CES 2017: LG Intros First ATSC 3.0 4KTVs

[jayn_j]

From what I've read, UHD channels may consume an entire channel frequency.

1080i was supposed to consume the entire channel in ATSC 1.0. It didn't stop broadcasters from softening the picture in order to squeeze in a subchannel or 2. I recall in the early days when HD broadcast was just as sharp as a BluRay. Not so much these days.

 

[comfortably_numb]

1080i was supposed to consume the entire channel in ATSC 1.0. It didn't stop broadcasters from softening the picture in order to squeeze in a subchannel or 2. I recall in the early days when HD broadcast was just as sharp as a BluRay. Not so much these days.

Thankfully, CBS is still obsessive about their picture quality and most CBS affiliates are broadcast at a higher bitrate with fewer subchannels. It is noticeable and a high quality picture

 

[N5XZS]

Not so here in Albuquerque's TV market, KRQE-DT they managed to cram in FOX 720p HD on 13.2 with sharing CBS 1080i HD on the main channel 13.1.

 

[harshness]

1080i was supposed to consume the entire channel in ATSC 1.0. It didn't stop broadcasters from softening the picture in order to squeeze in a subchannel or 2. I recall in the early days when HD broadcast was just as sharp as a BluRay. Not so much these days.

But is there any point at all to a UHD image that is diminished in such a way? Given that 4K is beyond most of our viewing situations to begin with, I have my doubts that they'll even bother going beyond 1080p (that in an of itself doesn't seem to occupy as many PPV channels as many imagined).

 

[harshness]

Thankfully, CBS is still obsessive about their picture quality and most CBS affiliates are broadcast at a higher bitrate with fewer subchannels. It is noticeable and a high quality picture

The Portland CBS affiliate (KOIN) held out perhaps the longest but they too now have two subchannels, GetTV and Decades. Our ABC resisted as well but now they have two 720p channels and two 480i channels and it shows.

The aspect of this phenomenon is how are all of these channels going to combine to make room the way that the ATSC 3.0 proponents insist they're going to do?

 

[osu1991]

In Tulsa Griffin dropped the single subchannel from KQCW over a year ago. Their sister station KOTV still has the main CBS HD feed and an SD feed of KQCW, for the viewers of the translators in southern Kansas that can't receive KQCW's main HD feed. There is also a 24/7 news loop on the 2nd subchannel.

My thoughts then and now are Griffin will do something with KOTV and KQCW. I thought maybe channel sharing and selling one in the auction or moving one tower and channel to ATSC 3.0 and using the other for sharing the ATSC 1.0 signals and the 24/7 news loop. Griffin made the same changes to the 2 stations they own in OKC too.

 

[jayn_j]

But is there any point at all to a UHD image that is diminished in such a way? Given that 4K is beyond most of our viewing situations to begin with, I have my doubts that they'll even bother going beyond 1080p (that in an of itself doesn't seem to occupy as many PPV channels as many imagined).

Agree. Most people can't see the 4k advantage, and the reduced bandwidth with subchannels, they are willing to accept 'HD' -- broadcasts.
When I was down in Rockford Ill a few years ago, I had COMCAST install a HD DVR. I laid out an HDMI cable, already plugged into the receiver. The installer used the antenna channel 3 connection instead. When I called the office to ask, I was told it was standard policy. I spent the rest of my time down there hooking up HD connections to those HD cable boxes for friends.

I think when and if ATSC 3.0 rolls out (still not convinced it will happen), the stations will choose to add subchannels instead. With the repack, there is going to be a lot of pressure to do channel sharing. It may reach the point where the signal quality may not improve. I think that the main channel will most likely be a reduced bandwidth 4k, so they can claim '4K', but the rest will be what they already provide, just more per frequency.

 

[harshness]

I think when and if ATSC 3.0 rolls out (still not convinced it will happen), the stations will choose to add subchannels instead.

I'd like some clarification on what you mean by "instead". The Order says that the stations have to simulcast on ATSC 3.0 so they can't just shift their subchannels to Next-Gen and drive everyone there with the content that they whacked from DTV (at least as I understand the Order).

 

[harshness]

I thought with DTV that is more directional than bouncing off the atomsphere. I live 40 miles north of fort wayne that market is not changing to vhf it will stay uhf.

Fort Wayne is neither a large market nor should it be suffering mightily from signals from adjacent TV markets. It does seem that you'll be losing quite a few channels if the rabbitears data is accurate.

 

[navychop]

I'd like some clarification on what you mean by "instead". The Order says that the stations have to simulcast on ATSC 3.0 so they can't just shift their subchannels to Next-Gen and drive everyone there with the content that they whacked from DTV (at least as I understand the Order).

That simulcast applies only to the primary channel, no?

ATSC 1 tower can have 2, or Lord save us, 3 “HD” channels for say, channels 5, 9 and 26.

The ATSC 3 tower can have those 3 channels in “better” HD, plus all of their sub channels. And throw in the “Basics of Basket Weaving” channel.

