Atsc 3.0 - Page 70 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1914Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2071 of 2972 Old 08-28-2019, 03:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Right now, TV stations are changing from higher to lower frequencies because the government is in the process of converting the upper end of the UHF TV frequency range over to 5G/4G cellular. So what I'm saying will happen in the future already has precedent. I'm just saying that it will happen again. The FCC will announce that more -- perhaps eventually all -- of the remaining UHF and even high-VHF TV spectrum will be converted over to 5G or 6G or whatever form of wireless internet transmission we're using then.
If you follow the precedent, you'd be suggesting that they would chop another chunk off the top of the TV spectrum- but as it is, no one bid for all of the 600mhz, so some of it went unsold, and they only cut TV back to RF36.

Further, I still don't think that the frequencies below 600mhz are useful for mobile use. As it is, the uplink for B71 is on the higher end of the band. The UHF frequencies below 600mhz are really only useful for fixed point wireless in rural areas, which can/will be done with TVWS with no need to re-allocated the whole band. Further, if TVWS takes over from TV entirely in some regions of the country, those will become the de-facto incumbent users of the band, and they will fight a different licensing scheme. I think a licensed TVWS licenses could end up taking over at least 50% of the Mhz-sq.mi. of the UHF band, although that would be roughly equivalent to about 10% of the Mhz-POPs, with OTA remaining in some or most markets on a more limited basis with fewer channels in rural areas.
kc9pke likes this.
BiggAW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2072 of 2972 Old 08-28-2019, 05:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
eherberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
The fact that it's just not useful for much of anything else is why AM radio is able to survive despite the fact that it has very, very poor audio quality with very, very few listeners (and likely most of the listeners it does have are elderly/getting ready to meet their Maker). If there was actually market demand for those AM frequencies to be used for something more popular than the kind of programming that's carried on AM radio, then the businesses (stations) operating on those frequencies wouldn't be able to afford the licenses. Other businesses would outbid them. But since no one wants them, those stations can get the licenses for cheap and eek out a meager profit by selling ads for walk-in tubs and life insurance.
Careful with generalizations (and a snobbish age-bias). AM radio is many markets is doing much more than just eeking out an existence. In my market, the AM station is the #1 rated station in the area with a Nielsen of 10.7. The nearest contender is a classic rock FM station coming in at 7.4 rating.
eherberg is online now  
post #2073 of 2972 Old 08-28-2019, 09:53 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Further, I still don't think that the frequencies below 600mhz are useful for mobile use.
At this point one really cares about low band spectrum at the moment: the mobile operators have shifted their focus to covering large swaths of land to busting up congested parts of their network. The 2 425 MHz wide blocks in the 28 GHz band (FCC Auction 101) and the 7 100 MHz wide blocks in the 24 GHz band (of which I won 3!) in 102 were very surprisingly sought after, in Auction 102 the only licenses that didn't sell were 5 blocks in the territory of American Samoa
aaronwt and BiggAW like this.

Last edited by kc9pke; 08-30-2019 at 10:02 PM.
kc9pke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2074 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 05:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 17,220
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1899 Post(s)
Liked: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by eherberg View Post
Careful with generalizations (and a snobbish age-bias). AM radio is many markets is doing much more than just eeking out an existence. In my market, the AM station is the #1 rated station in the area with a Nielsen of 10.7. The nearest contender is a classic rock FM station coming in at 7.4 rating.
At the risk of going way off topic, a single high-rated station is not "AM radio" in general doing well. Further, that station has an FM translator--how many of its listeners are now listening on FM rather than AM? If the programming moved to a high-powered FM, as a lot of talk stations have in recent years, how well would AM be doing in your area?

