If I recall correctly, the DTV Delay Act of 2009 came in part as a result of a Nielsen Research "completely unready" statistic of significantly less than 10% (five million households).
BREAKING NEWS: FCC Approves Next-Gen TV for OTA Broadcasting
- Thread starter larrykenney
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 168
- Views 14K
And look how messed up the DTV transition was, still is - they are trying to do a reboot with ATSC 3.0.
Let's see, the internet for the last 20 years, the Apple iPhone when the government finally freed up bandwidth after land line phone companies had lobbied the FCC for years to keep it locked up, most modern technological development is free market inspired. All government does is bow to special interests and impede progress.
Possibly relevant article below.
ACA Threatens Reconsideration Petition on ATSC 3.0 Authorization
WASHINGTON—The American Cable Association today advised the Federal Communications Commission it will keep a watchful eye on broadcasters to find instances during retransmission negotiations in which broadcasters demand its members carry their ATSC 3.0 signals and promised to file a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC order authorizing next-gen OTA TV transmission if they do.
In an ex parte letter sent, ACA SVP Ross Lieberman noted that over the next month “a substantial majority” of the association’s small and mid-sized cable operators will be renegotiating retransmission agreements. The ACA has 30 days from when the Order is published in the Federal Register to submit the petition to reconsider and will file the reconsideration petition if ATSC 3.0 carriage is a demand, he wrote.
“We hope, however, that broadcasters will show some measure of restraint, at least while the period for reconsideration remains pending,” Lieberman said in the letter.
During the proceeding authorizing ATSC 3.0 transmission, the ACA and the American Television Alliance (ATA) contended that negotiations for first-time ATSC 3.0 carriage should remain separate from retransmission negotiations. Doing so would “make the ATSC 3.0 transition truly ‘voluntary,’” he wrote.
However, Lieberman wrote there is “evidence showing that broadcasters are already[emphasis Lieberman’s] seeking ATSC 3.0 carriage” in retransmission negotiations.
The ACA senior vice president pointed to an Oct. 25 ex parte letter filed with the agency by Michael Nilsson, an attorney with the Washington D.C. law firm of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP. In that letter, Nilsson wrote: “The ATVA representatives each reported that broadcasters already seek to require carriage of ATSC 3.0 in recent retransmission consent negotiations.”
Further, Nilsson noted that during an Oct. 23 meeting with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Brendan Carr, Chip McDonald of Cable ONE and Melisa Ordonez of Dish said “that nearly all broadcaster contract offers received in recent months have sought ATSC 3.0 carriage.”
In his letter, Liebermann referenced a statement from FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly that an attempt by broadcasters to make the transition to ATSC 3.0 involuntary “’could violate the obligation for broadcasters to negotiate in good faith.’’
Liebermann wrote : “Because the Commission chose not to adopt new rules preventing forced carriage of ATSC 3.0, broadcasters may now feel more liberated to make such demands,” particularly of ACA members, which are typically smaller and “susceptible to broadcast coercion….”
The NAB declined to comment.
ACA Threatens Reconsideration Petition on ATSC 3.0 Authorization
WASHINGTON—The American Cable Association today advised the Federal Communications Commission it will keep a watchful eye on broadcasters to find instances during retransmission negotiations in which broadcasters demand its members carry their ATSC 3.0 signals and promised to file a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC order authorizing next-gen OTA TV transmission if they do.
In an ex parte letter sent, ACA SVP Ross Lieberman noted that over the next month “a substantial majority” of the association’s small and mid-sized cable operators will be renegotiating retransmission agreements. The ACA has 30 days from when the Order is published in the Federal Register to submit the petition to reconsider and will file the reconsideration petition if ATSC 3.0 carriage is a demand, he wrote.
“We hope, however, that broadcasters will show some measure of restraint, at least while the period for reconsideration remains pending,” Lieberman said in the letter.
During the proceeding authorizing ATSC 3.0 transmission, the ACA and the American Television Alliance (ATA) contended that negotiations for first-time ATSC 3.0 carriage should remain separate from retransmission negotiations. Doing so would “make the ATSC 3.0 transition truly ‘voluntary,’” he wrote.
However, Lieberman wrote there is “evidence showing that broadcasters are already[emphasis Lieberman’s] seeking ATSC 3.0 carriage” in retransmission negotiations.
The ACA senior vice president pointed to an Oct. 25 ex parte letter filed with the agency by Michael Nilsson, an attorney with the Washington D.C. law firm of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP. In that letter, Nilsson wrote: “The ATVA representatives each reported that broadcasters already seek to require carriage of ATSC 3.0 in recent retransmission consent negotiations.”
Further, Nilsson noted that during an Oct. 23 meeting with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Brendan Carr, Chip McDonald of Cable ONE and Melisa Ordonez of Dish said “that nearly all broadcaster contract offers received in recent months have sought ATSC 3.0 carriage.”
