Broadcasters Petition FCC for ATSC 3.0 Rollout

[harshness]

Since this is a thread about ATSC 3.0, I think we're safe.

We would be if posters weren't offering a selection of brightly colored herring in the form of voice/data, emergency and medical communications band distractions.

I gave you co-located examples in Portland, which I thought you would be familiar with given your location.

While they may call Portland their home market, some of the towers are located as much a 45 miles away. The LA stations are packed in like sardines to be sure but I wonder how much of their 6Mhz they can actually use. While the use of guard bands between different types of services may seem obvious, there needs to be a certain separation between channels using like modulation schemes as tuners aren't perfect.

I read where Sprint once used a 625KHz guard band both above and below its 1900KHz LTE services. Out of the 5MHz they were given, they could only use 3.75MHz. I read where one of the more recent schemes could pass 4.5MHz but that's still a 10% forfeit.

 

[Trip]

We would be if posters weren't offering a selection of brightly colored herring in the form of voice/data, emergency and medical communications band distractions.While they may call Portland their home market, some of the towers are located as much a 45 miles away. The LA stations are packed in like sardines to be sure but I wonder how much of their 6Mhz they can actually use. While the use of guard bands between different types of services may seem obvious, there needs to be a certain separation between channels using like modulation schemes as tuners aren't perfect.

I think you'll find, if you did even a tiny bit of research, that all the stations I mentioned are co-located. There are adjacent channel interference rules, certainly, but they don't work the way you seem to think they do. Those stations I noted get full use of the 6 MHz as spelled out in the ATSC specification.

I read where Sprint once used a 625KHz guard band both above and below its 1900KHz LTE services. Out of the 5MHz they were given, they could only use 3.75MHz. I read where one of the more recent schemes could pass 4.5MHz but that's still a 10% forfeit.

As I think I've said elsewhere, the LTE configurations are preset with necessary guard bands already included. So a 5 MHz LTE carrier can go right next to another LTE (or WCDMA, or GSM, or CDMA, or EV-DO) carrier without a problem because the guard band is included in the 5 MHz specification.

- Trip

 

[Mr Tony]

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

Minneapolis has a few examples like that

WUCW 22 and KTCI 23
KTCA 34 and KSTP 35

if we are counting LP's too then its WDMI-LD 31, WCCO 32, K33LN-LD 33, KTCA 34, KSTP 35

 

[osu1991]

Tulsa has a couple too. KTUL AND OETA broadcast side by side on 10 and 11


Sent from my iPhone

 

[harshness]

As I think I've said elsewhere, the LTE configurations are preset with necessary guard bands already included. So a 5 MHz LTE carrier can go right next to another LTE (or WCDMA, or GSM, or CDMA, or EV-DO) carrier without a problem because the guard band is included in the 5 MHz specification.

Somehow or another, this thread seems to always comes around to non-TV. I would point out that building guard bands into the modulation specification doesn't make them usable.

Here's a bit of pertinent discourse on the subject of packing channels together:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/experti...ow-about-adjacent-channel-interference/219826

Of course this is about ATSC 1.0 only but it seems scholarly and more relevant than LTE. What remains to be seen is how compatible ATSC 3.0 is with the existing ATSC 1.0 signals and how they will coexist in such an incredibly confined space during a "voluntary" transition.

 

[Trip]

Somehow or another, this thread seems to always comes around to non-TV.

Yes, you raising it, apparently. It had dropped from the discussion until you mentioned Sprint.

What remains to be seen is how compatible ATSC 3.0 is with the existing ATSC 1.0 signals and how they will coexist in such an incredibly confined space during a "voluntary" transition.

A study of it was included with the petition to the FCC. It was 0.5 to 1 dB more interfering co-channel. Adjacent was similar to ATSC 1.0 but I don't remember exactly how similar.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

Yes, you raising it, apparently.

I was rebutting with evidence that your argument that full channel bandwidth is "available" is misleading. That you chose to make LTE the basis of your argument isn't my doing.

 

[harshness]

Anyone willing to try offering thoughtful answers to my questions in post #107?

Whether ATSC 3.0 is in the public interest or not, the public will have to be motivated if it is to be adopted voluntarily.

 

[localclassictvfan]

Anyone willing to try offering thoughtful answers to my questions in post #107?

Whether ATSC 3.0 is in the public interest or not, the public will have to be motivated if it is to be adopted voluntarily.

I read your post 107. Whats the issue of having to buy a new tv set

 

[Voyager6]

I read your post 107. Whats the issue of having to buy a new tv set

Oh, I don't know, how about the cost since most of us just bought new sets that receive digital (ATSC 1.0) signals. Imagine telling someone that their brand new 4K UHD set, which they just spent thousands on, has an obsolete TV tuner. All of this because the Government wants to make some money by selling off part of the UHF spectrum that was previously allocated to TV. In addition, that same Government just forced many of the broadcasters to move from the Low VHF band to UHF and now wants them to move back to Low VHF. The really sad part is that most people in the US have no clue that this is happening and what their Government is trying to do to them.

 

[harshness]

Whats the issue of having to buy a new tv set

Alas, it isn't just one TV set. It is all of them that might be used for OTA. Perhaps the sets with outboard interface boxes could be adapted or they could come out with some manner of DRM aware converter that costs as much as a small television but a wholesale change-out over a short period of time is a big commitment of resources.

 

[localclassictvfan]

Alas, it isn't just one TV set. It is all of them that might be used for OTA. Perhaps the sets with outboard interface boxes could be adapted or they could come out with some manner of DRM aware converter that costs as much as a small television but a wholesale change-out over a short period of time is a big commitment of resources.

Wow something to think about