcasters have now or what a station would be worth if sold on the open market. My personal assumption is that some will take the money and close up shop and others will take the money and move to VHF which is what the FCC must believe or they wouldn't be doing this.

One of my points was that the broadcasters are not being forced to do this, they are being offered money to do it and that money isn't coming from taxes payers it's coming from other companies who are buying the spectrum.

However my main point still is what I have said many times. ATSC 3.0 and the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction (spectrum buy back, resale, and repacking) are not connected in the eyes of the FCC and the FCC is not providing any special funds to convert to ATSC 3.0.

All that said my personally belief is that as the repacking happens (broadcasters will have up to 3 years to move frequencies if they are required to) we will see ATSC 3.0 start to happen. Not because of the FCC or any Government mandate but because the broadcasters think it is a good financial move.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Well, IMHO, had the government not mandated the transition to ATSC 1.0, we would still have analog NTSC broadcasts going on. Who is watching OTA these days anyway? People who are cost conscious - either because they have limited incomes or who got tired of paying ever increasing cable bills. I don't see that demographic going out and replacing TVs just to get a few more sub-channels (or the promise of better PQ). Maybe, if ATSC 3.0 and OTA generally survive long enough, attrition will move move viewers to newer, ATSC 3.0 compatible sets, but that will take a decade.

Not to mention that whole concept of linear broadcasting is dying. If the content owners ("broadcast" networks, cable channels and premium channels) had any sense, they would all agree to use a common format, encryption and CA system and get consumer electronics manufacturers to load that app on their TVs. Then all you need do is connect your TV to the internet, subscribe to the providers you want, and watch whatever you want, whenever you want. Some things will still be available as live linear feeds when they happen (news and sports) but even those will also be available time shifted. That's where video entertainment is headed. ATSC 3.0 is like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> My personal assumption is that some will take the money and close up shop and others will take the money and move to VHF which is what the FCC must believe or they wouldn't be doing this.


A lot of colleges will sell their bandwidth and go IP. There are a lot of PBS stations which are predominantly national anyway. Seems like a windfall. In Boston, we WENH, WGBX, WGBH, WMEA, WVTA, and WCBB. Half of these could go off the air without impact. We also have four ION stations. I have always suspected these were created just to cash in on the reverse auction. We also have WBIN which is a very low power UHF broadcaster few can receive. Mr. Binney has licensed, but not built, three repeaters. OTA is unimportant to these guys -- they even advertise using their Comcast assigned channel. No doubt the unbuilt stations will go off the air and the actual station would be a prime candidate for relocation to VHF.



atmuscarella said:


> All that said my personally belief is that as the repacking happens (broadcasters will have up to 3 years to move frequencies if they are required to) we will see ATSC 3.0 start to happen. Not because of the FCC or any Government mandate but because the broadcasters think it is a good financial move.


Some of the broadcasters.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> A lot of colleges will sell their bandwidth and go IP. There are a lot of PBS stations which are predominantly national anyway. Seems like a windfall. In Boston, we WENH, WGBX, WGBH, WMEA, WVTA, and WCBB. Half of these could go off the air without impact. We also have four ION stations. I have always suspected these were created just to cash in on the reverse auction. We also have WBIN which is a very low power UHF broadcaster few can receive. Mr. Binney has licensed, but not built, three repeaters. OTA is unimportant to these guys -- they even advertise using their Comcast assigned channel. No doubt the unbuilt stations will go off the air and the actual station would be a prime candidate for relocation to VHF.
> 
> Some of the broadcasters.


Given I am from a small market without very many frequencies being used, I have often wondered if anyone watch any of the channels I see people talk about in large markets. From my point of view OTA could provide plenty of content with under 10 frequencies, even if it stayed ATSC 1.0. In my area they are only using 8 and one is religious and another is low power SD only that I can not get and I am fine with what I have now.

There really is only 2 reasons I have any interest or support ATSC 3.0. One is if it makes OTA more financially viable and the other is the promise of high quality (UHD or full 1080p) broadcasts. If ATSC 3.0 actual hurts OTA financial viability then I have no use for it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Not to mention that whole concept of linear broadcasting is dying. If the content owners ("broadcast" networks, cable channels and premium channels) had any sense, they would all agree to use a common format, encryption and CA system and get consumer electronics manufacturers to load that app on their TVs. Then all you need do is connect your TV to the internet, subscribe to the providers you want, and watch whatever you want, whenever you want. Some things will still be available as live linear feeds when they happen (news and sports) but even those will also be available time shifted. That's where video entertainment is headed. ATSC 3.0 is like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


Good points. But ultimately, the question is "Do we want free advertiser-supported television to survive?" I suppose local broadcasters could attempt to maintain their current business model but live stream their channels over the internet rather than over the air (with some type of standard IP "tuner" software built into TVs that only required a live internet connection, making set-up effortless). But that would require viewers to have broadband internet service, which itself costs more than the most basic tier of cable TV service that includes all the local channels. So if broadcasters cannot rely on a private company's physical line running into your house to distribute their programming, they must continue to rely on the public airwaves. Access to emergency alerts, as well as local and national news (in the interest of promoting a well-informed electorate -- ha!), are the strongest arguments in favor of retaining free TV rather than using those airwaves for other purposes, i.e. licensing all of it to private cell phone companies to raise additional public funds.

ATSC 3.0, which is fully IP-based, is a smart attempt to make free over-the-air broacasting as relevant as possible in our current internet-saturated age. Its OTA transmissions are still one-way and necessarily linear (as any true broadcast model must be) but at least it does allow for interactivity, targeted advertising, and related on-demand viewing through the same platform if the viewer optionally connects his broadband internet to the TV tuner.

Given the current splintering of the video entertainment landscape, with many younger American in particular eschewing the traditional large cable TV package in favor of whatever combination of streaming sources they want at a given moment (with an eye on keeping recurring costs down), ATSC 3.0 could be the push forward that OTA TV needs to appeal to more of those viewers. Imagine a future Roku or Android TV-powered UHD TV set (or standalone box) that integrates free local OTA UHD TV (with signals that are easier to reliably receive than ATSC 1.0), limited on-demand viewing from those local broadcasters (if you have home internet), free basic DVR service for OTA TV (with your own USB hard drive plugged into the TV or standalone box), the ability to watch all of that content on any screen connected to your home network, plus all your favorite streaming services integrated into the same UI. If ATSC 3.0 can deliver on that vision, it will help OTA TV gain new converts and keep free TV alive. (But be prepared to watch ads that cannot be skipped -- that's the price we'll have to pay for free TV, otherwise the business model cannot survive.)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> ATSC uses a technology called PSIP that sort of works like CableCARDs in that it maps friendly channel numbers to frequencies. So it doesn't really matter which frequency, or sub channel, CBS is on because when you type in channel 2 (or 2.1) your TV will be redirected to the right frequency. So as long as your local channels don't completely sell out and go off the air nothing should really change for you. (not sure if TiVo uses PISP or their own guide data to map though, so it might have an effect on TiVo users if they don't stay on top if the changes) The biggest complaint about this buy back thing is that a lot of channel will likely move from UHF to VHF, which requires a different antenna to tune. In some markets all channels are UHF so people have invested in UHF only antennas. This will screw them up.


When the digital transition occurred in the DC area there were two major stations(CBS and ABC) that switched from UHF to VHF. They went from being my strongest stations to my weakest. But fortunately, my Square Shooter Antennas could still receive those VHF frequencies.(VHF-Hi. I will be SOL with VHF-low) But I'm also not OTA only like my GF is. So FiOS is my main source for the local channels.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> When the digital transition occurred in the DC area there were two major stations(CBS and ABC) that switched from UHF to VHF. They went from being my strongest stations to my weakest. But fortunately, my Square Shooter Antennas could still receive those VHF frequencies. But I'm also not OTA only like my GF is. So FiOS is my main source for the local channels.


I used to get them very well during the transition but when they switched, yuck. Even with an indoor VHF antenna.

I looked at my major channels recently (Baltimore) and it looks like the majority of the majors here are in the spectrum they are selling off. With DC so close and philly just up the road, Baltimore could be in for a world of hurt.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I used to get them very well during the transition but when they switched, yuck. Even with an indoor VHF antenna.
> 
> I looked at my major channels recently (Baltimore) and it looks like the majority of the majors here are in the spectrum they are selling off. With DC so close and philly just up the road, Baltimore could be in for a world of hurt.


My VHF stations (NBC, CBS, PBS) are the most reliable, with only rare small glitches in the picture. All of the UHF stations are susceptible, to a greater or lesser degree, to multipath interference when there's wind in the trees. My ABC affiliate, in fact, will often break up badly for no apparent reason at all. (And trust me, I've tried a ton of different antennas in lots of locations.)

So if I'm still living in the same location once the spectrum repack is done, I'd love to see more of my locals move to VHF!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> My VHF stations (NBC, CBS, PBS) are the most reliable, with only rare small glitches in the picture. All of the UHF stations are susceptible, to a greater or lesser degree, to multipath interference when there's wind in the trees. My ABC affiliate, in fact, will often break up badly for no apparent reason at all. (And trust me, I've tried a ton of different antennas in lots of locations.) So if I'm still living in the same location once the spectrum repack is done, I'd love to see more of my locals move to VHF!


I only have problems with VHF. Mostly because of the wavelength and the matching antenna elements needed. UHF is more forgiving with that as the wavelength is so much shorter and a smaller antenna can handle it very well.

It doesn't really matter to me, though, as fios pretty much gives me all the main and sub channels I could get with a limited antenna (I live in a condo) and have directional issues being between two broadcast centers (although Baltimore is close enough that it really doesn't matter much how I point an antenna).


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

wizwor said:


> A lot of colleges will sell their bandwidth and go IP. There are a lot of PBS stations which are predominantly national anyway. Seems like a windfall. In Boston, we WENH, WGBX, WGBH, WMEA, WVTA, and WCBB. Half of these could go off the air without impact. We also have four ION stations. I have always suspected these were created just to cash in on the reverse auction. We also have WBIN which is a very low power UHF broadcaster few can receive. Mr. Binney has licensed, but not built, three repeaters. OTA is unimportant to these guys -- they even advertise using their Comcast assigned channel. No doubt the unbuilt stations will go off the air and the actual station would be a prime candidate for relocation to VHF.
> 
> Some of the broadcasters.


The low power stations can't participate in the reverse acutions.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/learn-everything-about-reverse-auctions-now-learn-–-faqs

As required by the Spectrum Act, low power TV and TV translator stations are not eligible to participate in the reverse auction.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> I don't see that demographic going out and replacing TVs just to get a few more sub-channels (or the promise of better PQ).


