Atsc 3.0 - Page 72 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1173Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2131 of 2214 Old 09-18-2019, 04:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
videobruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 16,397
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 847 Post(s)
Liked: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Sinclair and the Pearl consortium (basically, Nexstar and every broadcast group other than Sinclair) jointly create a software/operating system platform for ATSC 3.0 in the USA. All ATSC 3.0 tuners and their front-end software which accesses and displays their content must license this software platform. (Is that legal?) This software would use a common set of UI/UX conventions which all ATSC 3.0 stations would conform to. It would provide the framework for consumers opting into internet-enabled content and services, including the insertion of targeted ads, viewership measurement, etc.
That sounds exactly like the TiVo monopoly by hook or by crook where one entity controls one aspect of TV viewing almost completely.
More deregulation.
JHBrandt likes this.

.
.
Recording free OTA TV for 'time shifting' has been here since 1975. Will there be DVR's to do the same when ATSC3 obsoletes existing DVR's??
videobruce is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2132 of 2214 Old 09-18-2019, 05:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Sounds like a real PITA.

I bet a lot of people would skip ATSC 3.0 even if there was a lot of 4K HDR content, rather than being forced to watch ads.

Or they might spend a few bucks for a streaming service instead, which will also be 4K HDR and won't have the ads, such as Disney +.
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post
That sounds exactly like the TiVo monopoly by hook or by crook where one entity controls one aspect of TV viewing almost completely.
More deregulation.
Fair enough. I'm not thinking about what *I* would like to see as a consumer. I'm trying to imagine what might actually happen, looking at the current business landscape from the point of view of local broadcasters.

Think about it. In order to get consumers to connect their ATSC 3.0 tuners to the internet and opt into allowing targeted advertising, viewer data collection, etc., they have to offer us *something*, right? I'm envisioning those goodies as mainly being free OTA DVR service and an enhanced long-term program guide. Right now, with ATSC 1.0, if you want that kind of thing, you'll pay the Channels app $8/mo or $80/yr. Or you'll pay TiVo $15/mo or $150/yr. Or you'll pay Tablo $5/mo or $50/yr. In other words, OTA DVR service has some amount of value.

But the only reason local broadcasters might have for giving you that kind of OTA DVR for FREE is if it forced you to watch more of their lucrative ads. Ads are the only way to monetize a free service. That's why, in my hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't be able to FF past the ads in your ATSC 3.0 recordings. Instead, you'd be streamed unskippable targeted ads (which fetch a much higher rate per viewer impression than regular broadcast ads).

But here's the thing: if I'm ABC or CBS or NBC, I'm saying "Why am I letting my local affiliates -- owned by Nexstar, Sinclair, etc. -- distribute my valuable primetime and sports content like this, for free to OTA viewers, with the ability to record it and play it back on-demand, but with the ads MY COMPANY has sold to advertisers CUT OUT and replaced by a different set of internet-delivered targeted ads that the AFFILIATE has sold instead?!" All three of those companies have (or will soon have) their own direct-to-consumer streaming service that costs a certain amount with unskippable ads or a higher price with the ads removed. Disney (ABC) has Hulu. ViacomCBS has CBS All Access. NBCUniversal will have Peacock (along with Comcast cable TV). "Why let these little piss-ant affiliates ride our content coattails to steal business from us?"

And that's way I don't see how supporting ATSC 3.0 is really in any of the major broadcast networks' best interests. Nor is it in the interests of major cable TV distributors, such as AT&T/WarnerMedia or DISH. ATSC 1.0 is right where everyone likes it. It's DRM-free, which AT&T and DISH like, because they can easily distribute free OTA tuners to their customers to plug into their satellite/cable/streaming pay TV boxes to incorporate free locals without the need to pay those groups like Sinclair and Nexstar a dime. (This at least helps to keep retrans rates in check during tense contract renegotiations.) And *all* the powers that be like the fact that ATSC 1.0 is glitchy and somewhat of a pain to receive because it encourages consumers to simply pay $10-14 per month for those local channels as part of a cable TV package -- that's money that gets funneled back to the station owners as well as the broadcast networks. Frankly, the broadcast nets couldn't afford those big NFL carriage contracts without that retrans money they're getting from cable TV subscribers.

