Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout

[harshness]

You're right, ATSC is the broadcast standard. The change would be the compression algorithm.

As long as cable doesn't outpace whatever ATSC standard is in place, it doesn't really matter what they use. The fact that most operators require some manner of adapter now mitigates that concern. When was the last time you saw a CableCARD capable TV?

How many headends are currently compatible/capable of h265 compression is the question.

Probably none and that's okay.

If it's just a firmware update or will it require a hardware update?

You can't do compression or encryption in software at that level.

Will they simulcast ATSC 2.0 (the current 'standard') , along with 3.0, for say 5 yrs, to let the consumers existing equipment die a 'natural death'? While selling 3.0 compatible tv's to replace those. So the upgrade is transparent to the consumer.

ATSC is the current standard. ATSC 2.0 was never really visited. It was more about being two-way protocol and without ubiquitous broadband access, it isn't really all that exciting other than adding the possibility of advanced compression methods.

At the rate that modern TVs become undesirable, I don't think it would take all that long. The transition will always be painful... always.

QAM (Modulation) is used by cable because of it superior performance to multipath, over the modulation used by OTA (8VSB) (from what I've read) Where does cable experience multipath. you ask? Customer disconnects a television and leaves the jack open (unterminated) = signal reflection.

The attraction of QAM has nothing to do with multipath rejection. It is all about all frequencies being used and the efficiency of multiplexing. It is relatively useless to look at the relatively closed ecosystem of cable television with OTA issues as the primary concern.

 

[harshness]

Oh and I'll be a upset person. That UHF 8 Bay is a blessing and most of my stations are in the UHF zone. Oh if this happens keep the FCC away because I'll be one really mad individual and they don't wanna see that. I know I cannot control it but VHF sucks...

The World doesn't revolve around your beloved TV antenna. UHF has many undesirable properties as compared to VHF and few advantages. In the end, it seems likely that the FCC will sell off most of UHF as they're driven by things other than physics and making it easy for those who aren't regularly paying large sums for their bandwidth.

 

[jxg0754]

Oh and I'll be a upset person. That UHF 8 Bay is a blessing and most of my stations are in the UHF zone. Oh if this happens keep the FCC away because I'll be one really mad individual and they don't wanna see that. I know I cannot control it but VHF sucks...

Here is the one and only article on VHF with ATSC 3.0
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...-etri-tests-next-gen-terrestrial-broadcasting

 

[localclassictvfan]

Here is the one and only article on VHF with ATSC 3.0
http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...-etri-tests-next-gen-terrestrial-broadcasting

Thanks....I read it.....Crossing Fingers on this....

 

[localclassictvfan]

The World doesn't revolve around your beloved TV antenna. UHF has many undesirable properties as compared to VHF and few advantages. In the end, it seems likely that the FCC will sell off most of UHF as they're driven by things other than physics and making it easy for those who aren't regularly paying large sums for their bandwidth.

OK Whatever it is what it is.....I'll plan accordingly when this mess takes place...thank you.....

 

[harshness]

Here is the one and only article on VHF with ATSC 3.0

Hopefully they don't charge $100/tuner for the privilege of using the technology.

 

[localclassictvfan]

not that I've heard. All I've seen is the FCC offering $$$$ to stations in the UHF band to move to VHF Low or High. They are trying to chop off the upper part of UHF

Ice so basically the move is to offer money to the stations in the 15-69 or whatever channel they stopped at and move all them into the VHF Low/High. That would include some stations consolidating onto (or basically combining) another.
for Example.....taking WVLA NBC 33 (UHF 34) and combining it with WBRZ ABC 2 (VHF 13) (which has two subchannels 24 hour news/24 hour weather).
I know you mostly know how this works that's why I asked you. Thanks...

 

[Mr Tony]

I'm just going to chill and wait. Its not like this is going to be implemented in 3 months
I got time

 

[Mr Tony]

Ice so basically the move is to offer money to the stations in the 15-69 or whatever channel they stopped at and move all them into the VHF Low/High. That would include some stations consolidating onto (or basically combining) another.
for Example.....taking WVLA NBC 33 (UHF 34) and combining it with WBRZ ABC 2 (VHF 13) (which has two subchannels 24 hour news/24 hour weather).
I know you mostly know how this works that's why I asked you. Thanks...

They want to go down to channel 36 if I recall. So there would still be stations in the UHF Band just not as many. In larger markets this will be an issue but in smaller markets there will be plenty of room.

one option that has been thrown around is channel sharing where 2 stations would share a RF station and have split PSIP with the station having their "legacy" channel number. There are stations out there right now that do split PSIP.

 

[harshness]

Sorry, but it doesn't change anything. Very little 'in the wild' is h265 compatible today, or in the near future, in OTA reception devices.
They'll all, the ones that are not h265 capable, need to be scrapped and replaced with something that is capable.

It may be folly to assume that h.265 is practical for use in OTA applications. Most of the places that it is currently being used are ones with high data integrity at their core (the speed may not be constant but the data eventually gets through intact). If it doesn't survive an occasional drop-out it may prove unsuitable.

