Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by Scott Greczkowski, May 13, 2016.
Looks interesting, but will stations upgrade?
Advertisers 'real time' 'advantages' I.E. 'interactive' monitoring. Hope it also realizes when I'm not interested and cancels itself and resumes the program.
I can hardly watch most 'real time' programming as it is for the adverts. Using the DVR to skip ads is near a must.
Yesterday, a half hour show would be 25 to 27 minutes of the program.
Today, Only ~17 minutes of 'program' per half hour with sometimes 1 to 3 or so for review of program material offered in the previous 4 minute slice of programming. Leaves 10, or more, minutes for commercials.(on a good day) Some I've recorded are 50/50 %
"From the ground up""built on a set of standards" that can be upgraded"suggests they've 'left the door open' for more 'intrusion' into the viewers privacy. 1984 is coming people.
EDIT: My money says the rest of the world will NOT rush to follow our lead.
Several other countries seem to be moving toward DVB T-2. Will broadcasters upgrade? I think many will when and if they are forced to. Not before.
Adopting a new standard using the proposed voluntary approach after the repack seems close to impossible given how there doesn't appear to be enough room in some markets for the existing ATSC 1.0 channels; much less what ATSC 3.0 will require on top of that. After watching the video, the only feature that really appeals to me is UHD. Streaming HD from my TV is not a selling point for me.
Until there are several important UHD carrots to dangle, I reason that voluntary adoption is a non-starter. It was much harder than expected to execute a mandatory transition when we were getting the quantum leap of HD as part of the bargain. UHD content seems to me to be having a very hard time getting rolling with one disc player (Samsung UBD-K8500) and a handful of shows and movies. No, I don't count the pricey Panasonic DMP-UB900 as it isn't available in the US yet.
I'm developing a bit of unease about this. I wonder how the behavior differs when connected vs not connected to the Internet. And how will they know which commercials to show? And will this be one more barrier to recording and skipping commercials?
Thankfully, there are alternatives to being forced to watch commercials. Plenty of other forms of entertainment.
Once it hits your gateway or TV it will probably know somewhat about you. The intelligence in the signal will then decide based on your Big Data.
Meh, you can run but you can't hide. If it's not this, it will be bannering, in-show promos, or whatever it takes to make you watch.
Banners and other incidental advertising will drive many away; especially if the banners obscure things (or cause the program image to retreat out of the banner's way). Kind of like the credits now where they squeeze the credits such that you can no longer read them and play a promo that you can't quite make out save the booming volume of the voiceover.
That drives me NUTS! I've seen them squish the credits to the side and have the next program on the left of the screen already playing.
Antenna Tv does this.
That's what I was going to say. Antenna TV already does this all the time
I don't want the internet into my OTA signal leave it alone I don't have internet at the home don't want it. OTA tv is supposed to be free not paying for internet usage. Keep tech seperate, UHD is nice just keep it at that.
What would be great is if the Internet integrated part of this was able to offer free HD streams of local stations to anyone with an IP address in the correct DMA, so that even if you got a bad signal or no signal, you'd still get an equivalent of free-over-the-air service if you had an Internet connection.
Caps make this of limited value.
And like here, out in the boonies, what's advertised as 'High Speed" isn't all that high. Streaming is of little value if it's buffering all the time. You're better off putting up a better OTA antenna.
Maybe, just maybe, on of the 'advantages' offered is guaranteed 5Mbs download speeds via the local OTA station? (Dial up for outgoing?) It would be a revenue stream that many stations could use. And many 'out in the boonies' would benefit from. (as long as it's affordable)
It seems suspicious that we really don't know what's in it.
You need to define what you mean by "it". In context that would be Fat Air's comment about Internet downloading via a TV channel.
I hope ATSC 3.0 takes off (although whether it will is questionable). I think it's probably the best chance that free OTA TV has to survive in our very internet-centric age. ATSC 3.0 is fully based on the internet protocol, unlike our current digital TV broadcasts, which gives it a lot of flexibility. It won't require the viewer to connect his home internet to the ATSC 3.0 receiver but doing so will deliver a number of benefits for both the viewer and the stations/advertisers. The viewer will be able to wirelessly stream live OTA TV to all his connected devices (TVs, tablets, phones, computers) on his home wifi network, whether those devices are actually "TV sets" or not. Local stations will be able to deliver more valuable targeted advertisements over the internet during live TV commercial breaks, overriding the standard broadcast ads, if the viewer opts in to such ads by providing some basic demographic info. In exchange for doing so, the TV station may allow the viewer to stream their recent programming on-demand via the internet. You'll probably be able to connect a hard drive to your ATSC 3.0 receiver/gateway to serve as an OTA DVR. All of that will be integrated into the same UI on your TV and other devices, so it will all feel very seamless; whether you're getting the programming OTA (live or recorded) or over the internet will be virtually impossible for the viewer to distinguish. And of course, viewers will be able to supplement local broadcast programming from ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, etc. with various app-based internet subscription services (Netflix, Showtime, Sling TV, etc.).
Beyond all that, ATSC 3.0 should help usher in a greater amount of UHD HDR content, which is a good thing. And getting it for free (in exchange for watching ads) is nice.
Lastly, ATSC 3.0 is supposed to provide for better, easier reception with an antenna that we have now with ATSC 1.0. This is due, at least in part, to 3.0's physical layer being based on OFDM instead of 1.0's 8VSB. I've even read that broadcasters may be able to broadcast using multiple mini-transmitters throughout an area (like cell phone providers) rather than a single large tower. We'll see...
For all of the wink-wink, nod-nod, know-what-I-mean, eh? about ESPN and others, there's still very, very little episodic UHD programming available. DIRECTV had to fabricate their own channel and NASA is, as they label it, a collection of clips. UHD will have to get established as a pay service first as OTA continues to marginalize itself with a very light payload of quality programming. HD is certainly good enough for a majority of the population with their smaller televisions, poor viewing situations and less than perfect eyesight.
It doesn't help that some of the best programming is subjected to specialized video processing that defeats many gains possible with UHD, WCG and HDR.
By the time that ATSC 3.0 could be implemented, programs may well be close to 40% advertising (we're 33-36% now). That's not sufferable.
So I wasted $ in the purchase of my 42 inch HDTV? Who wants to watch anything on a 2, or 3, inch screen. What's the point?
See my previous post concerning 'targeted ads to answer the first part. For the second part, don't think the national advertisers will be happy about that.
Already possible with 1.0 and a necessity IMHO for skipping all the stupid ads already. The only time I let ads 'play' is when I step out to the bathroom.
Think that's a reality already via separate 'add-ons'. All 'in one box' isn't an advantage IMHO. If separate boxes, if one breaks, you still have the others. If one 'feature' breaks in you 'all in one' box, You're out ALL. (Unless, you can live without that one feature. And that's Only If that feature doesn't affect the other functions.
By the time that ATSC 3.0 or similar rolls out, tablets, phablets and even phones will offer screens in excess of 5" and will be capable of 1920x1080. A 10" tablet at 18" can be much better than a 42" HDTV at 8' unless you're far-sighted. A mobile screen is eminently more flexible in terms of where you can watch it and how you interact with it.
Kind of like the old headphones versus loudspeakers argument.
Of course with the advent of ATSC 3.0, you're HDTV will have to resort to streaming as it doesn't have a capable tuner.