I remember reading in another thread that it would be possible to sell a low cost hdmi device to convert atsc 3.0 to atsc 1.0. I think most people would buy such a device so they could just keep using their existing TV.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> I haven't found anything that says that specifically, but it maybe available from treasury upfront, the FCC's administrative cost certainly are. However what I quoted clearly says the sale has to cover the 1.75 billion along with, what is being paid to broadcasters for their spectrum or to move to VHF, along with administrative expenses. The net affect is the Government isn't funding this through taxes they are funding it from spectrum sales proceeds.


Government agencies are funded by the treasury.



atmuscarella said:


> There is a big difference between not preventing them from using it for a ATSC 3.0 conversion and paying them to do a ATSC 3.0 conversion. The FCC is not specifically paying any broadcaster to convert to ATSC 3.0.


The link I provided stated that the transition fund would pay for ATSC 3.0 conversion.



atmuscarella said:


> The amounts seem extremely high to me personally but I have no idea what type of revenue the broadcasters have now or what a station would be worth if sold on the open market. My personal assumption is that some will take the money and close up shop and others will take the money and move to VHF which is what the FCC must believe or they wouldn't be doing this.
> 
> One of my points was that the broadcasters are not being forced to do this, they are being offered money to do it and that money isn't coming from taxes payers it's coming from other companies who are buying the spectrum.


No, the money to purchase the bandwidth and pay for transition expenses is coming from the taxpayers. The FCC is going to try and recoup the money in the forward auction.



atmuscarella said:


> However my main point still is what I have said many times. ATSC 3.0 and the FCC Broadcast Incentive Auction (spectrum buy back, resale, and repacking) are not connected in the eyes of the FCC and the FCC is not providing any special funds to convert to ATSC 3.0.


The link I provided earlier stated the that the $1.75 Billion fund would cover the cost of transitioning to ATSC 3.0



atmuscarella said:


> All that said my personally belief is that as the repacking happens (broadcasters will have up to 3 years to move frequencies if they are required to) we will see ATSC 3.0 start to happen. Not because of the FCC or any Government mandate but because the broadcasters think it is a good financial move.


But if the broadcaster has to change frequencies, they will still have costs to transition to the new frequency regardless of ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 formats. I provided a link earlier that stated that the FCC would pay the broadcaster to transition to ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 increases the number of stations that the broadcaster can transmit. It seems to me that most broadcasters who change frequencies will transition to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Government agencies are funded by the treasury.


You can keep saying this money is coming from Tax revenues or you can believe what the FCC posted your choice. Until I find some reason not to I am going to believe what the FCC posted.



shwru980r said:


> The link I provided stated that the transition fund would pay for ATSC 3.0 conversion.


Again the FCC's web site doesn't mention ATSC 3.0, the funds are for moving to a new frequency if the broadcaster decides to convert to ATSC 3.0 at the same that is a choice they can make, not a requirement.



shwru980r said:


> No, the money to purchase the bandwidth and pay for transition expenses is coming from the taxpayers. The FCC is going to try and recoup the money in the forward auction.


That is not what the FCC post said. If you want to keep saying that statement is not true that is your choice. I am going to believe what the FCC's post says until I have a good reason not to.



shwru980r said:


> The link I provided earlier stated the that the $1.75 Billion fund would cover the cost of transitioning to ATSC 3.0


Again there is a difference between could and would. Again, I am going to believe what the FCC site shows.



shwru980r said:


> But if the broadcaster has to change frequencies, they will still have costs to transition to the new frequency regardless of ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 formats. I provided a link earlier that stated that the FCC would pay the broadcaster to transition to ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 increases the number of stations that the broadcaster can transmit. It seems to me that most broadcasters who change frequencies will transition to ATSC 3.0.


I have no idea what the broadcasters intend to do, I assume some will use the opportunity to transition to ATSC 3.0. But again for the hundredth time, ATSC 3.0 was not what this was about and the spectrum buyback, sale, & repacking is not tied to ATSC 3.0 in anyway. If ATSC 3.0 dies tomorrow or no broadcasters decides to ever convert to it, nothing changes with this process.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> You can keep saying this money is coming from Tax revenues or you can believe what the FCC posted your choice. Until I find some reason not to I am going to believe what the FCC posted.
> 
> Again the FCC's web site doesn't mention ATSC 3.0, the funds are for moving to a new frequency if the broadcaster decides to convert to ATSC 3.0 at the same that is a choice they can make, not a requirement.
> 
> ...


The link I provided that states that the transition fund can be used to fund ATSC 3.0 conversion indicates that ATSC 3.0 is linked to this process. Obviously, if there is some show stopping flaw in ATSC 3.0 then the process will continue with ATSC 1.0, but there is no evidence of that.

I'm sure you have seen the various links that show the successful results of ATSC 3.0 testing and the significant advantages of ATSC 3.0 over ATSC 1.0.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The link I provided that states that the transition fund can be used to fund ATSC 3.0 conversion indicates that ATSC 3.0 is linked to this process. Obviously, if there is some show stopping flaw in ATSC 3.0 then the process will continue with ATSC 1.0, but there is no evidence of that.
> 
> I'm sure you have seen the various links that show the successful results of ATSC 3.0 testing and the significant advantages of ATSC 3.0 over ATSC 1.0.


For everything I have seen those pushing ATSC 3.0 are pushing for the conversion to start during the repacking process. It also appears some broadcasters are in favor of doing so. Leading to my belief that we are likely to see ATSC 3.0 broadcasts start over the next 3+ years. But this is all speculations.

What is not speculation is what the FCC is doing. The FCC is in a process of buying back spectrum from OTA broadcasters and reselling it for mobile broadband use. The FCC has setup a web site for this, ATSC 3.0 is not mention by the FCC as a reason for this and I have not been able to find the words ATSC 3.0 anyplace on the site.

So as far as I can tell the FCC is not connecting the buy back, sale, & repacking process to ATSC 3.0 at all. The people who are, are the people who are pushing ATSC 3.0.

So while the buy back and sale of OTA spectrum and required repacking of frequencies is a fact, any conversion to ATSC 3.0 is still speculation.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> For everything I have seen those pushing ATSC 3.0 are pushing for the conversion to start during the repacking process. It also appears some broadcasters are in favor of doing so. Leading to my belief that we are likely to see ATSC 3.0 broadcasts start over the next 3+ years. But this is all speculations.
> 
> What is not speculation is what the FCC is doing. The FCC is in a process of buying back spectrum from OTA broadcasters and reselling it for mobile broadband use. The FCC has setup a web site for this, ATSC 3.0 is not mention by the FCC as a reason for this and I have not been able to find the words ATSC 3.0 anyplace on the site.
> 
> ...


All true. No point in engaging further on the topic. Let him believe whatever he wants...


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

RoamioJeff said:


> Same frequency + multiple broadcast locations = multipath. Usually a bad thing.
> 
> That sounds like marketing speak. I wonder what they really mean and how it is actually intended to work.
> 
> Unless this is talking about a type of cellular implementation.


One of the major drivers for changing from ATSC 1.0's 8VSB to ATSC 3.0's OFDM modulation is resistance to multipath interference. It is designed to allow the use of multiple towers broadcasting at the same frequency. Exactly whether/how stations will use that capability remains to be seen, but it allows for some interesting possibilities. They could add low power transmitters on TV/radio towers operated by others (you add our signal, we'll add yours) to increase the footprint of "easy reception with indoor antenna", and avoid people needing big outdoor antennas to pick up a signal from 60 miles away or from the wrong side of a large hill. They don't even need to be big towers, theoretically they could use micro transmitters placed on cell towers throughout their market.

At the very least, those who have trouble with multipath with a certain station would not have that trouble if the station switched to ATSC 3.0 and stuck with a single tower.

Mind you, I still see a lot of reasons to be skeptical about the adoption of ATSC 3.0, but if it does come that will be an advantage maybe more important than future stuff like 4K. Those hoping for pristine 4K broadcasts are likely to be disappointed - given that local stations have been happy to compromise HD quality by stuffing in more and more subchannels, I see no reason why that trend wouldn't continue and we might see the same with ATSC 3.0. More bandwidth and better compression means even more subchannels, yay! At least even if we get badly overcompressed 4K, it is likely a few of the subchannels crowding it will be HD, so there's that.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> One of the major drivers for changing from ATSC 1.0's 8VSB to ATSC 3.0's OFDM modulation is resistance to multipath interference. It is designed to allow the use of multiple towers broadcasting at the same frequency. Exactly whether/how stations will use that capability remains to be seen, but it allows for some interesting possibilities. They could add low power transmitters on TV/radio towers operated by others (you add our signal, we'll add yours) to increase the footprint of "easy reception with indoor antenna", and avoid people needing big outdoor antennas to pick up a signal from 60 miles away or from the wrong side of a large hill. They don't even need to be big towers, theoretically they could use micro transmitters placed on cell towers throughout their market.
> 
> At the very least, those who have trouble with multipath with a certain station would not have that trouble if the station switched to ATSC 3.0 and stuck with a single tower.
> 
> Mind you, I still see a lot of reasons to be skeptical about the adoption of ATSC 3.0, but if it does come that will be an advantage maybe more important than future stuff like 4K. Those hoping for pristine 4K broadcasts are likely to be disappointed - given that local stations have been happy to compromise HD quality by stuffing in more and more subchannels, I see no reason why that trend wouldn't continue and we might see the same with ATSC 3.0. More bandwidth and better compression means even more subchannels, yay! At least even if we get badly overcompressed 4K, it is likely a few of the subchannels crowding it will be HD, so there's that.


 As boomers die off so will a lot of these sub-channels, younger Gen-X and Millenials aren't watching them.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> For everything I have seen those pushing ATSC 3.0 are pushing for the conversion to start during the repacking process. It also appears some broadcasters are in favor of doing so. Leading to my belief that we are likely to see ATSC 3.0 broadcasts start over the next 3+ years. But this is all speculations.
> 
> What is not speculation is what the FCC is doing. The FCC is in a process of buying back spectrum from OTA broadcasters and reselling it for mobile broadband use. The FCC has setup a web site for this, ATSC 3.0 is not mention by the FCC as a reason for this and I have not been able to find the words ATSC 3.0 anyplace on the site.
> 
> ...


FCC chairman Michael O'Rielly stated that broadcasters are the ones who have petitioned the FCC to rollout ATSC 3.0 on a market-by-market basis. Broadcasters want ATSC 3.0 because it would allow for interactivity, ultra high-definition, the advanced emergency alerts, more channels in the same bandwidth, mobile broadcast TV, and datacasting.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...-atsc-30-its-appropriately-complicated/156397

I think that being able to reach mobile devices will be a motivating factor for broadcasters, because they will be able to reach a younger audience who watch video on their mobile devices and ATSC 3.0 won't count against the mobile device data plan. Advertising is most effective on young people because they haven't developed a strong sense of brand loyalty.

