Atsc 3.0 - Page 63 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1123Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1861 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 829 Post(s)
Liked: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
PBS was very much at the forefront of HD. Ask anyone who watched the legendary PBS demo loop.
I thought it took a long time to get a lot of PBS shows in HD?

Quote:
MLB can't go 4k nationwide on RSNs as only DSS could carry them, giving them an advantage which would wreck their relationships with terrestrial cable. Won't happen anytime soon. Plus, how will all those RSNs pay for the buildout? Where's the money coming from?
I disagree with the notion about the cable companies. For one, the MSOs don't care that much about pay TV anymore, and in most cases, they really don't care if you switch to DirecTV, because they just charge you more for internet. Further, they could put up one or two 4k channels in each market if they really wanted to. I just don't see that as an issue. However, on your second point, I think cost is what will ultimately stop that from being the case, at least until the cost of the gear comes way down. There isn't a huge business incentive for them to move to 4k, and how many more people are going to watch baseball if it is in 4k versus not in 4k? If they could do MLB.tv in 4k, with direct to consumer sales, maybe, but that would piss off the cable providers more than being on DBS, although with data caps and broadband monopolies, they probably wouldn't care about that either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
I expect that AT&T's DirecTV satellite service (and its successor, DishDirect, after it merges with DISH) will have a dedicated HBO Max 4K linear channel that features whatever 4K and 4K HDR content that AT&T distributes through their upcoming HBO Max on-demand Netflix-competitor.
DISHDirect I'm not sure *that's* going to happen. Maybe. Right now, I'm hoping SprinT-Mobile gets shot down. More mergers and consolidations are the last thing that we need.

Quote:
As Dr. Don says, maybe several years down the road, when ATSC 3.0 stations aren't halving their bandwidth with a partner station on the same tower, THEN we'll see the major broadcast networks distributing 4K through their affiliates. Until then, high-quality 1080p HDR is the best we can probably hope for via OTA. Of course, that doesn't mean that ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox can't offer 4K HDR versions of their content, both live and on-demand, through their pay TV distributors, whether MVPDs/vMVPDs (e.g. Comcast Xfinity TV, Charter Spectrum TV, YouTube TV) or their own on-demand platforms (e.g. Hulu, CBS All Access).
That's an interesting take. Not so much the broadcast part, which I don't think will ever happen. I think we'll just see more subchannels to backfill the available bandwidth, or localized feeds, or whatever other junk they can come up with to grind out ad dollars. That being said, the idea of on demand or streaming 4k from the networks is pretty interesting. They would be smart to do it through their streaming services, as pay TV is in such decline right now and the more tech-savvy folks who want 4k likely don't have pay TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
That was the only point I was trying to make: If setmakers want to increase sales, subsidizing broadcast 4k isn't cost-efficient and likely wouldn't have much impact on sales, at least not enough for a respectable ROI. And, to the topic, it's that money broadcasters and networks will need to justify doing the buildout for 4K.
4k just doesn't matter that much. People who care are already streaming 4k from Netflix and Amazon and a few other sources, and most people don't care. They're better off spending the money on the AI upscaling to upscale HD to 4k and 8k and try to massage over some of the ugliness of cable and OTA over-compression. It's hard to market accurately, but easy to throw a bunch of buzzwords at and make it sound fancy and shiny, and Americans will buy it, because fancy, shiny, bigger number equals better. I don't see a good business case for building out 4k broadcasting for much of anything other than DirecTV's limited events. Over time, as equipment gets cheaper and more widely available, there will be a very slow increase in content, but I just don't see a rush to have a bunch of channels that are in 4k.
BiggAW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1862 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 10:39 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I thought it took a long time to get a lot of PBS shows in HD?
Not talking about individual shows. In many markets, it was the PBS affiliate to light up ATSC 1.0 with the infamous test loop and, later, shows like "Over Ireland." In many markets, they were the first and only doing any HD. Most network affiliates simply retransmitted their analog air chain onto their digital channel, with a few NBC affiliates running "The Tonight Show" in HD, assuming they had the gear and someone remembered to throw the switch. Meanwhile, day or night, that PBS HD loop was running and was stunning.
aaronwt, BiggAW, CHeath and 1 others like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1863 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 11:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Not talking about individual shows. In many markets, it was the PBS affiliate to light up ATSC 1.0 with the infamous test loop and, later, shows like "Over Ireland." In many markets, they were the first and only doing any HD. Most network affiliates simply retransmitted their analog air chain onto their digital channel, with a few NBC affiliates running "The Tonight Show" in HD, assuming they had the gear and someone remembered to throw the switch. Meanwhile, day or night, that PBS HD loop was running and was stunning.
Do you anticipate any PBS stations in the next few years operating their own un-shared ATSC 3.0 tower/SFN that would give them the bandwidth necessary to broadcast in 4K HDR? They can't just flash-cut over from 1.0 to 3.0 on their current tower (dropping 1.0 entirely), can they?
NashGuy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1864 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 11:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
DISHDirect I'm not sure *that's* going to happen. Maybe.
You may have missed the news floating around on Friday:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1T829S
NashGuy is offline  
post #1865 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 01:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,201
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked: 1955
If somebody needs to buy a new TV nowadays it's likely going to be 4K. They have to try a bit to find just an HD only set.
aaronwt and BiggAW like this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #1866 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 829 Post(s)
Liked: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
You may have missed the news floating around on Friday:
I saw the articles, but they even said that DirecTV specifically said there was nothing on the table at this time. It doesn't really make any sense, as AT&T bought DirecTV to bundle with their internet, which they are doing. AT&T would be left with a small number of IPTV customers if they spun DirecTV off or sold them to DISH, more than undoing the size advantage that they have with DirecTV for negotiating content. I think DirecTV was a bad buy for AT&T, I think they should have gone all-in on FTTH and invested in U-Verse and grown that organically, as that $60B or whatever it was would have put a LOT of fiber in the ground and on poles, but now that they've integrated, the whole thing is nonsensical. At that point, they'd be better off making better equipment and software for DirecTV and continuing to optimize DirecTV for high-ARPU customers across DirecTV's own market and AT&T's bundled market.