I'm not out to devalue AM radio or anything like that, but most markets look about like what you're describing. A single AM station, usually airing conservative talk programming, is somewhere in the top 5 or 10 in the ratings, and then every other AM in the market is down in the noise, unless they have an FM translator. In places where that programming has already migrated to FM, the AM band isn't even a real factor in the ratings most of the time. Check out DC, where I am; WTOP (all news) and WMAL (conservative talk) are both on FM now, and WJFK (sports) has been on FM for a long time, and the best rated AM station gets a 0.7 rating, good for a tie for 21st place with a station from Baltimore that the Virginia side of the market can't even hear most of the time.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #2075 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 01:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,986
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Moderator!

Please change the title of this thread to ANTI ATSC 3.0

Anything positive is drowned out.

A new thread can then be created for positive comments.

It has gotten way out of hand.

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
post #2076 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 03:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rdgcss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salisbury,NC
Posts: 1,423
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
Moderator!

Please change the title of this thread to ANTI ATSC 3.0

Anything positive is drowned out.

A new thread can then be created for positive comments.

It has gotten way out of hand.

SHF
It’s human nature to dislike change:
1. primarily because of a fear of the unknown
2. you cannot blindly perform a function because you have to actually use your brain to think a little
3. You might have spend some money to upgrade your hardware
rdgcss is online now  
post #2077 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 05:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by kc9pke View Post
At this point one really cares about low band spectrum at the moment: the mobile operators have shifted their focus to covering large swaths of land to busting up congested parts of their network. The 2 425 MHz wide blocks in the 24 GHz band (FCC Auction 101) and the 7 100 MHz wide blocks in the 24 GHz band (of which I won 3!) in 102 were very surprisingly sought after, in Auction 102 the only licenses that didn't sell were 5 blocks in the territory of American Samoa
Mobile mmWave is going to flop, but yes, they are going after capacity now that everyone is all-in on UDPs. They really don't have any other choice at this point. mmWave will be useful for installed home internet as well as backhaul links to small cells, buildings, and more, however. It might be useful for mobile in a few high-density situations without a permanent physical infrastructure like fairs and outdoor music festivals. For iDAS, it's not very useful, as they already have more than enough spectrum when they can put a crazy high density iDAS running at crazy low power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
I'm not out to devalue AM radio or anything like that, but most markets look about like what you're describing. A single AM station, usually airing conservative talk programming, is somewhere in the top 5 or 10 in the ratings, and then every other AM in the market is down in the noise, unless they have an FM translator.
Baseball is big on AM as well. I can receive a number of AM stations in my apartment. Of course, AM radio is big on bloviating blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as well, so it often gets a bad rap as a result.
kc9pke likes this.

Last edited by BiggAW; 08-29-2019 at 05:45 PM. Reason: clarity
BiggAW is offline  
post #2078 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 10:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 7,308
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2610 Post(s)
Liked: 4404
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
Moderator!

Please change the title of this thread to ANTI ATSC 3.0

Anything positive is drowned out.

A new thread can then be created for positive comments.

It has gotten way out of hand.

SHF
"Usher, Usher ! Errr..Moderator, Moderator. The truth is any number of threads in AVS suffer from one side or the other getting drowned out. You just have to hope people will be civil about it. I don't think we need a new thread yet, but your point is valid.
rcman2, BiggAW and PA_MainyYak like this.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is online now  
post #2079 of 2972 Old 08-29-2019, 11:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,296
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2694 Post(s)
Liked: 1076
I don’t think there’s anger about ATSC 3 in this thread.

More head scratching.


I understand why they wanted a way to deliver targeted advertis8ng but are local stations sophisticated enough to use analytics like Google and FB?

Or do they just hope advertisers will pay them more because “hey we got targeted advertising too!”


Advertisers are paying tech companies billions per quarter because they have a global addressable market. Are they going to pay more and shift some of their ad budgets to address maybe a couple million at most in a metro area who will still bother with OTA?

Because I think we pretty much know now that there won’t be many if any ATSC 3.0 receivers hardware in smart phones.
BiggAW and NashGuy like this.
wco81 is offline  
post #2080 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 06:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgcss View Post
It’s human nature to dislike change:
1. primarily because of a fear of the unknown
2. you cannot blindly perform a function because you have to actually use your brain to think a little
3. You might have spend some money to upgrade your hardware

My reason is number 3.
Tired of chasing.
nathill is offline  
post #2081 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 09:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: So Cal
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
Moderator!

