mardek1995 200 Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Here's 3 reasons why I think ATSC 3.0 will NOT save the tv industry (mind you there are more reasons, but these are the 3 that I can think of at the top of my head): First, too many channels and not enough worth watching. This is the reason why people are cutting cable because why pay $59.99 for a cable package when you have to go to work, travel, etc and not be able to watch whatever you want without having to be there at a certain time just to watch a tv show anymore? And it's the same reason why some people think of ATSC 1.0 as a blunder compared to ntsc. You thought that was a blunder? Wait until ATSC 3.0, that will be a real mindscrew. Second, speaking of cable, how is it and satellite supposed to work with ATSC 3.0? More importantly, has the ATSC committee learned that being FIRST doesn't always mean being right (despite what FTVLive or most reporters working in the MSM imply. Damn I hate that website and damn you Steve!)? That's why ATSC in general is the weakest of the big 3 digital broadcast systems (from strongest to weakest: ISDB, DVB, and ATSC). And last, but certainly not least, not to mention this relates to the first reason, why in the hell are they insisting on remaining bound to the limitations of traditional tv schedules even with ATSC 3.0? This is one of two reasons why newson hasnt resonated as well with me as I originally thought it would, and its the same reason, among others (including the ones I listed), why tv in general, regardless of the standard and the location in the world, is losing to cord cutters. Although countries with slower internet speeds (looking at you Australia) or countries that have ISDB as a digital standard (ex. Japan and Brazil, a testament to their good relations with each other), tend to have slower cord cutting rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 893 Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 ATSC 3.0 is a industry standard - it was never intended to save the entire sector. If anything, it would give us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. Theoretically speaking, the only thing ATSC 3.0 would save is $$$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1805 Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Second, speaking of cable, how is it and satellite supposed to work with ATSC 3.0? The same way it works with ATSC 1.0: by not using it. Cable companies usually get a fiber feed from the station or pick up their signal OTA. Then they encode it into QAM or another transmission standard (DVB for satellite) that's not ATSC and distribute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 The same way it works with ATSC 1.0: by not using it. Cable companies usually get a fiber feed from the station or pick up their signal OTA. Then they encode it into QAM or another transmission standard (DVB for satellite) that's not ATSC and distribute it. That just makes digital tv more of a blunder than it already is. At least satellite in europe and Australia uses DVB (or more specifically, DVB-S). ATSC 3.0 is a industry standard - it was never intended to save the entire sector. If anything, it would give us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. Theoretically speaking, the only thing ATSC 3.0 would save is $$$$$. It would do the opposite of giving us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. We already had a good viewing experience and a streamlined transmission in the analog tv era and we at least have the former in ATSC 1.0. ATSC 3.0 will actually do worse in the long haul and maybe even right off the gate than ATSC 1.0 because it will make television even more of a cluster-youknowwhat than it already is. Whats your take on this Weeters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1805 Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 That just makes digital tv more of a blunder than it already is. At least satellite in europe and Australia uses DVB (or more specifically, DVB-S). It would do the opposite of giving us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. We already had a good viewing experience and a streamlined transmission in the analog tv era and we at least have the former in ATSC 1.0. ATSC 3.0 will actually do worse in the long haul and maybe even right off the gate than ATSC 1.0 because it will make television even more of a cluster-youknowwhat than it already is. Whats your take on this Weeters? I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about other than the existence of ATSC 3.0. Unless you're a broadcast engineer, ATSC 3.0 is probably not going to affect you a whole lot. I don't think the ATSC 3.0 conversion is going to be as big of a deal as the DTV conversion because we now live in a world where people pay $400 for a machine to squeeze juice packs that you can squeeze with your hands. The converters will probably be mixed into set top box Smart TV devices similar to the FireTV and Roku. On Cable and Satellite it will in all likelihood be seamless. Standards change. This happens in the cell phone industry. It happens with Internet Service Providers. The cell phone you have now will probably not work on a mobile network in 10 years and will probably not work on the