Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout

Toggle sidebar
jxg0754 said:
What no talk about those two devices on new egg and no more Wi-Max talk that says exactly the type of person you are?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're going on about a Ethernet to USB adapter and a NAS and expecting a thoughtful reply when the topic is TV broadcast.

Assuming the links were relevant, are the devices cheaper than a built-in Ethernet port or an internal SATA drive? Are they faster? Are they more reliable? Are they easier to install and maintain? My argument was that you could do things with disparate components connected by CAT5 and a relatively high overhead communications protocol, but why?

I used Wi-MAX as an example of a technology that was all the buzz in February 2009 and now it is mostly forgotten. Wi-MAX was trying address an expressed need for widespread broadband in a market where a number of incumbent technologies existed. I see ATSC 3.0 fighting a very similar battle in the presence of ATSC 1.0, cable, satellite and IPTV.
George Santayana said:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Click to expand...

The link with the CBS exec echoing some of my arguments doesn't strike me as a serious burn. There are many questions to answer and "why" and "to what end" (the business plan) are very high on the list. Answers to questions about what can be done are important and often exciting but they rarely satisfy those who looking primarily for a big Return On Investment. For good and bad, it is the business executives who make the decisions, not the engineers or the viewers.
 
Well at least 10 station groups are for ATSC 3.0,
Gray Televison which is aquireing Schurz Communications
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/83478/gray-bullish-on-ma-atsc-30-spectrum
Pearl TV which involves Cox Media Group, the E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co. Inc., Graham Media Group, Hearst Television Inc., Media General Inc., Meredith Local Media Group, and Raycom Media
http://atsc.org/newsletter/pearl-tv-now-a-word-from-our-sponsor/
It's well know Sinclair is for ATSC 3.0
Even Tribune allowed their tower to be used in cleveland twice on two different channels, which they still had their old Ch. 31 antenna with Gates Air and their auxilary antenna tuned to Ch. 9 which was by the NAB
Gates Air Futurecast ATSC 3.0 Test http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/technology/futurecast-preps-cleveland-atsc-30-test/139406
Cleveland VHF Test http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/engl...-etri-tests-next-gen-terrestrial-broadcasting

The why question is cute so is the fact that CBS also owns some Cable TV Networks and also get's paid retrans fees not just for their cable networks but their own TV stations plus affiliate stations,
Plus the Cable,Satellite, and the Telco IPTV's complaints about the retrans fees, Oh and here's a warning from NBC affiliates not the Network http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/93876/nbc-affils-warn-fcc-of-sports-migration
Talk about a hypocrisy

No Talk about LTE but talk about Wi-Max Why?
Will ATSC 3.0 provide a better signal? bandwidth? picture quality? Why will ATSC 3.0 fight a similar battle like Wi-Max? Why is it even being put out for public comment?
What's AWARN http://awarn.org/
 
The point isn't to see how many links you can post but to follow each through to a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion for most large media conglomerates is almost certainly to be able to monetize their free bandwidth. Is that what we, as consumers, should be excited about? To ascribe the position of the parent company at the station level probably isn't fair to the station operators.

As for support of the technology, Cisco is listed as a highly placed participant in pretty much everything digital (including ATSC 3.0 and DIRECTV's RVU) but they don't really have a dog in any of those fights (not yet anyway).
 
jxg0754 said:
We'll see how it plays out then, Have a nice day
Click to expand...
May we all live long enough to see the next TV broadcast standard (or an extension of the existing standard) implemented. Without government mandates (remembering that we're not alone on this planet and CE marketplace), it could be a rather long time.
 
harshness said:
May we all live long enough to see the next TV broadcast standard (or an extension of the existing standard) implemented. Without government mandates (remembering that we're not alone on this planet and CE marketplace), it could be a rather long time.
Click to expand...

Well technically more than one marketplace if you count other equipment that uses TV spectrum like the medical industry, plus the repacking of the TV band, and all that hard work on AWARN
 
jxg0754 said:
Well technically more than one marketplace if you count other equipment that uses TV spectrum like the medical industry, plus the repacking of the TV band, and all that hard work on AWARN
Click to expand...
I think this argument is mostly a red herring. How the bandwidth is used on one channel (multiplexing schemes) doesn't much impact how it is used on other channels; the coexistence argument demands that ATSC and ATSC 3.0 work together. That the FCC is squeezing the life out of the TV band is a foregone conclusion.

AWARN depends on mobile/portable devices having TV tuners and antennas and I'm dubious that is workable (especially after all the pushback I've seen regarding the utility of FM radio in wireless phones; one of the existing theories on reaching such devices).
 
harshness said:
I think this argument is mostly a red herring. How the bandwidth is used on one channel (multiplexing schemes) doesn't much impact how it is used on other channels; the coexistence argument demands that ATSC and ATSC 3.0 work together. That the FCC is squeezing the life out of the TV band is a foregone conclusion.

AWARN depends on mobile/portable devices having TV tuners and antennas and I'm dubious that is workable (especially after all the pushback I've seen regarding the utility of FM radio in wireless phones; one of the existing theories on reaching such devices).
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion and I am trying to understand more of what you are saying,
With your opinion and how bandwidth is used on one channel (multiplexing schemes) doesn't impact how it's used on other channels and ATSC 1.0/3.0 work together,
Are you saying 3.0 must be backwards compatible or they do not interfere with each other?
Is the How bandwidth is used on a channel doesn't impact other channels is that a 1.0 or 3.0 question of course 1.0 would be 19.37 mbps right? If 3.0 is being described are you talking about the channels choice of payload (bandwidth) QPSK constellation's?
Now you did say the argument was a red herring, The FCC is squeezing the life out of the TV band, and AWARN depends on mobile/portable devices having a TV turner and antenna's and your dubious that it is workable, What should hospitals and doctor offices and medical equipment manufactures do with current equipment and future equipment since they work in the TV band and must have a TV Tuner in your opinion?
 
jxg0754 said:
With your opinion and how bandwidth is used on one channel (multiplexing schemes) doesn't impact how it's used on other channels and ATSC 1.0/3.0 work together,
Are you saying 3.0 must be backwards compatible or they do not interfere with each other?
Click to expand...
I quite literally said the opposite of what you're suggesting. Outside of adjacent channel interference, it doesn't much matter what modulation scheme they put where. The issue is that if there has to be two schemes coexisting to serve both technologies, that's going to require more bandwidth, not less.
Now you did say the argument was a red herring, The FCC is squeezing the life out of the TV band, and AWARN depends on mobile/portable devices having a TV turner and antenna's and your dubious that it is workable, What should hospitals and doctor offices and medical equipment manufactures do with current equipment and future equipment since they work in the TV band and must have a TV Tuner in your opinion?
Click to expand...
It isn't necessary to expand on/restate what I said in the form of a question. Just pretend I meant what I said and address the issue(s) I raise.

If AWARN depends on ATSC 3.0 TV band tuners and capable antennas, how will they be implemented in what is ostensibly replacing conventional portable/mobile radios (tablets, wireless phones and music players)?

AWARN isn't about communications within hospitals and private practices, it is offered as a replacement/supplement for the Emergency Alert System that currently uses radio and TV broadcasts to disseminate news and information to the general public.
 
harshness said:
I quite literally said the opposite of what you're suggesting. Outside of adjacent channel interference, it doesn't much matter what modulation scheme they put where. The issue is that if there has to be two schemes coexisting to serve both technologies, that's going to require more bandwidth, not less.It isn't necessary to expand on/restate what I said in the form of a question. Just pretend I meant what I said and address the issue(s) I raise.

If AWARN depends on ATSC 3.0 TV band tuners and capable antennas, how will they be implemented in what is ostensibly replacing conventional portable/mobile radios (tablets, wireless phones and music players)?

AWARN isn't about communications within hospitals and private practices, it is offered as a replacement/supplement for the Emergency Alert System that currently uses radio and TV broadcasts to disseminate news and information to the general public.
Click to expand...