Last edited by NashGuy; 09-18-2019 at 05:05 PM.
NashGuy is offline  
post #2133 of 2214 Old 09-18-2019, 05:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2414 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Only content I watch from the broadcast networks these days are live sports.

There may be a couple of shows I check out per year from the broadcast networks.

But I don't know that I need to watch those in UHD HDR.

So the choices would be watching time-shifted network shows in 720p on cable or satellite or maybe 4K HDR but you can't FF or skip ads.

I guess for live sports events, commercials don't matter, don't need to be skipped.
wco81 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2134 of 2214 Old 09-20-2019, 02:25 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 36,117
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9437 Post(s)
Liked: 6117
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Only content I watch from the broadcast networks these days are live sports.

There may be a couple of shows I check out per year from the broadcast networks.

But I don't know that I need to watch those in UHD HDR.

So the choices would be watching time-shifted network shows in 720p on cable or satellite or maybe 4K HDR but you can't FF or skip ads.

I guess for live sports events, commercials don't matter, don't need to be skipped.
Or you don't watch them at all. If I can't avoid commercials then I will just not watch the show. Although I prefer it in UHD and HDR. And if I have the option for a show I want to watch, I will just purchase it to watch it in UHD/HDR without commercials.

57TB unRAID1a--49TB unRAID2--76TB unRAID3
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #2135 of 2214 Old 09-20-2019, 02:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2414 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Or you don't watch them at all. If I can't avoid commercials then I will just not watch the show. Although I prefer it in UHD and HDR. And if I have the option for a show I want to watch, I will just purchase it to watch it in UHD/HDR without commercials.
I'm thinking of maybe a sitcom or two on the broadcast networks.

Assuming I can still DVR them with DVRs which still let you FF commercials, I can live with that.

But if they put it on UHD HDR and you have to watch commercials to watch the shows, I can live with the lower-res SDR recordings on the DVRs.

Some shows can have really nice photography, like time-lapses of a skyline or something like that. But those are only a few seconds at most so not worth watching commercials to watch them in UHD HDR.
wco81 is offline  
post #2136 of 2214 Old 09-20-2019, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 124
I still like "Modern Family". That's about it.

For football (49'ers), I've switched to the NFL 10 minute recaps on YouTube that just have the best plays. That matches my interest level perfectly.

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #2137 of 2214 Old 09-24-2019, 10:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 6,373
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2215 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Sounds like a real PITA.

I bet a lot of people would skip ATSC 3.0 even if there was a lot of 4K HDR content, rather than being forced to watch ads.

Or they might spend a few bucks for a streaming service instead, which will also be 4K HDR and won't have the ads, such as Disney +.
Most people will watch ads if it's cheaper, they may howl but they always cheap out. It's the old quality vs. what it costs, what it costs always wins.
BiggAW and MadMan400096 like this.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #2138 of 2214 Old 10-10-2019, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 7,021
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2850 Post(s)
Liked: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
I bet a lot of people would skip ATSC 3.0 even if there was a lot of 4K HDR content, rather than being forced to watch ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Most people will watch ads if it's cheaper, they may howl but they always cheap out. It's the old quality vs. what it costs, what it costs always wins.
I don't think you two disagree. Wco81 is saying most folks would prefer slightly lower PQ to being forced to watch ads. Tenthplanet is saying most folks would prefer watching ads to paying for ad-free content. Both can be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Or they might spend a few bucks for a streaming service instead, which will also be 4K HDR and won't have the ads, such as Disney +.
Some will. Not everyone will make the same choice. Most may suck it up and watch the ads, as tenthplanet said, but there will always be some willing to pay to avoid them.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #2139 of 2214 Old 10-10-2019, 02:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
...Not everyone will make the same choice. Most may suck it up and watch the ads, as tenthplanet said, but there will always be some willing to pay to avoid them.
What would my neighbors that with both of then working they may be getting ~ $300K / Year do?