In his letter, Liebermann referenced a statement from FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly that an attempt by broadcasters to make the transition to ATSC 3.0 involuntary “’could violate the obligation for broadcasters to negotiate in good faith.’’
Liebermann wrote : “Because the Commission chose not to adopt new rules preventing forced carriage of ATSC 3.0, broadcasters may now feel more liberated to make such demands,” particularly of ACA members, which are typically smaller and “susceptible to broadcast coercion….”
The NAB declined to comment.
The ACA is pissed because the FCC said in its last ruling on ATSC 3.0 that retrans agreements don’t apply when a station moved to a light keeping tower. Basically if a station went ATSC 3.0 it would be on the station to renegotiate an agreement and they are not going to force an agreement even on must carry’s. The FCC also said it wouldn’t force MVP’s (motion video providers) to negotiate rights on ATSC 3.0 channels and also left that up to the stations. Thats why this statement went out.
Sorry spell check. Tesla may be loosing money but there valuation more than makes up for it. If it was such a horrible company it wouldn’t be values at 58.7 billion. They do much more than the car segment. I was talking about their solar, space x and now hyper-loop project. Also look at all of the space company’s that are now doing things more efficiently than what the government did. Does the government have reusable rockets? How about the fact the government now leases space on private corporation rockets to supply the ISS. The moral of the story is there are plenty of ways private business can do a better job when the government doesn’t mandate.
For anyone to say that the wins are fewer is greatly inaccurate. They are missing out on this point.
Here are the most exciting capabilities promised by ATSC 3.0:
Ultra High Def
ATSC 3.0 will deliver 4K Ultra HD and High Dynamic Range (HDR) picture quality.
Better Reception
It will provide more robust reception Over-the-Air and a greater selection of content/channels.
Mobility
Like your Tablo OTA DVR does today, Over-the-Air next-gen TV signals will be re-transmitted within your home to WiFi-enabled devices like tablets, smartphones, set-top-boxes, and even Smart TVs.
Better Audio
ASTC 3.0 will use a new audio codec (Dolby AC-4) that will send ultra-high quality audio with lower bandwidth requirements and allow you to switch between multiple audio/language tracks.
Advanced Emergency Alerts
The advanced emergency alerting functionality of ATSC 3.0 will provide live video updates, escape route maps, and other detailed location-based information.
In-Car TV
ATSC 3.0 will offer an efficient way to deliver data and content to moving vehicles, including rear-seat entertainment and updates for telematics and navigation systems.
For cord cutters, the best news is that OTA signals will be stronger with ATSC 3.0 than today’s digital broadcast TV and will propagate over greater distances and deeper into buildings.
As long as it is obvious that the FCC isn't unanimous in its rulings and decisions, what we're seeing is what only a portion of the committee believes. There are two members who have been regularly offering decidedly differing opinions.
I remember a certain forum operator than made some thinly veiled references to a certain four letter sports network being on DIRECTV's RADAR. If you build it, they have the choice of backing out. Support<>deliverables.
There are entire categories of theories that have yet to be proven in practice. My market is one of the testbeds for cellular ATSC 3.0.
Mobile is perhaps the most poorly understood capabilities and I suspect the reality won't be any better than what you can get today with the TABLO or the Channel Master network tuners.
This assumes that broad support of AC-4 happens in various audio devices. AFAIK, nothing older than the 2017 model year supports AC-4 and not all of the 2017 gear has it.
While important in some areas, I think there's been far too much hype heaped on this feature. There's also some question of how well it will work with outboard tuners if the TV is turned off.
Radio Shack went down this path previously and it didn't tickle many fancies.
Who promised that? The FCC demands that the reach must be comparable to DTV.
What ATSC 3.0 delivers is what is important. Technology demonstrations don't mean squat if there's no consumer interest.
Agree with most everything you say, Harshness. As for availabilityof support in current equipment, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose of all these advancements is to get consumers to throw away their current equipment and repurchase top to bottom. Been that way since the hifi craze of the 1950s.
Sure, that doesnt mean that they cant find other providers. There is much more in the world of 4K going on but the negative nancy's dont seem to care about that.
Actually, they have been proven. Again, Korea, and all of the test stations here in the US. If something was wrong as you say it is, we wouldn't be seeing hole markets moving to ATSC 3.0.
What you suspect and what is really is two very different things. I got to see mobile ATSC 3.0 at NAB last year and it worked really well from the Las Vegas Test site. Also, your market was a low power class a station test.
The goal of the test is to study the propagation characteristics of the signal in mountainous terrain, its capacity to deliver multiple data streams as well as TV programming in multiple formats and to test the benefits of multiple frequencies, and the robustness of delivery to mobile devices.
You conveniently also forget to mention that the majority of the gear can be upgraded via firmware updates through the web for the past 5 years leaving an upgrade path for AC-4 support. You don't need hardware chips to support and decode every codec.