So what you are trying to say is ATSC 3.0 and 1.0 need to co exist, and by bandwidth you feel more channels will be needed is that correct?
I've seen a few numbers floating around with ATSC 3.0 as far as channel capacity 1) 57 Mbps link here http://www.tvtechnology.com/expertise/0003/the-atsc-30-physical-layerbootstrap-basics/277638
2) 117.75 Mbps to come to that conclusion I to use a calculator if this site is correct about the bandwidth of 3.0 in the USA it just listed an 8 mhz channel not s 6 mhz channel
link here http://www.enensys.com/technologies/atsc-3.0-overview.html
Another article seems to pretty much back up the second calculation where it was said "You basically have a six times multiplier in the video capacity of that channel using 3.0"
link here http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/hpa-2016-broadcasters-hdr-yea-4k-meh/277969
HEVC is one of the video compression formats that will be a part of ATSC 3.0 which is way more efficent than MPEG 2

It seems we both have had a few misunderstanding
With Medical Equipment after the first DTV transition was limited to channel 37 according to one article/statement from the FDA http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm062280.htm
I wasn't stating that AWARN was about communications with hospitals or private practices(doctors offices) but like that matters with that article/statement from the FDA
Even saying red herring and squeezing the life out of the TV band have been erased

This article/press release may also help on how the mobile part of 3.0 will most likley work it's been a bit since specifics have been talked about
http://www.gatesair.com/media-cente...rates-over-the-air-broadcasting-and-lte-a-con
 
This may be a dumb question, but what makes a VHF-Hi antenna different than a full VHF antenna? So many of the antennas sold today are only listed as VHF-Hi, so would people who own those antennas be out of luck if networks end up moving from UHF to the low VHF spectrum?
 
jxg0754 said:
So what you are trying to say is ATSC 3.0 and 1.0 need to co exist, and by bandwidth you feel more channels will be needed is that correct?
Click to expand...
I stated that quite plainly. No need to confirm, restate or misinterpret. The concept of running the two independent systems in parallel is being promoted by the consortium as an alternative to a government mandate. That means that on top of what's there now, ATSC 3.0 will take its own piece of the pie while the FCC independently seeks to make the pie smaller.

Perhaps rather than trying to restate what I'm saying, you would be better served to read and comprehend all the many links that you're posting.
It seems we both have had a few misunderstanding
Click to expand...
Not at all. As I stated earlier in the thread, channel 37 is the radio astronomy channel. Whether or not the medical community wants to hijack it for another purpose is a separate issue from television broadcast and has absolutely no connection to AWARN. There was a push to turn over some VHF low at one time to "emergency services" but I'm not sure where that went.
With Medical Equipment after the first DTV transition was limited to channel 37 according to one article/statement from the FDA http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm062280.htm
I wasn't stating that AWARN was about communications with hospitals or private practices(doctors offices) but like that matters with that article/statement from the FDA
Click to expand...
If you meant channel 37 or whatever the medical community believes they are entitled to, why are you harping on AWARN? They are entirely different systems. The misunderstanding and faulty connection are your's and your's alone.
Even saying red herring and squeezing the life out of the TV band have been erased
Click to expand...
Supporting two independent standards operating in parallel does NOT "erase" (ease) any congestion. The stations using ATSC cannot share bandwidth with those using ATSC 3.0. Narrowing the operating band by lopping off channels at the top or bottom does not make more bandwidth available just as adding new stations to the mix doesn't mitigate the crush.

Only after the transition to a new standard is substantially completed (and I can't imagine how that might be decided) can the existing bandwidth be reclaimed.
 
CubsWin said:
This may be a dumb question, but what makes a VHF-Hi antenna different than a full VHF antenna? So many of the antennas sold today are only listed as VHF-Hi, so would people who own those antennas be out of luck if networks end up moving from UHF to the low VHF spectrum?
Click to expand...
VHF low antennas have longer elements necessary to capture the longer wavelengths of the lower frequencies. Absent those longer elements (or an engineered equivalent) the performance is not very good.

The real issue is that the antenna marketing people associated UHF with Digital Television (calling them Digital or HD antennas) and those with these aerials run a pretty good likelihood of suffering as the upper channels get auctioned off and the stations are forced to lower frequencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
With Channel 37 link from The FDA did you even read the date?

Was this your harping and your's and your's alone
harshness said:
I think this argument is mostly a red herring. How the bandwidth is used on one channel (multiplexing schemes) doesn't much impact how it is used on other channels; the coexistence argument demands that ATSC and ATSC 3.0 work together. That the FCC is squeezing the life out of the TV band is a foregone conclusion.

AWARN depends on mobile/portable devices having TV tuners and antennas and I'm dubious that is workable (especially after all the pushback I've seen regarding the utility of FM radio in wireless phones; one of the existing theories on reaching such devices).
Click to expand...

