-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
How to save ATSC 3.0
- Thread starter IM42A
- Start date
Article lost me with this line: “the FCC enacted rules mandating that all new radio tuners had to include both AM and FM.”
There was never any such rule.
Otherwise a lame article. The broadcast industry needs to better articulate what it is planning to do with ATSC 3.0, and explain in detail the supposed benefits it will offer. So far we’ve only heard vague generalities.
There was never any such rule.
Otherwise a lame article. The broadcast industry needs to better articulate what it is planning to do with ATSC 3.0, and explain in detail the supposed benefits it will offer. So far we’ve only heard vague generalities.
The public will decide if ATSC 3 is viable, not the broadcasters' marketing departments. They'll do so when they buy compatible TVs in large quantities. I understand that hasn't happened so far. I certainly have no need for one, and don't see a reason in the near future. They are welcome to prove me wrong.
So far, there are zero reasons for it to exist, and this has been the case ever since it began testing. This is unlike ATSC 1, which is far from perfect, but it is viable after 15 years of mandatory use.
The only reason for it to potentially exist is to fix the signal issues that ATSC 1 has. Is this even being addressed? Do the station owners even care? And how many people will be able to take advantage of a 4K picture? Unless one has a very large screen (60 inches or greater) TV, there will be little or no real difference in picture quality. The human eye can only resolve so much. And do so in a 6 MHz television channel? Yeah, right.
Still only a small fraction of TVs on the market today include ATSC3 tuners.
I searched in the 75" and up class on B&H photo & video, and 20% of their TVs had ATSC tuners. Most of those were Sony models.
BestBuy.com doesn't even have a way to filter on ATSC3 tuners. It's safe to say retailers are feeling nearly zero demand from consumers on ATSC3.
ATSC 3.0 is generally considered a much more robust modulation technique, presumably addressing the dropout problems 1.0 can suffer from. But I’m not sure we have enough “real world” reception experience to know the extent 3.0 fixes 1.0 issues.
4K gobbles up a huge amount of bandwidth, even with the most up to date digital codecs. Its use would severely limit the potential for additional video and data services on a 6 MHz channel, which might reduce overall revenue from the station.
Agree with that. A video professional with a trained eye can see a difference with 4K on a 55” set, but you have to go to 65” or larger for the average person to notice.
HDR capability is quite stunning, however, regardless of screen size.
Amusing to think that some are talking about 8K, which is likely only practical for very large commercial displays.
Or maybe 16K? 16K resolution - Wikipedia
Or 32K? 32K resolution - Wikipedia
But consumers apparently think otherwise, with a number of 8K TVs on the market.
I don't see ATSC 3.0 taking off until and unless a critical mass of viewers have TV sets with 3.0 built in. Asking people to acquire set-top boxes, without a mandate such as existed in 2009 with 1.0 (and that was enabled by distribution of free converters to the public), will only attract a small fraction of the viewing public, moreover, this present Rube Goldberg "lighthouse" scenario is far from ideal.
This, along with the targeted ads, are why I'll never "upgrade" to it. I have tons of FAST channels via my Samsung TV that are constantly changing, plus Paramount, Netflix and Apple TV. I don't need to add more OTA stations to the stuff I can watch now.
It's already similar to the the AM Stereo timeline, with DRM it's finished.
Also LG has removed ATSC 3.0 from their TV after setting a lawsuit with a patent troller.
Also LG has removed ATSC 3.0 from their TV after setting a lawsuit with a patent troller.
Agreed. The whole endgame to this charade of technological claptrap is the usual 'capitalistism' of eventually tee-vee must be paid for, regardless of how it is 'transmitted' OTA or 'internet-dependencies'. To top it off, as usual, is that this is their damnedest to prevent you from 'recording' things like you used to for private use, much less sharing--heavens-to-betsies. You see, you will own nothing (unless you pirate--uhh infringe) and YOU - WILL - BE - HAPPY!?!?! ...for you're own good--of course, or else.
We barely have 4K content we are nowhere close to 8K if ever.
It's so pathetic to see Sinclair lackey Armstrong Williams begging the FCC to remove any remaining regulations that prevent Sinclair from buying more stations and to mandate 3.0, which only helps Sinclair, the corporate parent of Dielectric.
If you want to save ATSC 3.0, you can start by not DRM encrypting free OTA channels. Right now there isn't enough benefits for people to upgrade to ATSC 3.0 equipment unless they are struggling to receive the ATSC 1.0 versions of the same channels. Stop tacking on gimmicky features that require an internet connection to work. You can't advertise how broadcast television is great for emergencies while making it unable to work when the internet goes down.
Dream on. We are entering a massive deregulation era for at least the next four years where big corporations will be fully enabled and free to do whatever they want for the sake of corporate greed regardless of the harm to consumers or society.
What size were you looking for?
- Status