Atsc 3.0 - Page 19 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 177Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 11:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Finally, when World War 3 comes and we're all tending our victory gardens and saving scrap metal for the war effort, which type of TV will we prefer --- OTA or the internet that may well be down due to cyber attacks?
Hey, didn't I see you on last season of Doomsday Preppers on NatGeo?
NashGuy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 11:52 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1208 Post(s)
Liked: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Finally, when World War 3 comes and we're all tending our victory gardens and saving scrap metal for the war effort, which type of TV will we prefer --- OTA or the internet that may well be down due to cyber attacks?
Won't matter as neither will work, anyway. Read "One Second After" to see what I mean.
joblo likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #543 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 12:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 6,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1656 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
This is true. Although I wonder why recorded (i.e. scripted, non-live) network primetime shows couldn't be more efficiently pre-encoded in HEVC (by either the network or the local affiliate), in the same way that streaming service pre-encode their content. Wouldn't the flexibility of ATSC 3.0 allow the broadcaster to layer in, via real-time encoding, whatever graphics (e.g. station ID bug, weather alerts, news ticker) they wanted to add to the pre-encoded content?
HEVC is not the only codec for UHD. Be sure to look up the Alliance for Open Media. If you read up on how screwed up HEVC licensing is you'll see why even some of the big players are waiting for the AV1 release this fall and some are already using Google's VP9. It and AV1 are royalty free. I don't know about realtime encoding but it is probably in the works too. There are lots of groups working on speeding up encoding.
Brian Conrad is offline  
 
post #544 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Primestar31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Under the bridge (Lower Michigan)
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I am not a fan of Sinclair, or anybody his size. Are we, as the USA, going to end up with one or two companies controlling everything remotely related to communications?
http://fortune.com/2017/07/25/sincla...bune-local-tv/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(TV_series)

Quote:
Plot

In the future, an oligarchy of television networks rules the world. Even the government functions primarily as a puppet of the network executives, serving mainly to pass laws — such as banning "off" switches on televisions — that protect and consolidate the networks' power. Television technology has advanced to the point that viewers' physical movements and thoughts can be monitored through their television sets. Almost all non-television technology has been discontinued or destroyed. The only real check on the power of the networks is Edison Carter, a crusading investigative journalist who regularly exposes the unethical practices of his own employer, and the team of allies both inside and outside the system who assist him in getting his reports to air and protecting him from the forces that wish to silence or kill him.