Many times my SS for sure will make for a different decision.

Even $120K / Year couples will make different choices.

My Internet started out at 12 Mb/s, was upped to 25 Mb/s. Then 65Mb/s and now 75 Mb/s with the expected increases of price.

The next jump may be to 300 Mb/s which is what is being offered to business.

To think I was getting only 3 Mb/s on DSL for many years.

I am ever so far from the 1TB / Month limit for cable.

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
post #2140 of 2214 Old 10-11-2019, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,233
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2392 Post(s)
Liked: 2029
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
What would my neighbors that with both of then working they may be getting ~ $300K / Year do?

Many times my SS for sure will make for a different decision.

Even $120K / Year couples will make different choices.

My Internet started out at 12 Mb/s, was upped to 25 Mb/s. Then 65Mb/s and now 75 Mb/s with the expected increases of price.

The next jump may be to 300 Mb/s which is what is being offered to business.

To think I was getting only 3 Mb/s on DSL for many years.

I am ever so far from the 1TB / Month limit for cable.

SHF
The SF Bay Area of all places is quite a sad story for broadband with mainly AT&T and Comcast dominating. There is also Wave (formerly Astound) in my area and I miss it by one pole. Wave is FTTP and 250 Mb/s would cost about the same as Comcast costs me now for around 75 Mb.s. My next door neighbor can have Wave and I can't.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #2141 of 2214 Old 10-11-2019, 04:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Interesting ATSC 3.0 article

https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/i...o-broadcast-8k


I have trouble understanding all the bandwidth issues, but it would seem to me that 8K is simply not possible for OTA, even with ATSC 3.0.
Mark12547 likes this.
nathill is offline  
post #2142 of 2214 Old 10-11-2019, 10:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/i...o-broadcast-8k


I have trouble understanding all the bandwidth issues, but it would seem to me that 8K is simply not possible for OTA, even with ATSC 3.0.
It depends on how much you compress it. Comcast is doing "HD" in under 4mbps H.264. If HEVC is able to do HD in 2-3mbps, say 3mbps for 1080p, that would be 12mbps for 4k and 48mbps for 8k, but there may be some efficiency to encoding at higher resolutions that could get it into the mid-30mbps range and it possible with ATSC 3.0 and HEVC. Of course that leaves the question of why anyone would actually WANT to do that, and what the business model is, and we find out why no one will actually do it outside of tests.

EDIT: The folks in the article clearly have not met the folks at NBCU/Comcast. 120mbps? Comcast would stuff 4 channels in that.
BiggAW is offline  
post #2143 of 2214 Old 10-12-2019, 07:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
It depends on how much you compress it. Comcast is doing "HD" in under 4mbps H.264. If HEVC is able to do HD in 2-3mbps, say 3mbps for 1080p, that would be 12mbps for 4k and 48mbps for 8k, but there may be some efficiency to encoding at higher resolutions that could get it into the mid-30mbps range and it possible with ATSC 3.0 and HEVC. Of course that leaves the question of why anyone would actually WANT to do that, and what the business model is, and we find out why no one will actually do it outside of tests.

EDIT: The folks in the article clearly have not met the folks at NBCU/Comcast. 120mbps? Comcast would stuff 4 channels in that.
Thanks. I get it now.
If broadcasters don't give a #$%^ about picture quality, there's almost no end to what they can shove into one channel, is there?
I personally don't see any advantage to the broadcasters in using so much bandwidth for an 8K broadcast, but I guess that's a discussion for another time/place.
nathill is offline  
post #2144 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 08:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
Thanks. I get it now.
If broadcasters don't give a #$%^ about picture quality, there's almost no end to what they can shove into one channel, is there?
I personally don't see any advantage to the broadcasters in using so much bandwidth for an 8K broadcast, but I guess that's a discussion for another time/place.
They only give a **** up until it's at some basic level of quality that's still pretty awful, but looks "like HD" to the average idiot out there. That's why if ATSC 3.0 is successful, I am positive that most/all of the bandwidth gains will go to sharing channels and/or more HD sub-channels at 720p or maybe 1080p in order to grind out more ad revenue, and not go to 4k broadcasts that have a limited business case.
aaronwt, DrDon, rcman2 and 2 others like this.
BiggAW is offline  
post #2145 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2414 Post(s)
Liked: 956
The problem with more OTA channels is that nobody cares about OTA if it weren't for live sports.

