What Cord Cutters Need to Know About ATSC 3.0
- Thread starter Lurker
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 3K
I'm not sure I buy all of their information they offered in the article. I don't think I've seen anything that supports the idea that the ATSC 3.0 signal will necessarily be stronger. In fact, after the repack gets rolling, I expect that more signals will be weaker rather than stronger to prevent interference in the much more crowded band. I expect that much of the promise of being better suited to mobile use and being able to propagate deeper into buildings is absolute hogwash -- perhaps to pique interest in pursuing OTA for those that can't seem to make it work now. There may be something to the lower frequency of the TV band in general, but that will apply to DTV as well.
The only thing TabloTV customers really need to know is that their existing devices will work until ATSC 3.0 becomes the new official standard. Prospective customers need to be wary at least until such time as TabloTV offers an upgrade path.
The only thing TabloTV customers really need to know is that their existing devices will work until ATSC 3.0 becomes the new official standard. Prospective customers need to be wary at least until such time as TabloTV offers an upgrade path.
I am suspicious.
" Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts."
What I want to know is, what effect is this going to have on Joe Schmidt the Rag Man in outer Podunck, Flyover state, who only gets one or very few OTA TV signals today, and has NO Internet.
" Advanced internet-connected hardware will be needed to receive the new style broadcasts."
What I want to know is, what effect is this going to have on Joe Schmidt the Rag Man in outer Podunck, Flyover state, who only gets one or very few OTA TV signals today, and has NO Internet.
Plus, I would venture to bet that a fair amount of the OTA only households, which is what 8-10%, do not subscribe to broadband internet, even if it is available. There has to be a subset of that group that is elderly or non-technical and have no use for broadband. Then another subset that might not have the disposable income to pay for broadband internet. That makes absolutely no send if broadcasters are wanting to get to that piece of the OTA only market. Not to mention, the government should make it incumbent on the broadcasters using the public airwaves that they must continue to serve this group.
Sent from my iPad using the SatelliteGuys app!
Not entirely sure how many times I need to tell you that you're wrong, so I'll tell you again: You're wrong. The new channel assignments are out, and that includes the new parameters. Power levels were adjusted to account for changes in frequency, but otherwise are identical to the parameters the stations have today.
Which shows you know nothing about the standard at all. It's designed to be configurable to work in mobile or low-signal environments, or in fixed environments with high signal levels. It's possible nobody will ever use that configuration, but it's certainly being designed for it.
You "expect" many things that would be revealed to be completely unfounded if you did any research at all. I wish you would stop spreading misinformation.
My understanding is that ATSC 3.0 will still be receivable without an Internet connection, but that optional extra services would not be available without one. I'm pretty sure this statement of theirs is false.
- Trip
I would like to know where they got the idea that targeted ads will be delivered via the Internet. I can not imagine what the synchronization issues might be for such a complicated delivery system not to mention the assumption that everyone has broadband. Here's another wrench in the gearworks, local targeting isn't possible over VPN, unless somebody's dumb enough to log on to a local server.
Sounds like a hacker's (cracker's) dream.
Hijack, redirect, network attacks, stuff we can't even imagine.
Hijack, redirect, network attacks, stuff we can't even imagine.
I have a feeling this one's not going to go as expected.
For one thing, unlike the difference between SD and HD, the difference between HD and UHD won't be perceptible to many users. I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content; what do I need with UHD? This will be like the audio market, where many users are happy just to have a stereo with cheap speakers, and only the audiophiles spend the big bucks to get the better speakers and receivers. I think that when push comes to shove, a lot of potential users will look at this new system and say "who needs it?", particularly if it comes with a high price tag.
But an even bigger problem is that I think you are going to see some resistance to allowing TV receivers to access the Internet. It is becoming far more frequent for hackers to target the "Internet of Things" and some of the more widely reported hacks have been against TV receivers. I doubt you'll find many people who would say they want their TV to spy on them or track their viewing habits, yet an Internet-connected TV can do both those things. About a year or two ago I bought a "dumb" HDTV because I feared they wouldn't make them anymore, and I know of a guy who bought a "smart" TV but absolutely refuses to hook it up to the Internet, out of security concerns. I don't think the hack attempts on TV's are going to stop anytime soon, and for some people the idea that a TV might have a microphone or camera built in sounds too much like "big brother." There will always be stupid people who just don't care, like a couple guys I know who insist on using the same (insecure) password for every single online service they visit, but if major hacks start causing people to lose significant amounts of money or privacy that could change in a hurry.