Please change the title of this thread to ANTI ATSC 3.0

Anything positive is drowned out.

A new thread can then be created for positive comments.

It has gotten way out of hand.

SHF
Posting reasons why ATSC 3.0 rollout might or might not happen seem like reasonable topics of discussion to me.
joblo, aaronwt, BiggAW and 4 others like this.

Bob Holmes
Curmudgeon
Der Alte is offline  
post #2082 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 10:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Why should local broadcasters want to see the spectrum that they license and use converted from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 rather than from ATSC 1.0 to 5G? Even if TV broadcasters very much want to retain that spectrum and continue to own and operate their own broadcast towers, why, at this point in technological history, move toward ATSC 3.0? Why not instead embrace 5G, which will be a much more open, global standard, with two-way transmission built in?
Actually, Sinclair is looking into 5G embedded in its ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/sinc...ernet-network/

https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/o...c-3-0-platform

And this is actually a very sly way of creating a SFN of ATSC 3.0 stations: Make the cell phone companies pay to construct it, and in the process, force the ATSC 3.0 TV signal to piggyback on the carrier's network. Whether it would be two-way TDD or one-way downlink or uplink is immaterial at that point, at least from Sinclair's view.

I would assume, however, that the carriers would want 5 MHz of the 6 MHz broadcast (most LTE bands require a minimum of 5 MHz spectrum, whether in FDD or TDD setups). In a "similar reception ability to ATSC 1.0" replacement broadcast setup, the 5 MHz 5G transmission would only allow for about 3.75 Mbps of TV data. Accounting for nulls, tables, and audio, that leaves about 3 Mbps for HEVC video, equivalent of ~12 Mbps of MPEG-2 video. That's enough for a single 720p video stream. Even two 720p streams at VBR would be a problem, especially when accounting for audio on that second 720p feed. It's certainly not enough for even one 1080p or 4K signal.

But does it need to be? One of the benefits to ATSC 3.0 is the ability to stream data over the Internet. Could you make it a pay-to-view extra subscription service to see the 1080p and/or 4K versions of said stations (along with the full Sinclair-owned suite of subchannels) for "only", say, $4.99/month? If that's possible within the spec, then Sinclair could get two revenue streams: One from cell companies to create a TV bandwidth problem, then charge customers to correct that problem. The Hegelian dialectic at its almost-finest!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
My reason is number 3.
Tired of chasing.
If my understanding of ATSC 3.0 is correct (IP standard for transmission), you may be able to get a 3.0-complaint tuner the next time you buy an Internet router.
nathill and NashGuy like this.

Last edited by mikemikeb; 08-31-2019 at 10:06 AM.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2083 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1066 Post(s)
Liked: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
Actually, Sinclair is looking into 5G embedded in its ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/sinc...ernet-network/

https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/o...c-3-0-platform
I may not be completly getting what it is that Sinclair is proposing here but it looks, to me, as a ploy to get the 5G network operators (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to support the inclusion of radios in mobile phones that work with ATSC 3.0. Perhaps among other things, Sinclair wants to say to the 5G operators, "We can handle excess traffic for you to take bandwidth pressure of your 5G network. Just route some of your downstream traffic from your 5G frequency over to spare bandwidth on our ATSC 3.0 frequency!"

Now, it's been talked about for some time that 3.0 station owners would try to monetize *some* of their 3.0 bandwidth by selling it for non-broadcast TV uses. The new element added here is that Sinclair specifically wants to develop a platform for interfacing 5G networks with 3.0 towers so that 5G operators' data can travel via those towers to customers' phones. And, of course, if the 3.0 towers can reach phones with offloaded 5G data, they can also reach them with the stations' broadcast TV signal or whatever else they want to send them, right?
NashGuy is offline  
post #2084 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 06:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
Actually, Sinclair is looking into 5G embedded in its ATSC 3.0 broadcasts.
Sounds to me like someone get jealous of Foxconn's new AI 8K+5G ecosystem having more buzzwords than they did, so they decided that they wanted to be able to advertise 5G as well, and are trying to find some way to tie themselves to 5G.
BiggAW is offline  
post #2085 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 09:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,296
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2694 Post(s)
Liked: 1076
Imagine if they use political clout to get the FCC to worm their way into 5G somehow.

