CES 2017: LG Intros First ATSC 3.0 4KTVs
- Thread starter comfortably_numb
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 5K
This is from last year. Im waiting for the us based sets to come out before upgrading. Phoenix will be ATSC 3.0 in April.
This is some of what they have to say about the upcoming CES:
CES: Next Gen TV Will Be ‘Talked About’
hint: the lead says that ATSC 3.0 technology "will not be very visible".
CES: Next Gen TV Will Be ‘Talked About’
hint: the lead says that ATSC 3.0 technology "will not be very visible".
Talk is cheap.
If nobody can take advantage of it, did it really happen? Remember how far the 2017 World Series Next-Gen TV live coverage got.
Importing just a few retail units into the US is incredibly expensive (certifications from FCC and UL) and the timing in conjunction with the repack couldn't be much worse.
ATSC 3.0 is going to have to prove itself as much more than an alternate way to deliver the same product.
Kind of hard to to give it a shot when you have already shut it down before it even launches. If a bear sheets in the woods and no one is around to see it did it happen? Yes! As far as timing with the repack its an opportunity because many are shuffling anyhow. As far as proving itself it already has before it even hit US markets. We will see more than an import of a few units.
I guess I am officially skeptical. Where is the compelling feature set that will attract the mass market buyer.
HDTV and ATSC 1 caught on because of government mandates, a long period of backward compatibility and the ability to watch subchannels. Where will the average consumer benefit from 3.0 when he needs to upgrade? His current set is 65" or smaller and he won't see much if any improvement in picture quality. But quality doesn't sell to anyone but us geeks. This needs features in order to get past the chicken and egg setup we have.
Plenty. More subchannels, VOD directly from the networks. The ability to get a better signal from improved modulation. 4k, ect. In the end of the day, this gives a IP pipeline directly to the consumer from the Broadcaster that will lead to enhanced services and more competition leading to a lowering of content costs and giving consumers mor options not only in their home but on the go as well.
The claims of more subchannels and 4K won't be fulfilled until way out in the future as I see it. What ATSC 3.0 can do when it rules the entire OTA spectrum is considerably more appealing than what it actually can do with only the portion of the spectrum not used by DTV and a big draw on one's broadband connection (assuming that the viewer has one).
Rather than being a shill for the Next-Gen proponents, you should step back and look at the transition from the perspective of someone who is going to have to drop big money on upgrading some or all of their TV system (probably including audio components) to take any advantage of the new possibilities.
A voluntary transition demands that the general public (aka Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber) buy in. What the broadcasters desperately want or need is of little to no consequence. In addition to the gubmint mandate behind DTV, the repack that happened eight years ago was scheduled to happen AFTER the DTV transition. This time there's no gubmint mandate, no subsidized converter boxes and the channels are going to be repacked just as (or possibly before) ATSC 3.0 comes online. Make no mistake -- ATSC 3.0 has a decided uphill battle ahead and they need to be very careful about promising things they can't deliver within the constraints of the very limited available spectrum.
We're already speculating that networks will be substantially lost as a result of the repack. If I'm reading the summaries correctly, ATSC 3.0 can't pick up the subchannels that are lost as part of any "buddy up" sharing arrangement. All content that can reasonably be simulcast, must be simulcast. Some of the LP channels that "buddy up" will no longer be exempted from certain rules as they are now.
I have a question. How are the Phoenix TV stations going to get advertisers to pay for ad space on the ATSC 3.0 channels when NO ONE will be watching them?
By saying the ATSC 1 ads will also run on ATSC 3. Then, as traffic moves to ATSC 3, however slowly that may be, they may set up two charge structures. One day, maybe ads in UHD will cost more.
I suspect that there is money to be made in ATSC 3, and so TVs will start coming with ATSC 3 standard. Then the ATSC version of broadcasts will be what goes thru cable and satellite. But not at top PQ and AQ.
Remember, only about 15% of households will be affected by this transition in a BIG way. That’s the folks that are essentially OTA only. A somewhat larger number will be somewhat affected. It won’t slip in on little cat feet. At some point, ads will be blaring to move to the new, improved TV! But most will notice little on their cable and satellite fed TVs. Cable will downrez the ATSC 3 signal, rather than issue new cable boxes to all customers. That higher quality, perceived or real, will only be available to OTA viewers, online viewers and maybe with a limited selection at first, satellite viewers. Until cablecos are forced to go whole hog.
I suspect that there is money to be made in ATSC 3, and so TVs will start coming with ATSC 3 standard. Then the ATSC version of broadcasts will be what goes thru cable and satellite. But not at top PQ and AQ.
Remember, only about 15% of households will be affected by this transition in a BIG way. That’s the folks that are essentially OTA only. A somewhat larger number will be somewhat affected. It won’t slip in on little cat feet. At some point, ads will be blaring to move to the new, improved TV! But most will notice little on their cable and satellite fed TVs. Cable will downrez the ATSC 3 signal, rather than issue new cable boxes to all customers. That higher quality, perceived or real, will only be available to OTA viewers, online viewers and maybe with a limited selection at first, satellite viewers. Until cablecos are forced to go whole hog.
