ATSC 1.0 uses the 8VSB waveform. COFDM was considered when DTV plans for the US were being made, however the ATSC caved into the pressures of the broadcast industry that wanted to minimize their hardware and electricity costs. COFDM has a higher peak to average ratio than 8VSB and therfore will require higher output power capabilities in the transmitter, better linearity. It was said during the debates over which waveform should be used that multipath immunity would be adquate with 8VSB, funny how they are now changing their minds about that, could it be that they knew which waveform was the proper one to use all along but now, more than ever, over the air TV broadcasting has taken a back seat to cable and streaming and broadcasters are no longer obsessed with the coverage area of their transmitters.
I'm really looking forward to Part 2. I'm a TV engineer for very large station group with numerous 3.0 stations on the air. My ATSC3 certification exam is scheduled for next week.
Wow! Nice to have an engineer watching. I did miss NAB this year. The history of OTA TV is so fascinating; and folks get pretty wrapped up in the roll out and rumors of ATSC 3.0' demise, more than the actual technical potential that the new standard brings to the broadcasters and consumers.
The biggest problem with ATSC 3.0 is you need a internet connection. At least for now. I bought a Samsung tv last month because it had a NextGen tuner in it. So living in the Boston Ma market I did a channel scan and found seven ATSC 3.0 channels .So knowing what I first said I disconnected my tv from the internet and now all the 3.0 channels are Not Available, so it says on the screen. All 44 ATSC 1.0 channels of course are fine. So much for portability right!
Great video! ISDB used in Japan and South America also uses COFDM. Recently, the Digital TV Industry National Committee recommeded ATSC 3.0 to also be adopted in Brazil to replace ISDB.
Hi Mike I'm surprised from the fact that USA want to migrate to a broadcast standard (ATSC 3.0) which is virtually the same like DVB-T... an "ancient" broadcast standard, who is abandoned here in Europe at least five to ten years ago! ...and don't replace it with the most modern DVB-T2. As a Broadcast Engineer myself, I have already worked in both standards (DVB-T in the past, DVB-T2 nowadays) and I have accumulate "some" experience over the year's! My question is... Why they don't adopt the DVB-T2 straight away, who by the way is used with great success and is already fully supported by all the TV set manufacturers, ...plus it's debugged " to the bone's" make's it a trouble free system. ...if they don't like the name... they can always change it 😂😂😂. 73s de SV2ODL
Excellent! Every standard that is designed by committee and rolled out in stages, and with critical patented methods, will have certain growing pains - Yes already debugged is good! I would hope that lessons learned on the old DVB-T (Which the US should have gone to originally, but there are interests beyond our control) will be rolled into a unified ATSC 3.0. Am I dreaming? We would have had common hardware and software.
@@MIKROWAVE1 One thing is "the common hardware / software" already exist... For example: every TV set that sold in USA and Canada after 2016 is fully capable "by default" to receive DVB-T2 signal's especially brands like: LG, Samsung, Sony, Hitachi, Philips ...and you named! And that is a fact - even if "the owners" they don't know this!!! Secondly I have more good news... In Canada and USA... and of course in Latin America... The DVB-T2 signals it's "On Air" and can be received (if you lucky!) very easy in your area! ...I totally understand your question!!! Who Broadcast this kind of signal, and how can receive it! The answer is: there's many radio amateurs that transmitted D-ATV signals in 472MHz and in 1.2GHz ATV zone! And it's very easy to receive it, in the first case with just a TV and the UHF antenna, in the second case you need to add a down-converter from 1.2GHz to 400 or 600MHz, or the use of a receiver capable for 1.2GHz... a RTL-SDR dangle for example!
I'm encouraged by all of the excitement in the comments. Again I'm trying to go light on the potential uses or misuses of a powerful new technology, that is in fact being rolled out now in certain markets, and try to cover the features and history in a light manner. I am not a TV engineer! But I have been an engineer in the business at times, and have demoed new technology to TV Engineers (very opinioned, knowledgeable and particular folks by the way!) and have been to stations like TV Poland, BBC Cardiff, BBC London, RAI Rome and ABC and have presented to Sinclair, and have attended NAB, IBC and CES at times in my career.
Mike, you did an excellent job so far explaining the differences and advantages and disadvantages between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0, learned some things new about the two systems. Did you know we could have had ATSC 3.0 before they locked us into the ATSC 1.0 OTA system.
I used to work with a DVB-T conformance testing consultancy a good few years ago - it will be very interesting to find out more about ATSC 3.0 as I've been out of that market for a long time.
