Breaking News
News & Analysis

Reinvention of Broadcast TV: 10 Things to Know

Broadcasters bet its future on ATSC 3.0
10/23/2014 02:00 PM EDT
15 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 13 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
MeasurementBlues
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Better be compatible
MeasurementBlues   10/23/2014 11:28:42 PM
NO RATINGS
"I went through the pain of my cable provider going 100% digital,"

Me too. The company gave me two converter boxes that deliver local broadcast channels only. We ended up not using them and I bought an antenna. It connects to two DVD recorders so we can record two shows at once and the recorder can be programmed to change channels. that overs recording OTA channels. For cable-only chanels, I have a cable box connected to (get this) a VHS recorder. The third TV (living room) has the other cable box to  get CNN, local sports, etc. It also has a DVD/blu-ray player. I've never used the blu-ray function Why? because there's no place around to rent blu-ray, only DVD. The player also connects to my netowrk so it can get Hulu and Netflix.

I still don't watch anything.

 

Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Better be compatible
Anand.Yaligar   10/23/2014 11:07:24 PM
NO RATINGS
"But here's the thing. I am sick and tired of having to subscribe "a package" from cable operators. If I could stick to watching a few TV programs I like (CBS, NBC, etc.), and maybe an HBO, I would rather watch that via free-over-the-air TV and maybe just pay for HBO (if ATSC 3.0 enables the a la carte model). It's a much better proposition than a huge bundled package my cable company ask me to subscribe to. "

There should be more free channels with relevant content. Most free channels aren't worth watching (maybe except few) and for decent home entertainment you must pay a hefty subscription fee. I wish we could go back to the days where the channels were relevant and the cost wasn't much.

Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Now it makes sense
Anand.Yaligar   10/23/2014 11:04:39 PM
NO RATINGS
"I had not even considered the "free-over-the-air" component. That does make things complicated. I would love to see them fill a niche by becoming municipal wifi ISP's, but that probably doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Their entire history is one-to-many communications and the world is moving in another direction. I have to say that I don't see much of a chance for them."

Most municipal ISP's won't last a day in this broadcast network war without proper backing. Not one company wants to lose its coverage area, and if that is marred by local broadcasters then we're going to see lots of lawsuit action on TV.

AZskibum
User Rank
CEO
Some things never change, but maybe old dogs can learn new tricks
AZskibum   10/23/2014 10:04:19 PM
NO RATINGS
I love this quote from my friend & former colleague: "The broadcast industry's priorities are mobility, flexibility, and robustness in the coverage and service areas." This is almost verbatim what broadcasters wrote in their requirements document during the ATSC RF Task Force days of 2000-2001. But during those days of the "modulation wars," it was more important to roll out OTA HDTV with the existing physical layer standard and simply hope that improvements in 8-VSB receiver chips and RF tuner & consumer antenna improvements would magically make up the deficits in the transmission network -- not only the inflexible modulation & coding, but also transmitter locations, power levels, adjacent & co-channel interference (including the still existing NTSC TV broadcasts), and ultimately link budgets -- none of which were designed to meet those lofty broadcaster requirements.

I am delighted to learn that Wayne and his colleagues at Zenith are now embracing multi-carrier modulation (OFDM) as a way forward in meeting robust transmission/reception requirements. Back in the RF Task Force days, they viewed me as the devil incarnate for even suggesting that OFDM might offer advantages over single carrier modulation.

So in one sense, nothing has changed in 15 years. Broadcasters still want to deliver their signal to viewers, whether they are watching on a 60" screen in their living rooms or on a 6" screen in the back seat of a car on the freeway.

But in a very important sense, a lot has changed. The politics of modulation has given way to technical & business realities, and there is a real chance that ATSC 3.0 could meet the goals that broadcasters have been trying to meet for so long. I have great confidence that Luke Fay's technical leadership in trying to help them get there is a tremendous asset.

AZskibum
User Rank
CEO
Re: Better be compatible
AZskibum   10/23/2014 9:40:29 PM
NO RATINGS
If the criterion were "it better be compatible," then they should just throw in the towel right now. Fortunately, broadcasters are viewing this as a necessity to remain relevant -- a do-or-die situation -- whereas 15 years ago it was all about "stay the course" with an inflexible physical layer standard that didn't quite meet all of the broadcasters stated desires or needs.

DrFPGA
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Better be compatible
DrFPGA   10/23/2014 7:02:05 PM
NO RATINGS
Y R Correct. Content is king. If there was something worth watching people would watch....

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Re: Now it makes sense
LarryM99   10/23/2014 5:51:48 PM
NO RATINGS
@Junko, I had not even considered the "free-over-the-air" component. That does make things complicated. I would love to see them fill a niche by becoming municipal wifi ISP's, but that probably doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Their entire history is one-to-many communications and the world is moving in another direction. I have to say that I don't see much of a chance for them.

Larry M.

mhrackin
User Rank
CEO
Re: Better be compatible
mhrackin   10/23/2014 5:12:07 PM
NO RATINGS
@junko: I agree, BUT...my situation is not uncommon. Just a few months ago, I went through the pain of my cable provider going 100% digital, making my analog TVs (I have 6 TVs: a 50" HDTV, a small-screen HDTV in the kitchen, and 4 analog tube sets in various places). I had ZERO cable boxes. As part of the "improvement" my provider offered two boxes for no charge for one year. Any additional boxes (and after the one year, the "free" ones) will cost $7 a month EACH. I have a whole-house distribution system for broadcast TV that I built and installed. The present configuration: the 50" HDTV is connected to BROADCAST ONLY; one cable box is connected to the small DTV in the kitchen, the other is connected to a 32" TUBE TV in the master BR (where the 16x9 picture bleeds well over the viewable area). The other 3 tube sets are collecting dust in spare bedrooms and the basement. I personally watch broadcast exclusively on the big screen. I'm not sure what I will do in a few months when not only will the box charges kick in, but so will my "promotional rates" for the HS Internet and "extended basic digital cable" expire. From my perspective, I will NEVER go through another extortion scheme like this again, definitely including the hare-brained scheme to kill current digital broadcast TV. I'l stick with streaming over Internet for my future entertainment. At that point broadcasting might as well be dead (and I suspect it will be soon after).

MeasurementBlues
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Better be compatible
MeasurementBlues   10/23/2014 4:59:26 PM
NO RATINGS
Junko, I too despise bundles. The time for Alla carte is here but the only way near monopolies like Comcast will change is if enough people drop their service. What always happens is you pay for many channels that you never watch just to keep a few that you want. For example, I'd love to lose shopping channels, religious channels, Fox News, and languages-I-don't-understand channels. But if I want CNN, or NESN (Red Sox) I pay for it all. Smiley

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Better be compatible
junko.yoshida   10/23/2014 4:49:58 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi, MeasrementBlues. If you are talking about the cost of programming, yes, you are hit by all kinds of subscription fees. And the amount of money we are paying is growing.

But here's the thing. I am sick and tired of having to subscribe "a package" from cable operators. If I could stick to watching a few TV programs I like (CBS, NBC, etc.), and maybe an HBO, I would rather watch that via free-over-the-air TV and maybe just pay for HBO (if ATSC 3.0 enables the a la carte model). It's a much better proposition than a huge bundled package my cable company ask me to subscribe to. 

 

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
EE Times Senior Technical Editor Martin Rowe will interview EMC engineer Kenneth Wyatt.
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll