ATSC 3.0 breaking news

[Robert Zohn]

Thanks for adding to this discussion.

In NY we have a much higher adoption rate of homes with 4K HDR TVs. 10% seems very low for any demographic.

If broadcasters had UHD/HDR programming ad revenue would surely improve as would interest from advertisers. I can't say what the time line would be for a return on the investment, but the 1st broadcaster with UHD/HDR programming will attract a lot of viewers.

True that ATSC was not mandated by the FCC, but it was approved by the FCC and it's only the FCC that can solve the bandwidth issue.

I remember when NBC launched the Peacock logo to announce the inclusion of color on select broadcasts. Most everyone with a color TV watched far more of NBC programming. I believe this same rapid growth in viewership will follow when the 1st broadcaster in any given market begins UHD/HDR transmission.

One of the most interesting new feature of ATSC 3.0 is that you can receive the signal OTA or IP. So users with a good broadband network connection the consumer can just plug an ethernet cable from the router to get the OTA channels over IP

Don't think you need a new transmitter, just an encoder and some other ATSC 3.0 complaint equipment. I'm not trying to over simplify the TV Broadcasters system, but feel a goal of upgrading the system to accommodate ATSC 3.0 and UHD/HDR to bring the pq to today's standards. UHD/HDR TVs sales are growing exponentially and if broadcasters don't start planning to cary the new TV System on their networks advertising revenue and viewership will continue to decline.

TV Broadcasters need to assent to the times of technology advancements, after-all ATSC 3.0 and it's ability to carry UHD/HDR is a milestone achievement that is exclusively designed and built for the TV Broadcasters. The importance in delivering UHD/HDR to the home will become more valuable to all parties.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

Thanks for adding to this discussion.

In NY we have a much higher adoption rate of homes with 4K HDR TVs. 10% seems very low for any demographic.

If broadcasters had UHD/HDR programming ad revenue would surely improve as would interest from advertisers. I can't say what the time line would be for a return on the investment, but the 1st broadcaster with UHD/HDR programming will attract a lot of viewers.

True that ATSC was not mandated by the FCC, but it was approved by the FCC and it's only the FCC that can solve the bandwidth issue.

I remember when NBC launched the Peacock logo to announce the inclusion of color on select broadcasts. Most everyone with a color TV watched far more of NBC programming. I believe this same rapid growth in viewership will follow when the 1st broadcaster in any given market begins UHD/HDR transmission.

One of the most interesting new feature of ATSC 3.0 is that you can receive the signal OTA or IP. So users with a good broadband network connection the consumer can just plug an ethernet cable from the router to get the OTA channels over IP

Don't think you need a new transmitter, just an encoder and some other ATSC 3.0 complaint equipment. I'm not trying to over simplify the TV Broadcasters system, but feel a goal of upgrading the system to accommodate ATSC 3.0 and UHD/HDR to bring the pq to today's standards. UHD/HDR TVs sales are growing exponentially and if broadcasters don't start planning to cary the new TV System on their networks advertising revenue and viewership will continue to decline.

TV Broadcasters need to assent to the times of technology advancements, after-all ATSC 3.0 and it's ability to carry UHD/HDR is a milestone achievement that is exclusively designed and built for the TV Broadcasters. The importance in delivering UHD/HDR to the home will become more valuable to all parties.

I’m seeing 4K sets fly off the shelves in my part of the U.K but sadly they don’t have 3D ability now. Makes me very sad as I love the format. Does ATSC 3.0 include the ability to play 3D content please?

[PaulGo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I was wondering if you attended again this year.
Anyway, for the future, think two words….’five gee’ - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post15537077

5G is just another form of internet transmission. It wont resolve the broadcast spectrum problem. Also broadcasters make a substantial part of their money from re-transmission fees. With the limited bandwidth available to them the eventual solution probably will be to transmit a 4K signal to cable and transmit a less than optimal broadcast signal.