As an example, the first time some guy dances naked in front of his "smart" TV, or has loud, graphic, passionate lovemaking that is captured with the TV's microphone, and it gets posted online (or a hacker threatens to do so unless ransom is paid), people are going to start disabling those Internet connections to their TV's.
Then there is the idea of targeted advertising. Targeted to whom? This could become a big issue in a place where a TV is shared by multiple users, at least among viewers that don't block or skip ads. I hope the people who are promoting this realize that if you turn a TV into a computer, you run the risk of people running sideloaded software that allows easy ad skipping. If ads come from an Internet source, all you have to do is block connections to the ad servers, and presto, no more annoying local ads (and local ads in small markets are the worst, since they are generally a "hard sell" with no production values). Keep in mind the law of unintended consequences; there are a boatload here.
I already am so annoyed by local broadcasters that sometimes I wish they'd all just disappear. The only thing they were ever really marginally good at was covering local news and weather, but nowadays we just read that online as it happens rather than making an appointment to watch a local newscast. And I think that may be the ultimate failure of ATSC 3.0 - by the time it is fully deployed, no one will care, because those with Internet connectivity will be watching everything from online sources, where the video is not defaced by local weather graphics and ad scrolls and similar crap. Our local Fox affiliate is a prime offender here, and more than once this past year I've waited a day and watched a Fox show online rather than having to put up with their defacement of the signal (not that I watch anything live anyway; I always PVR it and watch it at my convenience). If you look at a network like The CW, that is targeted more toward younger viewers, I would bet that they are viewed online as much as over the airwaves (particularly because in many markets they are either not available, or only available in SD).
People really aren't clamoring for better OTA TV. More and more, people are looking past OTA. To promote a new TV delivery method now might be akin to sending a crew out to apply a fresh coat of paint to the deck after the Titanic hit the iceberg.
I may be wrong, but I suspect I'm not.
For one thing, unlike the difference between SD and HD, the difference between HD and UHD won't be perceptible to many users. I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content; what do I need with UHD? This will be like the audio market, where many users are happy just to have a stereo with cheap speakers, and only the audiophiles spend the big bucks to get the better speakers and receivers. I think that when push comes to shove, a lot of potential users will look at this new system and say "who needs it?", particularly if it comes with a high price tag.
But an even bigger problem is that I think you are going to see some resistance to allowing TV receivers to access the Internet. It is becoming far more frequent for hackers to target the "Internet of Things" and some of the more widely reported hacks have been against TV receivers. I doubt you'll find many people who would say they want their TV to spy on them or track their viewing habits, yet an Internet-connected TV can do both those things. About a year or two ago I bought a "dumb" HDTV because I feared they wouldn't make them anymore, and I know of a guy who bought a "smart" TV but absolutely refuses to hook it up to the Internet, out of security concerns. I don't think the hack attempts on TV's are going to stop anytime soon, and for some people the idea that a TV might have a microphone or camera built in sounds too much like "big brother." There will always be stupid people who just don't care, like a couple guys I know who insist on using the same (insecure) password for every single online service they visit, but if major hacks start causing people to lose significant amounts of money or privacy that could change in a hurry.
As an example, the first time some guy dances naked in front of his "smart" TV, or has loud, graphic, passionate lovemaking that is captured with the TV's microphone, and it gets posted online (or a hacker threatens to do so unless ransom is paid), people are going to start disabling those Internet connections to their TV's.
Then there is the idea of targeted advertising. Targeted to whom? This could become a big issue in a place where a TV is shared by multiple users, at least among viewers that don't block or skip ads. I hope the people who are promoting this realize that if you turn a TV into a computer, you run the risk of people running sideloaded software that allows easy ad skipping. If ads come from an Internet source, all you have to do is block connections to the ad servers, and presto, no more annoying local ads (and local ads in small markets are the worst, since they are generally a "hard sell" with no production values). Keep in mind the law of unintended consequences; there are a boatload here.
