What is the future of OTA?

[TDRS 1]

Ok, I know this is not a Satellite question. But I'll bet most of you have antennas to pick up UHF/VHF HDTV. So this seemed like a good place to ask the question.

Does anyone know with resonable accuracy what is the future of both UHF and VHF transmissions? I'm not talking about OTA as a whole, but specifically VHF vs UHF. I have read that after 2006 UHF will pretty much cease to exist, but what I am seeing by looking at the FCCs license database is that there are more UHF stations with new construction permits than VHF stations, which seems not to support this statement.

The main reason I'm asking is because I am planning on putting up an antenna to supplement my satellite HD content and the answer will determine if I go local UHF or long distant VHF.

But I don't want this to be a discussion of which antenna I should use, just if there is any intellegent information about OTAs future in UHF vs VHF and HD content.

TIA

TDRS 1

 

[RBBrittain]

Though much of the UHF band will be reclaimed once analog TV goes dark (nothing new--channels 70-83 were reclaimed for cellular phones in the 1980's), UHF itself is here to stay. In fact, the HD channels of many VHF stations are actually in the UHF band, and vice versa. All antennas will need to receive both VHF and UHF for the forseeable future.

Don't look at the major channel number on your HD tuner; under the ATSC standard, the DTV datastream tells the tuner what channel to display, which is the old analog channel--even after the analog station goes off the air, and even though the DTV station broadcasts on a totally different channel. (The NAB basically insisted on that so that their members would keep their well-known local channel numbers.)

Here in Little Rock, both the ABC and NBC affiliates' DTV channels are actually on UHF, even though they display their VHF analog channel numbers on HD tuners. Only the CBS and PBS affiliates actually got their DTV channels on VHF, and the PBS affiliate had to get a special FCC waiver to do that (it's state-owned and they didn't want the taxpayers to pay higher electric bills for a higher-powered UHF transmitter).

To see the actual channel assignment of any DTV channel, look at the "RF Channel" column at: http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/issues/digitaltv/DTVStations.asp

 

[TDRS 1]

Thanks for the reply RBBrittian. I was aware of the difference between the RF channel and the tuner channel but somehow I missed that web site during my quest. Lots of good info there, thank you. Now all I have to do is is find one heck of a UHF antenna

 

[korsjs]

I think OTA is going to provide the best picture quality. Look at Dish, they just started to compress, I don't know if Direct compresses, and it is only a matter of time before Voom starts. If you receive a good signal, it provides a much better picture than satellite or cable, in my opinion.

 

[toto]

The stations, when the analog spectrum is reclaimed, have the option which channel to keep. Many, current analog stations are VHF, with their Digital counterpart being UHF. Even though there are advantages to UHF, many of those channels that have dual carriage will revert to their VHF frequencies when analog goes away. VHF is less expensive to broadcast Digital, than UHF

 

[Poke]

Well in another 1-2 years it will be a thing of the past! Why becuase FCC in next year or two all TV sets will be HDTV's in any size. Why because by that time if not all most TV Networks,Locals included will half to start broadcasting in HD! This will happen due to FCC has already made it clear that it wants all Networks to be HD ready. So in the next coulpe of years 2-3 that everything will be HD which then their would be no use for OTA or basically antennas. Remeber guys FCC our the Top Dogs and what they say goes for everyone.

 

[StevenD]

Once again...the FCC NEVER said broadcasters have to broadcast in HD. They said they had to broadcast in Digital. HDTV is a nice side benefit of the digital broadcast requirement.

 

[Poke]

Well My point is in the future the networks will be broadcasting in HD! HD is where everything is going and folks that own the networks see that. So Im not saying its going to happen over night but we will see more and more things in HD!

 

[JohnL]

I think OTA is going to provide the best picture quality. Look at Dish, they just started to compress, I don't know if Direct compresses, and it is only a matter of time before Voom starts. If you receive a good signal, it provides a much better picture than satellite or cable, in my opinion.