Having 2 essentially redundant but competitive systems is wasteful but that is the divide between the US and the EU that goes way back. They do build on each others lessons learned - especially ATSC 3.0 that is COFDM, closely resembling DVB-T2. The differentiators become small and amplified.
I understand most of it will be paywall broadcast. It will be less free TV than what we grew up with. Cable prices without the cost of laying cable. Exciting for Business but not the consumer.
Yes, basically the "Over The Air" TV era is coming to an end. You can just stream stuff over the internet instead. There is a rule on such things that "the result is its purpose". Broadcasters get a retransmission fee from cable companies. Their profit is bigger on the cable path than the over the air path so they want to kill the over the air path.
@@kensmith5694 Makes me wonder about the OTA TV future, They seem to be more concerned over having larger profits then giving good low cost service to OTA watchers. OTA will become like having a Satellite or Cable TV bill.
as someone who works in broadcasting and has seen the use of ATSC 3.0 in the field, it truly is a versatile technology. But there's no solid standards yet on big items like Digital Rights Management, or even some rumors about mandatory IP connectivity on set top boxes. With stations now stepping into the 21st century and broadcasting channels in 1080 and 4k, I can't really see a reason to switch, everything would have to be backward compatible and that's too much money and too much engineering.
The rule should be that DRM just goes away. Encryption makes a nonsense of "the public's airwaves" and the DRM nonsense is not good for the public in general.
I never really thought about multipath coming from movement of anything other than the receiver. Thanks for this. I watch a lot of digital OTA tv and live in the Boston area. It will be interesting to try to adapt to this standard, and I wonder if it will directly replace ATSC 1.0 or if the two standards will coexist for a time as they did with analog and digital television originally. Hopefully it will be easy to build and use antennas for, and there will be no short supply of converters for existing televisions. Thanks Mike! I have been playing with TV standards for a while with old TVs I find on the road. Excited for the next video. It will be helpful to see how I can continue to watch MeTV 😂
@@JCWise-sf9ww The 'lighthouse' process allows broadcasters in a market to work together to share the stream load of the displaced 'Lighthouse' 3.0 station. Numerous stations all feed the 3.0 station (because the standard allows ALOT more information in the standard 6MHz channel) and in turn they carry the Lighthouse's streams divided up amongst themselves. Everybody (at least the network stations) ends up with a 1.0 and 3.0 signal with no new spectrum usage. Remember, the virtual 'channel' number shown to the viewer is a lie and be set to anything the broadcaster wishes. Outside of the lighthouse process, there is talk that the abandoned VHF channels will see a return in popularity as 3.0 doesn't have the same negative effects from multipath.
@@JCWise-sf9ww Yes they knew they had prime spectrum and got top dollar from the 5G folks. But they still tightly hold on to bandwidth. VHF channels are numbered 2 to 13 and UHF channels are numbered 14 to 36
@@ad0tp Thank you. And then we can go back to intermediate tropospheric/atmospheric TV skip reception on Channels 2-6. In the past I experienced getting a TV signal from North Platte NB. Yes, virtual numbering is so the TV stations would not have the expense of changing their signs and artwork for a different channel number. Yea, now a UHF channel 27 is on a VHF channel 10 in Harrisburg PA.
@@CapecodhamSorry... "going to be"... Pardon the linguistic butchery I just made myself guilty of... what I meant was "I'm looking forward to the next instalment" ;)
Just wish my friend, who died back in 2010 and worked as a transmitter engineer for Pittsburgh TV Ch 4. Could see where TV broadcasting is headed today.
We live in a fringe area and have always used OTA for TV even though we now have access to high speed internet. Initially I was very excited by the prospect of ATSC 3.0 compared to 1.0 for the reasons you stated. However seeing stations rushing to encrypt their programs I've pretty much lost my enthusiasm for ATSC 3.0.
They have 3 more years of simulcast to figure this stuff out. Its all software capability at this point. Remember the goal to is find a way to utilize Spectrum - to beyond regular TV, possibly to provide pay services on an over the air system with similar capability as streaming, and adding interactivity, for sporting events, shopping, gaming, games, dating and anything else you can think of - but at a MUCH LOWER COST than you pay now for satellite, high speed internet, or fiber.