What are people going to watch on these sub channels and what would local stations put up there?

Look at what happens to independent stations which doesn't have network programming. They see their revenues plummet. They can only put up so much syndicated content. What is a CBS, ABC or NBC affiliate going to put up on their secondary channels? More of those shows which are extended ads for some face cream or something?

With the rise of streaming (for now, until there's a lot of consolidation), most of the interesting content requires subscribing to streaming services.

Local stations are cooked as far as growth. They have to stick with network programming and better pray that tech companies don't take away the big sports packages from the networks.
wco81 is offline  
post #2146 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 12:36 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
Atsc 3.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
The problem with more OTA channels is that nobody cares about OTA if it weren't for live sports.

What are people going to watch on these sub channels and what would local stations put up there?
*snip*


You might want to peruse this article regarding the growth of diginets and why local broadcasters are adding more of them to their programming stack.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/diginets-come-of-age
aaronwt 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 #2147 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 12:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2414 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA_MainyYak View Post
You might want to peruse this article regarding the growth of diginets and why local broadcasters are adding more of them to their programming stack.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/diginets-come-of-age
That's interesting.

But what percentage of cord-cutters are cord-nevers, that is, they cancel their cable TV but doesn't subscribe to streaming?

I agree that there is a market for those old shows, though surprised that they're not already on some streaming service as well.

Most cord-cutters are still going to subscribe to Internet connection. So much easier for them to get TV content from streaming than dealing with OTA.

I'd be curious to compare the growth of these diginets to streaming services. They have the price advantage but people are also being conditioned to avoid commercials. I would assume you can't skip commercials easily on multicast diginet programming? Do DVRs even record these sub-channels? Will they even have accurate programming guides for this content or do they have to manually program to record these sub-channels?
wco81 is offline  
post #2148 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA_MainyYak View Post
You might want to peruse this article regarding the growth of diginets and why local broadcasters are adding more of them to their programming stack.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/diginets-come-of-age
I watch the back and forth (NFL) and the round and round (NASCAR) live.

The rest of my viewing is time shifted (Sometimes by months) of PBS and the diginets.

Where are the diginets, check this chart: (May be slow to load.)

https://www.rabbitears.info/networkgrid.php

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
post #2149 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 01:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hereford, AZ
Posts: 5,965
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1745 Post(s)
Liked: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
I'd be curious to compare the growth of these diginets to streaming services. They have the price advantage but people are also being conditioned to avoid commercials. I would assume you can't skip commercials easily on multicast diginet programming? Do DVRs even record these sub-channels? Will they even have accurate programming guides for this content or do they have to manually program to record these sub-channels?

I can only speak for my TiVo where the sub-channels have everything the main channel has except there's no one button Skip commercials function. You have to fall back to the 30 second skip.
Calaveras is offline  
post #2150 of 2214 Old 10-13-2019, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,885
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2414 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Good to hear Tivo will record these sub channels.

So the guide displays all the programming on these sub channels?

Of course cable systems won't carry all these channels but you need solid OTA reception?
wco81 is offline  
post #2151 of 2214 Old 10-14-2019, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rdvegas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Northwest Las Vegas
Posts: 2,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 386 Post(s)
Liked: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
That's interesting.

But what percentage of cord-cutters are cord-nevers, that is, they cancel their cable TV but doesn't subscribe to streaming?

I agree that there is a market for those old shows, though surprised that they're not already on some streaming service as well.

