It seems wireless mobile reception of TV is delivered by 4G and 5G and away
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ron Economos
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:13 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Sinclair's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
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
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
5) No secondary channel or government sponsored STB's.
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).
"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.