ATSC 3.0 is currently completely hamstrung by DRM and encryption. The only thing users see with the new standard is that all of a sudden they have to buy a now box costing $100 or more to replace the $30 one and then they still can't receive many of the programs due to the DRM nonsense. They need to connect their TV to a working internet to get the magic keys. If you are hooked to the internet, you may as well throw away the antenna and just stream stuff. If you are in a very rural situation where you don't have internet that works well, you simply can't watch the TV anyway. In the year 2027, it seems the nation will go ATSC-3.0 on all channels. At that time I expect to get the neighbor's help to lug my TV set out to the curb. I am not connecting it to the internet.
it's not hamstrung. I watch it everyday. I'm totally against allowing DRM on the public airwaves. We're going to have to continue working on that. There are already products out there that work with ATSC 3.0/DRM without connecting to the internet. So you're wrong on that account. Streaming may compete with free OTA broadcasts, provided you don't have data caps. That's a battle we'll have to wait and see. As far as the keys go, the problem I see is that they expire. So if you buy a piece of hardware and the key expires, yes, you do need an internet connection to update the key. If you don't have your TV hooked up to internet, than you're not streaming anyways 🤷♂This will all shake out in the long run, and everybody will get to choose their own path, obviously. Since 80-90% of my TV time is OTA, I'm pretty excited about ATSC 3.0. I'm saving a lot of money.
@@wesmckean1443 I can replace the TV with a computer was my point. If they don't sort out the mess, OTA will die. I have seen many reports of people having trouble receiving ATSC-3. I think it varies by market.
wondering. can you do a video on antannes. for tv. the so called digi antennas and analog antannes. if anything is diff persay. i myself feel there is no diff between them. gain would be only issues in the antanne design.
An antenna designed by a person is Analog. An antenna designed by AI is Digital. Sorry I could not resist. NO DIFFO. The finest Yagi you can design for analog will be the finest Yagi you can design for digital reception. The question is, how does your TV system handle weak signals and multipath interference? It may require a better antenna.
I guess they are always changing or updating someting, over here in Australia all the Mobile phone carriers are switching off the old 3G network and now its 4G an VoLTE. my old phone will no longer work as of 3 weeks time it is nearly 7 years old but still works well. The carrier did give me a free but cheap phone that I will use till I can go and pick a good new one.
It was an attempt at achieving more features in a waveform that was backward compatible. Yes a full standard was developed by the ATSC, that was not exercised. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A107-2015.pdf
ATSC 2.0 was actually ATSC-M/H. M/H referring to Mobile Handheld. It was a compatible extension to ATSC 1.0. it was to enable mobile devices to receive 8VSB broadcasts. It attempted to over come the issues with 8VSB that DVB-T and ISDB-T had inherently built in that made those signals easily received while moving or in low signal areas. It wasn't very successful, not many devices added the tuner needed. It required dedicated bandwidth and hardware on the broadcast side to add the M/H capability, it didn't improve regular service receive ability, only the services on M/H could be seen on a a device with that tuner built in. The services on the M/H side were at best SD and mostly less than SD res being most devices in the mid 2000's didn't have HD screens. The idea being you would never broadcast a robust HD signal or higher quality pic to a device that has such a small screen that can't even resolve HD. I believe a few PBS stations broadcast it for a time, duplicating their main channels on the M/S service side. Again, it required a minimum bandwidth consumed in fixed chunks of nearly 1mbps per M/H service out of the total ATSC Bandwidth. Meaning fewer bits/services available for the main channels that didn't improve the main channels reception.
Interesting information. I live in upstate New York and 1.0 can be very challenging. I have had little success with 3.0 out of Albany but my challenge is 2 edge diffraction and that flight path of planes approaching Albany. Multipath has been my enemy since 2009.
It is becoming obsolete. It isn't yet. Streaming over the internet is going to replace it mostly. ATSC-3 DRM and encryption is a debacle that will basically end the era of TV.