Last edited by Primestar31; 07-28-2017 at 04:46 PM.
Primestar31 is offline  
post #545 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 04:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
HEVC is not the only codec for UHD. Be sure to look up the Alliance for Open Media. If you read up on how screwed up HEVC licensing is you'll see why even some of the big players are waiting for the AV1 release this fall and some are already using Google's VP9. It and AV1 are royalty free. I don't know about realtime encoding but it is probably in the works too. There are lots of groups working on speeding up encoding.
Sure, there are other codecs besides HEVC that can handle UHD but as far as ATSC 3.0 goes, I'm pretty sure that train's already left the station. HEVC was chosen some time ago as the core video codec. The entire suite of standards is well on its way to being completely approved later this year. 3.0-compatible encoders and other broadcasting equipment have already been designed and some of it is already commercially available and actively in use by broadcasters now in South Korea. It's possible that the standard could be amended to incorporate a new codec but I don't see that happening unless all existing hardware in the transmission chain, from broadcasters to consumers, can be updated to support AV1.
NashGuy is offline  
post #546 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 04:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primestar31 View Post
Max Headroom?
Wasn't he the guy who had an ATARI computer EXACTLY like mine?
nathill is offline  
post #547 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 04:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I am not a fan of Sinclair, or anybody his size. Are we, as the USA, going to end up with one or two companies controlling everything remotely related to communications?
http://fortune.com/2017/07/25/sincla...bune-local-tv/
Meh. I agree that entities that become too large and powerful (whether corporations or governments) are not a good thing. But when assessing a company's size, you have to look at it in context against other players in its ecosystem. Yes, Sinclair is a big OTA broadcaster but the power it wields isn't that scary compared to Google, Amazon, Apple, Comcast/Universal, AT&T/Time Warner, Disney, Verizon, etc.
NashGuy is offline  
post #548 of 569 Old 07-28-2017, 04:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Meh. I agree that entities that become too large and powerful (whether corporations or governments) are not a good thing. But when assessing a company's size, you have to look at it in context against other players in its ecosystem. Yes, Sinclair is a big OTA broadcaster but the power it wields isn't that scary compared to Google, Amazon, Apple, Comcast/Universal, AT&T/Time Warner, Disney, Verizon, etc.
You're right, Sinclar is not that huge YET.
But with their purchase of Tribune, they're showing me the reason they're not that big at the moment is just because they haven't had the opportunity yet.
nathill is offline  
post #549 of 569 Old 07-29-2017, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 6,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1656 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Sure, there are other codecs besides HEVC that can handle UHD but as far as ATSC 3.0 goes, I'm pretty sure that train's already left the station. HEVC was chosen some time ago as the core video codec. The entire suite of standards is well on its way to being completely approved later this year. 3.0-compatible encoders and other broadcasting equipment have already been designed and some of it is already commercially available and actively in use by broadcasters now in South Korea. It's possible that the standard could be amended to incorporate a new codec but I don't see that happening unless all existing hardware in the transmission chain, from broadcasters to consumers, can be updated to support AV1.
Devices already come with VP9 decoding. My Windows 10 PC does it in hardware along with HEVC decoding. AV1 is VP10. I have source for both encoder and decoder but haven't tried building it yet.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #550 of 569 Old 07-30-2017, 12:25 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 30,723
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6052 Post(s)
Liked: 3751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
Devices already come with VP9 decoding. My Windows 10 PC does it in hardware along with HEVC decoding. AV1 is VP10. I have source for both encoder and decoder but haven't tried building it yet.
But for HDR you need VP9.2.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk

53TB unRAID2--41TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
Sony 65x850C--Sony UBP-X800--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is online now  
post #551 of 569 Old 07-30-2017, 01:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 6,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1656 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
But for HDR you need VP9.2.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk
HDR is a little like 5.1 audio. 5.1 audio adds additional cost to a production for sound design. 4K video is straight forward comparatively. HDR requires a color grading specialist. Eventually it will get somewhat automated. StreamingMedial.com had a very technical article on this recently.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #552 of 569 Old 07-31-2017, 07:24 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1208 Post(s)
Liked: 2366
Blog/Opinion
What to Expect This Retrans Season
MVPDs could see Big Four broadcasters' per-sub rate hit $3
By Gil Ehrenkranz | Manatt, Phelps & Phillips - Multichannel News - July 31, 2017

The triennial election cycle for commercial broadcast stations will occur again this fall. And where broadcasters elect retransmission consent, one can expect the negotiations to be even more contentious than the last election cycle (2014).

If recent election cycles are any guide, broadcast stations can look forward to average license fee increases of more than 1,000% over the inflation rate. For some of the smaller cable operators, the current cycle will likely see a $3-per-subscriber rate for the first time for retransmission of the Big Four network stations. Cable systems can expect broadcasters to request license fees not only for the primary broadcast signal, but for each broadcaster’s multicast signal as well. To paraphrase a line in the Mel Brooks film History of the World: Part I, “It’s good to be a broadcaster.”

In addition to license-fee increases on multiple channels, multichannel video programming distributors can expect no relief of any kind from the Federal Communications Commission. While the FCC occasionally rouses itself to the appearance of action, its record of indifference is a matter of record.

In 2000, the FCC promulgated a good-faith bargaining standard incumbent on all broadcasters. Seventeen years and thousands of retransmission-consent negotiations later, the FCC has never found a single instance of bad faith dealing on the part of any broadcaster. The FCC’s bias is so well known that MVPDs have given up filing bad-faith dealing complaints. Occasionally, the FCC will add a new category of per se violations to its bad-faith standards, but it has steadfastly refrained from ever finding either a per se violation or a totality of the circumstances violation on the part of any broadcaster. Yes, “it’s good to be a broadcaster.”