ATSC 3.0 is linked to the transition from UHF to VHF, because the broadcaster will have to pay for new equipment to broadcast their signal on a new frequency and the FCC will pay for the transition to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

tenthplanet said:


> As boomers die off so will a lot of these sub-channels, younger Gen-X and Millenials aren't watching them.


I think the exact opposite is true. Millennials watch videos on their mobile device instead of watching TV. ATSC 3.0 brings TV to their mobile devices and doesn't count against their mobile data and ATSC 3.0 allows more subchannels to be broadcast on a single frequency. I think there will be an increase in subchannels tailored to a new younger audience.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I can't imagine they will have much tolerance for linear TV though, regardless of the device it's delivered on. They've grown up in a world of DVRs and Netflix. I just don't see them reverting back to old style broadcasting just because it doesn't count against their data cap. Maybe for sports, but doubtful for anything else.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I can't imagine they will have much tolerance for linear TV though, regardless of the device it's delivered on. They've grown up in a world of DVRs and Netflix. I just don't see them reverting back to old style broadcasting just because it doesn't count against their data cap. Maybe for sports, but doubtful for anything else.


Yep. The future we're inevitably moving toward is linear broadcasting mainly for live events, such as news and sports, with everything else primarily consumed on-demand.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> I can't imagine they will have much tolerance for linear TV though, regardless of the device it's delivered on. They've grown up in a world of DVRs and Netflix. I just don't see them reverting back to old style broadcasting just because it doesn't count against their data cap. Maybe for sports, but doubtful for anything else.


Even people with DVRs watch some linear TV. Many people have a DVR because it comes with their cable package and rarely use it.

The world of Netflix is on demand because most of the programming has gone through the cycles of first run, VOD and DVD/Bluray.

ATSC 3.0 offers first run programming on a mobile device without paying a netflix subscription or cellular data usage.

Many people still go to the movie theatres or watch prime time TV live so they can be versed in the culture when they interact with others.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Is stupid


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. The future we're inevitably moving toward is linear broadcasting mainly for live events, such as news and sports, with everything else primarily consumed on-demand.


I can't stand to watch live sports anymore, because of all the periods of inactivity. I'd rather watch it after the fact and skip to the start of the next play. Live sports more than doubles the time it takes to watch the event. The time it takes to watch a normal show or movie in TV is only going to increase by about 15-20% watching it live.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

shwru980r said:


> I can't stand to watch live sports anymore, because of all the periods of inactivity. I'd rather watch it after the fact and skip to the start of the next play. Live sports more than doubles the time it takes to watch the event. The time it takes to watch a normal show or movie in TV is only going to increase by about 15-20% watching it live.


I'm not saying that sports and news won't be available on-demand as well. (They already are, at least somewhat.) It's just the fact that live events (including stuff like The Oscars and competition shows like Dancing with the Stars) have an immediacy to them that compels many people to watch them live, so they can experience it in real-time along with everyone else. But for scripted, pre-filmed content (movies and typical TV series), most people don't feel they MUST watch it as it first airs on linear TV; exceptions would be fans of big hit shows like The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones that their co-workers and friends will be chatting about tomorrow.

NBC in particular has been experimenting with more live programming (e.g. stage shows like The Sound of Music and Peter Pan, plus live versions of sitcoms like Undateable) in an effort to pull in viewers who will watch live (and sit through commercials) rather than watch the show later on DVR.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I presume that the same people who are predicting the end of OTA are also predicting the end of DBS.

To me, this whole movement toward everything being delivered via IP is a giant leap backwards to the days of accessing a system via a terminal. The only thing different is the speed of the connection.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> Even people with DVRs watch some linear TV. Many people have a DVR because it comes with their cable package and rarely use it.
> 
> The world of Netflix is on demand because most of the programming has gone through the cycles of first run, VOD and DVD/Bluray.
> 
> ...


It's not so much the ads I think they'd be opposed to, I think it's the schedule. Most millennials are fine with services like Hulu (free) and VOD with their forced commercials, but they want to watch what they want when they want it. They wont suddenly become big consumers of linear TV just because they can watch on their phone.

I suspect this will be sort of like FM tuners in cell phones. Some people like that they can listen to free music without eating up their data, but most still use Pandora or Spotify instead.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> I presume that the same people who are predicting the end of OTA are also predicting the end of DBS.
> 
> To me, this whole movement toward everything being delivered via IP is a giant leap backwards to the days of accessing a system via a terminal. The only thing different is the speed of the connection.


Wasting several Gbps to broadcast hundreds of channels no one is watching is a waste of bandwidth. IP is the future. Cable has already adopted the poor mans IP in the form of SDV. Switching to real IP will provide the same benefits with even greater bandwidth savings.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Wasting several Gbps to broadcast hundreds of channels no one is watching is a waste of bandwidth. IP is the future. Cable has already adopted the poor mans IP in the form of SDV. Switching to real IP will provide the same benefits with even greater bandwidth savings.


Delivering individual feeds to each viewer uses far more bandwidth.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

lpwcomp said:


> Delivering individual feeds to each viewer uses far more bandwidth.


Yeah, let everyone have their own stream on the Super Bowl via internet. No trick play, no recording, no skipping.

Stupid


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> It's not so much the ads I think they'd be opposed to, I think it's the schedule. Most millennials are fine with services like Hulu (free) and VOD with their forced commercials, but they want to watch what they want when they want it. They wont suddenly become big consumers of linear TV just because they can watch on their phone.
> 
> I suspect this will be sort of like FM tuners in cell phones. Some people like that they can listen to free music without eating up their data, but most still use Pandora or Spotify instead.


I thought the FM radio was built in on some phones, but some carriers won't let you use it and that's why it's hit or miss. One web site claims only 34% of cell phones have the FM radio activated in 2015. Iphones don't even have the FM chip.

It seems like they are mandating ATSC 3.0 to be available on a cell phone. 
Plus with radio, you don't know what they will play and when they will play it. TV has a fixed schedule so you can know when something is on. I'm not sure ATSC 3.0 and FM are an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> ...
> 
> It seems like they are mandating ATSC 3.0 to be available on a cell phone.


The Government/FCC is the only entity with the authority to do such a mandate and they are not currently mandating ANYTHING when it comes to ATSC 3.0 and the Government/FCC has not announced any proposals to do so.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> The Government/FCC is the only entity with the authority to do such a mandate and they are not currently mandating ANYTHING when it comes to ATSC 3.0 and the Government/FCC has not announced any proposals to do so.


Good, and may it die like 3D.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> Delivering individual feeds to each viewer uses far more bandwidth.


Not really...IP multicast sends any particular data stream (i.e. "channel") only to those users that are actually using the stream. IOW, if no one on a given cell tower is streaming the Super Bowl live then it consumes zero bandwidth on that tower and on any network segments that feed that tower.

No matter how many people are streaming on-demand content, it would consume less bandwidth that broadcasting every broadcast TV sub-channel 24x7 everywhere.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> I think the exact opposite is true. Millennials watch videos on their mobile device instead of watching TV. ATSC 3.0 brings TV to their mobile devices and doesn't count against their mobile data and ATSC 3.0 allows more subchannels to be broadcast on a single frequency. I think there will be an increase in subchannels tailored to a new younger audience.


Young people don't watch live TV and they don't listen to radio. Not because they want it on their mobile devices, but because they are not interested in most of the linear content. They watch and listen to WHAT they want, WHEN they want. They don't plan their evenings around catching the latest episode of some TV show, they watch it on-demand when THEY feel like it.

Linear TV broadcasts to mobile devices (all of which are sold and supported by companies that have zero interest in ATSC 3.0) is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Not really...IP multicast sends any particular data stream (i.e. "channel") only to those users that are actually using the stream. IOW, if no one on a given cell tower is streaming the Super Bowl live then it consumes zero bandwidth on that tower and on any network segments that feed that tower.
> 
> No matter how many people are streaming on-demand content, it would consume less bandwidth that broadcasting every broadcast TV sub-channel 24x7 everywhere.


We're not talking multi-cast. We're talking everybody with their own separate stream. There's no way that consumes less bandwidth.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> Young people don't watch live TV and they don't listen to radio. Not because they want it on their mobile devices, but because they are not interested in most of the linear content. They watch and listen to WHAT they want, WHEN they want. They don't plan their evenings around catching the latest episode of some TV show, they watch it on-demand when THEY feel like it.
> 
> Linear TV broadcasts to mobile devices (all of which are sold and supported by companies that have zero interest in ATSC 3.0) is a solution in search of a problem.


I dont totally agree with this, the mobile carriers have locked out FM from phones. SXM is very popular , which is live. I think young only have ip based options. All cell phones should have AM/FM HD radios.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Videodrome said:


> I dont totally agree with this, the mobile carriers have locked out FM from phones. SXM is very popular , which is live. I think young only have ip based options. All cell phones should have AM/FM HD radios.


Don't a lot of young people use streaming music services like Pandora and the like? Those are radio stations. I just don't believe this only on demand stuff as how do they know what is new? Word of mouth only? Sampling random songs/shows when they don't knew they are there? I think the point made here is valid. The choices for mobile people (those who don't own or rent their own home as the main occupier, which most young are), are limited because the technology limits them.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I am not a big smart phone user/person, so pardon my ignorance. Are you guys saying smart phones don't all have to ability to run a FM radio app? 

I have a cheap (cost $100 with a yr of service) Moto E TracFone running Android 4.4.4 and their is an app on it called FM Radio, works fine for tuning FM radio stations, the only down side is you need to use plug in head phones instead of wireless ones as they become the antenna.

I find it amazing that all modern higher end phones can not do this.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> I can't stand to watch live sports anymore, because of all the periods of inactivity. I'd rather watch it after the fact and skip to the start of the next play. Live sports more than doubles the time it takes to watch the event. The time it takes to watch a normal show or movie in TV is only going to increase by about 15-20% watching it live.


Yes. Sports is the last thing I want to watch live because of all the wasted time, tons of advertisements, and talking heads. I would rather watch a scripted show live than any sporting event.

Although I've been time shifting my TV watching for over thirty years. There is no program out there that I have any need to watch live. I would rather bypass all the extraneous stuff so that I have more time to do other things.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

foghorn2 said:


> Yeah, let everyone have their own stream on the Super Bowl via internet. No trick play, no recording, no skipping.
> 
> Stupid


That would be a Superbowl I most definitely would NOT watch.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

foghorn2 said:


> Good, and may it die like 3D.