What a scrambled mess of disjointed fragments, and horrible explanations of digital signals versus modulation encoding of RF carriers, which are inherently analog systems. COFDM can yield 25 Mbps vs 19 Mbps from 8-VSB, in addition to better compatibility with mobile device and sloppy design antennas. The USA may have been better off consolidating on an upgraded version of DVB-Tx, and prolific, inexpensive, mobile and network compatible tuners. However, the predatory scammers who bribe Congress for corrupt IP laws, pushed through systems that integrate spyware and DRM extortion, and can be configured in ways that properly are grounds to revoke licenses of TV broadcasters, rather than just offer minor bandwidth increases and rules to enable newer more dense CODEC's that didn't exist in 1984 or 1995, the era when AHDTV was largely available professionally, and then made a US legal standard for ATSC 1 by Congress, with a 1996-2006 transition window few broadcasters or viewers acted up until the relative last minute. Besides allowing newer CODEC's and more robust modulation standards, ATSC 3 offers immersive audio, with object rather than mix based content, that few people understand conceptually yet (but with major potential benefits for special needs environments or disabilities and aging). However, beyond spyware based DRM, ATSC 3 is also capable of narrow-casting propaganda or political or police scams, and other devious or potentially criminal uses, that ATSC 1 does not allow. Those potential benefits come at a cost of new and complex risks, and institutional abuses. Congress and its owners who buy votes from major telecoms and CATV's also ensured 600 MHz spectrum was sold off before public pressures to retain it to enable transitional simulcasting or less dense modulation of higher dynamic range 4k encodings would become public awareness issues and pressures to not pursue grossly misguided spectrum policy, again. Ultimately, we need systems that vote Republicans and Democrats out of power, and find leaders who have a clue technically, plus prioritize public interest over corporate scams.
Yes TV obsolescence and screen replacement changed from every 40 years to every 4 years a while ago unfortunately, as the display screens became 10X cheaper to produce in real dollars. Blame the PC.
The broadcast can't directly but on the ATSC-3 with DRM there is an issue that you need to plug your internet into the TV to get the magic keys for decoding. They know what keys you downloaded so they know what you watched. Welcome to the goldfish bowl. We are taking the word privacy out of the dictionary. Have a nice day.
If you want it to, as with the very interesting viewer reaction systems patented in the 1970s now called Nielsen Media. However some of the the broadcaster groups are interested in developing reverse channel systems for interactive TV to support certain new services to compete with cable, SAT etc...
@@RogierYou Yes wired internet normally for interaction as with any box- BUT - A wireless reverse channel is defined in the standard. This is fundamentally a dedicated UHF channel being used for such narrowband interactive use, but not with your TV. Usually a local repeater on a pole to concentrate a neighborhood's reverse feedback. A cellular modem chipset is a natural...External or more cost effective, a chipset in your TV set. I think that is where you are going. Absolutely possible.
Wow interesting. I assume no blockage. What is the range to the particular tower and to the wind farm. The system can only correct for a given range with its guard interval. At longer ranges this falls apart. This is where localized repeaters in simulcast mode come in. And of course directional antennas always help, no matter the technology.
@@MIKROWAVE1 60 miles with a DAT Boss Mix. About 25 feet up. I receive perfect picture when they’re not spinning and before they were put up. Now I do not if they are spinning. I’m doubtful that raising the antenna or swapping to a DAT Boss LR or another Yagi would help.
@@NightKnight2048 You are in a fringe range, further out than I am from Boston towers. I'm not familiar with this this antenna, but I will run it against my friend who is an antenna engineer. You are exceeding the guard interval at that range. ie. ATSC 3.0 was not designed to cover that wide of a coverage area, is my guess. So you are on the fringe and the windmills put you over the error correction ability with the perturbance. You bought a premium antenna that may be the issue. Cant rule that out either. CP or a different antenna might help. The strength of ATSC 3.0 is that a local repeater would solve this since it is coherent. But the broadcasters have to plan this approaches roll out.
@@MIKROWAVE1 At the moment, since they brought in all the windmills I can’t get my low power ATSC 1.0 ABC, FOX, NBC affiliates 20 miles away or the other 45 miles away. I pickup one channel (CBS) 15 miles away. The DAT boss is a decent antenna, tons of reviews online. But on a medium size winegard a few houses over it the signals been clobbered as well. Not even the CBS affiliate. I used to pickup a market 85 miles reliably. Then there were the odd days I’d get channels from a market 120 miles away. I am lost on your “premium” antenna comment though. Televes is a quality brand with engineers that put out great antennas, just like winegard did for combined UHF/VHF antennas back in the day. It’s a good UHF antenna design.
@@steviebboy69 It's effective and unique. No wind noise, so it works. We like to have fun here, even if my dry since of humor comes from the bad humor ice cream man. Take care.
Basically you are correct. People will throw away the antenna and stream instead. The FCC can then take back the rest of the spectrum and sell it as a bargain rate to their buddies.
@wesmckean1443 it's early and testing days, and I hear payment plans to watch the signal, they just want to be like netflix and all the rest, and no money makes the rules
ATSC 1.0 uses the 8VSB waveform. COFDM was considered when DTV plans for the US were being made, however the ATSC caved into the pressures of the broadcast industry that wanted to minimize their hardware and electricity costs. COFDM has a higher peak to average ratio than 8VSB and therfore will require higher output power capabilities in the transmitter, better linearity. It was said during the debates over which waveform should be used that multipath immunity would be adquate with 8VSB, funny how they are now changing their minds about that, could it be that they knew which waveform was the proper one to use all along but now, more than ever, over the air TV broadcasting has taken a back seat to cable and streaming and broadcasters are no longer obsessed with the coverage area of their transmitters.