But the carriers themselves wield a lot of influence with the FCC themselves.
wco81 is offline  
post #2086 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 09:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
I may not be completly getting what it is that Sinclair is proposing here but it looks, to me, as a ploy to get the 5G network operators (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to support the inclusion of radios in mobile phones that work with ATSC 3.0.
Yes, that's basically the concept. However, I wonder if the standard allows for the cell carriers to put their own 5G header, and quarantine a set 5 MHz section of the 6 MHz section for themselves, which a cell phone could pick up without the need for an ATSC 3.0 tuner? (The 3.0 bootstrap, and the rest of the spectrum, would remain for OTA TV reception.) That way, the cellcos can say, "OK, we'll pay you $$xyz for spectrum on your TV signal, and we'll piggyback your ATSC 3.0 TV signal as a Single Frequency Network, but in exchange, we won't place 3.0 tuners on our phones." I think that would be an overall win-win for both sides, maybe not quite what Sinclair would want, but still a big revenue stream for them (and more like two, if they want to do a "pay for 1080p/4K" package).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Sounds to me like someone get jealous of Foxconn's new AI 8K+5G ecosystem having more buzzwords than they did, so they decided that they wanted to be able to advertise 5G as well, and are trying to find some way to tie themselves to 5G.
I doubt it's jealousy. One probably just copied the other, or both thought of the idea, independently. My guess is that Sinclair boffins probably saw this as their best opportunity to leverage their way into getting both a cheap SFN rollout and 3.0 tuners into phones, in one fell swoop. If they can get the former, alone, that's a big win. If they can figure out a way to negotiate both, good for them.

My prediction: T-Mobile inks a nationwide ATSC3.0-5G deal with Sinclair, but won't involve 3.0 tuner inclusion.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2087 of 2972 Old 08-31-2019, 10:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,296
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2694 Post(s)
Liked: 1076
Who’d have more clout, the carriers or manufacturers like Apple which would not put ATSC 3 hardware on their devices?
wco81 is offline  
post #2088 of 2972 Old 09-01-2019, 08:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
I doubt it's jealousy. One probably just copied the other, or both thought of the idea, independently. My guess is that Sinclair boffins probably saw this as their best opportunity to leverage their way into getting both a cheap SFN rollout and 3.0 tuners into phones, in one fell swoop. If they can get the former, alone, that's a big win. If they can figure out a way to negotiate both, good for them.

My prediction: T-Mobile inks a nationwide ATSC3.0-5G deal with Sinclair, but won't involve 3.0 tuner inclusion.
More likely showing off to investors. "Look we can do this 5G thing too even though we have no freaking clue what we're doing!".
BiggAW is offline  
post #2089 of 2972 Old 09-01-2019, 02:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Who’d have more clout, the carriers or manufacturers like Apple which would not put ATSC 3 hardware on their devices?
Manufacturers have less leverage than you think. I remember the brouhaha over FM tuners going into cell phones. AT&T let them go on Windows Phones, but I don't think they ended up on Verizon's phones, despite the internal hardware being similar. Now there, the FM tuner was theoretically included in the Bluetooth+WiFi chip, and it was just a matter of software enabling. The 3.0 tuner would be a dedicated chip that would require special procurement costs and loss of profit margins. So I can see both carriers and manufacturers saying no to tuners in phones, and I see leverage, because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
More likely showing off to investors. "Look we can do this 5G thing too even though we have no freaking clue what we're doing!".
Not true. This is about defraying SFN installation costs. Normal tower-based SFN's built organically are amazingly expensive. To have another company pay you to install towers that will provide more potent TV signals in fringe areas is big money for Sinclair. This is leverage the cell companies can use in negotiating with Sinclair.