Both DirecTV and Dish Compress the channels they transmit, they always have and always will. The amount of compression is variable depending on the Channel and it's content and viewership of the channel. Voom also compresses their channels. BTW all HDTV signals are compressed if they weren't the amount of bits need to transmit the signal would be more than the bandwidth available for OTA HDTV, or a satellite transponders maximum bit rate.

If the satellite companies didn't compress their signals then Dish would be only able to transmit ONE channel per transponder and NOT 10-12 channels per transponder. This would make DirecTV a maximum of 32 channels for subscribers with a Standard 18 inch dish and 50 channels for Dish Subscribers with a Dish 500.

John

 

[JohnL]

Well My point is in the future the networks will be broadcasting in HD! HD is where everything is going and folks that own the networks see that. So Im not saying its going to happen over night but we will see more and more things in HD!

Poke,

The Networks might be uplinking and providing all of their shows in HD, but I VERY MUCH doubt each and every affiliate will be broadcasting that Content in HD, but they will be REQUIRED to broadcast that content using ATSC signals (Digital) and many local affiliates will be broadcasting that content in SD but in a progressive scan and not an interlaced scan.

BTW Digital transmission does NOT mean HD and it never will.

Lastly the NAB and not the networks themselves control the the current distribution model. This means the networks will have absolutely NO PULL or say in where and whom gets HD signals.

John

 

[RBBrittain]

The stations, when the analog spectrum is reclaimed, have the option which channel to keep. Many, current analog stations are VHF, with their Digital counterpart being UHF. Even though there are advantages to UHF, many of those channels that have dual carriage will revert to their VHF frequencies when analog goes away. VHF is less expensive to broadcast Digital, than UHF

Not quite true; under current law, once analog goes off the air, the analog slot must be vacated. However, it's long been suggested that there will be another rearrangement of the TV spectrum once analog is dead. Even if there isn't, the opening of prime VHF space will probably lead to more requests from DTV stations to relocate to VHF (like the Little Rock PBS affiliate). Since a relocated station under ATSC wouldn't necessarily have to change its channel number, such a move would be far easier to pull off than under analog.

You are correct that VHF is less expensive to broadcast, whether digital or analog; since VHF is at a lower frequency, it takes far less power than UHF to make the signal go as far. Nonetheless, digital TV in general requires less power than an equivalent analog signal, so power alone isn't much of an issue.

Since the FCC must consider the public interest, I expect that even in the future they'll prefer channel change requests from non-commercial stations and marginal commercial stations (i.e., indies) over profitable major-network stations that merely want to cut their electric bills, though NAB lobbying could help some stations.

 

[RBBrittain]

Poke,

The Networks might be uplinking and providing all of their shows in HD, but I VERY MUCH doubt each and every affiliate will be broadcasting that Content in HD, but they will be REQUIRED to broadcast that content using ATSC signals (Digital) and many local affiliates will be broadcasting that content in SD but in a progressive scan and not an interlaced scan.

BTW Digital transmission does NOT mean HD and it never will.

Lastly the NAB and not the networks themselves control the the current distribution model. This means the networks will have absolutely NO PULL or say in where and whom gets HD signals.

John

But once DTV is mandatory (and HDTV is common), how many local stations will downconvert HD signals from the network to SD without getting tons of complaints from viewers?

Though I have heard similar stupidity: The Little Rock ABC affiliate didn't broadcast in stereo for many years, even though their transmitter and studio were stereo-capable; they didn't want to spend money to replace the ancient coaxial cable feeding the transmitter! Even the PBS affiliate had stereo long before them--and it broadcasts from the very same tower. (It uses a microwave feed, like most other stations do today.)

 

[DarrellP]

The future may be bleak for HD OTA, see this thread if you haven't heard of the bandwidth stealing USDTV.

 

[Carl B]

Unless there are network feeds to cable and DSB, the network HD you get via those sources will be the same as what is made available OTA. If your local network affiliate choses to broadcast an network HD feed in SD digital, that is all the cable and DBS guys are going to have also. The FCC isn't going to let OTA DTV suffer while cable and DBS prosper because OTA is considered the peoples' property and the FCC is there as stewards of the people, at least until some multi-national corporation buys the federal government.