I also hope they'll buy Frontier when Frontier goes bankrupt, but I can dream, right? At least I'm in an area that would be decently cherry-pickable for fiber if they did that and continued to cherry-pick and redline their way through their fiber deployment. It's actually more based on where their existing fiber went than true redlining, but still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
If somebody needs to buy a new TV nowadays it's likely going to be 4K. They have to try a bit to find just an HD only set.
Yep. Above 43" they are virtually all 4k.
BiggAW is offline  
post #1867 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 05:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I saw the articles, but they even said that DirecTV specifically said there was nothing on the table at this time. It doesn't really make any sense, as AT&T bought DirecTV to bundle with their internet, which they are doing. AT&T would be left with a small number of IPTV customers if they spun DirecTV off or sold them to DISH, more than undoing the size advantage that they have with DirecTV for negotiating content. I think DirecTV was a bad buy for AT&T, I think they should have gone all-in on FTTH and invested in U-Verse and grown that organically, as that $60B or whatever it was would have put a LOT of fiber in the ground and on poles, but now that they've integrated, the whole thing is nonsensical. At that point, they'd be better off making better equipment and software for DirecTV and continuing to optimize DirecTV for high-ARPU customers across DirecTV's own market and AT&T's bundled market.
You're right that it was a horrible decision for AT&T to buy DTV at the peak of the satellite TV market. I've been saying the same. They don't really have any good options with it now, though. Satellite TV is destined to become a niche for rural dwellers who have no other option (plus some old people who for whatever reasons stick with it).

I think that AT&T has renegotiated most or all of their carriage contracts recently, though, with those contracts spanning satellite and streaming (see the new Plus and Max packages). So they might be able to spin off DTV to DISH next year and it not impact the rates they pay on their streaming packages, which will be what AT&T bundles with home and mobile internet service, NOT satellite TV anymore.

Anyhoo, this is completely off-topic for this thread. (Sorry, Dr. Don.) There are relevant threads in which I've posted on the future of DTV/AT&T and the proposed DTV/DISH merger over at satelliteguys.us and dbstalk.com if you're interested.
NashGuy is offline  
post #1868 of 2166 Old 06-09-2019, 05:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,911
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 989 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
If somebody needs to buy a new TV nowadays it's likely going to be 4K. They have to try a bit to find just an HD only set.
I decided to buy a new laptop, the only screen option was 4K.

What 4K video file and what player to show my new $4.4K eyes the new screen is better?

