• 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

Early consumers of ATSC 3.0 TVs/tuners, what has been your experience with the NextGen Signal?

I doubt the FCC will allow that to happen. I thought the main reason for ATSC 3 to exist was to improve OTA reception quality.
Or, be able to consolidate all the OTA HD stations onto one carrier in each market, and then auction off another HUGE batch of TV spectrum to wireless carriers.
If subscription TV is what they intend to be the priority service(s), it will fail just like it did in the '80s. Streaming is the better place for that.
Right now, all there is are local stations being carried in their existing 1080i or 720p formats. Yipee!
 
I haven't done the calculations to see if "5G" can reliably transmit "4K" video
Yes, it can.
(+ Dolby Atmos audio) in real time, I think this is only being applied to targeted ads which can be downloaded slower than real time w/5G and stored in each (5G capable) 4K TV for playout (a targeted ad would replace a broadcast ad in some cases).
Nobody cares about Dolby Atmos, except for theater owners.
 
re: Atmos - if the TV programs can be transmitted w/7.1.4 surround sound (an option in ATSC 3.0), advertisers will (almost certainly) want that option too for their (targeted) ads transmitted w/5G.

One question is if the targeted ads are transmitted slower than real time, it should be possible to use a lower data rate cell phone network too, depending on if the special ATSC 3.0 TV sets can receive a signal from it.


Kirk Bayne
 
Or, be able to consolidate all the OTA HD stations onto one carrier in each market, and then auction off another HUGE batch of TV spectrum to wireless carriers.
Depends on how many subchannels can be stuffed into one 6 MHz channel. Besides, I would believe that the diginet providers might have something to say about that.
Right now, all there is are local stations being carried in their existing 1080i or 720p formats. Yipee!
For test purposes, that is perfectly fine. I'd like to see exactly how much reception is improved compared to 1.0 under the current formats before expanding it further. I want to see perfect reception of all local stations. No dropouts due to terrain, tall buildings, airplanes flying overhead, leaves blowing in the wind, cloud cover, and the like that caused ghosts in the analog era and dropouts in ATSC 1.0. Mobile reception would also be nice, although streaming could take that function over.
 
Depends on how many subchannels can be stuffed into one 6 MHz channel. Besides, I would believe that the diginet providers might have something to say about that.
That's when groups will have to decide whether to take a lump sum payout to give up the spectrum, or play the long game with additional ads from diginet revenue. The government could weigh-in on that too.
As we've witnessed over time, a lot depends on the economic times. Back in the 2008 Recession, stations were selling-off and leasing back their vertical real estate for a quick cash infusion. If we entered WWIII, or get hit with another recession, my guess is the same would occur with spectrum.
For test purposes, that is perfectly fine.
Doesn't exactly showcase the capabilities, does it?
I'd like to see exactly how much reception is improved compared to 1.0 under the current formats before expanding it further. I want to see perfect reception of all local stations. No dropouts due to terrain, tall buildings, airplanes flying overhead, leaves blowing in the wind, cloud cover, and the like that caused ghosts in the analog era and dropouts in ATSC 1.0.
That wish made me laugh, thank you. There's this little thing called physics, which no form of compression will overcome. And really, that's all ATSC 3.0 is; the ability to squeeze more bits into the bucket. Certainly not a way to overturn the laws of physics.
Mobile reception would also be nice, although streaming could take that function over.
Smartphones and 5G did away with the thought of carrying around what amounts to a portable TV.
 
re: Atmos - if the TV programs can be transmitted w/7.1.4 surround sound (an option in ATSC 3.0), advertisers will (almost certainly) want that option too for their (targeted) ads transmitted w/5G.
Nobody cares. And you do know that "5G" is a cell/PCS format don't you?
One question is if the targeted ads are transmitted slower than real time, it should be possible to use a lower data rate cell phone network too, depending on if the special ATSC 3.0 TV sets can receive a signal from it.
Cell phone networks have no interest in using ATSC 3.0. They already have their networks, and it's bi-directional. ATSC 3.0 is a one-way broadcast modulation method. ATSC 3.0 TV's also require a public Internet connection. That's what gives them a form of bi-directional communication method. But that PC you're sitting in front of already does that.
 