Then, after ATSC 1 goes away and all broadcasters have their own ATSC 3 tower, maybe the odd UHD broadcast.

I have doubts about what the incentives are to make this move to ATSC 3, but I suspect it’s gonna happen in a few years. Heck, maybe my next TV will have an ATSC 3 tuner. And maybe there’ll be something to watch in five years, and some incentive to actually do so.

I hope to be retired then, so my next TV may well be my last.

 

[harshness]

That simulcast applies only to the primary channel, no?

I don't think this is true. My reading suggests that they have to carry the whole payload (the simulcaster can't pick and choose what they want to simulcast) and carry everything under the terms of the original broadcaster's franchise agreements. Like most FCC documentation, they use industry special terminology so I can't be certain.

I hope to be retired then, so my next TV may well be my last.

You're on dope if you have any hope of that. Remember the life expectancy of modern CE equipment continues to shorten.

We'll see at CES if more TV manufacturers are moving towards an upgrade path business model.

 

[navychop]

Yes, this CES should be interesting, but CES 2019 will be revealing.

Make dope legal here, and maybe I’ll try it. But it’d have to be a cookie. I ain’t smokin’ nuthin!

 

[harshness]

Yes, this CES should be interesting, but CES 2019 will be revealing.

Maybe, maybe not.

The way that company's participation seems to be flagging and new companies that really don't have much to do with CE are replacing them, I'm not sure CES matters much anymore.

I remember when Sharp and Panasonic were big deals.

 

[Trip]

I don't think this is true. My reading suggests that they have to carry the whole payload (the simulcaster can't pick and choose what they want to simulcast) and carry everything under the terms of the original broadcaster's franchise agreements.

No idea where you picked that up from. Paragraph 13 of the R&O is pretty clear, I think.

"We apply our local simulcasting requirement only to the primary video programming stream aired by Next Gen TV broadcasters on their ATSC 3.0 channels. Next Gen TV stations may be able to transmit multiple streams of programming in ATSC 3.0, as many do today in ATSC 1.0. Although we encourage those Next Gen TV broadcasters that elect to air multiple streams of ATSC 3.0 programming to also simulcast more than a single programming stream, we will require them to simulcast only their primary stream in ATSC 1.0 format. Commenters generally agree that any local simulcasting requirement should apply to a Next Gen TV station’s primary stream. Because broadcasters have a strong incentive to provide continuity of service to existing viewers, we believe they will elect to simulcast the programming stream that viewers expect to be able to receive, such as a stream containing network programming or the stream that has the largest number of viewers for non-network stations. We will monitor the deployment of ATSC 3.0 and the effectiveness of our local simulcasting requirement in protecting viewers and will reconsider our approach if necessary."

I'm not sure what "industry special terminology" you were having trouble with.

- Trip

 

[navychop]

My belief is, if we don’t see ATSC 3 tuners in many 2019 TVs (remember how we used to distinguish between TVs by saying “HDTV?”), then I’d say ATSC 3 adoption is going to have a very long row to hoe, indeed.

 

[harshness]

No idea where you picked that up from. Paragraph 13 of the R&O is pretty clear, I think.

Spoken like someone who is on the inside. I was reading paragraphs 17-19 where they seemed to be arguing with someone about what was and wasn't necessary. In re-reading it, I see that they disagreed with or dismissed some of these arguments. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole document nor most of its 70+ footnotes that they used to rationalize something. It seems like it there should be an explicit order and a separate document for those who want to understand the motivations and live for reading footnotes.

Whacking subchannels before a new standard is officially adopted seems a little like the Wild West. Given that some of the "secondary" channels are developing a bigger following than the "primary" channels (I'm thinking CW), it seems like this could do some serious damage if there isn't some sort of designated hierarchy for the networks to make business decisions on.

 

[harshness]

My belief is, if we don’t see ATSC 3 tuners in many 2019 TVs (remember how we used to distinguish between TVs by saying “HDTV?”), then I’d say ATSC 3 adoption is going to have a very long row to hoe, indeed.

As I said previously, the proponents have attached the term "Next-Gen" to their ATSC 3.0 standard. It worked for Star Trek, it can work for this.

I don't understand how the congressional directive to identify a new and more efficient broadcast standard doesn't get better support from the FCC.

 

[Trip]

Spoken like someone who is on the inside.

Yes, nobody would read the section labeled "Local Simulcasting Requirement" when looking for specifics on the simulcasting requirements unless they were on the inside.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

Yes, nobody would read the section labeled "Local Simulcasting Requirement" when looking for specifics on the simulcasting requirements unless they were on the inside.

The more I read, the more the Order seems like it might be contradicting itself.

 

[harshness]

PREFACE: As I type this CES hasn't opened yet so much of the information is incomplete.

I made the rounds of the tech sites reporting on CES and thus far, none of them has made any mention of ATSC 3.0 or Next-Gen TV. Most advanced technology sets appear to support HLG, but that's only a small part of the equation.