And then from there, there's the matter of tower broadcasting costs. I would think it's possible within 3.0 spec to place PLP's within pre-set areas of spectrum. If so, a system could be designed where the 5G signal goes into a PLP, which a standard 5G radio could tune natively, and ignore the rest of the TV signal. Meanwhile, the 3.0 TV tuner would ignore the 5G PLP, and tune the rest of the signal.

But let's go one step further. If the 5G PLP, in this scenario, is a different signal at each cell tower site, why couldn't Sinclair simply transmit the 3.0 TV-based PLP's, and have the cell companies splice in their PLP as they bolt the main 3.0 TV signal into it? Or in other words, if the TV station is responsible for only 1/6th of the TV signal, why couldn't TV stations broadcast their part of the signal in a narrow spectrum at 1/6th the power? The ERP would remain the same for FCC purposes, and they'd save money on transmission costs. You'd need to probably do some transmitter work, but I assume that this process could be done.

I remember a YouTube video (too lazy to find it) where a top dog at Sinclair (David Smith) said that they had been doing research on what would be the most profitable option for ATSC 3.0 bandwidth usage, and they wouldn't say what it was. If Sinclair could convince another company to build out their SFN, and get paid for it in the process, that is money in the bank for them. No need to spend to build the SFN, they get paid more money for spectrum sharing, they save money in transmission at the main transmitter site, and they then potentially get paid for offering 1080p and 4K to customers. There's too much money in Sinclair compromising on the embedded chips.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2090 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 08:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
Not true. This is about defraying SFN installation costs. Normal tower-based SFN's built organically are amazingly expensive. To have another company pay you to install towers that will provide more potent TV signals in fringe areas is big money for Sinclair. This is leverage the cell companies can use in negotiating with Sinclair.
I'm still skeptical on the business model for SFNs, unless OTA really picks up viewership. With streaming, it would be easier to just let people pay and collect retrans fees. That being said, are you suggesting that this is merely a tower sharing agreement?
BiggAW is offline  
post #2091 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 05:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I'm still skeptical on the business model for SFNs, unless OTA really picks up viewership. With streaming, it would be easier to just let people pay and collect retrans fees. That being said, are you suggesting that this is merely a tower sharing agreement?
I guess so. For any given station, Sinclair would build and operate the main broadcast tower, while the cell company would build out and own the cell towers, piggybacking the main TV signal onto the side of each 5G signal.

I'm not sure streaming would count toward Nielsen ratings. Old rules state that a direct OTA signal must exist for broadcast TV stations to be counted, which is mostly why right after the September 11 attacks, TV stations scrambled to put their backup signals on the Empire State Building before the November sweeps. Yes, ATSC 3.0 has its own ratings gathering technique, but it's not yet established. High-profile advertisers will still want the Nielsen ratings, for now.

Plus there's another reason for a one-to-many no-streaming method of TV reception: Weather and general emergency alerting. The Advanced Emergency Alerting (or AWARN) broadcasting technique is why I'm so into ATSC 3.0. If the local cell network or cable/fiber internet go out for whatever reason, it's not wise to rely on streaming for alerting weather alerts.

Example: On April 27, 2011, a squall line with severe winds and embedded tornadoes swept across the Deep South, and knocked out power to over 250,000 customers in Alabama, alone. With many customers having multiple people living in said homes, it was more like 350,000-500,000 people in the state. What was the big deal about that? Later in the day, many people lost the ability to be warned about discrete EF-4 and EF-5 tornadoes that went through the state and killed over 200 people. Many NOAA Weather Radio stations went offline, and didn't have backup generators, so even those who had battery backup on their NOAA Weather radios had no alerts. In most locations, the NOAA Weather Radio system triggered the sirens. With no power, they had no TV to watch. WEA didn't exist, yet, and with such damage to infrastructure earlier in the day, perhaps it wouldn't have worked in some areas.