IMHO, the only reason to use a cell phone network in this case is for the transmission of an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream to an ATSC 3.0 TV set with a cell phone signal receiver and local storage for storing a few targeted ads.

The signal transmitted by a cell phone network is just another datacast which happens to contain an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream (up to 4K/UHD and 7.1.4 Atmos), AFAIK, this ATSC 3.0 datastream isn't meant to be viewed as it's transmitted, so it can be transmitted faster than real time or real time or (more likely) slower than real time (so as to not clog up the cell phone system).


Kirk Bayne
 
IMHO, the only reason to use a cell phone network in this case is for the transmission of an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream to an ATSC 3.0 TV set with a cell phone signal receiver and local storage for storing a few targeted ads.

The signal transmitted by a cell phone network is just another datacast which happens to contain an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream (up to 4K/UHD and 7.1.4 Atmos), AFAIK, this ATSC 3.0 datastream isn't meant to be viewed as it's transmitted, so it can be transmitted faster than real time or real time or (more likely) slower than real time (so as to not clog up the cell phone system).


Kirk Bayne
No, ATSC 3.0 is a broadcast modulation scheme, not compatible with cell/PCS systems. Same goes with the other way around: 5G is a cell/PCS data stream, not a broadcast modulation. The term digital, is not ubiquitous.
 
The proposed targeted ad scheme uses a cell phone network as a way to download the targeted ads to the local storage in a TV set, from the POV of the cell phone network, this is just a datacast, the cell phone network doesn't know it's an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream.

(in some cases, targeted ads [from the TV set local storage] are played in place of broadcast ads)

This scheme would actually work with analog TV (NTSC/PAL/SECAM) in addition to ATSC/DVB/ISDB digital TV, provided the TV set has some local storage [and playout software] and the TV set has a receiver for cell phone signals.


Kirk Bayne
 
Last edited:
The proposed targeted ad scheme uses a cell phone network as a way to download the targeted ads to the local storage in a TV set, from the POV of the cell phone network, this is just a datacast, the cell phone network doesn't know it's an ATSC 3.0 compliant datastream.
But that has nothing to do with ATSC 3.0. It would be the same as connecting an Internet cable into your TV. Just using 5G for Internet. Existing Samsung "Smart TV's" do something similar by using a built in WiFi adapter to connect to Samsung content providers. Has nothing to do with the ATSC 1.0 tuner in the TV.
(in some cases, targeted ads [from the TV set local storage] are played in place of broadcast ads)

This scheme would actually work with analog TV (NTSC/PAL/SECAM) in addition to ATSC/DVB/ISDB digital TV, provided the TV set has some local storage [and playout software] and the TV set has a receiver for cell phone signals.
Again, that is how your TV interacts with the program/ad provider, since ATSC 3.0 is a broadcast modulation method, not bi-directional or interactive.
 
Sometimes, I have to wonder if what these new standards are trying to accomplish are not quite on track with what the consumer would even get behind or understand.
 
Sometimes, I have to wonder if what these new standards are trying to accomplish are not quite on track with what the consumer would even get behind or understand.
It's simple; compression. Squeeze more bits into the bucket for pushing more (or arguably higher resolution) content. Most of my peers in the industry don't see ever doing 4K on local broadcast TV. There's just no call for it. Back when DirecTV started doing some golf and movies in 4K, the reception by consumers was tepid. 99.98% of consumers are fine with HD resolution, especially when they're watching it on a tablet or smartphone. Sure, there are videophiles or technonerds who want the latest and greatest, but they're in the vast minority. Especially true with Millennials and GenZ. They live on their phones. Not on my phone? Not interested. That includes Dolby Atmos.
The whole ATSC 3.0 thing has been hanging around for years. Sinclair has funded has been pushing the standard, but like a lot of things broadcast-related, I can't help but feel it comes way behind the curve of apps on smartphones. Sinclair originally thought they would get the jump on 5G streaming capabilities from cell/PCS providers, but that didn't happen either. Always a bridesmaid, never the bride. For some reason, Sinclair thought that interactive commercials would be cool! Uh, they call that Amazon, or YouTube.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom