We must be in no-man's land. Neither Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA (our market) or Harrisburg, PA (next nearest) are even on the list.
We must be in no-man's land. Neither Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA (our market) or Harrisburg, PA (next nearest) are even on the list.do you guys have any information on ATSC 3.0 coming to the New York City area? It's listed as "Coming soon" on watchnextgentv.com, for what that's worth... I'm near Danbury CT, get ok (not easy) reception of the main Hartford channels, and difficult (but not impossible) reception of a few of the NYC stations. Tropo frequently brings in some of the Providence/New Bedford MA and Boston stations
I just purchased a Sony X85J 43 inch that has an ATSC 3.0 tuner that works with ATSC 1.0. Currently in the Cincinnati area and I have noted while watching football on at least one 3.0 station that their is a faint stuttering effect to the picture. And as someone else pointed out it does look like a lot of compression is being used on some of these signals or at least certain shows. Seems a bit more 3 dimensional than 1.0 though.No. You will need a new tuner to see ATSC 3.0 and other than the HD Homerun's there are no ATSC 3.0 tuners out there. (A few 8K sets have them built in)
Note that ATSC 3 tuners can tune ATSC 1.0 as well.
Thanks for the feedback on the filter. I just ordered one to see if it will help with my recent pixilation issues.I installed the LTE/5G filter tonight. I have noticed 32 (WRNT-LP RF32) and 3 (WFSB RF36) seem to be stable and no pixelation, which is a first. View attachment 154285
I also realize I need the amplifier on as those two channels don't come in without it on.
Any results?Thanks for the feedback on the filter. I just ordered one to see if it will help with my recent pixilation issues.
BTW: The filter was $6 cheaper directly from CM than Amazon, and with free shipping....
No improvement on FOX61. Those are the only subchannels that seem to have been affected by the recent changes....Any results?
How good is your reception on 35?No improvement on FOX61. Those are the only subchannels that seem to have been affected by the recent changes....
Maybe I spoke too soon?How good is your reception on 35?
Did the filter change 35 at all?Maybe I spoke too soon?
35-01 is good. Yesterday, I tried to watch a little football on 61-01 and I was getting the usual recent freezing/dropouts. Just now, I watched some BBT on 61-01 for about 20 minutes with no freezing/dropouts. The SS on my Dish H3 is 95-100 on 61-01. I'll continue monitoring....
Did the filter change 35 at all?
Very spotty, 35 is better but not good. I'm getting a filter later this week, hoping it cures my issues. With the realignment last month, 20-1 isn't available unless you get 61 since it's technically now a subchannel of 61.I don’t usually watch 35. 61 was a problem yesterday but the signal is strong now. Is 61 good for you?
Very spotty, 35 is better but not good. I'm getting a filter later this week, hoping it cures my issues. With the realignment last month, 20-1 isn't available unless you get 61 since it's technically now a subchannel of 61.
It doesn't seem to make a difference, although I bought a new tv with the ATSC 3.0 tuner so 61-1 isn't an issue with it being ATSC 3.0.Did the filter help you? 61-01 is rock solid for me now. I’m not sure if that’s due to the filter or if it’s possible that some engineering type tweaks were made. I’ll try removing the filter later to check the signal without it.
TV makers will want to get on board because it's an excuse to sell someone a new TV even if they don't need it. You need the stations up and running, possibly with higher quality content, though. They don't want to get bitten like they did with 3D so they'll want demonstrable content on the ground so people actually get something for the money. I don't think the networks will care one way or the other, or need to, except ABC and Fox need to provide 1080 content instead of 720 content. They already have 4K sports, which I don't think they'll have a problem providing to their affiliates. Only thing here is the time it will take for affiliate agreements (which I think are typically on like a 10 year cycle) to renewYes, your comparison to 3D TV is exactly what I've been thinking may happen with ATSC 3.0. I could be wrong, of course. The challenge with 3.0 is that it needs collaborative support from three or four groups to achieve lift-off and succeed: local stations, national broadcast networks, TV/electronics manufacturers, and the government.
Gateway tuners are a non-starter for most people. Maybe antennas with the tuners built in and wifi-enabled will be the true answer here, but most people want to just plug in and go. The more pieces of hardware involved, and you already have the TV and antenna, the more people you are going to loseNetwork-connected "gateway" tuners like the HD HomeRun Flex are actually what the NAB showed on their website and elsewhere when they began touting the concept of ATSC 3.0 five or six years ago since those tuners can serve up OTA TV to any wifi-connected screen in the house, not just smart TVs but also tablets, phones and computers. I remember their conceptual artwork/copy also suggesting that the user might plug a USB hard drive into the gateway tuner for DVR features. (Speaking of which, we know that ATSC 3.0 allows broadcasters to embed copyright protection; it's an open question if 3.0 takes off if the big networks will allow their programs to be recorded or, if so, perhaps not allow the ads to be skipped. In exchange for DVR capability, they may even require the user to connect the tuner to the internet for data collection purposes and to insert targeted ads during playback of recordings. Who knows.)
