How Far "Behind" is The Current DTV System?

[Markxxx]

I was thinking about the current digital TV system in use in the United States and Canada (and elsewhere).

Question for the engineers and others who know. How far behind current technology is the system. Like for example if we used the current x.264 codec and mp4 compression system(s) would this allow for better streaming? For more subchannels? For better movement during high movement shows (like sports)?

I realize most people don't want another transition, but if we're really that far behind in technology. I mean is it like using Windows 95 in today's world? And could future updates to technology be done with firmware?

Thanks

 

[FreddyE1977]

I think the first test broadcasts using this system were in 1996, which would make it 16 years.
That's a couple of lifetimes in the world of software and technology.

 

[landtuna]

Question for the engineers and others who know. How far behind current technology is the system. Like for example if we used the current x.264 codec and mp4 compression system(s) would this allow for better streaming? For more subchannels? For better movement during high movement shows (like sports)?

This is exactly the reason I am currently building a front-end PC to handle Internet-to-TV data. I don't see TV's containing a full-blown computer capable of firmware/software mods "on the fly" any time soon and I'm positive recent HDTV buyers do not want their sets outmoded or requiring replacement. No matter what HDTV I eventually buy I can make the required mods to the PC hardware/firmware/software and feed virtually any type of signal to the TV's HDMI, composite or analog interface. OTA signals can be handled by the PC as well should the need arise but that capability isn't required currently. I haven't made any provision for cable or satellite as I don't intend to subscribe to either again. My total cost for this box is $154 and requires only a modestly powerful (Pentium 4) PC.

Other features as a result of this design provide access to Internet-based program guides (instead of the barely acceptable OTA version), DVR capability from the Internet, picture-in-picture and the ability to do normal PC work if the current program is not totally engaging. And, because the PC is capable of an assortment of inputs including CD/DVD/Blu-ray, flash sticks and programs stored on its hard drive I can play virtually my entire library of audio-visual programs through just one device. And because it is wirelessly connected to my home network it can access data stored on those other devices as well. Ever stream a program you want to save? The PC can do that too - either on the hard drive or burn it to DVD or flash stick.

I realize most people don't want another transition, but if we're really that far behind in technology. I mean is it like using Windows 95 in today's world? And could future updates to technology be done with firmware?

Technology in every electronics industry (and even in appliances that haven't been, to date, electronic such as refrigerators) are changing at an astounding pace. It is going to be virtually impossible to keep up with the latest and greatest technology unless you have a ginormous bank account and are good with the ensuing connectivity frustration. The great majority of people are not equipped to deal with that.

Consider that most Internet-connected TV's today only allow certain sites (mostly movie and audio entertainment and YouTube-like services) even if you spring for one of these full-featured devices you are instantly limited as to what you can access. What if you are watching a movie and are interested in one of the leading actors? Whoops! Can't access IMDB unless you go to your phone or PC.

But to answer your firmware question.....maybe. It depends upon the design and construction of the device as to whether firmware can be modified/replaced to provide new capabilities. Chances are incremental improvements can be but major revisions cannot. That is where the versatility of the PC come into play again as each component is replaceable/upgradable without replacing the entire unit.

The most versatile device currently out there remains the PC so it will become the engine that accesses and translates and the TV will be just a very efficient monitor.

 

[TexasTom]

I think the first test broadcasts using this system were in 1996, which would make it 16 years.
That's a couple of lifetimes in the world of software and technology.

To look at it from another perspective -- the analog system that finally sunsetted out of existence in 2009 was approved by the FCC in 1941, giving it a run of almost 68 years. While there were enhancements during that time (ie, color, stereo sound, closed captions), the fact is that a working TV from late 1941 would have still been able to receive and display analog VHF TV broadcasts in 2009.

The same people who are willing to buy a new cellphone every two years and a new computer every five years expect the TV that they bought 20 years ago to keep on working.

 

[Rick Rose 2.0]

who keeps a cell phone for 2 years, many people baerly keep one for 6 months

 

[wncc]

who keeps a cell phone for 2 years, many people baerly keep one for 6 months

I do, because I don't want to pay full price for a new phone.

 

[landtuna]

The same people who are willing to buy a new cellphone every two years and a new computer every five years expect the TV that they bought 20 years ago to keep on working.

There is a substantial difference in the cost of a new cell phone, a PC of any sizable power and an HDTV. There is also a substantial difference in the way all three are subjected to rough handling. I would consider cell phones to be "disposable" and would not expect them to remain in perfect condition for all but a limited time. OTOH, I have a desktop PC that has been in daily operation since 2003 (with some modifications and added capabilities) and a big screen (rear projection) since 1987 (with only one repair).

The PC has needed only the occasional firmware and software updates to remain in peak operating condition and the big screen just the digital converter (since replaced with an OTA DVR) to remain capable. In that same time cell phone technology has changed to the extent that one even 10 years old is probably unusable today and there is no reasonable way to modify it to remain usable.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

To the OP: Its hard to quantify how much better H.264 is than MPEG-2, partly because both compression algorithms have quality parameters that station staff can tweak.

