-
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
ATSC 3.0
- Thread starter TVCOOL
- Start date
First, I don't really see ATSC3 ever really "coming". It isn't being mandated by the government the way the original digital transition was, and there are no ATSC3 receivers, so switching would be throwing away any OTA audience that does exist.
Second, no. Moving cable properties to over-the-air television is just throwing away carriage fee money.
Second, no. Moving cable properties to over-the-air television is just throwing away carriage fee money.
The first commercial ATSC 3.0 stations should hit the airwaves by the end of this year, and no, ATSC 3.0 cannot be picked up on current TV sets without a converter box. ATSC 3.0 is not backward-compatible to ATSC 1.0. TV set makers have already announced plans to begin including ATSC 3.0 tuners in their top-of-the-line models this year. In time, ATSC 3.0 tuners will begin to be included in cheaper models as well.
At first, expect one or two stations in a market to convert to ATSC 3.0, with agreements to carry signals of other stations in the market as well. By law, a station that converts to ATSC 3.0 must keep at least its ATSC 1.0 primary programming for a minimum of five years, so expect one or more ATSC 1.0 stations to carry the programming in ATSC 1.0 format of the station that went to ATSC 3.0.
For example, in Phoenix, class A station KFPH-CD converted to ATSC 3.0. Prior to conversion, its programming consisted of Unimas on channel 35.1, Univision on 35.2 (a simulcast of the sister Univision station, already on channel 33.1), Get TV on 35.3 and Escape (now Court TV Mystery) on 35.4. Unimas was already broadcast on the sister Univision station as channel 33.2, so they added an entry to the programming table to show that content as both channels 33.2 and 35.1. The NBC affiliate on channel 12 picked up the Get TV programming, showing it as channel 35.3, and the ABC affiliate on channel 15 picked up the Escape programming, showing it as channel 35.4. This is typical of the kind of coordination one can expect when a station goes fulltime ATSC 3.0, but as more and more stations convert to ATSC 3.0 within the first five years, the fewer stations will remain to broadcast the remaining content in ATSC 1.0 format. At that time, viewers may see some subchannels dropped from ATSC 1.0 and air only in ATSC 3.0, or the remaining channels could be so overcompressed as to be unwatchable.
At first, expect one or two stations in a market to convert to ATSC 3.0, with agreements to carry signals of other stations in the market as well. By law, a station that converts to ATSC 3.0 must keep at least its ATSC 1.0 primary programming for a minimum of five years, so expect one or more ATSC 1.0 stations to carry the programming in ATSC 1.0 format of the station that went to ATSC 3.0.
For example, in Phoenix, class A station KFPH-CD converted to ATSC 3.0. Prior to conversion, its programming consisted of Unimas on channel 35.1, Univision on 35.2 (a simulcast of the sister Univision station, already on channel 33.1), Get TV on 35.3 and Escape (now Court TV Mystery) on 35.4. Unimas was already broadcast on the sister Univision station as channel 33.2, so they added an entry to the programming table to show that content as both channels 33.2 and 35.1. The NBC affiliate on channel 12 picked up the Get TV programming, showing it as channel 35.3, and the ABC affiliate on channel 15 picked up the Escape programming, showing it as channel 35.4. This is typical of the kind of coordination one can expect when a station goes fulltime ATSC 3.0, but as more and more stations convert to ATSC 3.0 within the first five years, the fewer stations will remain to broadcast the remaining content in ATSC 1.0 format. At that time, viewers may see some subchannels dropped from ATSC 1.0 and air only in ATSC 3.0, or the remaining channels could be so overcompressed as to be unwatchable.
I recently wrote an article outlining my reasons why the FCC and Congress should have some sort of ATSC 3.0 tuner mandate in order to speed up the transition from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0.
Full blog post here : https://othadotblog.wordpress.com/2...ers-in-order-to-ensure-its-long-term-success/
Next, I will write an article about the viability of low VHF (TV Channels 2-6) in ATSC 3.0 vs 1.0.
Full blog post here : https://othadotblog.wordpress.com/2...ers-in-order-to-ensure-its-long-term-success/
Next, I will write an article about the viability of low VHF (TV Channels 2-6) in ATSC 3.0 vs 1.0.
If ATSC 3.0 was going to be a game-changer for the business model of free OTA broadcast TV, then broadcasters should be all about it.
The reality is that broadcasters get a huge amount of their revenue from the cable companies now, so anything which improves the OTA experience is not really in their interest. In the case of Nexstar, they got 49% of their revenue from January through September, 2019 from retransmission consent payments.
The options are: Nexstar can pay hundreds of millions in CapEx to install ATSC 3.0 equipment, lease ATSC 1.0 simulcast time from a competitor, and lose paying customers in the process; or they can enjoy the status quo which is nicely profitable.