So ATSC 3.0 will be a huge money loser for those stations until such time as there are a significant number of TV's/Boxes available to receive an ATSC 3.0 signal. Not a very positive business model. How long do you think that they will support this effort without a government mandate to upgrade?
From where I sit, ATSC 3.0 will be a big flop.
People will not buy the new sets until there is enough product (programs) if they are even aware of its existence and stations will not switch until there a re viewers.
I see this boondoggle going no where.
Sure a few enthusiasts and early adopters will buy ATSC3.0 converters or TVs, but 95% of the public could not care less.
People will not buy the new sets until there is enough product (programs) if they are even aware of its existence and stations will not switch until there a re viewers.
I see this boondoggle going no where.
Sure a few enthusiasts and early adopters will buy ATSC3.0 converters or TVs, but 95% of the public could not care less.
Let's not snuff K9SAT's buzz entirely with discussion of real-world physics and economics. It is a lot to take in.
The fact that LG's promises for CES 2017 might be realized on a small scale at CES 2018 doesn't instill confidence that they're really ready to rock.
To be sure, ATSC 3.0 is a step forward, but the timing and the methodology of introduction probably aren't workable on a continental scale (versus a country a little smaller than Indiana).
The mistake that was made was the FCC's fault in not mandating ATSC 3.0 on a time-certain schedule. Congress has already given direction to the FCC to do something to advance the technology and ATSC 3.0 seems to be it. We must not ignore the lessons of the DTV conversion.
The fact that LG's promises for CES 2017 might be realized on a small scale at CES 2018 doesn't instill confidence that they're really ready to rock.
To be sure, ATSC 3.0 is a step forward, but the timing and the methodology of introduction probably aren't workable on a continental scale (versus a country a little smaller than Indiana).
The mistake that was made was the FCC's fault in not mandating ATSC 3.0 on a time-certain schedule. Congress has already given direction to the FCC to do something to advance the technology and ATSC 3.0 seems to be it. We must not ignore the lessons of the DTV conversion.
Having seen demos of ATSC 3 and played with it a bit as a technology lover I can't wait til it gets here. 
Unfortunately the consumer marketplace is dominated by non-techies so you have to sell them with shock and awe in their living rooms every day and that's a completely different experience than playing with hand-crafted demos at trade shows. This shock and awe (UHD, HDR, WCG and low-compression audio) that I speak of is something that I expect will substantially have to wait until after DTV is no longer the official broadcast standard and there's spectrum available to broadcast one or two networks per 6MHz channel.Having seen demos of ATSC 3 and played with it a bunch, as a technology lover I can't wait til it gets here.
Yeah but you are a Debbie downer about almost everything Harshness. Which is why I see hope with ATSC 3.0.
Unfortunately, places where ATSC 3.0 would be more likely to be used (large markets) are also places where spectrum is now saturated with cell phone calls because the STUPID FCC has sold OTA TV up the river by repacking channels and auctioning off OTA spectrum to the highest bidder.
Some of ATSC 3.0's capabilities may blend with cell technology but it would have been better to let it develop organically than to force another incompatible standard into the stew that is today's communications menu.
Some of ATSC 3.0's capabilities may blend with cell technology but it would have been better to let it develop organically than to force another incompatible standard into the stew that is today's communications menu.
The best way to have done this would have been for the FCC to set aside a frequency band for advanced TV development and deployment (some of the upper UHF channels that they sold to cell phone companies), maybe allotting 8MHz per channel instead of the 6MHz restriction.
Allow ATSC 3.0 or whatever to develop there and grow without being in competition for bandwidth with current services - that may have given it a chance.
Allow ATSC 3.0 or whatever to develop there and grow without being in competition for bandwidth with current services - that may have given it a chance.
Betting against me isn't a solution to any problem nor is it particularly positive way to generate widespread consumer interest in a new technology. It is hard to argue against the position that ATSC 3.0's salvation can only come from a mandatory transition where the only hope for success doesn't live or die on JSP/JtP gladly opening their wallet/purse and adopting the new technology.Yeah but you are a Debbie downer about almost everything Harshness. Which is why I see hope with ATSC 3.0.
My beef isn't with Next-Gen TV but with begging and pleading with the broad market to upgrade; especially if there isn't the bandwidth available to regularly deliver the really exciting goods that are being hyped.
Before the FCC announcement, I too had high hopes for Next-Gen TV. Those hopes were dealt a serious blow on November 20th when the FCC's permissive order was handed down that mandated that ATSC 3.0 couldn't displace DTV but would have to work along side it. If you think it could happen voluntarily as the FCC order permits, I'd be more than happy to participate in a discussion about how that might happen in the real world of 35 RF channels and simulcasting DTV.