I'm really looking forward to Part 2. I'm a TV engineer for very large station group with numerous 3.0 stations on the air. My ATSC3 certification exam is scheduled for next week.
Wow! Nice to have an engineer watching. I did miss NAB this year. The history of OTA TV is so fascinating; and folks get pretty wrapped up in the roll out and rumors of ATSC 3.0' demise, more than the actual technical potential that the new standard brings to the broadcasters and consumers.
@@MIKROWAVE1 If they insist on encryption they will destroy adoption.
The biggest problem with ATSC 3.0 is you need a internet connection. At least for now. I bought a Samsung tv last month because it had a NextGen tuner in it. So living in the Boston Ma market I did a channel scan and found seven ATSC 3.0 channels .So knowing what I first said I disconnected my tv from the internet and now all the 3.0 channels are Not Available, so it says on the screen. All 44 ATSC 1.0 channels of course are fine. So much for portability right!
I look forward to the tech part of this. Excellently done! I'm still learning my remote control.
Great video! ISDB used in Japan and South America also uses COFDM. Recently, the Digital TV Industry National Committee recommeded ATSC 3.0 to also be adopted in Brazil to replace ISDB.
Hi Mike
I'm surprised from the fact that USA want to migrate to a broadcast standard (ATSC 3.0) which is virtually the same like DVB-T... an "ancient" broadcast standard, who is abandoned here in Europe at least five to ten years ago! ...and don't replace it with the most modern DVB-T2.
As a Broadcast Engineer myself, I have already worked in both standards (DVB-T in the past, DVB-T2 nowadays) and I have accumulate "some" experience over the year's!
My question is... Why they don't adopt the DVB-T2 straight away, who by the way is used with great success and is already fully supported by all the TV set manufacturers, ...plus it's debugged " to the bone's" make's it a trouble free system.
...if they don't like the name... they can always change it 😂😂😂.
73s de SV2ODL
Excellent! Every standard that is designed by committee and rolled out in stages, and with critical patented methods, will have certain growing pains - Yes already debugged is good! I would hope that lessons learned on the old DVB-T (Which the US should have gone to originally, but there are interests beyond our control) will be rolled into a unified ATSC 3.0. Am I dreaming? We would have had common hardware and software.
@@MIKROWAVE1
One thing is "the common hardware / software" already exist... For example: every TV set that sold in USA and Canada after 2016 is fully capable "by default" to receive DVB-T2 signal's especially brands like: LG, Samsung, Sony, Hitachi, Philips ...and you named! And that is a fact - even if "the owners" they don't know this!!!
Secondly I have more good news...
In Canada and USA... and of course in Latin America...
The DVB-T2 signals it's "On Air" and can be received (if you lucky!) very easy in your area! ...I totally understand your question!!!
Who Broadcast this kind of signal, and how can receive it!
The answer is: there's many radio amateurs that transmitted D-ATV signals in 472MHz and in 1.2GHz ATV zone!
And it's very easy to receive it, in the first case with just a TV and the UHF antenna, in the second case you need to add a down-converter from 1.2GHz to 400 or 600MHz, or the use of a receiver capable for 1.2GHz... a RTL-SDR dangle for example!
I'm encouraged by all of the excitement in the comments. Again I'm trying to go light on the potential uses or misuses of a powerful new technology, that is in fact being rolled out now in certain markets, and try to cover the features and history in a light manner. I am not a TV engineer! But I have been an engineer in the business at times, and have demoed new technology to TV Engineers (very opinioned, knowledgeable and particular folks by the way!) and have been to stations like TV Poland, BBC Cardiff, BBC London, RAI Rome and ABC and have presented to Sinclair, and have attended NAB, IBC and CES at times in my career.
Nice video mikrowave !!!
Mike, you did an excellent job so far explaining the differences and advantages and disadvantages between ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0, learned some things new about the two systems. Did you know we could have had ATSC 3.0 before they locked us into the ATSC 1.0 OTA system.
I used to work with a DVB-T conformance testing consultancy a good few years ago - it will be very interesting to find out more about ATSC 3.0 as I've been out of that market for a long time.
