4 ms·

> I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate Unlikely. There's not enough bandwidth[1] in traditional TV spectrum to be worth the hassle[2]. At it

by ajross 3y ago

> I imagine ATSC 3.0 tuners will eventually proliferate Unlikely. There's not enough bandwidth[1] in traditional TV spectrum to be worth the hassle[2]. At its absolute peak of value, broadcast TV is basically a bandwidth optimization on top of the already-very-acceptable streaming video delivery available to everyone at reasonable prices. Would you install a roof antenna for a few bucks a month off your Netflix or Disney bill? Me neither. [1] A quick google says 57Mbps is the maximum per-channel bandwidth in ATSC3, and you only get a dozen or so channels in a metro area without building more giant towers. [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry.

toast0 3y ago
> [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry. Mobile operators can't take it all at once, in part because the TV lobby still exists, in part because it takes years to build out the network to use the spectrum they've already taken. But, at least in the US, this has happened three already: in the 80s, channels 70-83 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2008, channels 52-69 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2016, channels 38-51 were reallocated to cell phones. I'm guessing sometime in the next ten years, 19-36 will be reallocated to cell phones (37 is reserved for radio astronomy). But 2-18 will probably still be used for ATSC 3.0 at that point.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Low VHF isn't viable long term and they have to leave gaps in allocations so neighboring markets don't conflict. I doubt they'll shrink it any more. There's already going to be a crunch when the deadline to cutoff ATSC 1 approaches and everyone is going to have to simulcast both 1 & 3 with some likely delays extending the overlap phase.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    What exactly makes Low VHF non viable in the long term? Is the atmosphere going to start attenuating certain frequencies more in coming years?
    - jkingsman 3y ago
      I think physics is actually moving to a fee-based structure /s
  - toast0 3y ago
    I thought ATSC 3 was supposed to make VHF viable again. I guess it depends on how many people got "HD" antennas geared for UHF with maybe marginal coverage for high VHF.
    - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
      The antenna situation is the problem. I have a pre-HD 4-bay bowtie UHF antenna that works great on high-VHF for my location. I'm not going to bother with the hassle of adding a second antenna for the low end because of unnecessary bureaucratic shuffling. Normies aren't going to bother sorting that out with all the marginal UHF-only antennas that have been dumped onto the market.
water9 3y ago
Although it leverages existing architecture, many of the ATSC 3.0 standard’s capabilities are new. Unlike past broadcasting technology, the standard not only provides content on-demand but ensures the content is delivered rapidly. Its unique design allows broadcasters to send data to several users concurrently through a single signal. To transmit 1 GB of data to 1 million consumers with ATSC 3.0, broadcasters only need one-millionth of the capacity required by broadband. https://www.harmonicinc.com/insights/blog/understanding-atsc-3-0-and-next-generation-broadcast-tv https://www.harmonicinc.com/insights/blog/understanding-atsc...
- ajross 3y ago
  Sure, but "content on-demand delivered rapidly" isn't compatible with "transmitting to 1 million consumers", is it? Either you broadcast one show at a time (something you can do right now and no one wants) or you split bandwidth to a bunch of streamers (and compete badly with cable). And in any case the latter is already in the market! HBO and Comcast, working together, will happily send you the just-released Westeros episode to watch simultaneously with 10M other users for like $15 a month. And it works. ATSC needs to be significantly cheaper than fifteen dollars to even be worth talking about. And let's be honest: it isn't and won't be.
  - water9 3y ago
    I think it’s better to think of satellite (dish/DIRECTV) more than Comcast. You can imagine you have one satellite broadcasting an encrypted signal to an entire nation but only those who have a subscription are given the keys to decrypt streams of the channels they subscribe to. So then, by just changing a few parameters with a low speed connection between the box, they can enable different transmissions to come through or more precisely tune to different channels or sub channels, containing different content, like different ads in the same airwaves spectrum
    - ajross 3y ago
      As a technical comparison, sure. But I'm talking about economics and market positioning. The problem ATSC3 purports to solve (on-demand access to real time content for very large numbers of consumers) is already working in the market at reasonable prices, with very high uptake. That's not an innovative situation. They aren't doing anything new that you can't get already. The only way to win in that kind of market is to do it on price. And streaming is already pretty cheap.