Also, there are modulation schemes that have a higher baud rate than the 8VSB that ATSC uses. However, more complex modulation schemes require better signal to noise ratios, and some detailed simulation would be required to project how, say, 16VSB or QAM64 would operate in the TV broadcasting band.

 

[kenglish]

Wonder what a 3-month Digital TV Transition would have been like? ;D
That's about the lifespan of most "new" digital technologies.

 

[azumanga]

who keeps a cell phone for 2 years, many people baerly keep one for 6 months

I had mine for nine years -- and counting.

 

[TexasTom]

There is a substantial difference in the cost of a new cell phone, a PC of any sizable power and an HDTV. There is also a substantial difference in the way all three are subjected to rough handling. I would consider cell phones to be "disposable" and would not expect them to remain in perfect condition for all but a limited time. OTOH, I have a desktop PC that has been in daily operation since 2003 (with some modifications and added capabilities) and a big screen (rear projection) since 1987 (with only one repair).

Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear -- my point was intended to be that viewers expect a television to continue working for many years and will be angered by early obsolescence. And that this expectation is different from what the same people may have for different kinds of consumer electronics devices. If we go against that expectation by constantly changing the OTA digital broadcast system, those viewers will ultimately reject the technology because they're not willing to put up with constantly having to replace their televisions.

As an aside, some of the smart phones are far from cheap -- if customers had to pay the unsubsidized cost of an iPhone, they probably wouldn't consider it to be disposable...

 

[landtuna]

Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear -- my point was intended to be that viewers expect a television to continue working for many years and will be angered by early obsolescence. And that this expectation is different from what the same people may have for different kinds of consumer electronics devices.

Because the cost of a TV is considerably higher than most other ordinary electronic appliances I agree with you: the higher the cost the greater the expectation of longevity. However, as you pointed out, an older analog TV needed only a digital converter box on the front end to remain completely operational and those boxes were very cheap. Although an analog TV may have become technically obsolete, in reality it was easy to keep them operating. And as more and more people are already receiving cable or satellite signals the digital conversion was a non-issue.

If we go against that expectation by constantly changing the OTA digital broadcast system, those viewers will ultimately reject the technology because they're not willing to put up with constantly having to replace their televisions.

Right again....but maybe I missed your point. What "constant change to OTA" are you referencing?

The digital conversion didn't require anyone to do anything to their TV except add a converter and perhaps a UHF antenna. Many people took advantage of digital TV to upgrade their sets to HD and a whole bunch of working analog sets hit the landfill.

As an aside, some of the smart phones are far from cheap -- if customers had to pay the unsubsidized cost of an iPhone, they probably wouldn't consider it to be disposable...

Again, we agree. Although I know plenty of cell phone owners who pony up a few bucks for insurance to cover the inevitable loss or damage to their equipment.

 

[rgseark2009]

ATSC was "out of date" before June 2009. My local Gannett-owned CBS affiliate, KTHV has done HD on 11-1, and a 24/7 news/wx loop (with some other programming) on 11-2 and PQ on the main HD channel (11-1) has always suffered during sports and programing with fast motion. KATV which operates 3 subchannels (ABC, RTV, Live Well) has "soft" HD on its local newscasts and ABC and syndicated programming.

I don't see another OTA transition. I think with the repacking of DTV (due to the pro-cellphone industry FCC), PQ will suffer and "antenna viewers" will be fortunate to see sub-DVD quality video. Personally, I think local broadcasters would do away with OTA if they could (that is happening in Canada at present in many markets).

 

[Tom Wells]

who keeps a cell phone for 2 years, many people baerly keep one for 6 months

I had mine for nine years -- and counting.

I'd be tied with you oldest phone but for a mysterious fall ( caused by a customer in Baton Rouge, La ).

So my phone is only 6 years old but I replaced it with the exact same Motorola Razr which I do not want to transition from.

I ONLY want my phone to be a phone; no interest in becoming a tiny-screen data zombie.


We signed up the Netflix streaming service and use a Wii system to input to the Sony flatscreen.
Sometimes we see pixelization-update/motion effects that are annoying but they seem to be specific to data,
not limitations in the ssytem. Most programs have no issues.
Data throughput from AT&T on DSL service is sad, though.
It sometimes will stream, but most of the time there are pauses while data trickles down through the network.
On a bad day it takes almost twice the time of any program to watch. Sometimes we give up.

Still waiting for the fiber here, I'm not willing to have data AND video rf pollution from cable TV systems and boxes.

 

[KTN Corp]

ATSC was "out of date" before June 2009

Surprisingly the Philippines chose the ISDB-T system for DTV, even though we are on the same frequency table for both OTA and cable TV; ATSC must be that repugnant.  If we were going to change again, we might as well adopt ISDB-T or DVB-T.

I don't see another OTA transition.  I think with the repacking of DTV (due to the pro-cellphone industry FCC), PQ will suffer and "antenna viewers" will be fortunate to see sub-DVD quality video.  Personally, I think local broadcasters would do away with OTA if they could (that is happening in Canada at present in many markets).

More than likely, I think that the "pro-cellphone industry FCC" might choose the latter and the only thing OTA is FM radio (AM radio was shut down earlier "Due to the many complaints about interference from...") with the extra 500 kHz on the bottom of the dial to converge with international standards regarding the FM band.