But 3D isn't dying anytime soon. There are many dozens of 3D movies scheduled to be released over the next four years.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Young people don't watch live TV and they don't listen to radio. Not because they want it on their mobile devices, but because they are not interested in most of the linear content. They watch and listen to WHAT they want, WHEN they want. They don't plan their evenings around catching the latest episode of some TV show, they watch it on-demand when THEY feel like it.
> 
> .........


Not just young people. I do that and have been doing it for over thirty years. Later this year I'll be out of the main demographic when I turn 50.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Don't a lot of young people use streaming music services like Pandora and the like? Those are radio stations. ............


I use Pandora every day. I guess you could consider it a radio station. But I never hear any commercials with it. Only music.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I am not a big smart phone user/person, so pardon my ignorance. Are you guys saying smart phones don't all have to ability to run a FM radio app?
> 
> I have a cheap (cost $100 with a yr of service) Moto E TracFone running Android 4.4.4 and their is an app on it called FM Radio, works fine for tuning FM radio stations, the only down side is you need to use plug in head phones instead of wireless ones as they become the antenna.
> 
> I find it amazing that all modern higher end phones can not do this.


I don't even see the need to use an FM tuner. All the radio stations seem to be available online if I wanted to listen to them. But since they have commercials I don't listen. The last FM station I listened to regularly was an all news station. WTOP. But I stopped listening to them 1.5 years ago. I had been tuning to them for traffic. But once I realized how antiquated that was. And I could get near real time traffic for free with Google maps. That was many times more accurate. I completely stopped tuning to the News station.

And things are so much better now since Google maps shows me exactly where traffic is backed up, how fast it's moving, and makes it easy for me to avoid. Something the old school radio station is incapable of doing.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

aaronwt said:


> I don't even see the need to use an FM tuner. All the radio stations seem to be available online if I wanted to listen to them. But since they have commercials I don't listen. The last FM station I listened to regularly was an all news station. WTOP. But I stopped listening to them 1.5 years ago. I had been tuning to them for traffic. But once I realized how antiquated that was. And I could get near real time traffic for free with Google maps. That was many times more accurate. I completely stopped tuning to the News station.
> 
> And things are so much better now since Google maps shows me exactly where traffic is backed up, how fast it's moving, and makes it easy for me to avoid. Something the old school radio station is incapable of doing.


But the plan also ,si for terrestrial stations, to look exactly like SXM with similar services. It will be possible to data stream high quality data to a phone over an FM receiver.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> Young people don't watch live TV and they don't listen to radio. Not because they want it on their mobile devices, but because they are not interested in most of the linear content. They watch and listen to WHAT they want, WHEN they want. They don't plan their evenings around catching the latest episode of some TV show, they watch it on-demand when THEY feel like it.
> 
> Linear TV broadcasts to mobile devices (all of which are sold and supported by companies that have zero interest in ATSC 3.0) is a solution in search of a problem.


Only 34% of cellphones have an activated FM chip to allow someone to listen to the radio on their phone if they wanted to. Iphones don't even have an FM chip. Cellphone carriers are refusing to activate the FM chip in many phones that have them. The cell phone manufacturers and carriers are preventing a majority of people from listening to radio on their phone. You can't possibly reach the conclusion that people aren't listening to the radio on their cell phone, because the don't want to, when it's not even possible on 2/3rds of the phones.

Additionaly there isn't any functionality built in to a mobile device to watch linear TV. The only way to watch TV on a mobile device is through a streaming service app. You can't possibly draw the conclusion they people are using steaming because they don't want to watch linear TV on a mobile device.

Your whole premise is faulty.

One of the stated objectives of ATSC 3.0 is to allow people to watch OTA on a mobile device and it won't count against the data capacity of the device. Both the FCC commissioner and chairman support ATSC 3.0 and there is a $1.45 Billion fund allocated by congress to pay broadcasters for the cost of transitioning to ATSC 3.0.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

aaronwt said:


> I don't even see the need to use an FM tuner. All the radio stations seem to be available online if I wanted to listen to them. But since they have commercials I don't listen. The last FM station I listened to regularly was an all news station. WTOP. But I stopped listening to them 1.5 years ago. I had been tuning to them for traffic. But once I realized how antiquated that was. And I could get near real time traffic for free with Google maps. That was many times more accurate. I completely stopped tuning to the News station.
> 
> And things are so much better now since Google maps shows me exactly where traffic is backed up, how fast it's moving, and makes it easy for me to avoid. Something the old school radio station is incapable of doing.


Internet radio counts against your data. If you can use the FM chip it doesn't count. I wonder why the chip isn't activated or missing from 2/3rds of mobile devices.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I use Pandora every day. I guess you could consider it a radio station. But I never hear any commercials with it. Only music.


FM when I was growing up was commercial free.

Don't you have to pay to have Pandora commercial free?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Only 34% of cellphones have an activated FM chip to allow someone to listen to the radio on their phone if they wanted to. Iphones don't even have an FM chip. Cellphone carriers are refusing to activate the FM chip in many phones that have them. The cell phone manufacturers and carriers are preventing a majority of people from listening to radio on their phone. You can't possibly reach the conclusion that people aren't listening to the radio on their cell phone, because the don't want to, when it's not even possible on 2/3rds of the phones. Additionaly there isn't any functionality built in to a mobile device to watch linear TV. The only way to watch TV on a mobile device is through a streaming service app. You can't possibly draw the conclusion they people are using steaming because they don't want to watch linear TV on a mobile device. Your whole premise is faulty. One of the stated objectives of ATSC 3.0 is to allow people to watch OTA on a mobile device and it won't count against the data capacity of the device. Both the FCC commissioner and chairman support ATSC 3.0 and there is a $1.45 Billion fund allocated by congress to pay broadcasters for the cost of transitioning to ATSC 3.0.


This.

Make it next to impossible to watch linear tv unless you are sitting in a living room or den which is yours and not your parents then claim that the new breed doesn't like what they don't have access to.

Faulty data assumptions.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> FM when I was growing up was commercial free.
> 
> Don't you have to pay to have Pandora commercial free?


I pay Pandora $50/year. You get a better quality also.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Only 34% of cellphones have an activated FM chip to allow someone to listen to the radio on their phone if they wanted to. Iphones don't even have an FM chip. Cellphone carriers are refusing to activate the FM chip in many phones that have them. The cell phone manufacturers and carriers are preventing a majority of people from listening to radio on their phone. You can't possibly reach the conclusion that people aren't listening to the radio on their cell phone, because the don't want to, when it's not even possible on 2/3rds of the phones.
> 
> Additionaly there isn't any functionality built in to a mobile device to watch linear TV. The only way to watch TV on a mobile device is through a streaming service app. You can't possibly draw the conclusion they people are using steaming because they don't want to watch linear TV on a mobile device.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to fight over two different opinions (since neither you nor I can speak for for all broadcasters or all viewers/listeners we are only voicing our perspectives). I'll just point out that those same cellular providers that want you to pay for data to stream audio rather than allow FM reception, will also be selling any mobile devices that can theoretically receive mobile TV under ATSC 3.0.

Why will they be more receptive to bypassing their metered data plans for video than they are for audio? If the broadcasters think people will carry TWO mobile devices, one for TV and one for everything else, they are delusional.

I just think the success of ATSC 3.0 seems tied to consumers doing things they have never done before. Lacking a government mandate, ATSC 3.0 is, IMHO, DOA.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> Lacking a government mandate, ATSC 3.0 is, IMHO, DOA.


Bingo.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Hitting the "Thanks" thumbs up button here is a bit like saying in a Baptist Church: "AMEN"!


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> I'm not going to fight over two different opinions (since neither you nor I can speak for for all broadcasters or all viewers/listeners we are only voicing our perspectives). I'll just point out that those same cellular providers that want you to pay for data to stream audio rather than allow FM reception, will also be selling any mobile devices that can theoretically receive mobile TV under ATSC 3.0.
> 
> Why will they be more receptive to bypassing their metered data plans for video than they are for audio? If the broadcasters think people will carry TWO mobile devices, one for TV and one for everything else, they are delusional.
> 
> I just think the success of ATSC 3.0 seems tied to consumers doing things they have never done before. Lacking a government mandate, ATSC 3.0 is, IMHO, DOA.


The broadcasters are the ones petitioning the FCC to allow the use of ATSC 3.0. Why would you think it's DOA of the broadcasters want it?

ATSC 3.0 doesn't require people to do something they've never done before. They might need a new TV or a converter, but they've done that before.
People watch videos on their mobile devices. They might need a new app to watch ATSC 3.0, but people use new apps all the time.

Interestingly enough, there was a petition for carriers to turn on FM radio on smartphones. I heard a commercial on the radio today about Sprint enabling FM radio for their android smart phones. I guess they didn't get the memo that millennials will never use FM radio.

Here is the schedule

FM chip activation schedule:
(currently Android phones only)

SPRINT	Now available on current Android devices
AT&T	Available on upcoming 2016 Android devices
BLU	Available on 2016 Android devices starting in May
T-MOBILE	Coming late 2016 or 2017 to new Android devices

The whole point of moving OTA to VHF is to sell UHF frequencies to cellular providers, because they are running out of capacity for mobile data. I think they are activating the FM chip to take some of the pressure off of cellular data use.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> We're not talking multi-cast. We're talking everybody with their own separate stream. There's no way that consumes less bandwidth.


An 800MHz cable system running DOCSIS 3.1 has about 8Gbps of bandwidth. In most cases there are less then 100 homes on a cable node. That means each home could consume about 80Mbps of data simultaneously. The average H.264 encoded VOD stream is <5Mbps. That means that all 100 homes could be watching 16 VOD streams simultaneously and the system would still support it.

Right now that entire 800MHz system is taken up by QAM which only provides about 5Gbps. And the vast majority of that is used to stream 200+ linear channels most of which are not even being watched at any given moment.

Linear broadcasting makes sense for highly watched events, like the super bowl, but for most things it's highly wasteful. And with multi-cast IP they can handle special events like the super bowl, or even highly watched channels like the local networks, without everyone streaming their own copy. So they get the benefits of linear broadcasting when it's needed and the bandwidth savings of IP when it's not.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I question why we still have analog radio (FM & AM). Once ATSC 3.0 gets off the ground (if it does), I'd like to see the FCC switch FM frequencies (which lie on the spectrum between low and high VHF TV frequencies) over to ATSC 3.0 (or maybe some to ATSC 3.0 and some to cellular data). Perhaps some amount of that converted spectrum should be reserved for local independent and/or non-profit broadcasters. And maybe a certain amount of ATSC 3.0 channels/subchannels would have to be non-video (i.e. audio + data/graphics).

