Looks like satellite tv isn’t going anywhere anytime soon

[Jim5506]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg??

They may have to give away ATSC 3 tuners to build enough demand for programming.

If there aint no programming, folks ain't buying new tuners just for the fun of it.

Incompatibility is a big problem that somebody's gotta pay for.

 

[sam_gordon]

There shoving more channels into one frequency. For people who already need a good amplifier to pick up stations are going to have a harder time pulling those channels in. With satellite that’s no longer your problem. It becomes the satellite providers problem.

I don't think you understand how MCPC (multi channel per carrier) works. A station can put as many channels into their frequency as they want. As long as you get reception, it doesn't matter if they have one channel or 20.

Seriously though, maybe one day, but as long as they have to broadcast ATSC 1 and 3 simultaneously, they are going to have to bit-starve things a lot to make it all fit.

If a station broadcasts ATSC 1 & 3 simultaneously, it will be done on two different channels, basically the same as when they broadcast analog and digital. What makes that more difficult now is the government is taking away all channels above 37(?). So now there's an even more limited amount of bandwidth, and I don't know that there's enough space to support two broadcast channels (one ATSC 1 and one 3) for each local broadcaster.

One theory being thrown out is that one channel in each market serves as a "lighthouse". They put up an ATSC 3 broadcast that has everyone in the market on it (ATSC 3 allows for better compression and more channels). Another local broadcaster agrees to continue that station's ATSC 1 transmission so people without ATSC 3 receivers can still watch. However, most stations are filling their ATSC 1 bandwidth with subchannels (which are a big money maker). So what subchannels get dropped so two primary channels can share spectrum?

I do think ATSC 3 has a lot to offer. I also think it will be extremely hard to implement.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I don't think you understand how MCPC (multi channel per carrier) works. A station can put as many channels into their frequency as they want. As long as you get reception, it doesn't matter if they have one channel or 20

Not exactly. The maximum bandwidth is currently 19.8 MBPS per channel. Sure, maybe you can cram 12 low resolution channels in there but they will look like crap.

 

[navychop]

...A station can put as many channels into their frequency as they want. As long as you get reception, it doesn't matter if they have one channel or 20......

I vaguely recall coming across something stating there was a 13 channel plus subchannel limit. Maybe a header limitation? Anyway, a quick Google turned up nothing so maybe I’m all wet.

 

[comfortably_numb]

WROB/KCKS/KMJC TV 25 in my area has 12 subchannels. I believe they have the most of any broadcaster in the nation, if memory serves. They divide up that 19.8 MBPS bandwidth into about 1.5 MBPS per channel

 

[Bobby]

WROB/KCKS/KMJC TV 25 in my area has 12 subchannels. I believe they have the most of any broadcaster in the nation, if memory serves. They divide up that 19.8 MBPS bandwidth into about 1.5 MBPS per channel

KAXT in the SF Bay Area also has 12 channels.

KAXT-CD Channel 1 Television

 

[navychop]

MHz, near DC, channels 30.1 - 30.12. So I guess my memory of 13 was wrong, or they dropped one.

Most of these sub channels are full screen. PQ? Fuzzy. Watchable, if you have minimal expectations.

For those of us with the CM DVR+, 30’s PQ is a notch below the Internet provided Outdoor Cooking Channel (not a good example of PQ), 304.

 

[TheKrell]

MHz, near DC, channels 30.1 - 30.12.

Yeah, but half of those are broadcast from WNVT and the other half from WNVC.

 

[navychop]

Yeah, but half of those are broadcast from WNVT and the other half from WNVC.

Huh? Broken between two actual frequencies? And those are in turn shared?

 

[jerryez]

They may cram 13 channels into the bandwidth, but none of them are HD as we know it.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not exactly. The maximum bandwidth is currently 19.8 MBPS per channel. Sure, maybe you can cram 12 low resolution channels in there but they will look like crap.

The point is the number of channels doesn't affect the RF signal strength. Look at the post I quoted.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The point is the number of channels doesn't affect the RF signal strength. Look at the post I quoted.

Regardless of the point you were trying to make, the statement "A station can put as many channels into their frequency as they want" is not factual and I was simply correcting that.

 

[KAB]

Another turned "splitting hairs" thread.

 

[TheKrell]

Huh? Broken between two actual frequencies? And those are in turn shared?

Done through the wonders of virtual channel numbers.

 

[navychop]

Yes. But seemingly generous on the part of the hosts, even if there is an exchange of coin of the realm.

 

[TheKrell]

Yes. But seemingly generous on the part of the hosts, even if there is an exchange of coin of the realm.

Huh? I thought WNVT and WNVC are both owned by Megahertz...

 

[whatchel1]

As we get to the packed configuration we will see ATSC 3 implemented and you will see no loss of quality as we know it.

You are crossing your fingers when you posted this right, aren't you? Do you not remember all the problems that were had when we did the analog to digital conversion? There will be just as many problems going from ATSC 1 to ATSC 3. It's just that way every-time a major technical change over takes place.

 

[navychop]

Huh? I thought WNVT and WNVC are both owned by Megahertz...

I did not know that.

 

[NYDutch]

I did not know that.

Even if they had different ownership, it's not unusual for a station to lease sub-channels to another station. It's usually done when the primary channel licensee has a tower in a location that can serve as a repeater for the secondary channel. But with the ongoing channel repack, we'll be seeing a lot more of it as some stations give up their licenses in favor of leasing sub-channels.

 

[navychop]

It means the host has decided there was a better business case for leasing out spectrum than running their own sub channels