Author Topic: They want to change HDTV... again.  (Read 112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

They want to change HDTV... again.
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:57:08 AM »
https://www.techhive.com/article/3238869/smart-tv/what-is-next-gen-tv-and-when-will-it-launch.html
Quote
You'll soon be hearing a lot about a new television broadcast technology called "Next Gen TV" that promises better picture quality, a signal more resistant to interference, interactive features, and localized emergency alerts.
...
The new broadcast standard updates the current standard, ATSC 1.0 standard, with a host of new features and technology. It's based on an IP (Internet Protocol) backbone and attempts to merge broadcast TV with content from the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0#References

Good:
HEVC encoding capability (h.265) will allow higher compression rates at good quality
They're basically starting a new standard instead of duct-taping together something on top of the old NTSC
Higher resolutions, etc...
"Mesh" model for broadcasting, instead of having one giant tower blasting a signal
Could allow more localized content
Five year simulcasting with current standard
Keep your antenna

Bad:
You'll have to buy ANOTHER converter box (or a new TV)
Targeted ads
Do you really think they'll localize the content more?
4K content still quite expensive/unwieldy to produce
At a certain screen size/distance, 4K may not matter anyway (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)
Digital watermarking may cut down on piracy (wink wink)
Public alert system will be able to turn on your TV (I'm quite paranoid)

Re: They want to change HDTV... again.
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2017, 02:16:27 PM »
https://www.techhive.com/article/3238869/smart-tv/what-is-next-gen-tv-and-when-will-it-launch.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_3.0#References

Good:
HEVC encoding capability (h.265) will allow higher compression rates at good quality
They're basically starting a new standard instead of duct-taping together something on top of the old NTSC
Higher resolutions, etc...
"Mesh" model for broadcasting, instead of having one giant tower blasting a signal
Could allow more localized content
Five year simulcasting with current standard
Keep your antenna

Bad:
You'll have to buy ANOTHER converter box (or a new TV)
Targeted ads
Do you really think they'll localize the content more?
4K content still quite expensive/unwieldy to produce
At a certain screen size/distance, 4K may not matter anyway (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)
Digital watermarking may cut down on piracy (wink wink)
Public alert system will be able to turn on your TV (I'm quite paranoid)
"Unlike the original transition to digital television, the FCC will not enforce a mandate on the provision of ATSC 3.0 tuners on new televisions, having deemed this unnecessary. ATSC 1.0 signals will still be subject to mandatory carriage rules for television providers during the five-year simulcasting mandate; the FCC stated that voluntary carriage of 3.0 signals by television providers would be left to the marketplace. The order does require stations to provide sufficient on-air notice about transitions to ATSC 3.0 services"

I think this means that no more "free" watching HDTV over an HD antenna or the HD antenna built into your smart tv. So, basically, a way for content providers or box mfgs to get you to buy converter box antennas. And the existing channels that currently broadcast good tv shows and movies (old tv shows and movies) for free will might stop broadcasting since I'm not sure how much it would cost to upgrade to the new technology. Would it be worth the station showing The Rifleman or Quincy, for example, to spend the money to upgrade? Or would (the 2nd highlight) mean that a station could just stick with the current technology? The current situation is pretty good because you can get good programming, including most major sports, for free- with an antenna or for free on smart tv. And the HD for sports is better quality than you get through cable- and it is free.

Also, for the paranoid. How will ads be "targeted?" Does this mean they access or able to know, as they can now if you are using cable, netflix, TIVO, etc what programs you are watching? The ability to remotely control your tv is also troubling. Sure the EAS can already come on an alert you, regardless of channel watching but now they also want to be able to turn on your device? I guess this could be a good thing but there should be a way to 'opt-out.'

Re: They want to change HDTV... again.
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2017, 02:33:17 PM »
Public alert system will be able to turn on your TV (I'm quite paranoid)


Re: They want to change HDTV... again.
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2017, 06:22:51 AM »
I think this means that no more "free" watching HDTV over an HD antenna or the HD antenna built into your smart tv. So, basically, a way for content providers or box mfgs to get you to buy converter box antennas. And the existing channels that currently broadcast good tv shows and movies (old tv shows and movies) for free will might stop broadcasting since I'm not sure how much it would cost to upgrade to the new technology. Would it be worth the station showing The Rifleman or Quincy, for example, to spend the money to upgrade? Or would (the 2nd highlight) mean that a station could just stick with the current technology? The current situation is pretty good because you can get good programming, including most major sports, for free- with an antenna or for free on smart tv. And the HD for sports is better quality than you get through cable- and it is free.

Also, for the paranoid. How will ads be "targeted?" Does this mean they access or able to know, as they can now if you are using cable, netflix, TIVO, etc what programs you are watching? The ability to remotely control your tv is also troubling. Sure the EAS can already come on an alert you, regardless of channel watching but now they also want to be able to turn on your device? I guess this could be a good thing but there should be a way to 'opt-out.'

I've seen pictures of the new decoding chips that will do some of the heavy lifting. They're quite small. This is probably not indicative of cost, but it could mean that they would be releasing boxes quite similar in form factor to the last ATSC boxes. And if they want any of this to take hold, it would behoove them to keep converter boxes in the sub-$50 range.

As for my paranoia, I don't know enough about the transmit power of the broadcast antennae to start worrying about two-way communications yet. It would be pretty annoying to have a broadcaster that can turn on your TV. But in order to send them anything back, you'd need your own transmitter of equal or greater power. Unless, of course, your TV was already on the Internet...  :-\

This wouldn't affect cable/satellite subscribers who wish to stay with their providers. However, with all the compression that a lot of these cable/satellite channels go through to cram 400+ through a wire, more customers may start seeing how much better OTA (over the air) broadcasts look.

Another point I've seen is that this could open the door for OTA TV on your phone. We already have phones that pick up FM radio. A TV tuner isn't that far off, antenna-wise. One great thing about this is that it would be a real kick in the teeth to all the cable/satellite providers whose too-little too-late strategy of offering streaming live TV has basically become an insult to customers.