Step back and think for a moment about the way we have our spectrum divided. We currently have privately licensed 2-way internet (cellular), public digital but non-IP broadcast TV (ATSC 1.0), and public analog broadcast audio (FM & AM radio). Why not simply move to two kinds of IP-based wireless spectrum? Privately licensed 2-way internet (cellular) and IP-based broadcast (ATSC 3.0). ATSC 3.0 can be used to broadcast any combination of video, audio, graphics and metadata.

Rather than having different receivers for "TV" and "radio" why not just one that can do it all? For safety reasons, the in-dash screen in your car may only be able to tune in audio + stationary graphics via ATSC 3.0 if being controlled by a human driver but otherwise could tune in video as well. Back seat screens could tune it all in.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> FM when I was growing up was commercial free.
> 
> Don't you have to pay to have Pandora commercial free?


Yes. I think it's around $45 a year. Which for me is worth it for no commercials. Especially considering that I pay $180 a year for XM radio and only use it a fraction of the time that I use Pandora in the car.

I only listened to FM radio starting about 1970. There were always commercials in my area.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> An 800MHz cable system running DOCSIS 3.1 has about 8Gbps of bandwidth. In most cases there are less then 100 homes on a cable node. That means each home could consume about 80Mbps of data simultaneously. The average H.264 encoded VOD stream is <5Mbps. That means that all 100 homes could be watching 16 VOD streams simultaneously and the system would still support it.
> 
> Right now that entire 800MHz system is taken up by QAM which only provides about 5Gbps. And the vast majority of that is used to stream 200+ linear channels most of which are not even being watched at any given moment.
> 
> Linear broadcasting makes sense for highly watched events, like the super bowl, but for most things it's highly wasteful. And with multi-cast IP they can handle special events like the super bowl, or even highly watched channels like the local networks, without everyone streaming their own copy. So they get the benefits of linear broadcasting when it's needed and the bandwidth savings of IP when it's not.


That may be what you want but there is no evidence that that is where things seem to be heading. Instead, everything is pointing toward all content being delivered On Demand, which implies limits to availability both in terms of time and content.

If IP delivery is so much more efficient, why does U-verse suck so badly?


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

I agree IP Video sucks, but it sucks on U-verse worse because in most markets they use long twisted pairs to deliver it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

foghorn2 said:


> I agree IP Video sucks, but it sucks on U-verse worse because in most markets they use long twisted pairs to deliver it.


And, of course, the entire infrastructure of the United States is much better than that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> And, of course, the entire infrastructure of the United States is much better than that.


If you're on cable, yes, yes it is.

Uverse is essentially DSL with fiber to the node and then old fashioned copper telephone lines from there to the home. In order to preserve enough bandwidth on the line to have something approaching "broadband" internet, AT&T had to bitstarve the TV service. That's what it had the worst HD picture quality of any provider I've ever had.

But there's nothing about IPTV that is inherently poor in quality. Have a look at Google Fiber TV.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> An 800MHz cable system running DOCSIS 3.1 has about 8Gbps of bandwidth. In most cases there are less then 100 homes on a cable node. That means each home could consume about 80Mbps of data simultaneously. The average H.264 encoded VOD stream is <5Mbps. That means that all 100 homes could be watching 16 VOD streams simultaneously and the system would still support it.


You still have to get all those streams for all the cable nodes from the source to the node. Nobody streams right now. There is no 4k content right now. When people begin to watch IP TV the way they watch traditional broadcast television, we will appreciate how unworthy our infrastructure is.



Dan203 said:


> Linear broadcasting makes sense for highly watched events, like the super bowl, but for most things it's highly wasteful. And with multi-cast IP they can handle special events like the super bowl, or even highly watched channels like the local networks, without everyone streaming their own copy. So they get the benefits of linear broadcasting when it's needed and the bandwidth savings of IP when it's not.


Except that the quality of IP broadcasts like the Superbowl suffers when a significant number of consumers use it despite the fact that no one is watching...










Most people just turn on the television and channel surf to the first appealing program.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> The broadcasters are the ones petitioning the FCC to allow the use of ATSC 3.0. Why would you think it's DOA of the broadcasters want it?
> 
> ATSC 3.0 doesn't require people to do something they've never done before. They might need a new TV or a converter, but they've done that before.
> People watch videos on their mobile devices. They might need a new app to watch ATSC 3.0, but people use new apps all the time...


It is DOA if no one watches it. And day one, for sure, there will be virtually no one watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.

To change that, viewers will need to buy a new TV - while it has happened before, people are already replacing their 1080p and lower sets with UHD TVs. To expect a sizable number to it again with 10 years is unlikely. Almost every UHD TV that is sold is a viewer that won't be watching ATSC 3.0 until at least the middle of the next decade.

And what is their motivation for that? Better PQ? I would submit that most consumers don't care about PQ (indeed, a large portion of cable and satellite subscribers are still watching SD). People bought HD TVs 10+ years ago because they had to...their analog TVs stopped working. Without a similar motivation, assuming CE manufacturers start building TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners at all (again, questionable without a government mandate), it will take close to 2 decades before the numbers are such that you could think about shutting down ATSC 1.0 transmissions.

Without uptake of ATSC 3.0 on the viewer end the initiative is doomed. So far, I have heard nothing that convinces me viewers will rush out and buy ATSC 3.0 capable equipment.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> ...If IP delivery is so much more efficient, why does U-verse suck so badly?


Because they tried to do it over VDSL. The UVerse users that are on fiber have a much better experience. And these problems were all in the DSL link from the CO to the home. IP delivery caused no network problem for AT&T upstream of the local COs.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> It is DOA if no one watches it. And day one, for sure, there will be virtually no one watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.
> 
> To change that, viewers will need to buy a new TV - while it has happened before, people are already replacing their 1080p and lower sets with UHD TVs. To expect a sizable number to it again with 10 years is unlikely. Almost every UHD TV that is sold is a viewer that won't be watching ATSC 3.0 until at least the middle of the next decade.
> 
> ...


While I would like to see ATSC 3.0 happen if it actually means higher quality non-subscription OTA broadcasts (which I am beginning to doubt), I agree with this post. Without the FCC mandating ATSC 3.0 it has little chance of happening or succeeding even if some broadcasters do move to it.

This false meme being spread by those trying to push ATSC 3.0, that the FCC is pushing it, is pretty much BS. Saying the tech sounds nice, looking at rules that would allow it, and not preventing broadcasters from using funds they receive in the Spectrum buy back, resale, and repacking to move to it, is pretty much a hands off approach and no where near the what the FCC would need to do to assure ATSC 3.0 success.

At the bare minimum the FCC would have to mandate ATSC 3.0 tuners in TVs and any device designed to receive TV signals like they did with ATSC 1.0. If the FCC started the process to mandate ATSC 3.0 tuners today, it would be several years before it could take effect and then it would be another 5-10 years before a significant number of devices had an ATSC 3.0 tuner. And I am not really sure that would be enough to make it work. To assure success the FCC would pretty much have to do what they did with the analog to digital conversion.

What I am beginning to believe is that local broadcaster and the networks behind them are really looking for a way to get rid of subscription free TV. After all they really want people watching through cable/satellite as those services all pay for the privilege to rebroadcast these stations now. ATSC 3.0 could end up being a Trojan horse, where we end up with most content requiring a subscription and the only thing left subscription free is a bunch of SD quality & re-run stations.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Most local broadcast stations aren't owned by networks and I would think that most of their revenue is from advertising, not from satellite and cable re-broadcasting fees.

My theory is that they are pushing ATSC 3.0 as a way to remain in business when the FCC inevitably reduces the bandwidth available to OTA.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> Most local broadcast stations aren't owned by networks and I would think that most of their revenue is from advertising, not from satellite and cable re-broadcasting fees.
> 
> My theory is that they are pushing ATSC 3.0 as a way to remain in business when the FCC inevitably reduces the bandwidth available to OTA.


My understanding is that the rebroadcasting fee that cable/satellite pays is split between the local owner and the network. In any event they both get something if we sub to cable/satellite and nothing when we don't.

While the FCC is reducing the number of frequencies that are going to be available for OTA TV transmissions, it really only matters in areas where markets are close together or in the larger markets that have lots of frequencies used for independent/non-major network type stations using separate frequencies from the major OTA networks.

In my area (Rochester NY) there are only 8 frequencies being used for OTA, about the same for Buffalo & Syracuse which could overlap with the Rochester. Should be no issue at all with the frequencies that will be left.

I know that some people have concerns with VHF, but I already have 2 major networks using VHF and they come in better the all the UHF stations so I don't have those concerns.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wizwor said:


> You still have to get all those streams for all the cable nodes from the source to the node. Nobody streams right now. There is no 4k content right now. When people begin to watch IP TV the way they watch traditional broadcast television, we will appreciate how unworthy our infrastructure is.
> 
> Except that the quality of IP broadcasts like the Superbowl suffers when a significant number of consumers use it despite the fact that no one is watching...
> 
> Most people just turn on the television and channel surf to the first appealing program.


Ouch!! In the 70s I did that. But I started time shifting my TV watching in 1984. I couldn't imagine going back to the way I watched TV in the 70s and early 80s. I would stop watching TV completely before I would do that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> It is DOA if no one watches it. And day one, for sure, there will be virtually no one watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.
> 
> To change that, viewers will need to buy a new TV - while it has happened before, people are already replacing their 1080p and lower sets with UHD TVs. To expect a sizable number to it again with 10 years is unlikely. Almost every UHD TV that is sold is a viewer that won't be watching ATSC 3.0 until at least the middle of the next decade.
> 
> ...


Why would one need to buy a new TV? I haven't relied on TV tuners in decades. I don't see why ATSC 3.0 would be any different. I should be able to attach an external device to my existing TV to use it. Which has always been my preferred method.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> If you're on cable, yes, yes it is. Uverse is essentially DSL with fiber to the node and then old fashioned copper telephone lines from there to the home. In order to preserve enough bandwidth on the line to have something approaching "broadband" internet, AT&T had to bitstarve the TV service. That's what it had the worst HD picture quality of any provider I've ever had. But there's nothing about IPTV that is inherently poor in quality. Have a look at Google Fiber TV.


No. Nothing inherently. It's just that there are large portions of this country that can't support all this streaming.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Why would one need to buy a new TV? I haven't relied on TV tuners in decades. I don't see why ATSC 3.0 would be any different. I should be able to attach an external device to my existing TV to use it. Which has always been my preferred method.