Most cord-cutters are still going to subscribe to Internet connection. So much easier for them to get TV content from streaming than dealing with OTA.

I'd be curious to compare the growth of these diginets to streaming services. They have the price advantage but people are also being conditioned to avoid commercials. I would assume you can't skip commercials easily on multicast diginet programming? Do DVRs even record these sub-channels? Will they even have accurate programming guides for this content or do they have to manually program to record these sub-channels?
Yes DVR's do record the sub-channels if its' a ATSC, not NTSC, model. Once a program is recorded, it's quite easy to zip through the commercials. But many commercials are very entertaining. Streaming services don't have all the programs available on the OTA sub-channels because of legal issues and/or contracts.

Will the last subscriber leaving Dish Network please turn off the satellite.
rdvegas is offline  
post #2152 of 2214 Old 10-14-2019, 11:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hereford, AZ
Posts: 5,965
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1745 Post(s)
Liked: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Good to hear Tivo will record these sub channels.

So the guide displays all the programming on these sub channels?

Of course cable systems won't carry all these channels but you need solid OTA reception?

Yes, including info like "First Aired," Season/Episode # and episode description. I've seen a few exceptions on my local stations. Spanish language sub channels often have no info and HSN has no info. Of course you need to be able to receive the stations OTA.
Calaveras is offline  
post #2153 of 2214 Old 10-14-2019, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
If broadcasters don't give a #$%^ about picture quality, there's almost no end to what they can shove into one channel, is there?
I personally don't see any advantage to the broadcasters in using so much bandwidth for an 8K broadcast, but I guess that's a discussion for another time/place.
Ah, I doubt we'll even see 4K broadcasts over-the-air with ATSC 3.0, at least not in the first few years. With two stations sharing a tower (and the total amount of bandwidth available in a given channel frequency), there's just not enough bandwidth there to make 4K feasible. Broadcasters have better ways to monetize that bandwidth.

The industry has been saying for awhile now that 1080p HDR will be "good enough" and let viewers' TVs just upscale that to fake 4K. And honestly, few could probably tell the difference between that and true 4K HDR anyhow. Now, it's possible that we'll see broadcasters embrace a hybrid delivery system in which an "upgrade" stream delivered via the internet combines with the 1080p OTA signal to result in a true 4K picture. Such a system is supported by the ATSC 3.0 specs, although I don't know if it could be done with live content, like sports.

It's also going to depend on what the big broadcast networks want to do. I can certainly see Disney, come fall 2020 or 2021, choosing to make ABC series available in 4K HDR on Hulu, and CBS doing the same with CBS All Access, and NBC doing the same with Peacock. But whether or not they'll want to give away such premium-quality versions of their content for free OTA (especially if it can be recorded to DVR and played back on-demand), hmmm, I'm not so sure...
aaronwt, rcman2 and nathill like this.
NashGuy is offline  
post #2154 of 2214 Old 10-14-2019, 04:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 6,373
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2215 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA_MainyYak View Post
You might want to peruse this article regarding the growth of diginets and why local broadcasters are adding more of them to their programming stack.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/diginets-come-of-age
Boomer vision. Younger viewers are not being addressed, and the streaming monster grows because it. The OTA train is headed for a cliff, it will take a few years to get there but already the trains brakes are out.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #2155 of 2214 Old 10-14-2019, 05:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Boomer vision. Younger viewers are not being addressed, and the streaming monster grows because it. The OTA train is headed for a cliff, it will take a few years to get there but already the trains brakes are out.
Yes, but it is great to watch programs that were broadcast before I had the time to watch TV and actually had a TV.

One just popped up perhaps with episodes that I may not have seen before, Cagney & Lacey on "StartTV".

You buy the rights for a collection of old shows and you think you have people that wish to view them so put them on the air with crooked Lawyer ads, plastic boats to cook pasta in, HDTV joke antennas …

"Quincy, M.E." is one that I really liked.

