ATSC 3.0 to be Deployed in 40 U.S. Markets by End of 2020

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
8,346
8,783
Missouri/Kansas
  • Like
Reactions: FTA4PA

TNGuy84

SatelliteGuys Family
May 27, 2018
55
31
Tennessee
I doubt it'll be used to sell Internet access. Most likely, it will be used to for on-demand content or something similar (selling premium content, perhaps?). MovieBeam did something like this in the early 2000s to sell downloadable movies to set-top boxes via OTA, but speed of the service was very lacking, and only a small amount of content was available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb

Jim5506

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
6,766
1,390
Lubbock, Texas
Internet access would require two way communication.

That is very unlikely for a TV station , however, internet up TV down may work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
That is very unlikely for a TV station , however, internet up TV down may work.
I think this is what they have in mind. I can't imagine how it could be practical without some heavy duty Single Frequency Network action, but that's someone else's problem.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
I don't see the broadcasters being management-savvy enough to provide this kind of service, though.
It has nothing to do with how savvy they are about management or technology, it is all about what kind of revenue they could derive from it. There is an unbearable cost in tying up their bandwidth with unicasts. They may be able to practically use the bandwidth on multicast.
 

TNGuy84

SatelliteGuys Family
May 27, 2018
55
31
Tennessee
One thing that crossed my mind is the cost of upgrading to new equipment. Many of the stations in the U.S. are already putting up new transmitters for the repack. Would they really want to use more resources to set up all new equipment for 3.0 after just making adjustments under the current system for the repack? What if this turns into another HD Radio thing? That was an optional thing for the broadcasters and not mandated like Analog to Digital for TV. It was supposed to be the big new thing in the late 2000s. Now, I don't see any mention of HD Radio stations going online or any new HD Radio receivers out there.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
ATSC 3.0 is sort of a leap of faith, but the broadcasters are seeing dollar signs so their vision may be somewhat obscured.

It all comes down to adoption and how much money the broadcasters are willing to spend on making it happen. I reason that the manufacturers will likely have to give the tuners away to do their part in priming the pump.

I would hope that if adoption isn't overwhelming, the FCC would shut it down as a failed approach to introducing a new technology. I suppose Congress could subsequently mandate it, but who knows if the political climate will be compatible at that time.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
One thing that crossed my mind is the cost of upgrading to new equipment.
In terms of new equipment, I expect that only new modulators are required. The repack doesn't require new modulators (except for the lighthouse stations that will need the most efficient DTV technology) but most of the other stuff will be new (and acquired with substantial subsidy from the repack fund). That "stuff" (link components, amplifiers, antennas) should be as useful with Next Gen TV as it is with DTV.
 

DarkStarPDX

New Member
Jun 11, 2009
4
5
Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
One thing that crossed my mind is the cost of upgrading to new equipment. Many of the stations in the U.S. are already putting up new transmitters for the repack. Would they really want to use more resources to set up all new equipment for 3.0 after just making adjustments under the current system for the repack?
The new transmitters being installed for repack are already ATSC 3.0 capable: https://www.tvtechnology.com/repack/sinclair-chooses-rohde-schwarz-high-power-transmitters-for-90-stations
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
48,435
13,370
Northern VA
Hmmm. Correct me if I’m wrong. The transmitting antenna is shaped for the frequency, and maybe power. It “doesn’t care” if the signal is ATSC or ATSC 3.

And in my mind, a transmitter just boosts an incoming signal and sends it out. The shaping, the placement of data to ride the carrier signal, is really done by, or used to be done by, a separate piece of equipment. Now, I guess these two functions have been largely consolidated into one piece of equipment.

Corrections or confirmations, please.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
The transmitting antenna is shaped for the frequency, and maybe power.
The antenna for a sending a particular frequency doesn't change with modulation scheme. Shaping of the coverage area is done through with multiple antennas and other trickery
It “doesn’t care” if the signal is ATSC or ATSC 3.
This is generally true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

danristheman

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 25, 2011
3,116
1,096
85w
I have a odd question here. I live in fort wayne market we have some room here for low power tv stations. Can you have a low power tv station to use for subs and use the main station transmitter for 4k. I wasn't trying to sound dumb here.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
Can you have a low power tv station to use for subs and use the main station transmitter for 4k.
This would require multiple RF channels to pull off and thus far, I don't think that's supported by the FCC channel allocation policy.

That said, I do have a local channel (KGW) that broadcasts its weather camera on another low-power RF channel (KGWZ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: danristheman

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,010
2,445
Salem, OR
Our Ramar stations do that, they run at least 3 frequencies here.
Having one company own multiple stations is not the same as stations offering each other's subchannels.

According to rabbitears.info, each of the Lubbock stations that have subchannels offers only their own numbered set of subchannels that are X.Y of the main channel X.

What I was talking about, as an example, is having 20.4-6 on a different RF channel from 20.1-3. As the repack and ATSC 3.0 transitions progress we're told that we'll see channel A "buddying up" with Channel B such that A.1-3 will be on the same RF channel as B.1-2.
Code:
Display channel     RF channel
  A.1                 C.1
  A.2                 C.2
  A.3                 C.3
  B.1                 C.4
  B.2                 C.5
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top