Having 3.0 devices with battery backup getting data from broadcast TV stations minimizes the odds of missing a weather alert in spite of major infrastructure damage. While I assume NOAA Weather radio manufacturers like Midland and Reecom will build 3.0-capable AWARN receivers with battery backup for home sites, the inclusion of 3.0 tuners into cell phones would be a real help towards AWARN reception in more mobile situations. Those cell towers would be vital in providing a solid 3.0 signal in more short-range transmission.

How AWARN works: http://awarn.org/how-it-works/
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2092 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 08:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,560
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1045 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
I guess so. For any given station, Sinclair would build and operate the main broadcast tower, while the cell company would build out and own the cell towers, piggybacking the main TV signal onto the side of each 5G signal.
The 5G stuff is where you lose me. If they want to co-located on a tower, that makes sense, but it's two totally different sets of equipment.

Quote:
I'm not sure streaming would count toward Nielsen ratings. Old rules state that a direct OTA signal must exist for broadcast TV stations to be counted, which is mostly why right after the September 11 attacks, TV stations scrambled to put their backup signals on the Empire State Building before the November sweeps. Yes, ATSC 3.0 has its own ratings gathering technique, but it's not yet established. High-profile advertisers will still want the Nielsen ratings, for now.
Does YouTube TV or Hulu Live TV not count for ratings? Even without an SFN, they would still keep an OTA broadcast channel, whether it's ATSC 1.0 or 3.0.

Quote:
Having 3.0 devices with battery backup getting data from broadcast TV stations minimizes the odds of missing a weather alert in spite of major infrastructure damage. While I assume NOAA Weather radio manufacturers like Midland and Reecom will build 3.0-capable AWARN receivers with battery backup for home sites, the inclusion of 3.0 tuners into cell phones would be a real help towards AWARN reception in more mobile situations. Those cell towers would be vital in providing a solid 3.0 signal in more short-range transmission.
That's a great use case, but who is going to pay for that? Are stations going to want to pony up the cash for a weather alert system?
BiggAW is offline  
post #2093 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 09:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 31
A question to seperate the hypothetical, the imaginary from the current reality. Is there some form of ATSC 3.0 being implemented in year 2020 in some major USA cities? Is it beyond the testing phase yet?
LHenton is online now  
post #2094 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 10:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
I would think it's possible within 3.0 spec to place PLP's within pre-set areas of spectrum. If so, a system could be designed where the 5G signal goes into a PLP, which a standard 5G radio could tune natively, and ignore the rest of the TV signal. Meanwhile, the 3.0 TV tuner would ignore the 5G PLP, and tune the rest of the signal.
The way to have a mixed ATSC 3.0 and 5G signal is with Time Division Multiplexing. The System Discovery and Signaling or "bootstrap" signal is used indicate which time slots are ATSC 3.0 or something else.


Ron
NashGuy likes this.

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #2095 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 10:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
The 5G stuff is where you lose me. If they want to co-located on a tower, that makes sense, but it's two totally different sets of equipment.
That's the idea of a Single Frequency Network: One can have multiple towers in an area transmitting a given signal. Each 5G signal is very similar to LTE: They share the same frequency, but each tower broadcasts different information/data. So under this Sinclair SFN arrangement:

Sinclair owns Station A, broadcasting an ATSC 3.0 TV signal on UHF channel 31. This broadcast includes 1 MHz of its 6 MHz spectrum.

From there, Cell Carrier T has access to the Station A signal and accesses it at their respective cell towers located all over the Station A region. From there, it adds on unique 5G traffic onto the other 5 MHz of channel 31's frequency, then transmits the combined 6 MHz signals from their own towers.

