ATSC 3.0 Discussion

[primestar31]

Trip, You mean same old call letter in ATSC 3.0 world?

How you know if the station is operating 2 transmitters 1 is ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 under the same call letter KOAT-DT?

ATSC 3.0 should have original -?? Instead of - DT?

Easy, IF it's broadcasting ATSC 3.0, you won't be able to receive it. At least until you have an ATSC 3.0 tuner...

 

[Trip]

Stations are not authorized to operate two transmitters, so that case will not arise.

- Trip

 

[N5XZS]

Yes, but look In the FCC'S Database looking for which ATSC 3.0 stations is on the air or not, also to see if they got CP permits granted by the FCC.


I hope I clear this up.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Stations are not authorized to operate two transmitters, so that case will not arise.

- Trip

Isn't there a requirement to keep a 1.0 signal lit for 5 years once a 3.0 simulcast begins?

 

[primestar31]

Isn't there a requirement to keep a 1.0 signal lit for 5 years once a 3.0 simulcast begins?

Yes, BUT, it doesn't have to be on the same tower broadcasting ATSC 3.0. Meaning most of these early ones will be a lighthouse situation where that tower is 3.0 ONLY, and their 1.0 signals will be broadcast from channel sharing on another station that's only 1.0 and the like.

 

[navychop]

Kinda like operating two transmitters. A distinction without a difference.

 

[907TECH]

Isn't there a requirement to keep a 1.0 signal lit for 5 years once a 3.0 simulcast begins?

Yes there is. Both signals must be available once 3.0 is implemented.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Yes, BUT, it doesn't have to be on the same tower broadcasting ATSC 3.0. Meaning most of these early ones will be a lighthouse situation where that tower is 3.0 ONLY, and their 1.0 signals will be broadcast from channel sharing on another station that's only 1.0 and the like.

So the old station would piggyback as a sub-channel on a sister, or as a sub-channel via agreement with a competitor's station, but it would cease being a .1 after it lites up its 3.0 tower?

 

[primestar31]

So the old station would piggyback as a sub-channel on a sister, or as a sub-channel via agreement with a competitor's station, but it would cease being a .1 after it lites up its 3.0 tower?

Almost, it would have to continue being a ATSC 1.0 signal as a .1 (or .2-?) for 5 years after the ATSC 3.0 signal lights up.

 

[navychop]

Using different RFs.

 

[Voyager6]

Kinda like operating two transmitters. A distinction without a difference.

Except the signal you receive will be crap due to bandwidth restrictions. Cramming multiple HD channel streams on a ATSC 1.0 channel is ridiculous.

 

[navychop]

I think that’s The Plan.

 

[osu1991]

Except the signal you receive will be crap due to bandwidth restrictions. Cramming multiple HD channel streams on a ATSC 1.0 channel is ridiculous.

HD....I doubt it. Probably 480p or only 1 HD

 

[Voyager6]

HD....I doubt it. Probably 480p or only 1 HD

So in many markets, the quality would go down from current levels.

 

[navychop]

Yes. And that might drive people to.....

The ATSC 3 folks are playing a long game.

 

[Voyager6]

Yes. And that might drive people to.....

The ATSC 3 folks are playing a long game.

That you would be unable to receive since there are no ATSC 3.0 tuners available.

 

[navychop]

Long game.

Start this year, start the five year ticker going. Get active about it in three years. Publicize then, and push STBs.

 

[N5XZS]

KRQE-DT, carrys 2 HD channels and 1 SD channel on a single ASTSC 1.0 on a rf channel 13.

 

[Voyager6]

Long game.

Start this year, start the five year ticker going. Get active about it in three years. Publicize then, and push STBs.

Or perhaps push those that still prefer OTA to go to streaming or pay TV due to crappy PQ. I predict an industry full court press of the FCC to MANDATE ATSC 3.0 adoption.

 

[navychop]

I’ve wondered about that. Never could understand why it wasn’t pushed already. I guess they figured the risk of losing all approval was too great.