MVPDs can expect broadcasters to insist on some very expensive new asks including those with an anti-consumer flavor. Broadcasters will seek to prevent consumers from being able to skip commercials. Although the technology exists for ad skipping and the MVPDs would like to offer this functionality to their subscribers, broadcasters almost always insist on prohibiting MVPDs from offering this feature to consumers. One might be forgiven for thinking that, as consumers will ultimately bear the economic burden of the gargantuan increases in broadcaster license fees, that consumers ought to be able to avail themselves of technologies that MVPDs are willing to provide gratis. That will not be happening anytime soon.

Finally, it is reasonable to assume that broadcasters will demand a commitment from MVPDs to retransmit broadcast signals in the new ATSC 3.0 format.

Even though the ATSC 3.0 standards have not yet been adopted by the FCC, the broadcasters will be insisting that MVPDs retransmit the ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal whenever the FCC issues its final regulations. While no one can predict what the standards will be, what we do know is that it will be expensive for MVPDs to retransmit these signals, because the ATSC 3.0 format is not “backward-compatible” with current equipment. To receive and retransmit an ATSC 3.0 signal, MVPDs will need to purchase new receiving and transcoding equipment, switch out set-top boxes for many subscribers and allocate more capacity for retransmission of broadcast signals in the ATSC 3.0 standard.

It’s good to be a broadcaster.

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/mcn...-season/414297

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #553 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 02:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Danville, NH
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 190
It *IS* good to be a broadcaster. It will get better if more people put up antennas. Until, of course, the premium providers decide to provide an antenna with their service and integrate OTA into their box. That's how things started and that is likely how things will end up.

I do not understand why premium providers will have to swap out set top boxes if they are transcoding the broadcast.
wizwor is offline  
post #554 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 06:56 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1208 Post(s)
Liked: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizwor View Post
It *IS* good to be a broadcaster. It will get better if more people put up antennas. Until, of course, the premium providers decide to provide an antenna with their service and integrate OTA into their box. That's how things started and that is likely how things will end up.
They've already tried that and it's not cost-effective nor reliable. Without a one-size-fits-all solution, relying on antennas for local channels isn't feasible. Installers would be spending huge amounts of man-hours fussing with antennas and crawling around in attics. MPVDs would have to stock an insane amount of antennas. People living in apartment buildings surrounded by high-rises would be out of luck. Just having to buy all that RG-6 for secondary cables in every subscribed household would be cost prohibitive. Shifting the responsibility to the consumer won't work as we already know most people won't fuss with antennas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizwor View Post
I do not understand why premium providers will have to swap out set top boxes if they are transcoding the broadcast.
AIUI, for ATSC 3.0 to succeed, it has to generate revenue streams not available with 1.0. That seems to me to be targeted advertising. When a local break comes up, people in different areas or different ages see different commercials. I don't know if Sinclair plans to feed those alongside live programming or pre-feed those either through the ATSC 3.0 or internet connections (or both) to be stored locally for playback at the appropriate moment either live or delayed viewing. I'm pretty sure existing cable boxes can't handle that load and aren't able to interface with broadcasters to provide the audience measuring data standalone ATSC 3.0 boxes could.