The government doesn't think so as that's what they requested.
That's on the manufacturers of the devices themselves and not in control of the broadcasters. You get what you pay for.
Again we go back to the interest in technology as it's clear that there is a strong interest in 4k. Example Xbox one X. Surpassing all expectations.
What are those differing opinions? Toss the whole thing out? Start over? Delete/add certain features?
So where is all linear UHD going to come from? We must not confuse the broad/cable/satcasters with the networks that they carry! The broadcasters can promise all the magical TV they want but they may have to produce it on their own (as DIRECTV has apparently been forced to do).
While a couple of large station ownership trusts appear to be poised to launch, there are a lot of other owners and owner groups that seem to be much less motivated. The cable companies seem to be lining up on the side of a Next-Gen-TV-free future -- probably because they'd love to see the end of OTA.
We haven't seen a single market migrate to ATSC 3.0 (even in South Korea where there's room to run multiple standards concurrently). I'd want to see something significantly more than the testing done to date. It sounds like the FCC wants to see more too given their monitoring requirements.
I suggest that you would do well to either show how South Korea is representative of any US market or stop using them as a poor example.
Specially contrived proofs of concept should not be construed as tests of full deployment. Reality is where these things have to live, not in a carefully controlled environment with prototype gear.
That depends largely on the modulation scheme and how flexible the chipsets are. My five year old mid-line Onkyo AVR can do DD+ and 9.x but it can't do Atmos or AC-4 with or without a firmware update. Below a certain level (including most sound bars), the hardware isn't there even with 2017 models.
It isn't clear to me. What's clear to me is that there is excitement about HDR and WCG but the content providers clearly aren't convinced that 2160p is something they want to deliver linearly.
A new Xbox is going to sell well regardless of how successful UHD TV viewing is or might become. That the Xbox UHD TV viewing experience is entirely non-linear doesn't support the need for linear UHD.
This would all be a lot easier to discuss if it were known where in the timeline this Next-Gen TV thing were to be deployed and whether it will be limited to markets that have room in their broadcast TV spectra. We must never lose sight of the fact that DTV is the current gubmint mandate and it is soon to be initiating a repack that will remove a significant amount of bandwidth from the OTA band. The timing for ATSC 3.0 will likely at least be difficult as DTV will remain the industry standard until a large majority of consumers have voluntarily given up on it. My market has four ATSC 3.0 test channels that you referenced (all operated by WatchTV) set aside but none of them is powerful enough to reach me.
It is great to be excited by the possibilities of ATSC 3.0 but somewhere along the line, the pudding has to set and I'm not convinced there's a plan in place that each and every station subscribes to.
I hope you'll agree that no matter what the broadcasters want to do and what promises they've made, the Next-Gen transition will go nowhere without support from both the networks (in the form of improved content) and the viewers.
ATSC 3.0 standards released.
ATSC Releases ATSC 3.0 Digital TV Standards Suite: Over-The-Air Meets Over-The-Top
ATSC Releases ATSC 3.0 Digital TV Standards Suite: Over-The-Air Meets Over-The-Top
If you set aside the many immutable laws of Physics, many things are doable and perhaps even trivial. Since Physics isn't going away, I call hogwash on 2160p120 on content where it might make a difference.
It is also important to note that while most of the rest of the world (including any existing content in South Korea) will be encoding their audio in MPEG-H, North America will be using Dolby AC-4. It has to be one or the other and they aren't compatible.
It is also important to note that while most of the rest of the world (including any existing content in South Korea) will be encoding their audio in MPEG-H, North America will be using Dolby AC-4. It has to be one or the other and they aren't compatible.
The article still doesn’t say anything about what the range of a 3.0 signal will be. That’s one of my biggest curiosities.
The coverage area is what they must cover and that's supposed to overlap the repacked coverage area of each station. If you're wanting DX, all bets are off. The repack will necessarily reign in the reach of some stations for DXing purposes as they'll have to protect stations that are closer to you using the same frequencies (perhaps twice as likely after the repack since they seem to be avoiding VHF-low like the plague). If there are big expanses in your area (as there are in Eastern Oregon) where there's lots of frequencies to go around, then some may reach further.
In either case, it probably doesn't have as much to do with the modulation scheme as it does insuring that there's no interference and that's more or less a repack issue.
Range does not depend on encoding method or whether it is ATSC 1.0 or ATSC 3.0 or even NTSC.
An RF carrier wave is an RF carrier wave is an RF carrier wave.
And a hill blocking your signal is still blocking your signal.
An RF carrier wave is an RF carrier wave is an RF carrier wave.
And a hill blocking your signal is still blocking your signal.
True, but before ATSC 1.0 the analog stations had far better reception.
Not better reception, just a gradual slide into nothingness versus a near perfect picture that terminated at the digital cliff.
I miss the analog days. Not for the picture quality but the fact that I could tune in a lot more channels. Better DX’ing.
