• 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

NAB asks for ATSC 3.0 mandate by 2030

KeithE4 said:
If a TV tower falls in the forest...
Click to expand...
Last I heard around 20% of the audience (including me) enjoy FREE tv. Also I don't have to worry about on of the big programmers getting into a carriage dispute with Google, Direct etc. Its better than paying the cable company. I do stream Netflix but that is instead of going to theater and paying $8 for a bag of popcorn and a Sprite.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
The output of a new ATSC 3.0 converter box could be fed into an ATSC 1.0 converter box which would then be hooked up to your old NTSC analog TV.🤯🤣
Click to expand...
That wouldn't work as an ATSC 3 converter box wouldn't put out an ATSC signal onto coaxial, it would output to HDMI and maybe a composite cable. You would need a HDMI to composite converter as current tuners don't have a composite output.
 
What value proposition does ATSC 3.0 offer to a 50+ year old viewer? No one under 40 watches OTA TV regularly. It's streaming or cable. NAB is about to blow their foot off with a shotgun by forcing a shutoff of grandma's TV. Good luck. I'd rather give UHF TV spectrum to Tmobile to deploy more 5G. Much better benefit to the public. And data casting? LOL who needs that with cheap low latency 5G everywhere? NAB is so far behind and out of touch with what's happening today it's comical.
 
What value proposition does ATSC 3.0 offer to a 50+ year old viewer?
Click to expand...

Better and easier reception, more channel capacity, and most subchannel networks will be able be broadcast in HD.

NAB is about to blow their foot off with a shotgun by forcing a shutoff of grandma's TV. Good luck. I'd rather give UHF TV spectrum to Tmobile to deploy more 5G.
Click to expand...

ATSC 3.0 will allow fewer stations to broadcast more channels. This could free up more channels for another mobile spectrum auction like what happened before with the transition from NTSC to ASTC 1.0.

And data casting? LOL who needs that with cheap low latency 5G everywhere?
Click to expand...

It's funny that about every 10 years in the TV broadcast business people get excited about using TV stations for Internet and data. Happened around 2000, around 2009/2010 with the shutdown of NTSC, and now again with ATSC 3.0.
 
inari said:
Better and easier reception, more channel capacity, and most subchannel networks will be able be broadcast in HD.
Click to expand...
inari said:
ATSC 3.0 will allow fewer stations to broadcast more channels. This could free up more channels for another mobile spectrum auction like what happened before with the transition from NTSC to ASTC 1.0.
Click to expand...
None of this is relevant to the viewer. Existing channels work fine, look fine and don't require adding external box to the TV. This upgrade only benefits the broadcasters and forces very anti consumer features like non skippable commercials and no ability to record and save broadcasts in portable format.
 
The NAB’s goal of a complete ATSC 1.0 shutoff by 2030 is unrealistic. We’re probably a minimum of ten years away from that transition.

The standards and capabilities of ATSC 3.0 need to be finalized; so far we’ve only had murky talk about interactivity, datacasting, audio services, etc. My concern is that any current 3.0 TV could wind up being partially obsolete by the time the various ancillary services on the new standard are finally implemented..
 
Meanwhile, in some parts of the country, where there are only two commercial TV allotments, such as the Salisbury-Ocean City, MD DMA, such a transition would be as smooth as mud. With the lack of consumer devices already on the market, the DRM issues, no real public outcry for the technology (like there was when NTSC to ATSC1 was going on) and more of a public expense to a format (linear TV) that is losing viewers daily, this may be the final nail in the OTA TV coffin. OTA TV stations will turn into what FM translators had eventually become, not used for their original intended purpose. At least the public could listen to a FM translator carrying a HD stream without having to shell out hundreds or thousands for new equipment.

OTA TV is just getting themselves set up for the loss of the remaining UHF TV spectrum for other (profitable) services.
 