The fact cablecos are already balking means they know broadcasters won't be satisfied with simply transcoding main channel programming.
kc9pke likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #555 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 11:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Even though the ATSC 3.0 standards have not yet been adopted by the FCC, the broadcasters will be insisting that MVPDs retransmit the ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal whenever the FCC issues its final regulations. While no one can predict what the standards will be, what we do know is that it will be expensive for MVPDs to retransmit these signals, because the ATSC 3.0 format is not “backward-compatible” with current equipment. To receive and retransmit an ATSC 3.0 signal, MVPDs will need to purchase new receiving and transcoding equipment, switch out set-top boxes for many subscribers and allocate more capacity for retransmission of broadcast signals in the ATSC 3.0 standard. http://www.multichannel.com/blog/mcn...-season/414297
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
AIUI, for ATSC 3.0 to succeed, it has to generate revenue streams not available with 1.0. That seems to me to be targeted advertising. When a local break comes up, people in different areas or different ages see different commercials. I don't know if Sinclair plans to feed those alongside live programming or pre-feed those either through the ATSC 3.0 or internet connections (or both) to be stored locally for playback at the appropriate moment either live or delayed viewing. I'm pretty sure existing cable boxes can't handle that load and aren't able to interface with broadcasters to provide the audience measuring data standalone ATSC 3.0 boxes could.

The fact cablecos are already balking means they know broadcasters won't be satisfied with simply transcoding main channel programming.
Retransmission of ATSC 3.0 broadcasts via cable/satellite/telco pay TV services brings up a lot of technical questions. Does Sinclair et al expect MSOs to incorporate actual ATSC 3.0 tuners into their STBs? Remember that those tuners are equally compatible with ATSC 3.0 broadcasts coming in OTA or via broadband internet. Would MSOs simply be passing along local stations' ATSC 3.0 broadcast streams over their broadband connections to the tuner in their own STBs, which would then incorporate the output into the STB UI alongside cable channels? How would this work for satellite, which doesn't own a broadband pipe to their subscribers?

Or perhaps no actual 3.0 tuner would be needed in the STB assuming that it is capable (like Comcast X1 boxes) of handling managed IPTV. (Traditional QAM-only cable STBs would definitely not work, it would seem, as that would require a level of transcoding that would strip out the interactive and targeted ad features of 3.0 broadcasts.) But what about cable co's that haven't begun transitioning away from QAM to IPTV and don't yet have any network infrastructure in place for serving up live IPTV? And again, what about satellite?
NashGuy is offline  
post #556 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 12:27 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1208 Post(s)
Liked: 2366
Well, we know - at the very least - cable headends would need new receiving equipment if nothing else changes.

Assuming any network and broadcaster ups output to 1080p, they'd need new downstream STBs capable of delivering that if they don't already have those in place. I don't know, I've been Bright House for eons and the STBs and DVRs I had up until last year did not do 1080p. That also sucks more bandwidth on a platform that's already bumping up against limits and can't acquire more.

If you figure any 4k programming, at all, that's going to require new STBs and still more bandwidth. So, figure 4-6 affiliates in any given market kicking up to 1080p or higher and cable's got a problem.

That's the minimum.

But nothing in those scenarios makes any money for broadcasters beyond additional carriage fees. As I've always said, for broadcasters to adopt anything new, it either has to be financially beneficial for them to do so or financially detrimental if they don't. Targeted advertising delivers that additional revenue, but it won't do much if only 15% of broadband-connected viewers can see it. And that's figuring 100% adoption by the broadband-equipped OTA viewers. More likely - at least in the early going - they'll get 2-10% of that 15%. That's not enough eyeballs to bring in the kind of revenue necessary. For the targeted advertising model to work, I'd think it'd need to reach at least a third of the viewing public. Hard to do if 85% are watching via cable.

In any event, I'm sure any broadcaster with any firm plans to do anything in the next five years will work that into their next retrans negotiations. It will be worth following to see what happens.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is online now  
post #557 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 12:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Well, we know - at the very least - cable headends would need new receiving equipment if nothing else changes.

Assuming any network and broadcaster ups output to 1080p, they'd need new downstream STBs capable of delivering that if they don't already have those in place. I don't know, I've been Bright House for eons and the STBs and DVRs I had up until last year did not do 1080p. That also sucks more bandwidth on a platform that's already bumping up against limits and can't acquire more.

If you figure any 4k programming, at all, that's going to require new STBs and still more bandwidth. So, figure 4-6 affiliates in any given market kicking up to 1080p or higher and cable's got a problem.

