Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout
- Thread starter jxg0754
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 131
- Views 13K
No ATSC 3.0 is like ATSC 1.0 to analog
reheat a red herring, are you contradicting yourself?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/contradict?s=t
Last edited:
The digital translation was a real mess. It was supposed to move from the VHF Hi/Low to UHF Hi/Low with some of the UHF High band going away. The transmission power was set too low for many stations and had to be reallocated. Then stations were allowed back on the VHF/High and later VHF/Low bands. It was totally screwed up by the FCC. Now the FCC wants to revisit it and repack the UHF/Low band after letting all those stations migrate away from UHF just a few years ago? If there wasn't enough space in many markets back then, where is the space going to come from now?
Because NTSC was still around when ATSC was being phased in. You can't just turn a selector switch to change broadcast frequencies. Supposedly the auction proceeds go at least partially to subsidizing the conversion costs to move to different frequencies.
This auction and repacked was designed for stations to sell and either move to hi/low vhf or go off air and those who choose neither will be repacked in the remaining UHF band but 1% of spectrum sold to wirless companies will be shared with TV stations
look for "99% will have no impairments" in this article link
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/...s-feed-FCC-To-Auction-Off-126-MHz-Of-Spectrum
Perhaps in terms of modulation schemes, but there's an important difference: ATSC 3.0 probably isn't going to bring any higher PQ offerings initially as ATSC did in a grand and enticing way. Consumers need to be motivated to facilitate a voluntary transition and ATSC 3.0 doesn't really bring much to the table for consumers as compared to ATSC 1.0 with the introduction of HD.
We're using about as much bandwidth now as we were using before the DTV transition but even if ATSC 3.0 only requires an additional 40% due to compression and modulation efficiency gains, that's still going to be a big crunch in an environment where we're talking about having so many fewer channels to work with.
Questions that need to be thoughtfully answered:
What is going to motivate consumers to replace their TVs?
How will those who can't afford new TVs be transitioned?
What will trigger the shut-off of ATSC 1.0 and who will make the call?
Please contact ATSC and voice your concerns about MPEG-2 not being a Candidate Standard of ATSC 3.0 and why HEVC should not?
http://atsc.org/standards/candidate-standards/
http://atsc.org/contact-us/
Are we discriminating by highlight the fact some consumers can just REPLACE their TV's while mocking others by saying they can't AFFORD NEW
Replace http://www.dictionary.com/browse/replace?s=t
Afford http://www.dictionary.com/browse/afford?s=t New http://www.dictionary.com/browse/new?s=t
Why ask what will trigger the shut off and be oblivious to the FCC?
Why do TV's need to be replaced?
Last edited:
I've said nothing specific about HEVC other than expressing a concern about how well it will work when faced with significant interference. That it works well with two-way networks that have little to no inherent data loss and the capacity to send much faster than consumed doesn't carry over to broadcast television in my mind. MPEG2 is pretty robust as the key frames come along relatively frequently. In the final analysis, this may be a big deal if there has to be a lot of Forward Error Correction used on the TV channels that have been reduced to only 5MHz bandwidth (from the current 6MHz bandwidth).
That some can afford new TVs and others cannot is not a slam on people that can't. It is a recognition of the reality that the FCC has to consider in their actions. By most accounts the previous DTV decoder box program was a bust.
Because the promoters are trying to do the transition without a government mandate. Somebody has to be responsible for setting up the adoption thresholds and evaluating how far along the transition is absent a mandated date certain. If the FCC is in charge, where are they going to get their metrics from?
There is also a question in my mind as to whether the FCC would have authority absent a congressional mandate.
But HEVC is the only codec so far in ATSC 3.0?
But saying "What motivates consumers to purchase new TV's?" and "What about people who cannot afford to replace their TV's?" seems more propper but in reality not everyone must have a new TV
A Transtition to a new standard (ATSC 3.0) cannot and will not happen without a FCC approval and it (ATSC 3.0) has been put out for public comment as a voluntary transition,
The FCC Approval is a Mandate only congress or a federal court can override the FCC
No TV Station is being reduced to 5 Mhz the 126 mhz UHF TV spectrum that's being auction will be sold in 5+5 Mhz which equals 10 Mhz blocks
That's nice. I suppose all that really matters is that serves the purpose and I'm not convinced that has been establish yet (not that this is a prerequisite for the standard being ratified but it would certainly make me more comfortable about embarking on such a sweeping change).