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
post #1869 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,201
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked: 1955
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I also hope they'll buy Frontier when Frontier goes bankrupt, but I can dream, right? At least I'm in an area that would be decently cherry-pickable for fiber if they did that and continued to cherry-pick and redline their way through their fiber deployment. It's actually more based on where their existing fiber went than true redlining, but still.
I read recently that Wave Broadband has been buying up Frontier installations. Wave misses my house by one pole. My nextdoor neighbor is eligible for it but I'm not. Wave is FTTP.

Quote:
Yep. Above 43" they are virtually all 4k.
And HDR plus probably cost less than the last TV they bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
I decided to buy a new laptop, the only screen option was 4K.
What 4K video file and what player to show my new $4.4K eyes the new screen is better?
SHF
YouTube has 4K video and you can turn on the debug option to verify you're getting 4K and at what bandwidth. Just search for 4K on YouTube.
BiggAW likes this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #1870 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
allargon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
You may have missed the news floating around on Friday:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1T829S
Not gonna happen. They couldn't even make it happen during the super-business friendly anything-goes years of 2001-2006. It's not going to happen now. If Verizon didn't overpay for Yahoo and AOL, I could see them buying Dish. They wouldn't just gain the #2 multichannel provider in the states, they'd get a lot of wireless spectrum, too. Comcast would also make sense as a suitor, but I don't see regulators approving that one, either. Dish's mistake was not buying Scripps or Discovery Networks when they had the chance. Viacom is so down on its luck that I don't think Dish would accept any merge requests from them.

So, everyone in this thread is of the opinion that there won't be any linear 4K delivered via satellite, cable (same as satellite, really), or OTA. It will only be OnDemand or IPTV?
BiggAW likes this.
allargon is offline  
post #1871 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 02:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
PA_MainyYak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Johnstown, PA
Posts: 615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 32
No, I don’t share that opinion. The repack runs through 2020 and will likely see more than a few extensions into 2021.
The FCC just opened the window for ATSC 3.0 applications a few weeks ago. (Stations now running 3.0 are under experimental temporary authority.)
2022 or ‘23 should see a critical mass of 3.0 operations, then we will see how it plays out.
Broadcasters are not going to go quietly into the night.
tim58hsv likes this.

"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us."
- Kurt Vonnegut
-0-
PA_MainyYak is offline  
post #1872 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 02:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by allargon View Post
If Verizon didn't overpay for Yahoo and AOL, I could see them buying Dish. They wouldn't just gain the #2 multichannel provider in the states, they'd get a lot of wireless spectrum, too.
Verizon might want the spectrum but they don't want a satellite TV system. Heck, I don't really think they much want their own FiOS TV. They've already signaled that they're going to partner with Google to offer YouTube TV to their home broadband and wireless customers. A year or two back, Verizon beta tested a next-gen IPTV system based on the OnCue platform that they acquired from Intel but ended up deciding to scrap it. Instead, it appears that they're just going with YouTube TV. I bet we see them start offering certain stuff -- live sports, mainly -- in 4K before too long. Gotta keep up with Fubo TV.
aaronwt likes this.
NashGuy is offline  
post #1873 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 02:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 829 Post(s)
Liked: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
You're right that it was a horrible decision for AT&T to buy DTV at the peak of the satellite TV market. I've been saying the same. They don't really have any good options with it now, though. Satellite TV is destined to become a niche for rural dwellers who have no other option (plus some old people who for whatever reasons stick with it).
AT&T has some bundling runway, but in the long run, you're right in that it's a niche service. I would add commercial to that, it makes a lot of sense when you've got 50 TVs to drive with a dozen or more DirecTV boxes.

Quote:
I think that AT&T has renegotiated most or all of their carriage contracts recently, though, with those contracts spanning satellite and streaming (see the new Plus and Max packages). So they might be able to spin off DTV to DISH next year and it not impact the rates they pay on their streaming packages, which will be what AT&T bundles with home and mobile internet service, NOT satellite TV anymore.
But then 5 years down the road, or however long it is, they're screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
I read recently that Wave Broadband has been buying up Frontier installations. Wave misses my house by one pole. My nextdoor neighbor is eligible for it but I'm not. Wave is FTTP.
Yup. Only west coast though. So maybe Frontier sells themselves off bit by bit instead of going bankrupt and just ends up with nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allargon View Post
If Verizon didn't overpay for Yahoo and AOL, I could see them buying Dish. They wouldn't just gain the #2 multichannel provider in the states, they'd get a lot of wireless spectrum, too.
DISH's spectrum is interesting, as they're building license protection sites. It's weird because I can't figure out what their endgame is. If they wanted to sell, they should have sold already. I'd like to see the T-Sprint merger fail, Amazon buy Sprint and DISH, keep the TV business and the B71 and H block (B25? B2?), and sell off the B4/66/70 to Verizon and T-Mobile, and the B29 to AT&T. It would benefit the whole wireless industry to split up their spectrum holdings roughly like that.
BiggAW is offline  
post #1874 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 07:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I had a chat with a rep at Geniatech, their $70 ATSC 3.0 sticks are in stock but the media player software is being worked on with an anticipated release date in October they say.