I already am so annoyed by local broadcasters that sometimes I wish they'd all just disappear. The only thing they were ever really marginally good at was covering local news and weather, but nowadays we just read that online as it happens rather than making an appointment to watch a local newscast. And I think that may be the ultimate failure of ATSC 3.0 - by the time it is fully deployed, no one will care, because those with Internet connectivity will be watching everything from online sources, where the video is not defaced by local weather graphics and ad scrolls and similar crap. Our local Fox affiliate is a prime offender here, and more than once this past year I've waited a day and watched a Fox show online rather than having to put up with their defacement of the signal (not that I watch anything live anyway; I always PVR it and watch it at my convenience). If you look at a network like The CW, that is targeted more toward younger viewers, I would bet that they are viewed online as much as over the airwaves (particularly because in many markets they are either not available, or only available in SD).
People really aren't clamoring for better OTA TV. More and more, people are looking past OTA. To promote a new TV delivery method now might be akin to sending a crew out to apply a fresh coat of paint to the deck after the Titanic hit the iceberg.
I may be wrong, but I suspect I'm not.
It's really ludicris to think "targeting" will work. Who gets targeted? What type of target? Content? Where is the info going to come from as a basis for determining what the target content will be? Hubby is Googling fishing rods and when the wife sits down to watch TV she gets targeted fishing gear advs. Yeah, that'll work. 
I don't think the assumption that broadcasters are going to xmit 4K OTA is based on anything but wishful thinking. What I think you're going to see is instead of the current one HD and three SD subs I think it's much more likely you'll see all HD feeds rather than any 4K. That route would save broadcasters significant amounts of money as the existing studio equipment will continue to function with only a change at the transmitter end necessary. No need for new cameras either in-house or at remote locations like ballparks, for instance. News vehicles and aircraft could continue to function with current hardware as well. The penny-pinchers are going to look into the cost vs benefit of going all out for 4K and I just don't see an overwhelming monetary upside.
I don't think the assumption that broadcasters are going to xmit 4K OTA is based on anything but wishful thinking. What I think you're going to see is instead of the current one HD and three SD subs I think it's much more likely you'll see all HD feeds rather than any 4K. That route would save broadcasters significant amounts of money as the existing studio equipment will continue to function with only a change at the transmitter end necessary. No need for new cameras either in-house or at remote locations like ballparks, for instance. News vehicles and aircraft could continue to function with current hardware as well. The penny-pinchers are going to look into the cost vs benefit of going all out for 4K and I just don't see an overwhelming monetary upside.
I doubt the UHD will be the driver. The added compression and fitting in more channels in less spectrum will push it. And only then if everything you buy has ATSC 3 built in. Kinda like today with DVD players- most also play BDs.
Digital is digital. The broadcasters have 6 MHz they should be able to allow for 4k broadcasts using the same spectrum.
It's almost like Directv offering 4k by using 2 transponders.
The only thing that should be required is a Tv with a 4k tuner or a digital converter box.
If anything due to public interest the FCC should assign broadcasters 2 channels or 12 MHz bandwidth.
This whole internet thing makes no sense. If that's the case then just make the 4k channel available for streaming over the internet and be done with it.
It's almost like Directv offering 4k by using 2 transponders.
The only thing that should be required is a Tv with a 4k tuner or a digital converter box.
If anything due to public interest the FCC should assign broadcasters 2 channels or 12 MHz bandwidth.
This whole internet thing makes no sense. If that's the case then just make the 4k channel available for streaming over the internet and be done with it.
Does that not equate to not increasing the power as the article claims?
I wish those who really know what the real-world testing results (as opposed to theoretical projections) have been would share what they know but that doesn't seem likely. Perhaps they don't have enough data to make a conclusive call but articles such as this seem to assume that the math is good enough.
I do know something about the theory and what I know suggests that we may be being sold a bill of goods by summaries such as this. If it turns out that everything goes entirely according to the models, that's wonderful. I don't think that happened with DTV.
This is more to my point. Some of the exciting features (like seamless mobile reception) may never be fully taken advantage of but they're going all out on hyping them as a certainty and high among the reasons that change is in our best interests.
To be certain, there's little point in making a huge effort to stream UHD for public safety.
Having access to more robust schemes for getting safety information out is a good thing because our Internet connectivity will probably be one of the first things to fail in the event of a real disaster.
I'm not convinced that channel bonding is reasonable in an OTA environment and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is being contemplated.