That brings up some interesting questions. When you read the info about ATSC 3.0 and the vision the groups pushing it have, I am not even sure they expect or want ATSC 3.0 tuners in TVs. Their vision seems to be a gateway device (which I would call network attached tuners) attached to our routers. Their goal seems to be to interconnect ATSC 3.0 broadcasts with the Internet. Devices would just use an app to interface with the gateway device. That and the fact they have talked about using ATSC 3.0 for subscription services is why I am starting to have concerns with what they really want to do with it.

We could see a model where we get a SD version of the local station broadcasting the major Networks for "free" and if we want a HD or UHD version we would have to pay for it via a subscription, which could also allow for VoD via the interconnection with the Internet.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> Ouch!! In the 70s I did that. But I started time shifting my TV watching in 1984. I couldn't imagine going back to the way I watched TV in the 70s and early 80s. I would stop watching TV completely before I would do that.


I think TiVo expected a lot more people to watch television as you do. They don't. One big difference between local time shifting and remote time shifting is the impact on infrastructure. That is why Netflix is the #1 consumer of bandwidth in the universe. If you are capturing linear programming locally, there is not real impact on the universe -- it goes out once, you or one of your proxies 'watches' the programming in real time, and members of your household watch the buffered content whenever they like. No matter how many times the content is viewed, there was no cost in bandwidth. In an on demand universe, four people in your home may watch Big Bang at different times. Each viewing will impact the internet. Right now a few people watch some programming this way and most of that is at 720p or less and already all available bandwidth is being used for this. Start using cloud DVRs and streaming UHD all day long and the experience will be terrible.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> No. Nothing inherently. It's just that there are large portions of this country that can't support all this streaming.


OK, but by definition you're talking about those portions of the country that aren't wired for cable TV, since a coax plant (at least if it's upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 -- are there any that aren't yet?) CAN handle all that streaming if they convert their TV service from QAM to IP.

As for those part of the country that aren't wired for cable (or some equally fast form of internet), the question is moot. Those folks will still need to rely on satellite, which will not be able to switch over to IP-based streaming.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Start using cloud DVRs and streaming UHD all day long and the experience will be terrible.


And yet major players like Comcast are moving to cloud DVRs. Providing their customers with a terrible experience that's a downgrade from what they were used to the past 30 years is not in their interest. You don't make lots of money by nudging your customers off into the waiting arms of DirecTV, Dish and other emerging competitors. (Yes, Comcast customer service is awful but that's not the same as not being able to reliably watch programs when you press the remote.) There's a lot to dislike about Comcast but they didn't get to be the largest cable TV provider in the nation by being stupid.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> And yet major players like Comcast are moving to cloud DVRs. Providing their customers with a terrible experience that's a downgrade from what they were used to the past 30 years is not in their interest. You don't make lots of money by nudging your customers off into the waiting arms of DirecTV, Dish and other emerging competitors. (Yes, Comcast customer service is awful but that's not the same as not being able to reliably watch programs when you press the remote.) There's a lot to dislike about Comcast but they didn't get to be the largest cable TV provider in the nation by being stupid.


You make lots of money by charging more than you spend. Comcast and Verizon get beat on spend by people using their infrastructure for free. They can shake up their pricing to get more money for that infrastructure, reduce investment in that infrastructure, or both. They seem to be going for both.

No one 'needs' television. The fact that people spend $300/month on television is a testament to their marketing prowess. When I was a kid, we got seven stations. The Red Sox did not rate time on the Big Three. Now, fans have to subscribe to NESN and ESPN to watch all the games. I don't watch.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> And yet major players like Comcast are moving to cloud DVRs. Providing their customers with a terrible experience that's a downgrade from what they were used to the past 30 years is not in their interest. You don't make lots of money by nudging your customers off into the waiting arms of DirecTV, Dish and other emerging competitors. (Yes, Comcast customer service is awful but that's not the same as not being able to reliably watch programs when you press the remote.) There's a lot to dislike about Comcast but they didn't get to be the largest cable TV provider in the nation by being stupid.


I'd actually say Comcast makes money despite itself.

I've used the X1 extensively and if there is the slightest problem with your connection, it is horrible.

Remember, comcast grew not by beating the completion but hiding from them. Most of their footprint had little to no competition for land based systems. And they bought and bought and bought. And a lot of what they bought is behind the times like much of my area.

I hear internal Comcast stories. They are not all theta bright. They are not pushing technology or making perfect decisions.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I'd actually say Comcast makes money despite itself.
> 
> I've used the X1 extensively and if there is the slightest problem with your connection, it is horrible.


I've not used it myself. But if it's truly that bad for everyone, Comcast will either fix the X1 cloud DVR, abandon cloud DVR although, or pay the price as customers leave. There are too many other options now available between satellite, telco/fiber, and OTT. (Yes, current Comcast data caps could be a problem for some families if they went OTT but they're about to increase everywhere to 1TB per month, meaning you could subscribe to OTT TV and leave it on 24/7 without a problem.)

I'm not an apologist for Comcast or for cloud DVRs for that matter. I don't really have a dog in the fight. Just an observer of the trends...


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> It is DOA if no one watches it. And day one, for sure, there will be virtually no one watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.


Day one? Probably not, but what about day 90?



Diana Collins said:


> To change that, viewers will need to buy a new TV - while it has happened before, people are already replacing their 1080p and lower sets with UHD TVs. To expect a sizable number to it again with 10 years is unlikely. Almost every UHD TV that is sold is a viewer that won't be watching ATSC 3.0 until at least the middle of the next decade.


There are a fair amount of UHD TVs today without HDR capabilities, but HDR is one of the big features of Ultra HD Blu-ray discs, as well as streaming content.



Diana Collins said:


> And what is their motivation for that? Better PQ? I would submit that most consumers don't care about PQ (indeed, a large portion of cable and satellite subscribers are still watching SD). People bought HD TVs 10+ years ago because they had to...their analog TVs stopped working.


Actually, I think most people bought HDTVs because they were flat and took up less space than traditional televisions.



Diana Collins said:


> Without a similar motivation, assuming CE manufacturers start building TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners at all (again, questionable without a government mandate), it will take close to 2 decades before the numbers are such that you could think about shutting down ATSC 1.0 transmissions.


Why are you assuming there would be a rush to shut down ATSC 1.0 transmissions?

In a larger market, I could see that being the case, but not necessarily in a smaller market... at least as long as the politicians copy the current re-transmission rights to ATSC 3.0 that 1.0 currently enjoys.

In the market of Albany, Georgia, WSWG-DT (CBS - 1080i), WSWG-DT2 (MyNetworkTV - 480i), and WSWG-DT3 (The CW - 720p) doesn't even provide a broadcast signal to Albany, Georgia due to interference with a station in Dothan, AL. WSWG-DT is carried on both satcos, the cablecos, and CBS All Access. WSWG-DT3 is carried on DirecTV and the cablecos, and WSWG-DT2 is carried on the cablecos. Now granted, my market has a low OTA penetration, so it's not a big deal for Gray at this time, but not being able to be seen by the majority of the DMA isn't a big deal to them.

In a small market like mine, you could easily fit NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS, and The CW on a single ATSC 1.0 signal. That would be acceptable for most people who use OTA, and if they wanted a better picture, it should be a simple matter to buy an external tuner.



Diana Collins said:


> Without uptake of ATSC 3.0 on the viewer end the initiative is doomed. So far, I have heard nothing that convinces me viewers will rush out and buy ATSC 3.0 capable equipment.


If you build it, they will come!

In my market, WALB (NBC/ABC) is owned by Raycom (part of the Pearl group), WFXL owned by Sinclair, and CBS/The CW by Gray (who isn't quite as invested in ATSC 3.0 as the others, but are interested in the technology and has publicly stated they feel like ATSC 3.0 should be launched concurrently with the repack).

These stations also have SD subchannels, all carried by the local cablecos which pay them for retransmission. WALB and WSWG both have one 1080i channel, one 720p channel, and a 480i SD channel on a single RF channel. A station in a neighboring DMA has CBS, MyNetworkTV, The CW, and NBC on a single RF channel.

Broadcasters want this, and the broadcasters know the government wants something from them (the repack), so do not be surprised if the broadcasters win out (and not just because it's an election year).

I have no doubt that ATSC 3.0 is coming, and headaches aside, I'm hopeful. I may never see OTA HD again like the old days (early 00's), but even the PQ from a few years ago would be great... add in VOD, and I'm sold!!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

You need to recheck your math. Even highly compressed H.264 video is at least 1.4GB an hour. So the maximum would be 714 hours for 1TB. And I repeat, that is the practical _*maximum*_. Reality would be far less.

Edit: I must amend my statement. I found some recordings that were more like 1.3GB an hour. Then again, I found some that were 2.15GB


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lpwcomp said:


> You need to recheck your math. Even highly compressed H.264 video is at least 1.4GB an hour. So the maximum would be 714 hours for 1TB. And I repeat, that is the practical _*maximum*_. Reality would be far less.
> 
> Edit: I must amend my statement. I found some recordings that were more like 1.3GB an hour. Then again, I found some that were 2.15GB


Ok, 24/7 is an exaggeration to make a point. But at 5.2 Mbps for PS Vue's HD, you could stream over 12 hrs per day on average and still be under 850 GB for the month. And who watches 12 hours of TV a day?


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Ok, 24/7 is an exaggeration to make a point. But at 5.2 Mbps for PS Vue's HD, you could stream over 12 hrs per day on average and still be under 850 GB for the month. And who watches 12 hours of TV a day?


Families. Switch that out with 3 different viewers and thats only 4 hours of TV a day average.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Families. Switch that out with 3 different viewers and thats only 4 hours of TV a day average.


Exactly.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BRiT wtfdotcom said:


> Families. Switch that out with 3 different viewers and thats only 4 hours of TV a day average.


Ok, for families that do a lot of TV watching separately on different devices, an OTT TV service alone (i.e., not supplemented with OTA) may bump them over 1TB per month, at least with that high of a bitrate (5.2 Mbps is the max for PS Vue). But lots of streaming is done at lower bitrates. And as more streaming devices being used support h.265, that will push bitrates down by 1/3 to 1/2 for equivalent picture quality. And remember that lots of households in the US don't even have 3 people in them; the average US household is about 2.5 people.

We've gotten off on a tangent (as these threads tend to do). My original point is that consumers dissatisfied with cable TV have a growing number of options, including OTT as well as satellite, telco and fiber, and those competitors should deter cable from offering a sub-par experience for consumers.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

On a side note, providers are going to continue to compress the bejeezus out of content to be able to cram more 'stuff' into channel space. And PQ will continue to suffer.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RoamioJeff said:


> On a side note, providers are going to continue to compress the bejeezus out of content to be able to cram more 'stuff' into channel space. And PQ will continue to suffer.