[x43x]

The 10% I was referring to is the percentage of viewers watching over-the-air, not those with 4K TV's. Our OTA viewers make up 5-10% of total viewers. The rest are cable and satellite.

ATSC 3.0 will happen in 5-10 years or so. But 4K is another beast entirely. It's not just an encoder to swap out, but almost all of our equipment will need to be overhauled, from cameras, switchers, routers, encoders.....you name it. Look how many people have issues just getting their AVR to pass 4K HDR to their TV. Times that by 100 for what we would need to change and be compliant.

TV Broadcasters need to skrimp and save because viewership isn't getting any better. People tune in to their local channels for News and Sports and that's about it. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have 4K HDR over the air. But if it means keeping my job vs the company spending $250K on some new 4K do-hickey....I'll take 720p thank you.

And you will need a 2nd transmitter...or share one as you mentioned. Since 3.0 is voluntary, stations are required to continue broadcasting in 1.0. It will be like the days of the DTV transition where broadcasters had to mount an ATSC antenna on top or on the side of their NTSC antenna. You will have two channels for the same station. Many stations still have their old NTSC antenna as part of their tower. The re-pack is cleaning that up a bit, but very few will be jumping up and down to mount another antenna. If an older antenna could be used, maybe, but the equipment in the building will need to be doubled up to power the thing.

Sports and News is what matters and makes revenue. Transitioning those to 4K HDR isn't going to be the same as the transition to color TV. Jim is already watching the game. Jenny isn't going to all-of-a-sudden tune in to watch just because it's 4K. You can see the difference from b&w and color. 4x3 SDR to 16x9 HD. But 16x9 720p to 16x9 4K on your 55" TV? Not as dramatic. You may get a few new viewers, but will they stick around? We get calls every weekend from people trying to watch the game, but they sat on their remote and changed the audio to Spanish. Not the most tech savy people. I just don't see new masses clamoring to watch our News in 4K.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by x43x

The 10% I was referring to is the percentage of viewers watching over-the-air, not those with 4K TV's. Our OTA viewers make up 5-10% of total viewers. The rest are cable and satellite.

ATSC 3.0 will happen in 5-10 years or so. But 4K is another beast entirely. It's not just an encoder to swap out, but almost all of our equipment will need to be overhauled, from cameras, switchers, routers, encoders.....you name it. Look how many people have issues just getting their AVR to pass 4K HDR to their TV. Times that by 100 for what we would need to change and be compliant.

TV Broadcasters need to skrimp and save because viewership isn't getting any better. People tune in to their local channels for News and Sports and that's about it. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have 4K HDR over the air. But if it means keeping my job vs the company spending $250K on some new 4K do-hickey....I'll take 720p thank you.

And you will need a 2nd transmitter...or share one as you mentioned. Since 3.0 is voluntary, stations are required to continue broadcasting in 1.0. It will be like the days of the DTV transition where broadcasters had to mount an ATSC antenna on top or on the side of their NTSC antenna. You will have two channels for the same station. Many stations still have their old NTSC antenna as part of their tower. The re-pack is cleaning that up a bit, but very few will be jumping up and down to mount another antenna. If an older antenna could be used, maybe, but the equipment in the building will need to be doubled up to power the thing.

Sports and News is what matters and makes revenue. Transitioning those to 4K HDR isn't going to be the same as the transition to color TV. Jim is already watching the game. Jenny isn't going to all-of-a-sudden tune in to watch just because it's 4K. You can see the difference from b&w and color. 4x3 SDR to 16x9 HD. But 16x9 720p to 16x9 4K on your 55" TV? Not as dramatic. You may get a few new viewers, but will they stick around? We get calls every weekend from people trying to watch the game, but they sat on their remote and changed the audio to Spanish. Not the most tech savy people. I just don't see new masses clamoring to watch our News in 4K.