This.. Plus, the major cable companies have been clear they have zero intention of demodulating or supporting ATSC 3.0. That means where in many markets where cable head-ends get the local stations OTA, ATSC 3.0 stations won't be carried on cable.
This whole ATSC 3.0 thing is about ten years too late.
Shouldn't we be taking this oportunity to (finally) ensure a single global standard for OTA, probably working alongside 5G operators?
That said, while OTA is still really important in the UK and many other European countries, 2 places in Europe(Flanders and Switzerland) have already switched off OTA altogether.
That said, while OTA is still really important in the UK and many other European countries, 2 places in Europe(Flanders and Switzerland) have already switched off OTA altogether.
Read olmjax's article, linked above.
ATSC3 is more than video. While I don't agree with the article's contention that ATSC3 should be mandated, the standard offers enough flexibility (IP) that OTA broadcasters should be able to monetize it, especially in areas where cell service may be less than robust.
This can happen whether or not cable and satellite jump on board (and they may well have no reason to, at least not strictly to achieve high-end video transmission. Consumers still value quantity over quality.)
ATSC3 is more than video. While I don't agree with the article's contention that ATSC3 should be mandated, the standard offers enough flexibility (IP) that OTA broadcasters should be able to monetize it, especially in areas where cell service may be less than robust.
This can happen whether or not cable and satellite jump on board (and they may well have no reason to, at least not strictly to achieve high-end video transmission. Consumers still value quantity over quality.)
Google is your friend.
"In 2018, households had to pay a licence fee of 451 Swiss francs (€400) regardless of how many residents they have. From 2019, the new fee is 365 francs. Companies with a turnover of over 500,000 Swiss francs a year also have to pay the television and radio fee even if they use no televisions or radios."
Well I think those two places have much higher cable TV penetrations than the UK for a start. But certainly in Flanders if you don't have cable your only option is online. Or satellite I suppose- that would certainly get you British and Dutch channels Free to air.
I'm afraid I know very little about Switzerland but I would imagine your options would be similar.
Wow.I have enough problems receiving the current format..I hope they improve in getting better reception...
I agree that there should not be a mandate for ATSC 3.0 as far as broadcasters are concerned but there should be a mandate on TVs and TV receiving devices ONLY. The reason why I came to that conclusion is to increase the number of devices available in the marketplace that is able to decode the new standard. Currently, there are NO affordable devices available that are able to decode an ATSC 3.0 signal and the mandate will dramatically increase the number of ATSC 3.0-compatible receivers on the market. If there aren't enough ATSC 3.0 receivers on the market, why will broadcasters invest millions of dollars upgrading their stations to the new standard. Without a sufficient number of affordable ATSC 3.0-compatible TVs, set top boxes, gateways, dongles, portable TVs, etc. available, it would be a waste of money for broadcasters since there won't be a large enough audience within their market that will have the devices needed to receive the new ATSC 3.0 signals. As a result, the ATSC 3.0 standard will fail to take off in the United States, especially if there aren't enough ATSC 3.0-capable devices in the market. Since I believe the new IP-based ATSC 3.0 has so much potential to be an eventual replacement for the antiquated ATSC 1.0 standard, it will be an unfortunate, missed opportunity to modernize OTA TV in this country if it doesn't succeed. Furthermore, it keeps the United States, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and other countries using the inferior, limited, and outdated 8VSB-modulated ATSC 1.0 standard, which is very far behind the other OFDM- based digital TV and radio standards (DVB-T/T2, ISDB-T, DTMB, DAB/DAB+, HD Radio, Digital Radio Mondiale, etc.) used around the world.
There comes a point where the improvements are much more noted in the bottom line of set manufacturers than consumers.
I don't have a 4k TV (although around the home and my home office there are 5 big screen sets... several getting on in years) because I don't see enough "enjoyable" difference. It is not worth the cost to get minor improvements and while most existing video is not at that resolution or is artificially simulated.
I'll wait until one of the sets dies and then consider higher resolution and other enhancements. For the moment, none of the upgrades is attractive enough to make the cost justifiable. Having technology for technology's sake is valueless.
I'm not a Luddite; I just upgraded to a Threadripper 3960x with a new Aorus motherboard with PCI Express 4.0 SSDs and 128gb of highest speed available memory. I did it because it was significantly and usefully faster than my last generation Intel which was slower and had fewer cores. There was extreme value; upgrading a TV device does not meet the same test.
And in radio, HD is nearly dead as it is really only useful to provide a source for an FM translator which thus increases above the "real station" ownership quota the maximum portfolio size. But nobody listens to the HD source.