Having 2 essentially redundant but competitive systems is wasteful but that is the divide between the US and the EU that goes way back. They do build on each others lessons learned - especially ATSC 3.0 that is COFDM, closely resembling DVB-T2. The differentiators become small and amplified.
I understand most of it will be paywall broadcast. It will be less free TV than what we grew up with. Cable prices without the cost of laying cable. Exciting for Business but not the consumer.
You got that right, a lot of 3.0 is already being encrypted!
Yes, basically the "Over The Air" TV era is coming to an end. You can just stream stuff over the internet instead. There is a rule on such things that "the result is its purpose". Broadcasters get a retransmission fee from cable companies. Their profit is bigger on the cable path than the over the air path so they want to kill the over the air path.
@@kensmith5694 Makes me wonder about the OTA TV future, They seem to be more concerned over having larger profits then giving good low cost service to OTA watchers. OTA will become like having a Satellite or Cable TV bill.
as someone who works in broadcasting and has seen the use of ATSC 3.0 in the field, it truly is a versatile technology. But there's no solid standards yet on big items like Digital Rights Management, or even some rumors about mandatory IP connectivity on set top boxes. With stations now stepping into the 21st century and broadcasting channels in 1080 and 4k, I can't really see a reason to switch, everything would have to be backward compatible and that's too much money and too much engineering.
The rule should be that DRM just goes away. Encryption makes a nonsense of "the public's airwaves" and the DRM nonsense is not good for the public in general.
I never really thought about multipath coming from movement of anything other than the receiver. Thanks for this. I watch a lot of digital OTA tv and live in the Boston area. It will be interesting to try to adapt to this standard, and I wonder if it will directly replace ATSC 1.0 or if the two standards will coexist for a time as they did with analog and digital television originally.
Hopefully it will be easy to build and use antennas for, and there will be no short supply of converters for existing televisions.
Thanks Mike! I have been playing with TV standards for a while with old TVs I find on the road. Excited for the next video. It will be helpful to see how I can continue to watch MeTV 😂
Initially no. But strong interests insisted on a mandate to devote bandwidth and capability to supporting 1.0 during a technology changeover period.
@@MIKROWAVE1 where do they have the channels to do that, most of the UHF channels were sold off for cell phone use.
@@JCWise-sf9ww The 'lighthouse' process allows broadcasters in a market to work together to share the stream load of the displaced 'Lighthouse' 3.0 station. Numerous stations all feed the 3.0 station (because the standard allows ALOT more information in the standard 6MHz channel) and in turn they carry the Lighthouse's streams divided up amongst themselves. Everybody (at least the network stations) ends up with a 1.0 and 3.0 signal with no new spectrum usage. Remember, the virtual 'channel' number shown to the viewer is a lie and be set to anything the broadcaster wishes. Outside of the lighthouse process, there is talk that the abandoned VHF channels will see a return in popularity as 3.0 doesn't have the same negative effects from multipath.
@@JCWise-sf9ww Yes they knew they had prime spectrum and got top dollar from the 5G folks. But they still tightly hold on to bandwidth. VHF channels are numbered 2 to 13 and UHF channels are numbered 14 to 36
@@ad0tp Thank you. And then we can go back to intermediate tropospheric/atmospheric TV skip reception on Channels 2-6. In the past I experienced getting a TV signal from North Platte NB. Yes, virtual numbering is so the TV stations would not have the expense of changing their signs and artwork for a different channel number. Yea, now a UHF channel 27 is on a VHF channel 10 in Harrisburg PA.
This is gonna be fun!
gonna?
@@CapecodhamSorry... "going to be"... Pardon the linguistic butchery I just made myself guilty of... what I meant was "I'm looking forward to the next instalment" ;)
@@juliussokolowski4293 instalment?
How does this effect ham communication, will yeasu and kenwood and others change their modulation/ encoding methods ?
Just wish my friend, who died back in 2010 and worked as a transmitter engineer for Pittsburgh TV Ch 4. Could see where TV broadcasting is headed today.
We live in a fringe area and have always used OTA for TV even though we now have access to high speed internet. Initially I was very excited by the prospect of ATSC 3.0 compared to 1.0 for the reasons you stated. However seeing stations rushing to encrypt their programs I've pretty much lost my enthusiasm for ATSC 3.0.
They have 3 more years of simulcast to figure this stuff out. Its all software capability at this point. Remember the goal to is find a way to utilize Spectrum - to beyond regular TV, possibly to provide pay services on an over the air system with similar capability as streaming, and adding interactivity, for sporting events, shopping, gaming, games, dating and anything else you can think of - but at a MUCH LOWER COST than you pay now for satellite, high speed internet, or fiber.