When I think over the air in the U.K., we get BBC, ITV and C4 as the big boys. BBC has just pulled in 10 million viewers for ‘The Bodyguard’. I take it USA over the air is more like ITV, in the sense that the programming is the same for all regions except you have local news and sports specific to the region you live in?

[x43x]

In the US, there is ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW, PBS, etc. Most broadcast stations are based around a metropolis and an "affiliate" of these main networks. The networks provide several hours of programming to the affiliates per day, and the affiliates fill in the rest of the hours with local news and syndicated programming. Each network has a few hit shows that do get viewers, but those are dropping every year, especially those watching "live". Our local news at night typically pulls in better numbers than the network programming it follows. It used to be the other way around.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by x43x

In the US, there is ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW, PBS, etc. Most broadcast stations are based around a metropolis and an "affiliate" of these main networks. The networks provide several hours of programming to the affiliates per day, and the affiliates fill in the rest of the hours with local news and syndicated programming. Each network has a few hit shows that do get viewers, but those are dropping every year, especially those watching "live". Our local news at night typically pulls in better numbers than the network programming it follows. It used to be the other way around.

Thanks for that.

[Robert Zohn]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

5G is just another form of internet transmission. It wont resolve the broadcast spectrum problem. Also broadcasters make a substantial part of their money from re-transmission fees. With the limited bandwidth available to them the eventual solution probably will be to transmit a 4K signal to cable and transmit a less than optimal broadcast signal.

Yes, there are several layers in getting the signal from the source (broadcaster) to the home.

Regarding the broadcaster's spectrum issue, and from my take, 4K can never be broadcast from all of the stations at the same time in any given region. Better more efficient CODEX and or more bandwidth are the two most likely solutions.

Another idea I've thought of is to use ATSC 3.0 over IP only and keep the ATSC 1.0 OTA just as it is today, FHD/SDR. So it could be the same content simulcast in ATSC 3.0 IP and ATSC 1.0 OTA or even different content on each carrier.

Regarding the picture quality of the 4K HDR signal, I would suggest the minimal compression possible so we get the full benefit of the video, audio and any other as needed features available in the ATSC 3.0 system.

[gkolb]

Robert, could it be that the owned and operated stations can lead the way in their markets to make a test case for implementation by the affiliates? Sort of ‘drag’ them along eventually?

AND, make a case to the FCC for additional spectrum for OTA broadcasters?

Thank you to all the members here for enlightening the rest of us to the real world issues here, as well as the political elements.

[x43x]

Owned and Operated aren't the ones leading the way. Sinclair and the other huge conglomerates are the major players currently. That was one of the points in the Sinclair/Tribune merger, that Sinclair was pioneering 3.0 in an effort to stay relevant in a streaming world.

Sadly, the FCC isn't giving any spectrum to TV broadcasters. They just took the upper UHF spectrum away! Cellular is paying billions for the confiscation. There just isn't spectrum to give. 5G anyone?

[Robert Zohn]

I love 5G and Penton-Man also suggested 5G as another solution, but I don't see Nationwide deployment for many years to come.

Since we have 4K HDR TVs for the past few years and content from Netflix, Amazon Prime, VUDU and YouTube I was hoping and actually believed ATSC 3.0 would bring the 4K HDR to everyones home by 2019 or 2020 at the latest. My optimism was partly based on understanding the specification of ATSC 3.0 and the successful deployment that was focused on 4K HDR content throughout S. Korea.

[PaulGo]

ATSC 3.0: The future of free antenna TV is coming, eventually

Everything a cord cutter needs to know about free over-the-air 4K HDR broadcasts.

https://www.cnet.com/news/atsc-3-0-t...ng-eventually/

[ray0414]

1080p with better compression would go a long ways.

[Brian81]

I am actually a bit relieved, as I don't need another box. It would probably look like crap anyways. Broadcasters can't even get 1080i right.