And Digital Radio Mondiale has really one success story: in India the government is implementing a huge system of hundreds of transmitters, some in the hundreds of kilowatt power range. It's convenient there because re-purposing the AM band allows much greater coverage than on FM, and the government has absolute control of radio, limiting severely any commercial competitors. Elsewhere, DRM is on shortwave, which is a batch of pretty much dead radio bands.
DAB has only worked well where the government had such absolute control of radio that it could impose a total abandonment of older technologies; Scandinavian nations come to mind. In places like England, where the BBC is forcing DAB, those living in smaller towns and more rural areas have trouble getting reception indoors and in lower parts of homes and even lower parts of towns. Where it has been tried in the open market, like Canada, it has failed because consumers found no benefits.
Many of these "advancements" come from manufacturers creating shiny new things to keep renewing home electronics. Most of them are of limited value to anyone but that manufacturer.
Home electronics has gotten so reliable that manufacturers have to create reasons for people to discard old but perfectly working devices to get the latest upgrades. I used to upgrade my iPhone every year... now I find the enhancements not worth spending on for at least two and maybe three years. But I know intelligent friends who think they just "have to get it" every year.
You might note that only this year did Mexico make digital the standard for TV; given that even a smaller digital set cost more than quite a few times the monthly minimum wage, they did not want to cut off existing sets until it was no longer viable to sustain them. Not everyone around the world has the money to buy new technology, particularly if the gain is very minimal when measured against family income.
Last edited:
I have four and maybe five working TVs that require a converter box, cable or a DVR to receive a signal. The fifth hasn't been used in years because it has a VHS tape stuck in it and I don't know how to get it out, and turning it on won't work until it is taken out. All five TVs have VHS included, but only one of the VCRs still works. The others have VHS tapes stuck in them but they can still turn on. I have a sixth TV that might work but last time I checked it was acting up. Another TV was acting up but after another TV acted up, I put it back into service and it worked fine.
I just got a flat screen TV because my new DVR required an HDMI connection. Thanks to some great software on an older DVR, I don't have to use either the new DVR or the flat-screen TV. When I get an outdoor antenna and find out if it works better than the indoor ones, that will change, but only for setting up recordings. Watching those recordings can be done on the old TV.
I just got a flat screen TV because my new DVR required an HDMI connection. Thanks to some great software on an older DVR, I don't have to use either the new DVR or the flat-screen TV. When I get an outdoor antenna and find out if it works better than the indoor ones, that will change, but only for setting up recordings. Watching those recordings can be done on the old TV.
That's really the bottom line, and why ATSC 3.0 will very likely become a tiny, insignificant blip on the consumer tech radar.. Generation Z doesn't, nor hasn't been consumers of traditional TV. Z relies on mobile platforms, aka their phone. They don't care if the video is 4K, 8K, or 50K. Can I watch it while riding public transportation? Sure there have been proponents of ATSC 3.0 who see it as some sort of competition to the Cell/PCS carriers, but I would argue they're completely delusional. And this comment coming from someone who currently works for a major TV network.
Sure, TV's for some consumers aren't going away, but when you can buy a 85" diag. 4K (up-scaled) flat panel TV for less than 2K, why would you want to watch local or cable offerings? Even my 4 year old Sony 65" 4K set comes with Roku, Netflix, Hulu, and Sony's 4K content options. Now TV's come with even more non-broadcast or cable choices built in, and cost less than half of what I spent.
I don't yet know enough about ATSC 3.0 to discuss it in any detail, but it appears that the standard includes the transmission of services to mobile platforms. In rural locations, ATSC 3.0 transmissions might cover areas that have little or no cell coverage (I have a home in eastern WV in a valley - there's no reliable cell service without repeaters. Maybe one of those repeaters could just as easily be a CATV antenna-type setup.) If the ATSC 3.0 circuitry can be built into devices as one of the receiving options, TV stations could offer robust IP data services that Gen Z wants, perhaps as part of a service package. As real-time OTA TV becomes less important in the media mix, IP services would seem to be a way that TV broadcasters could find new revenue.
Someone would have to build the receiving capability into new devices. We're not just talking new TVs here. TVs might not even be a significant factor in the ATSC 3 device mix.
I have 5 HD sets that are doing well enough for now and but I don't see buying a new one until it's necessary to replace one, at which time I'll probably get a 4K set. But I do hope that development of ATSC 3.0 will continue for at least two purposes: Better signals in rural areas and the ability to have more subchannels, and I hope that TV manufacturers will be required to build sets capable of carrying it in the future.
A similar claim was made back in the late 90's with ATSC 1.0. They even showed these cheesy portable TV's at NAB with the hope that consumers would be less interested in their phones, and more in watching TV on a portable player. Remember those? Nope, because it never saw the light of day outside of the Las Vegas Convention Center.
Rural consumers want access to the Public Internet. ATSC 3.0 won't give them that, and in that same vain of thinking, could care less about watching 4K TV programming.
- Status