Good talk! I was wondering about this. Do they keep the pilot carrier? I still can hear pings on the low channels. 73 de W3IHM
ATSC 3.0 is currently completely hamstrung by DRM and encryption. The only thing users see with the new standard is that all of a sudden they have to buy a now box costing $100 or more to replace the $30 one and then they still can't receive many of the programs due to the DRM nonsense. They need to connect their TV to a working internet to get the magic keys. If you are hooked to the internet, you may as well throw away the antenna and just stream stuff. If you are in a very rural situation where you don't have internet that works well, you simply can't watch the TV anyway. In the year 2027, it seems the nation will go ATSC-3.0 on all channels. At that time I expect to get the neighbor's help to lug my TV set out to the curb. I am not connecting it to the internet.
it's not hamstrung. I watch it everyday. I'm totally against allowing DRM on the public airwaves. We're going to have to continue working on that. There are already products out there that work with ATSC 3.0/DRM without connecting to the internet. So you're wrong on that account. Streaming may compete with free OTA broadcasts, provided you don't have data caps. That's a battle we'll have to wait and see. As far as the keys go, the problem I see is that they expire. So if you buy a piece of hardware and the key expires, yes, you do need an internet connection to update the key. If you don't have your TV hooked up to internet, than you're not streaming anyways 🤷♂This will all shake out in the long run, and everybody will get to choose their own path, obviously. Since 80-90% of my TV time is OTA, I'm pretty excited about ATSC 3.0. I'm saving a lot of money.
@@wesmckean1443 I can replace the TV with a computer was my point. If they don't sort out the mess, OTA will die. I have seen many reports of people having trouble receiving ATSC-3. I think it varies by market.
Good show. It is ok to take alittle sip of the KOOL AID. The Boys Frist Book on A.S.T 3.0 Good Luck old friend. Best Regards Jack.
wondering. can you do a video on antannes. for tv. the so called digi antennas and analog antannes. if anything is diff persay. i myself feel there is no diff between them. gain would be only issues in the antanne design.
An antenna designed by a person is Analog. An antenna designed by AI is Digital. Sorry I could not resist. NO DIFFO. The finest Yagi you can design for analog will be the finest Yagi you can design for digital reception. The question is, how does your TV system handle weak signals and multipath interference? It may require a better antenna.
I guess they are always changing or updating someting, over here in Australia all the Mobile phone carriers are switching off the old 3G network and now its 4G an VoLTE. my old phone will no longer work as of 3 weeks time it is nearly 7 years old but still works well. The carrier did give me a free but cheap phone that I will use till I can go and pick a good new one.
So was there an ATSC 2.0, or was it just skipped over for 3.0?
It was an attempt at achieving more features in a waveform that was backward compatible. Yes a full standard was developed by the ATSC, that was not exercised. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A107-2015.pdf
So what happened to ATSC 2.0? Just curious.
ATSC 2.0 was actually ATSC-M/H. M/H referring to Mobile Handheld. It was a compatible extension to ATSC 1.0. it was to enable mobile devices to receive 8VSB broadcasts. It attempted to over come the issues with 8VSB that DVB-T and ISDB-T had inherently built in that made those signals easily received while moving or in low signal areas. It wasn't very successful, not many devices added the tuner needed. It required dedicated bandwidth and hardware on the broadcast side to add the M/H capability, it didn't improve regular service receive ability, only the services on M/H could be seen on a a device with that tuner built in.
The services on the M/H side were at best SD and mostly less than SD res being most devices in the mid 2000's didn't have HD screens. The idea being you would never broadcast a robust HD signal or higher quality pic to a device that has such a small screen that can't even resolve HD. I believe a few PBS stations broadcast it for a time, duplicating their main channels on the M/S service side. Again, it required a minimum bandwidth consumed in fixed chunks of nearly 1mbps per M/H service out of the total ATSC Bandwidth. Meaning fewer bits/services available for the main channels that didn't improve the main channels reception.
Interesting information. I live in upstate New York and 1.0 can be very challenging. I have had little success with 3.0 out of Albany but my challenge is 2 edge diffraction and that flight path of planes approaching Albany. Multipath has been my enemy since 2009.
Thought-provoking, Is the term television obsolete, like the term icebox.
It is becoming obsolete. It isn't yet. Streaming over the internet is going to replace it mostly. ATSC-3 DRM and encryption is a debacle that will basically end the era of TV.