They actually have the hardware, but of course there's no sense in selling it to consumers until they can bundle the software to make it useful.

4 months isn't that long a wait, huh?
kc9pke is offline  
post #1875 of 2166 Old 06-10-2019, 10:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
But then 5 years down the road, or however long it is, they're screwed.
Yeah, but would they be, really? Five years is a loooong time in the world of TV right now. I think they know that the whole MVPD cable bundle business will be significantly diminished by then. And do you think it's out of the question that a streaming AT&T TV service over the course of five years couldn't garner more subs than Verizon FiOS TV has now? No one thinks FiOS is "screwed" because they're too small to negotiate with cable networks. Would AT&T TV likely get worse rates when it comes time to renegotiate in 2024, therefore resulting in price increases for customers? Sure. But as I say, I think AT&T believes that the bundle will have so crumbled by that point that they could just package in live locals and sports channels with HBO Max (the same way that Hulu has talked publicly about doing).

Remember, AT&T TV will sell to their own 15 million+ home broadband customers (stealing many of them away from DTV satellite), plus their own Wireless customers, as well as OTT to non-AT&T customers nationwide . And I think we'll see AT&T aim to get CenturyLink and maybe Frontier on board as distribution partners too (and even some of those tier 2/3 cable operators who just want to be done with running their own TV service).
NashGuy is offline  
post #1876 of 2166 Old 06-11-2019, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 829 Post(s)
Liked: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Yeah, but would they be, really? Five years is a loooong time in the world of TV right now.
It is a long time, but there is a clear trend that larger MVPDs pay lower prices for content.

Quote:
I think they know that the whole MVPD cable bundle business will be significantly diminished by then. And do you think it's out of the question that a streaming AT&T TV service over the course of five years couldn't garner more subs than Verizon FiOS TV has now? No one thinks FiOS is "screwed" because they're too small to negotiate with cable networks. Would AT&T TV likely get worse rates when it comes time to renegotiate in 2024, therefore resulting in price increases for customers? Sure. But as I say, I think AT&T believes that the bundle will have so crumbled by that point that they could just package in live locals and sports channels with HBO Max (the same way that Hulu has talked publicly about doing).
Verizon and Cox are paying more for content, they are the only mid-sized MVPDs. Verizon also has FiOS, so they can get a premium for their internet, whereas AT&T wants to go OTT, so they have to be fiercely competitive.

Quote:
Remember, AT&T TV will sell to their own 15 million+ home broadband customers (stealing many of them away from DTV satellite), plus their own Wireless customers, as well as OTT to non-AT&T customers nationwide . And I think we'll see AT&T aim to get CenturyLink and maybe Frontier on board as distribution partners too (and even some of those tier 2/3 cable operators who just want to be done with running their own TV service).
Sure, they could attempt to steal back some of those DirecTV customers, but it will still be quite fragmented. DirecTV has immense inertia, and it's still going to be a big (although not nearly as big) player 5 years down the road. I do agree about CenturyLink, Frontier, and smaller cablecos though. Interestingly, AT&T is now talking about out of market fiber expansions to go with DirecTV, so go figure. They have already gotten into out of market MDUs, so they do have a lot of growth potential, even if their upgrade strategy is, as is part for the course for AT&T, extremely haphazard.
BiggAW is offline  
post #1877 of 2166 Old 06-11-2019, 05:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,911
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 989 Post(s)
Liked: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
...

Remember, AT&T TV will sell to their own 15 million+ home broadband customers (stealing many of them away from DTV satellite), plus their own Wireless customers, as well as OTT to non-AT&T customers nationwide . And I think we'll see AT&T aim to get CenturyLink and maybe Frontier on board as distribution partners too (and even some of those tier 2/3 cable operators who just want to be done with running their own TV service).
Remember, AT&T has the last mile problem.