But they must have some sort of converter and as I pointed out in my previous post, the converter box program didn't go well last time around. If HDCP is implemented (this seems like a lock to me), and component isn't supported, this could represent a real problem for many.
I think you misunderstand from where the FCC derives its authority. The FCC is charged with implementing federal law as established by Congress and signed into law by the President. The FCC doesn't create laws. They can make rules but those rules must fit within the framework established by congressional legislation.
Channels will still be only 5MHz wide. I wonder if your 10 figure comes from the number of blocks allotted to most markets rather than the clumps they are offered in. I don't see anything that suggests that station owners will be required or able to bond the channels. If they were going to bond them, they could cut out the guard band between them at realize 11MHz. Perhaps you could enlighten me with an authoritative reference that illustrates your claim. Note that this would not be a link to a 300 page document and a suggestion that the reader try to find it on their own. The actual language should be quoted along with how to locate it in the linked document.
I've mostly been glossing over this argument, but the TV channels are not being changed in bandwidth. I'm not sure where that came from, but it's wrong. TV channels are 6 MHz today and will be post-auction as well.
- Trip
- Trip
The recovered spectrum will be sold in 5 MHz blocks, yes. I'm not sure why you think that changes TV channel bandwidths.
- Trip
- Trip
I've been laboring under the belief that TV channels are currently 6MHz wide. I anticipate that you will engage in some modulation and semantics slight-of-hand that will "restore" the difference as compared with the current scheme.
You've completely lost me. TV channels are 6 MHz now and will be 6 MHz in the future.
If I buy a liter of milk and measure it out to put in a recipe in cups, that doesn't mean I bought a quart of milk from the store instead of a liter.
- Trip
If I buy a liter of milk and measure it out to put in a recipe in cups, that doesn't mean I bought a quart of milk from the store instead of a liter.
- Trip
If they're going to have full 6MHz channels, why are they giving all this lipservice to 5MHz blocks? Are these 5MHz blocks unrelated to TV channels?
As I reasoned earlier, you can't expect adjacent channels to work without some manner of guard band between them.
The FCC is buying 6 MHz TV channels, putting them in a blender, and producing 5 MHz blocks for sale. LTE doesn't support 6 MHz bandwidths, so why waste 1 MHz times the number of blocks?
I'm now also not sure what you're talking about with adjacent channels. If you're asking about the border between TV and the new 600 MHz wireless band, there's 7, 9, or 11 MHz of guard band between the two, depending on the amount of spectrum that gets bought back. TV stations can be adjacent to each other and many already are. (In your area, see KPXG-LD/KATU or KNMT/KGWZ-LD/KUNP-LD.) On the wireless side, guard bands are built into the LTE specification. A "5 MHz" LTE carrier is actually smaller than that, with 5 MHz containing the requisite guard band.
- Trip
So the 5MHz blocks that are being talked about having nothing to do with TV (other than they are being carved from the TV band for other uses)?
I'm consigned to the idea that TV band is going to be scavenged and don't really care about what they do with the spoils as long as it doesn't interfere with TV. I firmly believe that we shouldn't discuss wireless and emergency services if they don't have anything to do with what's going on in the remaining TV band.
In my area, there are lots of edges so using adjacent channels is quite often possible as you could be a few miles away and not be able to pick up an LP signal if you wanted to. There are channels 30 ALM away that I can't pick up with a pretty serious roof-top antenna. Seattle is another market where TV signals go to die due to terrain.
I'm talking about after the repack when all of the full-power stations are going to be crammed together. Is it possible to have full-power stations sharing a tower on adjacent TV RF channels without having to give up some bandwidth? Having seen many tvfool reports, there are more than a few markets with what appear to be only two antenna farms for a full plate of stations.
Correct.
Since this is a thread about ATSC 3.0, I think we're safe.
Uh, yes? Seattle has KOMO on 38 and KIRO on 39, for example. I gave you co-located examples in Portland, which I thought you would be familiar with given your location. Los Angeles has KTLA-31, KDOC-32, KTBN-33, KMEX-34, KRCA-35, KNBC-36. This is extremely common.
- Trip
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Testing the Titanium C140 and C240 5G Filtered BLUE LNBFs- Latest: madmadworld