How is the transtion to 1.0 different from 3.0 other than some major station groups have proposed a voluntary transition 3.0 has more bandwidth with more efficent video compression and does not even interfere with 1.0,

1.0 stations do not need to share bandwidth with 3.0 stations what is being proposed for the trasition to 3.0 is one or a few stations will switch to 3.0 and one or a few stations will carry those stations with 1.0 in that market
The explaination is that both 1.0 stations and 3.0 stations will broadcast each other
Check out what Harmonic was able to do with this station http://harmonicinc.com/news/harmoni...and-video-quality-kwhy-tv-preparation-atsc-30
Yeah thats right One HD and Seven SD subs
1.0 stations can work together with new encoders and PSIP just like the stations that are transmitting 3.0
 
jxg0754 said:
How is the transtion to 1.0 different from 3.0 other than some major station groups have proposed a voluntary transition 3.0 has more bandwidth with more efficent video compression and does not even interfere with 1.0,
Click to expand...
The difference is that there will be a lot less channels available to begin with. Upon completion of the DTV transition, 18 channels were wacked from the top of the TV band. It seems likely that more will be removed one way or the other (I'm thinking VHF low) in the not too distant future. At the same time, quite a few more subchannels have appeared so the net bandwidth usage hasn't gone down. In my market, channel consumption has actually gone up by two channels.
1.0 stations do not need to share bandwidth with 3.0 stations what is being proposed for the trasition to 3.0 is one or a few stations will switch to 3.0 and one or a few stations will carry those stations with 1.0 in that market
The explaination is that both 1.0 stations and 3.0 stations will broadcast each other
Click to expand...
This where the lie happens. The standards absolutely do have to share the bandwidth pie. Because ATSC 3.0 is substantially incompatible with ATSC 1.0, the ATSC 1.0 stations don't change anything and, at least initially, consume the same bandwidth that they do today. ATSC 3.0, in order to drive adoption, must duplicate all of the same programming using bandwidth that isn't currently in use. This takes additional bandwidth out of a smaller pie than the previous transition. Many of the compression and modulation efficiencies will be eaten up by additional services that are added to make ATSC 3.0 attractive.

At 2:1 savings, it is 50% more bandwidth than we're using now. It doesn't matter one iota how the stations cooperate as at least initially, they will be two separate systems independently broadcasting all the same content in a TV band that is at best 27% smaller now than it was seven years ago. At some point, they'll start removing subchannels from ATSC 1.0, but without a mandate, how is that cut-off timed?

While you may have been hoodwinked by elegant answers to a few key questions, the public is a huge mass that moves very slowly when it comes to their TV content (look how long it took VHS to die and how slowly Blu-ray has progressed). The people won't adopt a new standard based on promises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddice
Trip said:
That deadline was postponed until 12 months after the repacking period ends.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem like much of a date certain.

In any event, LP analog doesn't have much to do with a future modulation scheme (or a replacement for the EAS for that matter).

I was reading more about the public safety spectrum today and it is apparent that I was assuming the wrong band. The PSS is to come out of low UHF (14-20) whacking seven channels out of the middle of TV band pie. It appears that "Public Safety" isn't going to give up until they've consumed the entire TV band. At some point, someone is going to have to call baloney on all of these resources being committed 24/7/365 to "emergencies".

There are deadlines built into the "Spectrum Act" that appear quite impossible to meet.

Check out the PBS video about how the repack is supposed to go (the last of the three videos):

http://www.cpb.org/spectrum

Pretty frightening stuff.
 
M

Sometimes bigger isnt always better......and higher isnt always better

  • Mr Tony
  • Replies: 6
M

Riddle me this.........

  • Mr Tony
  • Replies: 47

Similar threads

N5XZS
More news on ATSC 3.0...
Replies
20
Views
2K
Justin Hill
Justin Hill
N5XZS
    • Like
ATSC 3.0 testing groups
Replies
4
Views
714
Teehar
Teehar
dweber
    • Like
Dave Arland Interview on ATSC 3.0
Replies
1
Views
467
FTA4PA
FTA4PA
Scott Greczkowski
    • Like
Interactive ATSC 3.0 Comes to CT
Replies
18
Views
1K
Trip
Trip
Mister B
    • Like
El Paso ATSC 3.0
Replies
3
Views
1K
Mister B
Mister B

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back