I needed to switch to Comcast because the AT&T wires buried under the street would allow only 6 Mbs service. They were put under the street ~ 1969. I am in the heart of Silicon Valley. Comcast laid new fiber cables.

Comcast has now forced the price up to almost $50 / Month, first up to 25 Mbs from my requested 12 Mbs without authorization and then to 65 Mbs failing to start the pricing that I agreed ~ six (6) months ago. When I complained they said it would be fixed in the next billing cycle. Nope, at least four (4) billing cycles later. AT&T has showed no signs of laying it's own fiber cables, thus the last mile problem.

I am very happy with the programs available OTA and the International Mysteries with English https://watch.mhzchoice.com/ .

So, AT&T cannot sell anything to me at all, and I do not want it.

SHF
rezzy likes this.
SFischer1 is offline  
post #1878 of 2166 Old 06-12-2019, 06:05 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Straying off the topic a bit, FYI.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1879 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 12:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 6,154
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2142 Post(s)
Liked: 3220
Quote:
Originally Posted by allargon View Post
Not gonna happen. They couldn't even make it happen during the super-business friendly anything-goes years of 2001-2006. It's not going to happen now. If Verizon didn't overpay for Yahoo and AOL, I could see them buying Dish. They wouldn't just gain the #2 multichannel provider in the states, they'd get a lot of wireless spectrum, too. Comcast would also make sense as a suitor, but I don't see regulators approving that one, either. Dish's mistake was not buying Scripps or Discovery Networks when they had the chance. Viacom is so down on its luck that I don't think Dish would accept any merge requests from them.

So, everyone in this thread is of the opinion that there won't be any linear 4K delivered via satellite, cable (same as satellite, really), or OTA. It will only be OnDemand or IPTV?
I think you'll see some linear 4K OTA eventually it will be sports when that happens and when it happens...my guess is NBC might try if for the Olympics in four years.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #1880 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 05:38 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
I think you'll see some linear 4K OTA eventually it will be sports when that happens and when it happens...my guess is NBC might try if for the Olympics in four years.
Gonna be quite a feat as there are no Olympic Games in 2023.
BiggAW likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1881 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 07:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
PA_MainyYak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Johnstown, PA
Posts: 615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 32
2020 in Tokyo
2022 Winter Games In Beijing
2024 in Paris
2026 Winter games site tba
Just so we’re clear on the possible windows of opportunity for NBC.
aaronwt, DrDon and BiggAW like this.

"One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us."
- Kurt Vonnegut
-0-
PA_MainyYak is offline  
post #1882 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 09:16 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA_MainyYak View Post
2020 in Tokyo
2022 Winter Games In Beijing
2024 in Paris
2026 Winter games site tba
Just so we’re clear on the possible windows of opportunity for NBC.
I think you can rule out 2020. NBC isn't going to trot out something insanely expensive if their own flagship can't carry it. I still say the video payload currently on WNJU is too high for a channel-share with any other stations. The resulting ATSC 1.0 would be nearly unwatchable in the headquarter city for nearly every advertising agency. The terrible PQ could also be detrimental for ratings. This is their bread-and-butter event. Those ads have to look really good on the mothership.

Plus, producing a nightly 4k production, even if it's culled from some 4k and some HD cameras is also going to be quite expensive. Who's gonna pay the freight? There's no benefit to advertisers and equipment makers can't sell gear in cities that aren't lit up. Not gonna be enough NBC affiliates lit up by next summer for NBC to justify the expense, let alone recover it.

That said, NBC already does 4k Olympic material ripped from the already-available 4k productions. You can see it on DirecTV and Dish and likely Xfinity, next summer.

2022 might be different. We'll have to wait and see.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1883 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 10:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
I think you can rule out 2020. NBC isn't going to trot out something insanely expensive if their own flagship can't carry it. I still say the video payload currently on WNJU is too high for a channel-share with any other stations. The resulting ATSC 1.0 would be nearly unwatchable in the headquarter city for nearly every advertising agency. The terrible PQ could also be detrimental for ratings. This is their bread-and-butter event. Those ads have to look really good on the mothership.

Plus, producing a nightly 4k production, even if it's culled from some 4k and some HD cameras is also going to be quite expensive. Who's gonna pay the freight? There's no benefit to advertisers and equipment makers can't sell gear in cities that aren't lit up. Not gonna be enough NBC affiliates lit up by next summer for NBC to justify the expense, let alone recover it.