That's been a sad trend generally among linear TV providers over the years, whether OTA or pay TV. Cram in more channels/subchannels and degrade picture quality. Sure, ESPN looks worse now but, hey, we carry The Sewing Channel in HD!

But I will say it's one of the things I like about OTT streaming. 1080p PQ from Netflix, Amazon and Vudu is, to my eyes, pretty great. No, it's not Blu-ray but it's certainly better IMO than what you see either OTA or from DirecTV, Dish, Comcast or AT&T Uverse. Hulu's 720p isn't stunning but (when I watch it on my Apple TV 3 rather than their bitrate-impared app for Roamio), it still looks pretty darn good, as good on average as my local major OTA HD stations (except maybe for the stellar WTVF CBS, whose shows aren't on Hulu anyhow).

A lot of people are motivated to leave cable/sat and go with OTA/streaming to save money but improved PQ was just as big a motivator for me as the savings.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> That's been a sad trend generally among linear TV providers over the years, whether OTA or pay TV. Cram in more channels/subchannels and degrade picture quality. Sure, ESPN looks worse now but, hey, we carry The Sewing Channel in HD!
> 
> But I will say it's one of the things I like about OTT streaming. 1080p PQ from Netflix, Amazon and Vudu is, to my eyes, pretty great. No, it's not Blu-ray but it's certainly better IMO than what you see either OTA or from DirecTV, Dish, Comcast or AT&T Uverse. Hulu's 720p isn't stunning but (when I watch it on my Apple TV 3 rather than their bitrate-impared app for Roamio), it still looks pretty darn good, as good on average as my local major OTA HD stations (except maybe for the stellar WTVF CBS, whose shows aren't on Hulu anyhow).
> 
> A lot of people are motivated to leave cable/sat and go with OTA/streaming to save money but improved PQ was just as big a motivator for me as the savings.


Good points, but I predict that eventually OTT will be compressed just as well. Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, and others will eventually compress more. PQ will decline. It's virtually guaranteed. Just like how certain brands of products may not increase prices, but they reduce package sizes for the same price. It's just too easy to compress a little more, and give you less. And then compress it a little more. For all services. And then they will come out with 'premium' versions of services that are compressed a 'little' less ... for a higher price.

Compression will be our enemy. Providers of all types now have a tool unavailable in the old days, when everybody got the same full-quality broadcast signal without it being messed with.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RoamioJeff said:


> Good points, but I predict that eventually OTT will be compressed just as well. Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, and others will eventually compress more. PQ will decline. It's virtually guaranteed.


Nah. Why would it be? The rationale for overcompression among cable, satellite and OTA providers is that they have a fixed amount of bandwidth and they want to cram as many channels in there as possible, figuring (correctly) that adding more channels is more profitable for them than preserving PQ with few channels.

There's no similar rationale for OTT streaming providers. It's all IP-based, all individual streams over networks they do not control and aren't responsible for. These companies, Netflix especially, are quite concerned about the end-user experience. They weigh their customers' ability to receive an uninterrupted stream (arguing for lower bitrates) versus high PQ (arguing for higher bitrates) across a range of devices and connection scenarios. Which is why Netflix does multiple encodes of each title they offer.

You're technically correct that there will be more compression applied by OTT providers going forward but it will be better compression with no loss in PQ. Part of that comes from doing HEVC/h.265 encodes for modern devices that can handle it. (The vast majority of streaming content currently consumed is encoded in the less efficient h.264 codec.) And part of that comes from applying compression in a smarter way, like Netflix is doing, re-encoding content on a per-title and even a scene-by-scene basis, using higher bitrates where necessary and lower bitrates where it's not, to achieve consistently good PQ from start to finish across all types of titles in their library.

http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/12/per-title-encode-optimization.html


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

The idea that ATSC 3.0 would ever have more than a handful of people watching programming on their phones is ludicrous. Back when they first started talking about this a decade ago, the idea of watching video over cellular was crazy, and almost no phones had wifi, so such an idea made sense and you could see there would be a market for it. By the time they created the fully backwards compatible ATSC M/H standard no one wanted it because they were already watching videos on their phones using wifi and 3G cellular (at least where data prices allowed)

So why should anyone want it in 2018, or whenever ATSC 3.0 stations appear, when the mobile world moved on years ago? They won't! If some carriers have been disabling the FM chip in the phones that have it, and many phones don't include it all (including, as noted, every iPhone ever made) that tells me three things:

1) carriers disabled the FM chip because they wanted the data revenue, so what will be different when it comes to ATSC 3.0?
2) this didn't seem to influence people's choice of phone or choice of carrier to any great degree - it certainly didn't hinder the iPhone's success in any way!
3) since #2 proves few care about the FM chip in a phone, what incentive will the suppliers of radio chips like Qualcomm have to integrate ATSC 3.0 capability into the chips they sell, when phone makers are unlikely to pay more for such a capability because they know their customers aren't likely to use it and carriers might disable it anyway?

Adding ATSC 3.0 becomes even more likely because Qualcomm now builds chips intended for worldwide use. The days of having different chips used in US, EU and Asian markets are mostly over. ATSC 3.0 will likely remain a niche in the world market just like ATSC is, where other standards like DVB-T and ISDB-T are more prevalent. They don't include DVB-T reception in cell phones even though the standard allows for this. Why would they include ATSC 3.0 capability when they don't include the ability to receive other more popular broadcast standards? They won't.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The idea that ATSC 3.0 would ever have more than a handful of people watching programming on their phones is ludicrous. Back when they first started talking about this a decade ago, the idea of watching video over cellular was crazy, and almost no phones had wifi, so such an idea made sense and you could see there would be a market for it. By the time they created the fully backwards compatible ATSC M/H standard no one wanted it because they were already watching videos on their phones using wifi and 3G cellular (at least where data prices allowed)
> 
> So why should anyone want it in 2018, or whenever ATSC 3.0 stations appear, when the mobile world moved on years ago? They won't! If some carriers have been disabling the FM chip in the phones that have it, and many phones don't include it all (including, as noted, every iPhone ever made) that tells me three things:
> 
> ...


Most people never knew their phone might have FM radio capabilities, that's why it didn't affect phone sales. Iphones don't even have a FM chip to turn on. There was little to no advertising.

There was a petition to turn on the FM chip in cell phones and some carriers are starting to turn it on.

SPRINT	Now available on current Android devices
AT&T	Available on upcoming 2016 Android devices
BLU	Available on 2016 Android devices starting in May
T-MOBILE	Coming late 2016 or 2017 to new Android devices.

The latest gimmick for music streaming services like amazon and google is, get this, custom radio stations. It seems like there is a demand for radio among cell phone users.

The purpose of the upcoming spectrum auction is to free up UHF frequencies so they can be sold to cellular providers, because there isn't enough bandwidth to go around.

Certainly a cellphone company that offers unlimited data plans and/or throttles speed instead of charging for data overages would want users to have access to FM radio and ATSC 3.0.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Diana Collins said:


> It is DOA if no one watches it. And day one, for sure, there will be virtually no one watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.
> 
> To change that, viewers will need to buy a new TV - while it has happened before, people are already replacing their 1080p and lower sets with UHD TVs. To expect a sizable number to it again with 10 years is unlikely. Almost every UHD TV that is sold is a viewer that won't be watching ATSC 3.0 until at least the middle of the next decade.
> 
> ...


There isn't any indication that viewers would have to buy a new TV to watch ATSC 3.0 broadcasts. From what I've read there will be gateway tuners that can be accessed by smart tvs and OTT boxes or an HDMI dongle that could convert ATSC 3.0 to ATSC 1.0.


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> Most people never knew their phone might have FM radio capabilities, that's why it didn't affect phone sales. Iphones don't even have a FM chip to turn on. There was little to no advertising.
> 
> There was a petition to turn on the FM chip in cell phones and some carriers are starting to turn it on.
> 
> ...


Probably the reason the carriers are enabling them now is because the amount of data that streaming uses is so little they aren't making much money off it in these days of multi gigabyte plans.

Do you actually listen to FM radio? It sucks, as many minutes of ads per hour as TV as but no way to skip them like with Tivo. No one wants to listen to music like that any more, the only thing that keeps it alive is all the cars driving around with FM radios.

Anyway, if you think phones are going to get ATSC tuners, explain why they don't have DVB-T or ISDB-T tuners now? Both those formats have much larger potential audiences than ATSC. What's the driver for adding an ATSC 3.0 tuner when no one sees the value in adding a DVB-T tuner?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Probably the reason the carriers are enabling them now is because the amount of data that streaming uses is so little they aren't making much money off it in these days of multi gigabyte plans.


On average, U.S. wireless customers consume 1.8 GB of cellular data every month. Carriers prey on customers with 1GB or less plans.



slice1900 said:


> Do you actually listen to FM radio? It sucks, as many minutes of ads per hour as TV as but no way to skip them like with Tivo. No one wants to listen to music like that any more, the only thing that keeps it alive is all the cars driving around with FM radios.


FM isn't available on my phone. I wasn't even aware FM was possible on a Cell phone until recently.

I listen to FM in the car. Many people have several FM stations programmed on the preset buttons and change stations to skip commercials.

Google Play Music has radio stations with unskippable commercials. Radio stations are the latest gimmick from many music streaming services and many of them have commercials. It's much more difficult to change stations on Google play music. I'd rather use FM to listen to the radio.



slice1900 said:


> Anyway, if you think phones are going to get ATSC tuners, explain why they don't have DVB-T or ISDB-T tuners now? Both those formats have much larger potential audiences than ATSC. What's the driver for adding an ATSC 3.0 tuner when no one sees the value in adding a DVB-T tuner?


The reason DVB-T an ISDB-T aren't available on american cell phones is that they won't tune in ATSC 1.0. US broadcasters abandoned ATSC-M/H broadcasts because of ATSC 3.0. Manufacturers aren't going to add the expense of ATSC-M/H to a cell phone, if there is little to no content.


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The reason DVB-T an ISDB-T aren't available on american cell phones is that they won't tune in ATSC 1.0. US broadcasters abandoned ATSC-M/H broadcasts because of ATSC 3.0. Manufacturers aren't going to add the expense of ATSC-M/H to a cell phone, if there is little to no content.


They aren't available on anyone's cell phones. Why would they add ATSC reception for US customers (and the handful of other countries that use ATSC and may upgrade to ATSC 3.0 someday) when they don't add DVB-T and ISDB-T for the countries where those formats are used - given that both are more popular worldwide than ATSC?

These days the chipsets used in cell phones in the US are the same ones used in phones sold in Europe, South America and Asia. No one is going to make a special cellular chipset that includes ATSC for the US market. Why would they have useless ATSC reception ability in phones sold in Brazil or the UK, when they haven't added any ability for people in those countries to receive their own broadcasts?