best WiFi standards available at that time. Same with your cable/DSL modem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrschimpf 2050 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It would have been a bigger deal ten years ago if we had to switch standards AND buy new equipment. But now 'cable-ready' TV's are an endangered species; I just bought a new 4K set that didn't even have a tuner included and didn't find it to be a deal-breaker. We're used to hooking up a converter, be it cable, satellite, or OTA, to the HDMI port, and we know that the signal won't experience any degradation unlike the 80's, where we had to hook up an NES to the 75 ohm cable terminal and it looked horrid. HD with 1.0 was a huge upgrade in visual quality and it should be an acceptable minimum standard for decades to come, whatever 3.0 offers. There will be some broadcasters (and sports) who will bump their programming to 4K, but for the most part people are going to be satisfied with most other programming like news, weather, HGTV programming and such who won't even care. The major issue for me is that the US needs to adopt the UK/Europe Freeview model and cable programmers need to move to that model, lest their channels be left behind in a skinny bundle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardek1995 200 Posted April 24, 2017 Author Share Posted April 24, 2017 I'm honestly not sure what you're complaining about other than the existence of ATSC 3.0. Unless you're a broadcast engineer, ATSC 3.0 is probably not going to affect you a whole lot. I don't think the ATSC 3.0 conversion is going to be as big of a deal as the DTV conversion because we now live in a world where people pay $400 for a machine to squeeze juice packs that you can squeeze with your hands. The converters will probably be mixed into set top box Smart TV devices similar to the FireTV and Roku. On Cable and Satellite it will in all likelihood be seamless. Standards change. This happens in the cell phone industry. It happens with Internet Service Providers. The cell phone you have now will probably not work on a mobile network in 10 years and will probably not work on the best WiFi standards available at that time. Same with your cable/DSL modem. Yeah, but we're talking about the tv industry. One of the most inflexible industries that exist! The same industry where people have frowned upon the analog to digital transition (look up "digital tv sucks" on Google)! And why would anyone pay $400 to squeeze a juice box? Also, speaking of costs, the transition from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0 isnt cheap at all, even with it being in the form of a rollout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 893 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It would do the opposite of giving us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. Huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Action Newsroom 1149 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 It would do the opposite of giving us a better viewing experience and a streamlined transmission format. ATSC 3.0 will actually do worse in the long haul and maybe even right off the gate than ATSC 1.0 because it will make television even more of a cluster-youknowwhat than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 893 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 The perfect expression to Mardek's threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrustyOldTVTech 2 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 I'm one of the few OTA viewers in the 8th DMA in the USA, and have been OTA-only since moving here in the 80's. With that caveat, here are my observations...for the 80+% (my estimate) of folks here with no OTA exposure (cable/VSAT viewers, cord cutters with no OTA capability, et. Al.) ATSC 3.0 means nothing to them as long as the retransmission comp issues do not remove a desired local. For the cable and VSAT providers, from a technical perspective, only a change in headend equipment , some cost for that. For the >20% of us that are OTA only, when the hammer drops, ~$75 minimum for a new ATSC 3.0 tuner per viewing device. For me, that's 3 LCD sets, and 2 tuner cards in an HTPC, or min ~$325 for all. That's hitting my beer and liquor money pretty hard! It works OK to have an RF capable TV with an external dongle (Chromecast for example, or BD player) that gets upgraded as needed, but the converse is not really an option. How many external ATSC 1.0 tuner dongles have you seen? I've seen a few, mostly for PC use, and not useable directly with a display device via HDMI. So, bottom line, for the OTA-only crowd, it will take HDMI dongles something like a Chromecast, and priced accordingly, to make the ATSC 3.0 transition work. For the ~80+% of the rest of the TV viewing universe, the key is how the multichannel TV providers (cable, VSAT, fiber) and the local licensees work out retransmission fees and access for the existing and new streams. It will be many years before any "new and improved" ATSC 3.0 capabilities will turn any profit for anyone. NTSC color rollout and uptake, ATSC 1.0 subchannel rollout and monetiziation, etc. are good examples from the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.