In order to insure maximum data integrity, VHF is the logical choice as it is less subject to interference and atmospheric issues.

 

[harshness]

Ice so basically the move is to offer money to the stations in the 15-69 or whatever channel they stopped at and move all them into the VHF Low/High.

UHF TV is currently capped at channel 50 (686-692MHz for new applications, 51 if station had an existing 692-698Mhz license). Until 1983, there were 82 usable TV frequencies. In 2009, that number dropped to 49 and in 2011, to 48.

If the math doesn't look right, it is because channel 1 doesn't exist and channel 37 is set aside for radio astronomy in the U.S. and its protectorates. I expect that this is where the channel 36 cap that Iceberg spoke of comes from.

 

[Mr Tony]

UHF TV is currently capped at channel 50 (686-692MHz for new applications, 51 if station had an existing 692-698Mhz license).

[
and even then most stations that were on 51 moved to other frequencies (mostly channel 50 if available)

 

[Trip]

I'm only aware of one that moved to channel 50, WJAR, and that was the only channel available there.

WPGD moved to 33.
KFXL moved to 15.
WEPX moved to 26.
KSBI moved to 23.
WWJX moved to 23.
WKEF moved to 18.
KCEB moved to 26.
KGAN moved to 29.
WLAJ moved to 25.
KOHD moved to 18.
WPXA moved to 31.
KPXE moved to 30.
KCEC moved to 26.
WFXG was granted a move to 31 but has yet to do so.
KPPX has petitioned to move to 31.
WSST has petitioned to move to 22.

(KWSE moved to 11 but that was before the transition and had nothing to do with the clearing of 51.)

- Trip

 

[localclassictvfan]

They want to go down to channel 36 if I recall. So there would still be stations in the UHF Band just not as many. In larger markets this will be an issue but in smaller markets there will be plenty of room.

one option that has been thrown around is channel sharing where 2 stations would share a RF station and have split PSIP with the station having their "legacy" channel number. There are stations out there right now that do split PSIP.

ok thanks a bunch.....looks like I'll be in that range with most of my stations....the only two I have over 36 is WGMB 44 (Nexstar) and KLWB 50 (Delta Media) and both media groups own multiple stations in the market. So I am covered both ways thanks...appreciate it....

 

[Mr Tony]

KLAF 46 too

 

[jxg0754]

Hopefully they don't charge $100/tuner for the privilege of using the technology.

I would think since ATSC 3.0 is IP based there will be no more multiple tuners but should be able to handle multiple IP based channels

 

[harshness]

I would think since ATSC 3.0 is IP based there will be no more multiple tuners but should be able to handle multiple IP based channels

Live ATSC 3.0 broadcast is not IP based. The non-live and return channel aspects are IP based but the regular content will follow the same basic ATSC model with some new modulation and compression schemes. They cannot reasonably forsake those who don't have an always-on broadband Internet connection and they wouldn't want to stream independently to thousands of customers; that defeats the purpose of OTA.

Contrary to the mostly erroneous information on websites like cutcabletoday.com, ATSC is still a channel-based system with extensions for interactivity, finding out what we're watching and sending customized advertising.

 

[jxg0754]

Live ATSC 3.0 broadcast is not IP based. The non-live and return channel aspects are IP based but the regular content will follow the same basic ATSC model with some new modulation and compression schemes. They cannot reasonably forsake those who don't have an always-on broadband Internet connection and they wouldn't want to stream independently to thousands of customers; that defeats the purpose of OTA.

Contrary to the mostly erroneous information on websites like cutcabletoday.com, ATSC is still a channel-based system with extensions for interactivity, finding out what we're watching and sending customized advertising.

Are you sure?
What does this article say? http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/nab-cta-pubcasters-ask-fcc-for-voluntary-atsc-30/278460

 

[Trip]

Live ATSC 3.0 broadcast is not IP based. The non-live and return channel aspects are IP based but the regular content will follow the same basic ATSC model with some new modulation and compression schemes. They cannot reasonably forsake those who don't have an always-on broadband Internet connection and they wouldn't want to stream independently to thousands of customers; that defeats the purpose of OTA.

Contrary to the mostly erroneous information on websites like cutcabletoday.com, ATSC is still a channel-based system with extensions for interactivity, finding out what we're watching and sending customized advertising.

Not sure where you're getting your information from, but it is incorrect. ATSC 3.0 is IP-based. IP-based does not mean an Internet connection is required and does not mean individual streaming is required. For the former, I can easily stream video through my home IP network from my computer to my TV even when the Internet is down. For the latter, IP protocols do work with multicast, just that most equipment on the public Internet doesn't support it properly. There's even a whole range of IP addresses reserved exclusively for multicast, see here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml

ATSC-M/H was also IP based.

- Trip

 

[localclassictvfan]

KLAF 46 too

Yeah thanks forgot about my favorite lil buddy from nexstar. They did a good job on their newsteam. I met 2 of them last week.