Those who think phones are going to be able to receive ATSC are just dreaming. Ain't gonna happen just because ATSC 3.0 permits it.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> Those who think phones are going to be able to receive ATSC are just dreaming. Ain't gonna happen just because ATSC 3.0 permits it.


No way to tell. The ability to stream broadcast audio and video is appealing for second tier carriers and value conscious consumers. I can't believe Republic Wireless has not offered a phone with an FM tuner already.


----------



## RoamioJeff (May 9, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They aren't available on anyone's cell phones. Why would they add ATSC reception for US customers (and the handful of other countries that use ATSC and may upgrade to ATSC 3.0 someday) when they don't add DVB-T and ISDB-T for the countries where those formats are used - given that both are more popular worldwide than ATSC?
> 
> These days the chipsets used in cell phones in the US are the same ones used in phones sold in Europe, South America and Asia. No one is going to make a special cellular chipset that includes ATSC for the US market. Why would they have useless ATSC reception ability in phones sold in Brazil or the UK, when they haven't added any ability for people in those countries to receive their own broadcasts?
> 
> Those who think phones are going to be able to receive ATSC are just dreaming. Ain't gonna happen just because ATSC 3.0 permits it.


I think with today's upgradeable technology (like Software Defined Radio [SDR]), the actual hardware will become generic and the actual waveforms to be made available (ATSC, DVB-T, etc.) will be made available via firmware upgrades on-the-fly.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> They aren't available on anyone's cell phones. Why would they add ATSC reception for US customers (and the handful of other countries that use ATSC and may upgrade to ATSC 3.0 someday) when they don't add DVB-T and ISDB-T for the countries where those formats are used - given that both are more popular worldwide than ATSC?
> 
> These days the chipsets used in cell phones in the US are the same ones used in phones sold in Europe, South America and Asia. No one is going to make a special cellular chipset that includes ATSC for the US market. Why would they have useless ATSC reception ability in phones sold in Brazil or the UK, when they haven't added any ability for people in those countries to receive their own broadcasts?
> 
> Those who think phones are going to be able to receive ATSC are just dreaming. Ain't gonna happen just because ATSC 3.0 permits it.


Many countries in Europe require a license fee to watch TV and the license is based on the residence. This pricing structure is problematic for mobile devices since you could be in various residences and have to verify if they were each licensed to watch TV. It's a criminal offense to watch TV in an unlicensed residence.

I think the cell phone manufacturers already make different chipsets with respect to the processor, cores and FM transmitter for different countries.


----------



## slice1900 (Dec 2, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I think the cell phone manufacturers already make different chipsets with respect to the processor, cores and FM transmitter for different countries.


No, they don't. At least the major players like Qualcomm do chipsets designed for a worldwide market. Look at the MDM96x5 series for instance, they support all major worldwide cellular standards. That's why you can buy an iPhone that works on all carriers, and in all countries. As far as cellular reception goes, the only difference between the different iPhone 6S SKUs is the one sold as an AT&T phone can receive one additional AT&T band (LTE band 30 I think) No idea why that is, but it doesn't really make any difference since it is installed hardly anywhere and nowhere is it the only LTE band.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Many countries in Europe require a license fee to watch TV and the license is based on the residence. This pricing structure is problematic for mobile devices since you could be in various residences and have to verify if they were each licensed to watch TV. It's a criminal offense to watch TV in an unlicensed residence...


And license fees are disappearing. In many countries (e.g. Finland) they have been replaced with a simple tax that everyone pays, regardless of devices or services used. The U.K. may soon follow suit (the laws are up for renewal this year and next). The high cost of enforcement, in the face of rampant non-compliance, has persuaded most countries that per residence license fees are unenforceable. Besides, TV is evolving in those countries towards an IP based system just like it is here, making broadcasting, and the associated licenses, increasingly irrelevant.


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

shwru980r said:


> Many countries in Europe require a license fee to watch TV and the license is based on the residence. This pricing structure is problematic for mobile devices since you could be in various residences and have to verify if they were each licensed to watch TV. It's a criminal offense to watch TV in an unlicensed residence.
> 
> I think the cell phone manufacturers already make different chipsets with respect to the processor, cores and FM transmitter for different countries.


It's not that hard, actually. In the UK, any battery powered device is covered by the licence of the main address of its owner.

e.g. I can use a battery powered TV, or stream the BBC iPlayer on my laptop or tablet, while being in a location that is unlicenced, because my home address has a licence


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

Diana Collins said:


> And license fees are disappearing. In many countries (e.g. Finland) they have been replaced with a simple tax that everyone pays, regardless of devices or services used. The U.K. may soon follow suit (the laws are up for renewal this year and next). The high cost of enforcement, in the face of rampant non-compliance, has persuaded most countries that per residence license fees are unenforceable. Besides, TV is evolving in those countries towards an IP based system just like it is here, making broadcasting, and the associated licenses, increasingly irrelevant.


The UK isn't changing much at all. The "iPlayer loophole" is being closed. This will mean that the law will change, currently it only covers live TV. It's not a huge change.

The BBC may also decide to create a login system that is tied to the TV licence (e.g. you create a BBC account but can't watch anything until you type in a licence number, which is verified and linked to your account.)

It's slightly pedantic, but the law isn't up for renewal. The BBC is covered by a "royal charter" that is the basis for its continued existence - this is what's up for renewal. TV licensing is covered by the Communications Act and doesn't expire. The government has agreed to modernise the latter as part of the agreement on the former.

For the UK at least, moving to a straight tax might be politically explosive. There are people who do not want to fund the BBC - and if they had to pay more taxes, they'd rather it went on roads or healthcare or schools or something.

The DVB world has more options than just moving to a tax, though. EU regulations mean that basically all TVs must come with the DVB equivalent of the cablecard slot - so a broadcaster could theoretically start encrypting channels.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

My new 4K Samsung says it can do buffered OTA viewing - but in the UK only with a USB drive.

Shows you how much the imperial royal broadcasters have it good in this country.


----------



## Joe Siegler (May 10, 2000)

Came looking for info on this, couldn't find anything new, so I picked up this thread.

Anyone know what (if anything) TiVo plans on doing about ATSC 3.0?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

At CES they hinted that they might make a 3.0-compatible box in 2019.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> Most local broadcast stations aren't owned by networks and I would think that most of their revenue is from advertising, not from satellite and cable re-broadcasting fees.
> 
> My theory is that they are pushing ATSC 3.0 as a way to remain in business when the FCC inevitably reduces the bandwidth available to OTA.


Isnt it also true that no cable company in the US will sell you a package that does not contain locals? Satellite might but if you sign up with Cox or Comcast and say I want HBO and the "Variety Pak" you will be told either locals are included or you cant buy those packages without the "starter pak" which is locals and c-span and qvc and the like. Bottom line, your locals will be part of your cable package no matter what.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

wizwor said:


> You make lots of money by charging more than you spend. Comcast and Verizon get beat on spend by people using their infrastructure for free. They can shake up their pricing to get more money for that infrastructure, reduce investment in that infrastructure, or both. They seem to be going for both.
> 
> No one 'needs' television. The fact that people spend $300/month on television is a testament to their marketing prowess. When I was a kid, we got seven stations. The Red Sox did not rate time on the Big Three. Now, fans have to subscribe to NESN and ESPN to watch all the games. I don't watch.


I was shocked the Mens and Womens NCAA championships were on pay TV. The women were EsPN (1 or 2) and the mens National Championship which has been a CBS staple, was on TBS. So if you had the wrong package, you could not watch those games. Events like those were always on an OTA available network so the entire country could watch for free. THe Super Bowl on CBSSorts Network? It might happen...


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> Most people never knew their phone might have FM radio capabilities, that's why it didn't affect phone sales. Iphones don't even have a FM chip to turn on. There was little to no advertising.
> 
> There was a petition to turn on the FM chip in cell phones and some carriers are starting to turn it on.
> 
> ...


Metro PCS has "Music Unlimited". Data free music with $40 plans. Apple,Pandora,Napster, and 30 others including SiriusXM. I am Scrooge as far as data goes, no you tube no videos. I got into that habit and stay that way. Google "Music Unlimited PCS"


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Nah. Why would it be? The rationale for overcompression among cable, satellite and OTA providers is that they have a fixed amount of bandwidth and they want to cram as many channels in there as possible, figuring (correctly) that adding more channels is more profitable for them than preserving PQ with few channels.
> 
> There's no similar rationale for OTT streaming providers. It's all IP-based, all individual streams over networks they do not control and aren't responsible for. These companies, Netflix especially, are quite concerned about the end-user experience. They weigh their customers' ability to receive an uninterrupted stream (arguing for lower bitrates) versus high PQ (arguing for higher bitrates) across a range of devices and connection scenarios. Which is why Netflix does multiple encodes of each title they offer.


Correct. The OTT providers are much less limited by fixed amounts of bandwidht, and can also encode in CBR that's not tied to a fixed number of channels in a stat mux (although stat muxes do work pretty well most of the time). Netflix has hugely advanced their encoding, and their quality is much closer to Blu-Ray than cable. Further, they can do offline encoding, whereas cable and satellite have to do online encoding, and when you can run the video through the encoder multiple times, you can make it MUCH more efficient.



mattyro7878 said:


> I was shocked the Mens and Womens NCAA championships were on pay TV. The women were EsPN (1 or 2) and the mens National Championship which has been a CBS staple, was on TBS.


The women's has been ESPN for a long time, the Men's is on TBS, TruTV, TNT, and CBS, and they alternate year to year as to who gets the final game versus who gets the final four, so either way, you have to have pay tv to watch any significant amount of March Madness.



mattyro7878 said:


> Isnt it also true that no cable company in the US will sell you a package that does not contain locals?


DISH used to, but I'm not sure if they will any more. If they do, they are the only one. The locals are raking in the dough from retrans fees. The whole thing is a big scam, and is one of many factors causing pay tv rates to continue to go up much faster than inflation.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> DISH used to, but I'm not sure if they will any more. If they do, they are the only one. The locals are raking in the dough from retrans fees. The whole thing is a big scam, and is one of many factors causing pay tv rates to continue to go up much faster than inflation.


Yes, you can subscribe to Dish without the locals. You can get a cheap 2-year introductory plan that way.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Yes, you can subscribe to Dish without the locals. You can get a cheap 2-year introductory plan that way.


They've buried them, but I finally found the flex pack. DISH is missing a couple of key sports channels in my area, so I don't really pay attention to them. You'll see the occasional DISH dish around here, but not many, as they just don't care about our market.


----------