So any given ATSC 3.0 tuner can receive the TV broadcasts from either the WSES main broadcast towers, or the cell carrier towers, or both: The 3.0 standard allows for two TV signals from two different towers to boost each other's ability to pick up the station. This is much easier to do than with ATSC 1.0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Does YouTube TV or Hulu Live TV not count for ratings? Even without an SFN, they would still keep an OTA broadcast channel, whether it's ATSC 1.0 or 3.0.
Yes, but apparently for broadcast TV, that ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 signal must be on the air for online viewings to count in the Nielsen ratings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
That's a great use case, but who is going to pay for that? Are stations going to want to pony up the cash for a weather alert system?
It's baked into the ATSC 3.0 system. See Pages 36-44 from the ATSC A/331 standard; it's officially called "Advanced Emergency Alerting", but it's another way to describe AWARN: https://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uplo...y-Sync-FEC.pdf Basically, the stations receive data from FEMA IPAWS, and then convert it into a format that the ATSC 3.0 receivers can understand. That's not very expensive to do at the station.

So going back to the tornado sirens in cities and towns: Each siren site can have a dedicated ATSC 3.0 tuner located at the siren site, which will only make the siren sound if it's located in the tornado warning polygon. Right now, a lot of these sirens, especially in the deep South, rely on NOAA Weather Radio signals on a county-by-county level to be triggered, which is what I was tying to infer in my previous post. Local TV stations will have more of an incentive to stay on the air than NOAA Weather Radio stations, so they should keep sending AWARN data. So for the price of a 3.0 tuner, a directional antenna, and some RG-6 cable (if they're close enough to the main tower, they may just need a basic Midland-type 3.0 "radio" with built-in extendable antenna), local governments operating the sirens can focus on connecting to the dedicated broadcast TV station, so they can still get the AWARN signal in case of another April 27 disaster taking down nearby cell towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LHenton View Post
A question to seperate the hypothetical, the imaginary from the current reality. Is there some form of ATSC 3.0 being implemented in year 2020 in some major USA cities? Is it beyond the testing phase yet?
Testing is nearly completed, and there are plans to launch nationally sometime in 2020. https://www.atsc.org/newsletter/road...-2020-rollout/

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
The way to have a mixed ATSC 3.0 and 5G signal is with Time Division Multiplexing. The System Discovery and Signaling or "bootstrap" signal is used indicate which time slots are ATSC 3.0 or something else.
So it would be nice to know if the TDM can be arranged so the 5G PLP always will take up a given portion of frequency. I would think it's possible through software, and if so, then physical quarantining of spectrum can be easily done in a way that if cell phones don't have 3.0 tuners, at least they can still tune in the 5G signal on that spectrum.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2096 of 2972 Old 09-02-2019, 11:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
So it would be nice to know if the TDM can be arranged so the 5G PLP always will take up a given portion of frequency. I would think it's possible through software, and if so, then physical quarantining of spectrum can be easily done in a way that if cell phones don't have 3.0 tuners, at least they can still tune in the 5G signal on that spectrum.
The entire 6 MHz channel is time multiplexed. It's ATSC 3.0 for x amount of milliseconds and 5G (or whatever) for y amount of milliseconds.

You're still going to need a 5G (or whatever) receiver that understands the ATSC 3.0 bootstrap signal, so that it knows when to listen.

Ron
NashGuy likes this.

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #2097 of 2972 Old 09-03-2019, 04:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,926
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 516 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
The entire 6 MHz channel is time multiplexed. It's ATSC 3.0 for x amount of milliseconds and 5G (or whatever) for y amount of milliseconds.

You're still going to need a 5G (or whatever) receiver that understands the ATSC 3.0 bootstrap signal, so that it knows when to listen.

Ron
What am I missing about the SFN here? In my DVB-understanding of SFNs, the payload is the same for all transmitters on the same frequency, so that the COFDM carriers within the guard interval re-inforce each other, rather than interfering with each other. I can see how this works with time slicing of the RF channel, but won't this still mean the TV vs 5G data has to be the same on all transmitters too?
sneals2000 is offline  
post #2098 of 2972 Old 09-03-2019, 02:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mikemikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC Area
Posts: 1,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
The entire 6 MHz channel is time multiplexed. It's ATSC 3.0 for x amount of milliseconds and 5G (or whatever) for y amount of milliseconds.