That said, NBC already does 4k Olympic material ripped from the already-available 4k productions. You can see it on DirecTV and Dish and likely Xfinity, next summer.

2022 might be different. We'll have to wait and see.
4K coverage of the 2020 Olympics will follow the same precedent already set with other 4K live sports coverage, which is that it will skip OTA distribution through the affiliates and instead rely on distribution through various pay TV avenues.

For instance, tomorrow morning, I can watch the USA take on Chile in the Women's World Cup live. I could watch it for free via OTA antenna from my local Fox 17 station in 720p. Or I could use my parents' DISH pay TV login in the Fox Sports app on my Apple TV 4K and stream the event live in 4K.

Note that the Women's World Cup marks the first event ever where Comcast is distributing live 4K coverage on their cable TV (OK, actually IPTV) system. I expect that they will do the same with the Olympics, which is a FAR bigger deal for them since it's on their own NBC family of networks. Will every single Olympic event be offered in 4K? No. But the Opening Ceremonies and several of the most high-profile contents will be.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20190615_120415.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	104.9 KB
ID:	2580326  
BiggAW likes this.

Last edited by NashGuy; 06-15-2019 at 10:17 AM.
NashGuy is offline  
post #1884 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 10:42 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Note that the Women's World Cup marks the first event ever where Comcast is distributing live 4K coverage on their cable TV (OK, actually IPTV) system. I expect that they will do the same with the Olympics, which is a FAR bigger deal for them since it's on their own NBC family of networks. Will every single Olympic event be offered in 4K? No. But the Opening Ceremonies and several of the most high-profile contents will be.
That's what led me to include Xfinity, above. I'd almost say, for certain, Xfinity will get the same thing DirecTV's been running on their 4k channel. That means if you want to view it, you have to have a Comcast account of some sort. Making it available OTA shoots themselves in the foot.

I'm sure the World Cup is a test run. I kind of expect Xfinity to pick up on the same non-exclusive 4K stuff DirecTV and Dish run. But I feel THIS is NBC/Universal's 4k future, not ATSC 3.0.
BiggAW and NashGuy like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1885 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 11:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
That's what led me to include Xfinity, above. I'd almost say, for certain, Xfinity will get the same thing DirecTV's been running on their 4k channel. That means if you want to view it, you have to have a Comcast account of some sort. Making it available OTA shoots themselves in the foot.

I'm sure the World Cup is a test run. I kind of expect Xfinity to pick up on the same non-exclusive 4K stuff DirecTV and Dish run. But I feel THIS is NBC/Universal's 4k future, not ATSC 3.0.
Yep. Don't know if this will happen before the 2020 Olympics but I'd definitely bet that by the 2022 Winter Games, Xfinity TV (their live "cable TV" service) will be offered nationwide as an OTT option, not just over Comcast's own wired network. I can even see them start selling their little 4K HDR X1 boxes with voice remote (the Xi6 or a subsequent similar model) at Walmart, Target and Best Buy nationwide, competing against Roku, Fire TV and Apple TV. It would be positioned as the best way to experience their Xfinity TV service as well as the upcoming NBCU OTT streaming service (Hulu competitor) that is set to launch in early 2020. (Actually, I expect both services to be sold nationwide through the same app, at least eventually if not immediately.)
NashGuy is offline  
post #1886 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 04:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 6,154
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2142 Post(s)
Liked: 3220
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Gonna be quite a feat as there are no Olympic Games in 2023.
No faith in time-shifting technology ? Point taken. They could try the Super Bowl in a year where NBC has the rights.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #1887 of 2166 Old 06-15-2019, 07:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,829
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2372 Post(s)
Liked: 946
For the Tokyo 2020 games, they can just use the NHK 8k feed, I would guess, and stream them.

Where it will really move the needle in the US is if they started regularly streaming 4K of NFL, NBA, etc.

But again, will it help them drive incremental subscriptions? Or at least slow down people cutting the cord?

Doubtful.


I just listened to an interview with the author of an article in The Atlantic about how fast the streaming landscape is changing. He summarized it as, we're moving from the Wild West days of one or two streaming services providing a lot of legacy content and one or two original shows like House of Cards or Orange is the New Black to a world of siloed streaming services where you have to subscribe to several of them to get all the content you would want to watch.