First episode date: October 3, 1976
Final episode date: May 11, 1983

So, while the trains are still running, keep them old shows coming. (Age 77)

SHF
SFischer1 is offline  
post #2156 of 2214 Old 10-15-2019, 09:55 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
Yes, but it is great to watch programs that were broadcast before I had the time to watch TV and actually had a TV.

One just popped up perhaps with episodes that I may not have seen before, Cagney & Lacey on "StartTV".

You buy the rights for a collection of old shows and you think you have people that wish to view them so put them on the air with crooked Lawyer ads, plastic boats to cook pasta in, HDTV joke antennas …

"Quincy, M.E." is one that I really liked.

First episode date: October 3, 1976
Final episode date: May 11, 1983

So, while the trains are still running, keep them old shows coming. (Age 77)

SHF

Those shows are available to stream on Netflix and/or Hulu. Best part? They are uncut and no annoying commercials.
aaronwt likes this.
ElevatorSkyMovie is offline  
post #2157 of 2214 Old 10-15-2019, 11:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
The problem with more OTA channels is that nobody cares about OTA if it weren't for live sports.
PBS. Local News. Sunday morning shows. Late night shows. Primetime. There is a lot out there on OTA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Ah, I doubt we'll even see 4K broadcasts over-the-air with ATSC 3.0, at least not in the first few years. With two stations sharing a tower (and the total amount of bandwidth available in a given channel frequency), there's just not enough bandwidth there to make 4K feasible. Broadcasters have better ways to monetize that bandwidth.
I think it's less of a bandwidth issue, and more of a business model issue. There's not business model for 4k delivered OTA. I predict the rise of gobs of 720p or 1080p diginets.
BiggAW is offline  
post #2158 of 2214 Old 10-15-2019, 12:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,233
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2392 Post(s)
Liked: 2029
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashGuy View Post
Ah, I doubt we'll even see 4K broadcasts over-the-air with ATSC 3.0, at least not in the first few years. With two stations sharing a tower (and the total amount of bandwidth available in a given channel frequency), there's just not enough bandwidth there to make 4K feasible. Broadcasters have better ways to monetize that bandwidth.
You don't think that Samsung, LG, Sony and others are not going to be waving ad dollars at the stations so they can sell 4K viewers their next 4K (or 8K) TV?
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #2159 of 2214 Old 10-15-2019, 12:27 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,155
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2324 Post(s)
Liked: 4415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
You don't think that Samsung, LG, Sony and others are not going to be waving ad dollars at the stations so they can sell 4K viewers their next 4K (or 8K) TV?
Why bother? So, far, they've been able to move 4k sets just fine without any network or cable programming to speak of. As mentioned elsewhere, they'll do better to spend their money with streaming platforms so there's no worry about availability or adoption. The demographics they most want to reach ain't the ones putting up antennas, either.
aaronwt, rcman2, BiggAW and 1 others like this.

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

Last edited by DrDon; 10-15-2019 at 12:36 PM.
DrDon is offline  
post #2160 of 2214 Old 10-15-2019, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Why bother? So, far, they've been able to move 4k sets just fine without any network or cable programming to speak of. As mentioned elsewhere, they'll do better to spend their money with streaming platforms so there's no worry about availability or adoption. The demographics they most want to reach ain't the ones putting up antennas, either.
Yeah. I think we're on the cusp of a boom in 4K HDR streaming content thanks to the pending launches of Apple TV+, Disney+, HBO Max, and Discovery's forthcoming OTT SVOD (which will be the new exclusive home of BBC nature docs like the Planet Earth series). And Hulu is expanding the availability of their 4K content now too (although they still don't offer anything in HDR). It's streaming that will continue to be the main place to watch 4K HDR and that will never change.

So, sure, TV manufacturers will want to make sure they have apps for all those 4K-enabled streaming services on their 4K TVs. Having ATSC 3.0 tuners in their sets will be a nice additional bullet point to add to their feature list but I don't see it play a huge role in selling additional sets.
BiggAW and nathill like this.
NashGuy 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