[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: ATSC 3.0 Prototypes Expected in 2016
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 06:28:11 -0500
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Some very interesting comments follow this article, on TV Technology. These
> words sound to me like they either suggest a two-way medium (highly unlikely)
> or maybe layered coding: "Pizzi said one goal of ATSC 3.0 is to send a one
> signal that adapts to different types of content and reception conditions,
> from TVs in the home to smartphones to in-vehicle video systems. Another is
> to appeal to the international market, which would enable more uniform
> development of both transmission and receiver equipment."
Sounds like a lot of hand waving to me. Perhaps the world is passing these guys
by, or they may still have a lot of internal dissension about what kind if
standard is needed. Perhaps the more interesting aspect is potential
international adoption, as it may be too late to do something meaningful here
in the U.S.
Whoops, that one got away ;-)
>
> Would be nice to just spell it out.
My guess is that there are multiple potential options, as there were with ATSC
1 while it was being developed.
>
> One comment was why not just use LTE. Well, I think the reason is pretty
> clear, if you consider that TV broadcast is set to lose 1/3 of its remaining
> spectrum. You want to increase spectral efficiency, one would think, and/or
> (if one-way broadcast) not have to rely on multiple hundreds of sticks per
> market. Alternatively, let the cellcos take care of distributing TV to
> smartphones. It's not obvious to me that the cellos will gladly allow ATSC
> 3.0 receivers in the smartphones anyway? We've talked about this already.
If they do not support LTE this standard will be meaningless. Broadcasting is
losing what little appeal it has - other than being a cheap lifeline service
for those who cannot afford better options. And the reasons have little to do
with the technology. Consumers are changing their viewing behavior, thanks in
large measure to the Internet, which should please Bert. As they say, "it's the
content stupid!"
Fortunately, Bert continues to be completely wrong about LTE broadcast and the
required infrastructure, although he is probably right that the telcos will
move into this area as they acquire what was formerly broadcast spectrum.
The tower infrastructure for broadcast LTE is already in place, but the mindset
of broad
>
> Another commenter pointed out that there isn't any support for another big
> change so soon, at the FCC. I agree with Mark that any such move, this time
> around, would depend entirely on the broadcasters. There's no stomach in
> government, I'm pretty sure, for another subsidized transition. I can just
> hear the congressmen putting on their drama act if any such thing were
> suggested.
>
> Another pointed out that broadcasters prefer their signal to go over MVPD
> media anyway, also been discussed many times before.
>
> An interesting comment was to use software designed radio, so we won't have
> to experience these gut-wrenching changes every few years. (That would delay
> the process enough to perhaps kill the whole idea.)
>
> I have to admit that if the constraints of living with a one-way broadcast
> medium need to remain, I'm also not sure of the payoff here. But I did like
> the comment about using simple HDMI sticks for this.
>
> Although when I think back at how impossible it was to get even half-way
> decent ATSC 1.0 TV receivers or PVRs on the market, even three or four years
> after the 5th gen designs had been demoed, it makes me wonder. It literally
> took an act of Congress.
>
> Bert
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/exhibitions-&-events/0109/hpa--atsc--prototypes-expected-in-/274513
>
> Deborah D. McAdams
> 02.12.2015 02:55 PM
>
> HPA 2015: ATSC 3.0 Prototypes Expected in 2016
>
> It's up to us, Aitken says
>
> INDIAN WELLS, CALIF.-Prototype ATSC 3.0 receivers may appear as early as next
> year, according to Skip Pizzi of the National Association of Broadcasters.
> Pizzi was among the executives on the annual broadcast panel at Hollywood
> Post Alliance Tech Retreat this week.
>
> "A number of key requirements are being fulfilled," he said. "The target is
> to get a candidate standard out later this year. Prototypes might start
> showing up in 2016."
>
> ATSC 3.0 represents a redesigned method of delivering television signals over
> the air. The Advanced Television Systems Committee group assigned to develop
> it was formed in 2011, a little more than a year after the Federal
> Communications Commission proposed auctioning off up to 40 percent of the
> broadcast TV spectrum for wireless broadband. That initiative is on track to
> take place in 2016 and will leave an unknown amount of spectrum for
> broadcasting.
>
> Technically, broadcasters are stuck with the current ATSC standard until the
> FCC says otherwise, and the agency has given no indications it will do so.
> Mark Aitken of Sinclair said broadcasters have to push for it.
>
> "The FCC has claimed a level of indifference with respect to the standard,"
> he said. "They have said they're not going to hold off their auction off for
> it to happen. There's a massive collective effort within broadcast
> community... We've had breakthroughs within ATSC, and can bring portions of
> the standard to [Capitol] Hill," where lawmakers are working on a rewrite of
> the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
>
> "The rules will change, but broadcasters will have to come together to bring
> opportunities to consumers that are not available today. If you want a true
> competitor to AT&T and Verizon, this is an opportunity for broadcasters to
> come forth and be a true competitor in wireless services."
>
> Richard Friedel of Fox said it would behoove the FCC to adopt ATSC 3.0.
>
> "This allows spectrum-sharing, which is one of the FCC's auction criteria,"
> he said. "I think it's to the FCC's advantage to use this. It allows
> broadcasters to get rid of more spectrum."
>
> Over-the-air throughput would be 30 percent better than the current ATSC
> format, Pizzi said. "We would move from 19.3 Mbps up to 25 Mbps range or
> higher" in a 6 MHz channel.
>
> The standard covers 4KTV using high efficiency video coding-HEVC-algorithms,
> and possibly 22.2-channel audio. Audio codecs have been submitted by Dolby,
> DTS and the MPEG-H Audio Alliance of Fraunhofer, Technicolor and Qualcomm.
>
> Pizzi said one goal of ATSC 3.0 is to send a one signal that adapts to
> different types of content and reception conditions, from TVs in the home to
> smartphones to in-vehicle video systems. Another is to appeal to the
> international market, which would enable more uniform development of both
> transmission and receiver equipment.
>
> As the market stands, there are zero receivers for ATSC 3.0, which departs
> entirely from the current standard. Aitken said to build services people
> want, then they will come. And rather than waiting for chipsets to be
> integrated into TV sets, thumb drive-sized adapters similar to Chromecast
> units could be subsidized by broadcasters and distributed on a
> market-by-market basis.
>
> "There's also a conceptual philosophical view that needs to be brought to the
> table, and that's convergence," Aitken said. "3.0 is a convergence
> technology, where you have HTML 5 and IP coming together. At the center of
> this will be MPEG Media Transport, the MPEG standard that succeeds MPEG-2.
>
> "It's about taking content across multiple physical platforms and bringing
> them together for the viewer. It brings ability for broadcasters to compete
> with targeted personalized advertising opportunities."
>
> Mario Vecchi of PBS said the industry had to take a macro approach, as well.
>
> "The evolution from 1.0 to 3.0 and the spectrum auction has to be looked at
> in the context of where is our business going in the future. We need to
> understand what the consumer wants in terms of formats and distribution
> methods, and then put this in the context of that new world and what's
> happening with the auction, with WiFi, fiber-to-the-home... And how do we
> respond? To focus on one particular issue in isolation isn't appropriate."
>
> - See more at:
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/exhibitions-&-events/0109/hpa--atsc--prototypes-expected-in-/274513#sthash.CpJiXfKK.dpuf
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