With Netflix paying $100 million for the rights to Friends, subscribers will just have to have multiple accounts. The end result will be that the monthly TV bills will approach the prices which caused so many people to cut the cord in the first place. So instead of paying $200 a month, the streaming services will have you paying $150 a month.
wco81 is offline  
post #1888 of 2166 Old 06-16-2019, 06:55 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,054
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Liked: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Where it will really move the needle in the US is if they started regularly streaming 4K of NFL, NBA, etc.
Just because it's in 4k doesn't mean new viewers will be drawn to it, regardless of the content. You're either going to watch Thursday Night Football (the most likely to see 4K streaming) or you're not. I'm not a fan of the NBA. Being in 4K won't make me one, either. Ditto any sport you can think of. Sure, a few curious eyes might tune in once or twice, but PQ doesn't drive ratings. If anything, the NBA and MLB are testing the waters. If it works, expect a 4K upgrade package to the out-of-market services similar to the way NFLST is set up w/r/t streaming, RZ, etc. You want 4k? Be prepared to pay for 4k. And, to the topic, if people will pay for 4K, then nobody's going to give it away OTA for free.

Also to the topic, I can't imagine any television station (especially smaller market ones) shelling out the cash for something that won't bring in additional viewers. People who like "NCIS" are going to watch it, no matter the resolution. People who don't, won't, no matter the resolution. Unless Sony or LG or someone pays the freight to bring 4K to broadcast, it ain't happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
But again, will it help them drive incremental subscriptions? Or at least slow down people cutting the cord?

Doubtful.
Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
The end result will be that the monthly TV bills will approach the prices which caused so many people to cut the cord in the first place. So instead of paying $200 a month, the streaming services will have you paying $150 a month.
Which was the a la carte argument I made on this forum a dozen years ago. Full circle. (see your PM inbox for more as I don't want to go totally OT, here)

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #1889 of 2166 Old 06-16-2019, 11:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,502
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Which was the a la carte argument I made on this forum a dozen years ago. Full circle. (see your PM inbox for more as I don't want to go totally OT, here)
We'll never have individual a la carte cable channels but we are moving toward a system of a la carte content bundles (i.e. streaming services) from each major content owner. In the end, adding up the price of all the different direct-to-consumer streaming services (which will eventually include all sports) may come pretty close to what the fullest cable channel bundle plus all the premiums used to cost (adjusted for inflation). But I think that the end result will also be MORE content for consumers to enjoy, available at their fingertips whenever they want it.

And since there will be a larger number of discrete content bundles (i.e. different branded services) being offered than there typically are different tiers of cable channel bundles (e.g. Basic, Expanded Basic, Preferred), it will give consumers greater control over the total amount they choose to spend as they cobble together the content packages that most appeal to them. And finally, because these streaming services are distributed online, using any broadband connection and viewed through an array of popular consumer devices, and because they can be started and stopped any given month with no penalty, it makes for a much more convenient and flexible system. The new model drives a fair amount of extraneous cost out of the system.
NashGuy is offline  
post #1890 of 2166 Old 06-16-2019, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rdgcss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salisbury,NC
Posts: 1,348
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Just because it's in 4k doesn't mean new viewers will be drawn to it, regardless of the content. You're either going to watch Thursday Night Football (the most likely to see 4K streaming) or you're not. I'm not a fan of the NBA. Being in 4K won't make me one, either. Ditto any sport you can think of. Sure, a few curious eyes might tune in once or twice, but PQ doesn't drive ratings. If anything, the NBA and MLB are testing the waters. If it works, expect a 4K upgrade package to the out-of-market services similar to the way NFLST is set up w/r/t streaming, RZ, etc. You want 4k? Be prepared to pay for 4k. And, to the topic, if people will pay for 4K, then nobody's going to give it away OTA for free.

Also to the topic, I can't imagine any television station (especially smaller market ones) shelling out the cash for something that won't bring in additional viewers. People who like "NCIS" are going to watch it, no matter the resolution. People who don't, won't, no matter the resolution. Unless Sony or LG or someone pays the freight to bring 4K to broadcast, it ain't happening.

Agreed.


Which was the a la carte argument I made on this forum a dozen years ago. Full circle. (see your PM inbox for more as I don't want to go totally OT, here)
In the early days of HD, if you had an HD tv many people would watch anything just because it was HD. They wanted to get the maximum benefit of that $3000+ TV. It’s hard to find a TV over 50” today that is not 4K. The number of people with a 4K TV is going up fast. We will have another “I want my MTV” moment.
rdgcss 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