The thing about cable companies here is that technically they're not even carrying "ATSC 1.0" signals, they're just carrying the video re-encoded. In some, if not most, cases, the feed is from a fiber connection not even captured over the air. The MVPDs are absolutely not going to re-engineer their delivery systems and set top boxes to enable the interactive and targeted advertising of ATSC 3.0. That will be a huge cost in an industry that is shrinking. The broadcasters will be extremely lucky if the MVPDs agree to give them more bandwidth for HDR or 4K, and they will probably even have to give some concession for the MVPDs to buy new decoders. But I 1000% guarantee none of the interactive or targeted features of ATSC 3.0 will ever show up on a Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, or Charter set top boxThe stations are *hoping* for a revenue stream in ATSC 3.0. Meanwhile, TV manufacturers mainly just see added costs, not additional profits/sales.
And we don't know that MVPDs (pay TV distributors) are going to pay anything more for the right to carry stations' 3.0 signals with enhanced picture and sound quality. (As you say, a big majority of Americans watch the broadcast nets via pay TV, not free OTA.) Although, for that matter, stations don't necessarily even have to broadcast in 3.0 to offer enhanced feeds to MVPDs. Many NBC local affiliates, including ours here in Nashville, did that very thing during this summer's Tokyo Olympics when they transmitted an alternate 4K or 4K HDR version of their primetime feed to Comcast and YouTube TV. I see no reason why we won't some more of that happen with pay TV systems capable of doing it (i.e. managed IPTV and OTT systems, probably not QAM or satellite) and such developments can be completely separated from ATSC 3.0.
One of the big revenue streams from 3.0 is supposed to (eventually) be data-enabled broadband-delivered targeted ads for those viewers who have their 3.0 tuner connected to the internet. But Comcast, Charter and other pay TV operators already have their own targeted ad platforms and I can't really see them letting the broadcasters run their own ad platforms through the pay TV operator's STB/app. Everything online is always about controlling the UI, collecting the user data, and handling the targeted ads.
TV makers will want to get on board because it's an excuse to sell someone a new TV even if they don't need it.
I don't think the networks will care one way or the other, or need to, except ABC and Fox need to provide 1080 content instead of 720 content. They already have 4K sports, which I don't think they'll have a problem providing to their affiliates. Only thing here is the time it will take for affiliate agreements (which I think are typically on like a 10 year cycle) to renew
Gateway tuners are a non-starter for most people. Maybe antennas with the tuners built in and wifi-enabled will be the true answer here
Agreed.The thing about cable companies here is that technically they're not even carrying "ATSC 1.0" signals, they're just carrying the video re-encoded. In some, if not most, cases, the feed is from a fiber connection not even captured over the air. The MVPDs are absolutely not going to re-engineer their delivery systems and set top boxes to enable the interactive and targeted advertising of ATSC 3.0.
Not sure if you're ignoring my point about the TV makers not ringing the bell marketing wise until ATSC 3.0 actually delivers something interesting on purpose or not. Eventually when you can do "cool new stuff" with ATSC then the TV makers will have an excuse to push it. Before that, they risk pissing off consumers. It's in a tiny fraction of markets right now, it's not time to make a huge hubub about it yetVirtually no one is buying a new TV just because it has an ATSC 3.0 tuner in it. And TV manufacturers seem to understand this. Check out the product pages on LG's and Sony's websites that showcase their various high-end model TVs that happen to include 3.0 tuners. Nothing about ATSC 3.0/NextGen TV is mentioned anywhere in the marketing copy touting those TVs' many advanced features. To even know that the TV has a 3.0 tuner, you have to pore over the small print in the specifications list.
I suspect the networks and even the local stations couldn't care less about 4K. If I were a betting man this is what I think the order of priorities are of what the TV stations want out of ATSC 3:4K requires too much bandwidth (not feasible while 3.0 stations continue to share towers and bandwidth) and not enough consumers see sufficient difference in true 4K HDR vs. a decently encoded 1080p HDR signal that gets upscaled by the TV to fake 4K (or 8K) with HDR.
My point here was that one less piece of hardware to plug in and configure. Yeah, an antenna with a networked tuner in it is a gateway tuner, but everyone has to have an antenna if they're doing OTA. A networked tuner is just one more hassle to setup physically. If it's integrated into the antenna, then that hassle is gone and the barrier to entry is no different than just an antenna and a TVWhat you're describing is a gateway tuner. It's just an external tuner that connects to the home network (via ethernet and/or wifi) and distributes OTA TV to network-connected screens around the home.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?