That's the minimum.

But nothing in those scenarios makes any money for broadcasters beyond additional carriage fees. As I've always said, for broadcasters to adopt anything new, it either has to be financially beneficial for them to do so or financially detrimental if they don't. Targeted advertising delivers that additional revenue, but it won't do much if only 15% of broadband-connected viewers can see it. And that's figuring 100% adoption by the broadband-equipped OTA viewers. More likely - at least in the early going - they'll get 2-10% of that 15%. That's not enough eyeballs to bring in the kind of revenue necessary. For the targeted advertising model to work, I'd think it'd need to reach at least a third of the viewing public. Hard to do if 85% are watching via cable.

In any event, I'm sure any broadcaster with any firm plans to do anything in the next five years will work that into their next retrans negotiations. It will be worth following to see what happens.
Yep. One quibble with your figures, though: the bandwidth limitations you mention are with QAM (where linear channels are always flowing to all STBs). There's plenty of IP bandwidth outside of QAM for watching 4K streams (lots of folks are already doing this now with Netflix and Amazon), with even more bandwidth opening up as cable moves to gigabit-capable DOCSIS 3.1. That's why I've thought for some time now that 4K UHD, when it arrives on cable (whether through broadcast nets or cable nets), will be in the form of managed IPTV, not QAM. MSOs will have to issue new STBs capable of decoding HEVC anyhow to handle UHD, may as well as make those boxes IPTV-compatible too. That's what Comcast is doing with the XG4 and Xi6 boxes.
DrDon likes this.
NashGuy is offline  
post #558 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 01:11 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1208 Post(s)
Liked: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Yep. One quibble with your figures, though: the bandwidth limitations you mention are with QAM (where linear channels are always flowing to all STBs). There's plenty of IP bandwidth outside of QAM for watching 4K streams (lots of folks are already doing this now with Netflix and Amazon), with even more bandwidth opening up as cable moves to gigabit-capable DOCSIS 3.1. That's why I've thought for some time now that 4K UHD, when it arrives on cable (whether through broadcast nets or cable nets), will be in the form of managed IPTV, not QAM. MSOs will have to issue new STBs capable of decoding HEVC anyhow to handle UHD, may as well as make those boxes IPTV-compatible too. That's what Comcast is doing with the XG4 and Xi6 boxes.
Not a quibble. I'm just parroting what MVPDs are saying as part of their objections to retrans agreements with 3.0 broadcasters.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 08-01-2017 at 01:15 PM.
DrDon is online now  
post #559 of 569 Old 08-01-2017, 05:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 880 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by eherberg View Post
I would call rural broadband lack of availability in the US very significant --

... And not just for people in the 'sticks'. My parents, for example, live 7 mi from a rural small town with broadband access. They live 20 miles from a town of 60,000 people, so get OTA television very well. But they don't have internet. ... Their case mirrors everybody else who lives in true rural America. I don't have anybody I know that lives in rural areas (outside of a town) that has internet outside of checking things on their phone due to the rural divide on broadband access.....

I know there is hope that when 5G rolls out, this may go a long ways to finally bring broadband internet to rural areas ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Because if there's one thing wireless companies have been known for in the past, it's reasonable per/GB data pricing. :-)
That raises the topic of how cell phone companies handle video data and whether there could be cases where TV stations and cell phone carriers could have some shared interests. Would it ever be possible to have a situation where a TV station enters into a contract to give consent to a cell phone carrier to re-transmit the station's signal?