Michi said:
OTA TV is just getting themselves set up for the loss of the remaining UHF TV spectrum for other (profitable) services.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of chatter about the remaining UHF TV spectrum being reallocated for cellular use. However, at what point do the wavelengths become too long for practical use with the antennas in smartphones? The current low end of cellular spectrum is 614 MHz, which is around 48 centimeters. Take that down to 470 MHz and you’re at ~64 centimeters.

I tend to take talk of going even lower than 470 MHz with a grain of salt; plus you are also dealing with decreased data throughput capabilities at those lower frequencies.

It seems cell companies are concentrating on acquiring more mid-band spectrum between 2 and 5 GHz, while losing interest in the so-called “millimeter wave” spectrum above 10 GHz due to range issues.
 
inari said:
Better and easier reception, more channel capacity, and most subchannel networks will be able be broadcast in HD.
Click to expand...
To reiterate on this, here is bit rate vs. SNR (pdf) study from GatesAir. To get more data rate ATSC 3.0 will require more SNR which will hurt coverage. Already there are anecdotal reports of viewers reporting worse reception. Even at 4096QAM effective data rate is only 39 Mbit/s requiring 23 dB minimum SNR compared to 15 dB for 8VSB at 19 Mbit/s. But broadcasters will probably settle for middle of the road 256QAM for reliability which is only 26 Mbit/s. You are not doing serious 4K + other streams in this bandwidth. This whole 3.0 deal is a ploy to introduce DRM for enhanced revenue possibility for the broadcasters at viewers expense. FCC needs to tell NAB to pound sand.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
There has been a lot of chatter about the remaining UHF TV spectrum being reallocated for cellular use. However, at what point do the wavelengths become too long for practical use with the antennas in smartphones? The current low end of cellular spectrum is 614 MHz, which is around 48 centimeters. Take that down to 470 MHz and you’re at ~64 centimeters.

I tend to take talk of going even lower than 470 MHz with a grain of salt; plus you are also dealing with decreased data throughput capabilities at those lower frequencies.

It seems cell companies are concentrating on acquiring more mid-band spectrum between 2 and 5 GHz, while losing interest in the so-called “millimeter wave” spectrum above 10 GHz due to range issues.
Click to expand...

You arent going below 470 and really would have a hard time going below 520 in major markets. There are a ton of Part 90 Land Mobile Radio systems down there. With the allocations carved out at 700/800 MHz for Part 90, there just is not much more spectrum that they could reliably use for cellular (excluding Band 14 which is LTE for FirstNet). There is a band at 930MHz, but there is really only 5 or so MHz up/down bandwidth there plus that spectrum is spoken for by a part 90 user (Used to be PDV wireless, cant remember who they are now). They want to build a nationwide PTT over Cellular service similar to the old NexTel.

There is an n31 band defined at 452.5 – 457.5 Uplink/462.5 – 467.5 Downlink but i am not sure what country that is allowed in. Those frequencies are all allocated to Part 90/95 users in the US. There is also an n71 UHF band in the EU defined by the standard. Both are limited to 3 and 5 MHz of bandwidth so I cant imagine they would be super fast even if implemented, not to mention a 1/4 wavelength antenna is around 6".
 
You would have some massive ITU Region 2 issues if broadcasting was to go below 470.
1741467269337.png
1741467346401.png
Yep, Mobile Satellite has a co-primary allocation in 455~456 & 459~460 and met satellite downlinks have a secondary allocation in 460~470 worldwide.
TV will never come below 470.
=m
 
I have heard about "pay for view" pipe dream for OTA TV stations for years. IMHO: This thing is DOA. Thanks to Napster, there a generation and half of folks who will not pay for any kind of programming, music, or software.

If you are in a sub 50 market, will there be enough "hard core sports fans" to get some kind of return on investment? Doesn't the NFL - Amazon deal still have "free" OTA in the two team's home market? Even the money grubbing NFL know it's bad business than to alienate their fans.
 


Back
Top Bottom