Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout

[jxg0754]

Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout
Link here http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/broadcasters-petition-fcc-atsc-30-rollout/155504

 

[harshness]

I'd be interested in seeing how they are going to drive adoption without the standard being mandatory.

 

[FaT Air]

So, for how long are they going to simulcast 2.0 with 3.0? As 3.0 requires breaking backwards compatibility with the current version.
Are current cable operations compatible?
All I can see, at the present, is huge cost. (Local OTA transmitters (many locals are already having $ problems apparently - Almost annual demands for more $ from cable and sat providers - Oh yeah, passed on to consumers) Don't think many consumers will be happy to find out they need to replace that 1 yr old 'set'. Or get yet another converter. I could go on. (yeah, some 'sets' do 3.0, but not the majority)
Are they going to have another 'converter rebate' program? Whose going to finance that? The country is broke. Can't hardly have the taxpayer finance it, unless there's another tax levied - then it's YOU. You're going to pay, even if you don't need converter.
Oh, the history of digital technology says 3.0 will be obsolete in about 18 months, and then the cycle repeats.
BTW, how many cable outlets have 'interactive TV, other than video on demand, that was ballyhooed a few years ago? ?
just my 2¢'s

 

[osu1991]

Umm. Just which sets do ATSC 3.0?? None. There is no ATSC 2.0. Current standard is 1.0.

Picture quality will go to hell. The only way to simulcast all the locals on 1 or 2 channels in ATSC 1.0 is to do them in SD, so goodbye Local HD in ATSC 1.0. This is the most cost effective time for the affiliates to make move while they are moving things for the current repack, but it will obsolete a lot of equipment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[navychop]

No timeline.

I favor 3-5 years of all sets sold having ATSC 3 tuners before a switchover, gradual or not.

And, of course, there will be a LOT of converter boxes sold.

 

[Cham]

DVB-T2?
If transmission and reception has to start from scratch again anyway, might as well be compatible with the rest of the world.
Of course that won't happen.

 

[Tampa8]

From reading (I have no personal expertise or experience) I do think a converter is much more viable than it was going from Analog to Digital. It is said it could be a stick similar in looks to the Fire or Roku Stick, but be for coaxial. It would preserve the DVR function as it would not tune channels, it would convert from one digital signal to another. It would seem it would have to be something like that to allow for any kind of a quick change in standards.

 

[CK SatGuy]

One of the main reasons why I'm not in a hurry to buy a 4K TV. Plus, with the 600 MHz auction that's happening right now, maybe we'd need to get new antennas as well.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

One of the main reasons why I'm not in a hurry to buy a 4K TV. Plus, with the 600 MHz auction that's happening right now, maybe we'd need to get new antennas as well.

Why radio waves are still radio waves.... your old 1957 antenna on your house picks up HD just as good as today's modern antennas.

 

[CK SatGuy]

Why radio waves are still radio waves.... your old 1957 antenna on your house picks up HD just as good as today's modern antennas.

Yes I know that. But depending on how the auction turns out, I keep hearing rumors that the FCC may decide re-align the broadcasts TV bands, something they haven't done since what, the late '40s? I don't know how true that is, I just hope that's not the case.

 

[harshness]

Why radio waves are still radio waves.... your old 1957 antenna on your house picks up HD just as good as today's modern antennas.

UHF TV was ratified in 1952. Many wouldn't see availability of UHF stations (unless they were on translators) for several years. Quite a few probably didn't mess with UHF until DTV.

The All-channel Receiver Act of 1962 was the mandate for included UHF tuners. Prior to that, many had to use outboard converter boxes to receive UHF.

My home was built in 1958 and it didn't see its first outdoor UHF-capable antenna (Radio Shack VU-90) until late 1983 when KPDX (Fox) hit the airwaves.

 

[harshness]

Are current cable operations compatible?

ATSC is a broadcast standard. Cable has (and will probably continue to use) QAM as multiplexing offers greater efficiency.

 

[Mr Tony]

Yes I know that. But depending on how the auction turns out, I keep hearing rumors that the FCC may decide re-align the broadcasts TV bands, something they haven't done since what, the late '40s? I don't know how true that is, I just hope that's not the case.

not that I've heard. All I've seen is the FCC offering $$$$ to stations in the UHF band to move to VHF Low or High. They are trying to chop off the upper part of UHF

 

[Trip]

Yes I know that. But depending on how the auction turns out, I keep hearing rumors that the FCC may decide re-align the broadcasts TV bands, something they haven't done since what, the late '40s? I don't know how true that is, I just hope that's not the case.

It's untrue.

- Trip

 

[FaT Air]

ATSC is a broadcast standard. Cable has (and will probably continue to use) QAM as multiplexing offers greater efficiency.

You're right, ATSC is the broadcast standard. The change would be the compression algorithm. How many headends are currently compatible/capable of h265 compression is the question. If it's just a firmware update or will it require a hardware update?
The consumers will require a hardware update(most likely) for h265, (3.0). Will they simulcast ATSC 2.0 (the current 'standard') , along with 3.0, for say 5 yrs, to let the consumers existing equipment die a 'natural death'? While selling 3.0 compatible tv's to replace those. So the upgrade is transparent to the consumer.

QAM (Modulation) is used by cable because of it superior performance to multipath, over the modulation used by OTA (8VSB) (from what I've read) Where does cable experience multipath. you ask? Customer disconnects a television and leaves the jack open (unterminated) = signal reflection.
That can also be a problem with your OTA antenna system.

 

[navychop]

Current standard is ATSC 1.

2 never was publicly released.

Hardware is required.

 

[jayn_j]

My father bought a 'portable' TV in 1946. We were still using it (demo) for 50+ years right up until the FCC turned off NTSC. Kind of bothers me that 'new and improved' ignores compatibility and we seem to be buying in to a 10 year lifecycle that requires total replacement.

 

[localclassictvfan]

Yeah yall understand if I get mad and explode when all my channels move off uhf (where I catch most of my stations) to the VHF where the antenna cant catch s---. Unless there is an antenna like the UHF 8 bay I have that catches VHF Good...

 

[localclassictvfan]

not that I've heard. All I've seen is the FCC offering $$$$ to stations in the UHF band to move to VHF Low or High. They are trying to chop off the upper part of UHF

Oh and I'll be a upset person. That UHF 8 Bay is a blessing and most of my stations are in the UHF zone. Oh if this happens keep the FCC away because I'll be one really mad individual and they don't wanna see that. I know I cannot control it but VHF sucks...

 

[FaT Air]

Current standard is ATSC 1.
2 never was publicly released.
Hardware is required.

Sorry, but it doesn't change anything. Very little 'in the wild' is h265 compatible today, or in the near future, in OTA reception devices.
They'll all, the ones that are not h265 capable, need to be scrapped and replaced with something that is capable. OR another round of government converter rebate's or 5 yrs of simulcast , ATSC1 & ATSC 3, for the non capable receivers to die a natural death.

If it were up to me, I'd scrap ATSC and adopt what most of the rest of the world adopted, DVB-T.