Also, how much will the cell phone companies benefit from the spectrum that they bought in the recent broadcast spectrum incentive auction?
veedon is offline  
post #560 of 569 Old 08-02-2017, 01:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Also, how much will the cell phone companies benefit from the spectrum that they bought in the recent broadcast spectrum incentive auction?
T-Mobile spent a few billion buying at the very minimum 10 by 10 MHz blocks of spectrum in every Partial Economic Area in the U.S. to build out LTE cellular. If their Band 12/700 MHz deployment says anything, all the spectrum they bought, if built out, could unironically make T-Mobile a viable competitor to Verizon. And I do think considering that T-Mobile was able to spend several billion dollars to buy it, that they very well could build it out just fine. They really need it

Dish Network bought at least 5 MHz in every PEA but as far as anyone knows they're apparently trying to use that as leverage in a merger—they're stockpiling cellular licenses in every band
kc9pke is offline  
post #561 of 569 Old 08-02-2017, 06:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Well, we know - at the very least - cable headends would need new receiving equipment if nothing else changes.

Assuming any network and broadcaster ups output to 1080p, they'd need new downstream STBs capable of delivering that if they don't already have those in place. I don't know, I've been Bright House for eons and the STBs and DVRs I had up until last year did not do 1080p. That also sucks more bandwidth on a platform that's already bumping up against limits and can't acquire more.
Yes - unless the cable cos have deployed HEVC 1080p59.94 capable boxes there are potential bandwidth issues.

However looking at Germany - they are running their new HEVC 1080p50 OTA system with an average of 3Mbs and a peak of 7Mbs using statmux. http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...n&mux=KANAL-31 (The link shows the bitrates, resolutions and codecs of one of the new German OTA DVB-T2 muxes in Munich)

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...&sec=0&lang=en (Here's more detail on ARD's Das Erste, one of the two main national public service networks - which are far more watched than US PBS)

German TV usually hits pretty high technical standards, so I suspect the OTA 1080p50 stuff looks pretty good. And those are figures for 1080p at 50fps.

Last edited by sneals2000; 08-02-2017 at 06:31 AM.
sneals2000 is online now  
post #562 of 569 Old 08-02-2017, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Yep. One quibble with your figures, though: the bandwidth limitations you mention are with QAM (where linear channels are always flowing to all STBs). There's plenty of IP bandwidth outside of QAM for watching 4K streams (lots of folks are already doing this now with Netflix and Amazon), with even more bandwidth opening up as cable moves to gigabit-capable DOCSIS 3.1. That's why I've thought for some time now that 4K UHD, when it arrives on cable (whether through broadcast nets or cable nets), will be in the form of managed IPTV, not QAM. MSOs will have to issue new STBs capable of decoding HEVC anyhow to handle UHD, may as well as make those boxes IPTV-compatible too. That's what Comcast is doing with the XG4 and Xi6 boxes.
Though technically isn't DOCSIS also using QAM (albeit in a more unicast way to carry IP packets rather than video packets)?

Though I get what you mean. Broadcast/Multicast makes sense for channels that are watched by lots of people simultaneously (where unicast becomes very wasteful as you are sending the same information multiple times) - but for little watched channels, broadcast makes less sense.

Last edited by sneals2000; 08-02-2017 at 06:27 AM.
sneals2000 is online now  
post #563 of 569 Old 08-03-2017, 09:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
Though technically isn't DOCSIS also using QAM (albeit in a more unicast way to carry IP packets rather than video packets)?
Yeah. A disadvantage with traditional QAM TV is that the cable company must reserve a certain amount of bandwidth on their network, i.e. a certain number of 6 Mz channels, to be used exclusively for TV. The TV channels that occupy those network channels are always there. Cable companies want to maximize their broadband internet speeds, so they really don't want to take additional network channels, i.e. additional "traffic lanes", away from internet usage and devote them exclusively to TV usage. But with IPTV, TV channels (as well as various forms of on-demand video) are far more flexible, since they're just another form of internet traffic that can co-exist with other internet traffic across any and all network channels. Furthermore, those IPTV video streams only flow over parts of the network (i.e. within a particular neighborhood node) when they're needed, while traditional QAM TV (at least if it doesn't use switched digital video -- Comcast does not) is always flowing across every part of the network, all the time, whether it's needed by viewers or not.