[wxman2003]

Perhaps if bandwidth isn't available for OTA 4K HDR, the focus should shift to 4k HDR streaming for all networks. I would love if everything I watch via streaming was 4K HDR.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Robert Zohn

We need the FCC to sell more bandwidth to broadcasters and for the broadcasters to embrace ATSC 3.0 and use it for UHD/HDR and when needed add in 2nd screen and or 2-way feedback.

Hows that ever going to happen when the wireless phone providers are buying up all the spectrum from a overly eager FCC to serve a thoroughly addicted smart phone population?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I was wondering if you attended again this year.
Anyway, for the future, think two words….’five gee’ - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post15537077

It no blessing. See Lawsuit Threats Target FCC's New 5G Rules That Kneecap Local Control - Gizmodo

5G connection speeds are reputed to be up to 100 times faster than the current generation of cellular service. But to accomplish this, 5G relies on high-frequency waves that cannot travel the same distance allowed by current cellular technology. To achieve 5G speeds, cities and towns will inevitably do away with the massive cell towers recognizable to most Americans and replace them thousands of smaller towers mounted primarily on utility poles throughout the city. Higher estimates place the number of new cell sites needed at roughly 100 times what’s currently in place.

The part of the article I found interesting and a bit troubling was this paragraph, which means that the telecom will try to claim rights to put lots of antennas up where they become a nuisance or intruding to residences. Not all neighborhoods have utility poles around, especially in dense urban areas, or modern suburbs with underground utilities. It's will no longer be that fake tree or a bunch on a high voltage transmission tower or building. The range of 5G transceivers is considerably less than current frequency utilized making them more akin to overlapping wifi access areas.

[wxman2003]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

It no blessing. See Lawsuit Threats Target FCC's New 5G Rules That Kneecap Local Control - Gizmodo



The part of the article I found interesting and a bit troubling was this paragraph, which means that the telecom will try to claim rights to put lots of antennas up where they become a nuisance or intruding to residences. Not all neighborhoods have utility poles around, especially in dense urban areas, or modern suburbs with underground utilities. It's will no longer be that fake tree or a bunch on a high voltage transmission tower or building. The range of 5G transceivers is considerably less than current frequency utilized making them more akin to overlapping wifi access areas.

I can see cities granting them access to the boulevard between the sidewalk and the street or installing them on light posts on each street. Don't forget, many utilities have access rights on the back lot line between your house and the house behind you. The cable companies could really jump on this. They already have their cable junction boxes in every neighborhood. Put a small tower in its place since they have rights to that spot.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by wxman2003

I can see cities granting them access to the boulevard between the sidewalk and the street or installing them on light posts on each street. Don't forget, many utilities have access rights on the back lot line between your house and the house behind you. The cable companies could really jump on this. They already have their cable junction boxes in every neighborhood. Put a small tower in its place since they have rights to that spot.

Well i'm not sure the telecoms that provide wireless communications fall under the same easement rights as legacy power and city approved cable distribution companies? Imagine if AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, T-Mobile, Sprint, CenturyLink, Dish, Cox, US Cellar all come to knock on your door. Those are only the top 10, they are a lot more smaller ones.

BTW range close to 30 Ghz is crappy. Any tree, building structure can attenuate the signal a lot. Is that what is next all the trees must go?

[wxman2003]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Well i'm not sure the telecoms that provide wireless communications fall under the same easement rights as legacy power and city approved cable distribution companies? Imagine if AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, T-Mobile, Sprint, CenturyLink, Dish, Cox, US Cellar all come to knock on your door. Those are only the top 10, they are a lot more smaller ones.

BTW range close to 30 Ghz is crappy. Any tree, building structure can attenuate the signal a lot. Is that what is next all the trees must go?

I could see the day when the cable companies who have the access rights, work together with Verizon, AT&T, etc to provide both internet and tv. The carriers would provide the internet access, and the cable companies would provide the channel lineup, via a wireless STB in your house. Cable companies would no longer have to maintain their wired infrastructure.