I would have guessed that the bandwidth is the same as the old NTSC channel. ATSC3 should be just a better way of compressing the data within that 19.8Mbps.
Best HD picture
- Thread starter Falcon195
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 58
- Views 4K
I would have guessed that the bandwidth is the same as the old NTSC channel. ATSC3 should be just a better way of compressing the data within that 19.8Mbps.
There's a thread going on the OTA forum that says its closer to 36 mbps, but still no confirmation of that.
So much for my guess.
From Wikipedia:Did I learn my lesson. No! I am now guessing that it's the OFDM that allows this magic.
I know he is. But the repack has no relation to how many diginets will be forced into a channel.
A "channel" (whether NTSC, ATSC 1.0, or ATSC 3.0) is 6Mhz wide. The repack doesn't change this. Channels will still be 6Mhz wide, they will just be all below channel 37. The repack doesn't give any more bandwidth.
ATSC 1.0 allows for 19.39Mb/second inside that 6Mhz channel. Again, the repack doesn't change that.
The number I've heard for ATSC 3.0 is ~25-27Mb/second. So you get a slightly bigger "pipe", but also better compression. Therefore, you can put more data through ATSC3.0. That can be 4k, multiple HD, crapton of SD, or other data that folks are still figuring out (how about targeted ads delivered OTA? or stats for a sporting event that the viewer can decide to call up?).
I’ve had both and give DirecTV a slight PQ edge. The Hopper is a much better DVR and DishAnywhere a much better mobile app though. This no HBO is starting to get to me though. I may change when I contract is up to play the price game. May try my local cable company I got Dish when I moved over four years ago because at the time they didn’t have a multi room DVR option.
I suspect that will change when Directv goes to mpeg4 for the 101 satellite.I've got both now and on some channels DirecTV HD is a tiny bit better and on some channels DISH HD is a tiny bit better. Overall IMHO it's a wash.
Now SD is a different story with DISH having the clear upper hand.
It will in larger markets where the number of diginets far exceeds the number of available channels.
Am I the only person around here who hates the word "diginets"? That word is right up there with "interwebs".
No. I just regurgitated the term already being used.
Stations and channels.
Stations and channels.
There's a difference between "expected" and "is". The number I'm hearing that is practical/realistic is ~25. Honestly, I'm hoping you're right.
As far as I know, no channel was forced to shutdown. Some chose to.
I think the word is supposed to mean different networks on the subchannel of a main channel. But a lot of the time, the subchannels are all just subchannels of the main channel and not somebody else's network. Why not just call it a subchnanel and cover both cases? It has the same number of syllables.
That's because I expressed my thought so badly.
Let's take my local PBS station which has a main channel and 3 subchannels. One of their subchannels is WETA-UK, which runs BBC programming. I would call only that channel, WETA-UK, a "diginet". The rest are all PBS (sub) channels.Why not use "subchannel" for all of them?
Last edited:
Yes, like San Francisco where major stations will be sharing digital channels right along with their sub-channels.
I think PBS is the exception. When someone says "diginets", I picture a "non standard"/niche network. Ie: Laff, Bounce, MeTV, MyTV, etc. All diginets are subchannels, but not all subchannels are diginets.That's because I expressed my thought so badly.
Similar threads
