I'm very skeptical about ATSC 3.0.
1) Interactive services. Nobody wants to interact with their TV. This
has been proven time and time again since I started in the video
compression industry in 1993. Anyone remember ATSC 2.0? It never saw the
light of day.
2) Mobile. No telco is ever going to sell a phone with an ATSC 3.0
demodulator in it and nobody wants to carry around two devices. This is
what killed A/153 and it's no different for ATSC 3.0.
3) Enhanced reception with OFDM. If you're a cord cutter, you've already
solved this problem with an adequate antenna. Or you've given up and not
likely to try again.
4) 4K and enhanced audio. Could be a factor, although I often go to
other folks houses and see their big TV on the SD version of a channel
with the wrong aspect ratio.
5) No secondary channel or government sponsored STB's.
Ron
On 11/03/2016 04:15 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Mostly about internal shuffling in Sinclair's ranks, interesting mainly because
it's nice to see a broadcast company moving forward.
But that's not why I posted this. I posted it for this quote, which seems another attempt
at obfuscating instead of educating. Not sure why things like this are written, when they
clearly make no sense. But it goes along with a lot of the "interactive"
propaganda wrt ATSC 3.0 (which is followed usually by same-old broadcast-only talk).
Quoting:
"Smith is particularly bullish on the medium of broadcasting. He has pushed mobile
television for two decades, and under his purview, Sinclair has become one of the leading
proponents for ATSC 3.0, the first broadcast transmission standard that will enable
two-day communications over broadcast airwaves."
First, I'll attempt some FEC. May I suggest that "enable two-day communications" really
intended to say "two-way communications"? It makes no sense either way, but just a guess.
So, why are we still being fed this propaganda? ATSC 3.0 may well try to bring together
one-way broadcasts with an Internet-based interactive component, BUT NOT
"two-way" over the public airwaves! How are people so easily fooled on this?
Where does ATSC 3.0 propose to deploy a cellular or any other 2-way scheme, over the
allotted frequency channel? Are the supposed OTA transmitters in people's homes discussed
in any of the literature? Where are the OTA uplinks defined at all?
I guess that non-technical types view a lot about the technology we use as pure
magic, but surely this is basic enough that anyone ought to be skeptical? This
reminds me of the news item back when, that the governor of Sardinia was
surprised and disappointed when he found out that migrating to DVB-T did NOT
mean that TV broadcast would bring the Internet into people's homes. Deja vue
all over again. I guess we're going to get this revealed too, at some point,
wrt ATSC 3.0.
Bert