The end of this article quotes the head of Comcast Innovation Labs on the question of offering 4K on QAM vs IP:

"4K HEVC almost has to be done over IP," Seiden said, noting that a single 4K stream takes up almost an entire 6 MHz channel in a cable network.
NashGuy is offline  
post #564 of 569 Old 08-03-2017, 11:39 AM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 30,723
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6052 Post(s)
Liked: 3751
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Yeah. A disadvantage with traditional QAM TV is that the cable company must reserve a certain amount of bandwidth on their network, i.e. a certain number of 6 Mz channels, to be used exclusively for TV. The TV channels that occupy those network channels are always there. Cable companies want to maximize their broadband internet speeds, so they really don't want to take additional network channels, i.e. additional "traffic lanes", away from internet usage and devote them exclusively to TV usage. But with IPTV, TV channels (as well as various forms of on-demand video) are far more flexible, since they're just another form of internet traffic that can co-exist with other internet traffic across any and all network channels. Furthermore, those IPTV video streams only flow over parts of the network (i.e. within a particular neighborhood node) when they're needed, while traditional QAM TV (at least if it doesn't use switched digital video -- Comcast does not) is always flowing across every part of the network, all the time, whether it's needed by viewers or not.

The end of this article quotes the head of Comcast Innovation Labs on the question of offering 4K on QAM vs IP:

"4K HEVC almost has to be done over IP," Seiden said, noting that a single 4K stream takes up almost an entire 6 MHz channel in a cable network.
Not sure why it would use an entire 6Mhz channel when the NASA 4K channel, at 2160P60, supposedly uses around a 15Mb/s bitrate on a cable system. And a 6 Mhz channel should be able to handle around 2.5 times that bitrate.

53TB unRAID2--41TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
Sony 65x850C--Sony UBP-X800--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

Last edited by aaronwt; 08-03-2017 at 11:44 AM.
aaronwt is online now  
post #565 of 569 Old 08-03-2017, 12:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Liked: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Not sure why it would use an entire 6Mhz channel when the NASA 4K channel, at 2160P60, supposedly uses around a 15Mb/s bitrate on a cable system. And a 6 Mhz channel should be able to handle around 2.5 times that bitrate.
15 Mbs sounds low for 2160p60, although maybe that's accurate. I know that Netflix and Amazon stream 2160p24 and 2160p30 at 15-16 Mbps, and of course that's all stuff that's been very efficiently pre-encoded, not encoded in real-time, which would result in a higher bitrate.
aaronwt likes this.
NashGuy is offline  
post #566 of 569 Old 08-03-2017, 01:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 151
15-16Mbs is on the low side for a live encode. (You can't really compare Netflix 2160/23.976p with massively optimised off-line encoding with multiple passes, with 2160/59.94p encoding with a relatively real-time encode)

Here in Europe we seem to be around the 20-25Mbs for HEVC 2160/50p barker channels, though Sky TV's UHD satellite service is averaging 32Mbs (Transponder details below) Sky's HD sport bitrates are very good, and they are pushing UHD as a premium, high-quality service, so I imagine they are ensuring a high quality result that will beat their HD outlets.

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...g=en&mux=11758
aaronwt likes this.
sneals2000 is online now  
post #567 of 569 Old 08-12-2017, 02:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,385
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1401 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Too late to use some other tech for ATSC 3.0?

Last edited by DrDon; 08-12-2017 at 02:35 PM. Reason: Political comments removed
wco81 is online now  
post #568 of 569 Old 08-13-2017, 03:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Not sure why it would use an entire 6Mhz channel when the NASA 4K channel, at 2160P60, supposedly uses around a 15Mb/s bitrate on a cable system. And a 6 Mhz channel should be able to handle around 2.5 times that bitrate.
Having now watched some of NASA TV - it's pretty undemanding content that will compress efficiently. It's not typical of general broadcast content - particularly 2160/59.94p sport or entertainment (which really push encoding schemes)
sneals2000 is online now  
post #569 of 569 Old 08-17-2017, 12:16 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Whoever's in charge of the ATSC website hasn't updated that standards update skyscraper graphic since June
kc9pke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off