You're still going to need a 5G (or whatever) receiver that understands the ATSC 3.0 bootstrap signal, so that it knows when to listen.
So let's say the TDM method transmits the bootstrap where the 3.0 spec says it should be, along with all needed PLP information of Sinclair Station A, on just a combined 1 MHz of the 6 MHz, and leaves the rest of the spectrum untouched by anyone else, including cell carriers. Will the 3.0 tuner tune the TV channels?

If so, let's go one step further. Now let's assume cell carrier T fills in the remaining 5 MHz of spectrum with a 5G signal, and piggybacks the 1 MHz of Sinclair Station A on the side of the 5G signal, in such a way that the bootstrap and PLP for A/V TV data on that side 1 MHz of spectrum all are timed as if there were no 5G arrangement.

So now let's imagine one is attempting to tune to Station A on an ATSC 3.0 tuner. When the bootstrap tells a 3.0 receiver to "listen" to the TV audio/video PLP, the lower 1 MHz contains all the info needed to tune in channels 31-1 and 35-1 (retrans of sister station), with a bunch of nonsense on the rest of the 5 MHz of the spectrum. Will the 3.0 tuner tune the TV channels?

If such a decode is possible on a standard 3.0-compliant tuner, then the cell carrier can operate a standard 5 MHz 5G network that does not require an ATSC 3.0 tuner for decoding, and, with custom transmitters on the cell company end, transmit a SFN of the TV station content, with all bootstrap and PLP data retained. Such an arrangement would probably require that the 5G data is not mentioned in any PLP.
mikemikeb is offline  
post #2099 of 2972 Old 09-03-2019, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post
So let's say the TDM method transmits the bootstrap where the 3.0 spec says it should be, along with all needed PLP information of Sinclair Station A, on just a combined 1 MHz of the 6 MHz, and leaves the rest of the spectrum untouched by anyone else, including cell carriers. Will the 3.0 tuner tune the TV channels?

If so, let's go one step further. Now let's assume cell carrier T fills in the remaining 5 MHz of spectrum with a 5G signal, and piggybacks the 1 MHz of Sinclair Station A on the side of the 5G signal, in such a way that the bootstrap and PLP for A/V TV data on that side 1 MHz of spectrum all are timed as if there were no 5G arrangement.

So now let's imagine one is attempting to tune to Station A on an ATSC 3.0 tuner. When the bootstrap tells a 3.0 receiver to "listen" to the TV audio/video PLP, the lower 1 MHz contains all the info needed to tune in channels 31-1 and 35-1 (retrans of sister station), with a bunch of nonsense on the rest of the 5 MHz of the spectrum. Will the 3.0 tuner tune the TV channels?

If such a decode is possible on a standard 3.0-compliant tuner, then the cell carrier can operate a standard 5 MHz 5G network that does not require an ATSC 3.0 tuner for decoding, and, with custom transmitters on the cell company end, transmit a SFN of the TV station content, with all bootstrap and PLP data retained. Such an arrangement would probably require that the 5G data is not mentioned in any PLP.
You can't split the spectrum. The minimum size of an ATSC 3.0 signal is 6 MHz. That's cast in concrete in the bootstrap specification.

Ron
joblo and NashGuy like this.

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #2100 of 2972 Old 09-03-2019, 02:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
What am I missing about the SFN here? In my DVB-understanding of SFNs, the payload is the same for all transmitters on the same frequency, so that the COFDM carriers within the guard interval re-inforce each other, rather than interfering with each other. I can see how this works with time slicing of the RF channel, but won't this still mean the TV vs 5G data has to be the same on all transmitters too?
Yes, the TV data (and TDM slot position and length) has to be the same on all transmitters. The 5G data can be different on each transmitter.

In the DVB-T2 specification, the TDM capability is called Future Extension Frames or FEF.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 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