by ajross 3y ago

toast0 3y ago

> [2] Because if there was, mobile telephone operators would have grabbed that spectrum already for their vastly more lucrative industry. Mobile operators can't take it all at once, in part because the TV lobby still exists, in part because it takes years to build out the network to use the spectrum they've already taken. But, at least in the US, this has happened three already: in the 80s, channels 70-83 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2008, channels 52-69 were reallocated to cell phones; in 2016, channels 38-51 were reallocated to cell phones. I'm guessing sometime in the next ten years, 19-36 will be reallocated to cell phones (37 is reserved for radio astronomy). But 2-18 will probably still be used for ATSC 3.0 at that point.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Low VHF isn't viable long term and they have to leave gaps in allocations so neighboring markets don't conflict. I doubt they'll shrink it any more. There's already going to be a crunch when the deadline to cutoff ATSC 1 approaches and everyone is going to have to simulcast both 1 & 3 with some likely delays extending the overlap phase.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  What exactly makes Low VHF non viable in the long term? Is the atmosphere going to start attenuating certain frequencies more in coming years?
  - jkingsman 3y ago
    I think physics is actually moving to a fee-based structure /s
- toast0 3y ago
  I thought ATSC 3 was supposed to make VHF viable again. I guess it depends on how many people got "HD" antennas geared for UHF with maybe marginal coverage for high VHF.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    The antenna situation is the problem. I have a pre-HD 4-bay bowtie UHF antenna that works great on high-VHF for my location. I'm not going to bother with the hassle of adding a second antenna for the low end because of unnecessary bureaucratic shuffling. Normies aren't going to bother sorting that out with all the marginal UHF-only antennas that have been dumped onto the market.

water9 3y ago

Although it leverages existing architecture, many of the ATSC 3.0 standard’s capabilities are new. Unlike past broadcasting technology, the standard not only provides content on-demand but ensures the content is delivered rapidly. Its unique design allows broadcasters to send data to several users concurrently through a single signal. To transmit 1 GB of data to 1 million consumers with ATSC 3.0, broadcasters only need one-millionth of the capacity required by broadband. https://www.harmonicinc.com/insights/blog/understanding-atsc-3-0-and-next-generation-broadcast-tv https://www.harmonicinc.com/insights/blog/understanding-atsc...

ajross 3y ago
Sure, but "content on-demand delivered rapidly" isn't compatible with "transmitting to 1 million consumers", is it? Either you broadcast one show at a time (something you can do right now and no one wants) or you split bandwidth to a bunch of streamers (and compete badly with cable). And in any case the latter is already in the market! HBO and Comcast, working together, will happily send you the just-released Westeros episode to watch simultaneously with 10M other users for like $15 a month. And it works. ATSC needs to be significantly cheaper than fifteen dollars to even be worth talking about. And let's be honest: it isn't and won't be.
- water9 3y ago
  I think it’s better to think of satellite (dish/DIRECTV) more than Comcast. You can imagine you have one satellite broadcasting an encrypted signal to an entire nation but only those who have a subscription are given the keys to decrypt streams of the channels they subscribe to. So then, by just changing a few parameters with a low speed connection between the box, they can enable different transmissions to come through or more precisely tune to different channels or sub channels, containing different content, like different ads in the same airwaves spectrum
  - ajross 3y ago
    As a technical comparison, sure. But I'm talking about economics and market positioning. The problem ATSC3 purports to solve (on-demand access to real time content for very large numbers of consumers) is already working in the market at reasonable prices, with very high uptake. That's not an innovative situation. They aren't doing anything new that you can't get already. The only way to win in that kind of market is to do it on price. And streaming is already pretty cheap.