What a scrambled mess of disjointed fragments, and horrible explanations of digital signals versus modulation encoding of RF carriers, which are inherently analog systems.
COFDM can yield 25 Mbps vs 19 Mbps from 8-VSB, in addition to better compatibility with mobile device and sloppy design antennas.
The USA may have been better off consolidating on an upgraded version of DVB-Tx, and prolific, inexpensive, mobile and network compatible tuners. However, the predatory scammers who bribe Congress for corrupt IP laws, pushed through systems that integrate spyware and DRM extortion, and can be configured in ways that properly are grounds to revoke licenses of TV broadcasters, rather than just offer minor bandwidth increases and rules to enable newer more dense CODEC's that didn't exist in 1984 or 1995, the era when AHDTV was largely available professionally, and then made a US legal standard for ATSC 1 by Congress, with a 1996-2006 transition window few broadcasters or viewers acted up until the relative last minute.
Besides allowing newer CODEC's and more robust modulation standards, ATSC 3 offers immersive audio, with object rather than mix based content, that few people understand conceptually yet (but with major potential benefits for special needs environments or disabilities and aging). However, beyond spyware based DRM, ATSC 3 is also capable of narrow-casting propaganda or political or police scams, and other devious or potentially criminal uses, that ATSC 1 does not allow. Those potential benefits come at a cost of new and complex risks, and institutional abuses.
Congress and its owners who buy votes from major telecoms and CATV's also ensured 600 MHz spectrum was sold off before public pressures to retain it to enable transitional simulcasting or less dense modulation of higher dynamic range 4k encodings would become public awareness issues and pressures to not pursue grossly misguided spectrum policy, again.
Ultimately, we need systems that vote Republicans and Democrats out of power, and find leaders who have a clue technically, plus prioritize public interest over corporate scams.
Oh yes, this will be great. More Big Screen obsolete E-waste hardware to send to the landfill.
Yes TV obsolescence and screen replacement changed from every 40 years to every 4 years a while ago unfortunately, as the display screens became 10X cheaper to produce in real dollars. Blame the PC.
Can it detect what I am watching?
The broadcast can't directly but on the ATSC-3 with DRM there is an issue that you need to plug your internet into the TV to get the magic keys for decoding. They know what keys you downloaded so they know what you watched. Welcome to the goldfish bowl. We are taking the word privacy out of the dictionary. Have a nice day.
If you want it to, as with the very interesting viewer reaction systems patented in the 1970s now called Nielsen Media. However some of the the broadcaster groups are interested in developing reverse channel systems for interactive TV to support certain new services to compete with cable, SAT etc...
@@MIKROWAVE1 yeah that’s exactly what I wanted to avoid.
@@RogierYou Yes wired internet normally for interaction as with any box- BUT - A wireless reverse channel is defined in the standard. This is fundamentally a dedicated UHF channel being used for such narrowband interactive use, but not with your TV. Usually a local repeater on a pole to concentrate a neighborhood's reverse feedback. A cellular modem chipset is a natural...External or more cost effective, a chipset in your TV set. I think that is where you are going. Absolutely possible.
It will probably never happen do to all the problems.
I thought 3.0 died.
Its like a zombie it wants your brains.
I have seen zero help from ATSC 3.0 multipath handling against windmills.
Wow interesting. I assume no blockage. What is the range to the particular tower and to the wind farm. The system can only correct for a given range with its guard interval. At longer ranges this falls apart. This is where localized repeaters in simulcast mode come in. And of course directional antennas always help, no matter the technology.
@@MIKROWAVE1 60 miles with a DAT Boss Mix. About 25 feet up. I receive perfect picture when they’re not spinning and before they were put up. Now I do not if they are spinning. I’m doubtful that raising the antenna or swapping to a DAT Boss LR or another Yagi would help.
@@NightKnight2048 You are in a fringe range, further out than I am from Boston towers. I'm not familiar with this this antenna, but I will run it against my friend who is an antenna engineer. You are exceeding the guard interval at that range. ie. ATSC 3.0 was not designed to cover that wide of a coverage area, is my guess. So you are on the fringe and the windmills put you over the error correction ability with the perturbance. You bought a premium antenna that may be the issue. Cant rule that out either. CP or a different antenna might help. The strength of ATSC 3.0 is that a local repeater would solve this since it is coherent. But the broadcasters have to plan this approaches roll out.
@@MIKROWAVE1 At the moment, since they brought in all the windmills I can’t get my low power ATSC 1.0 ABC, FOX, NBC affiliates 20 miles away or the other 45 miles away. I pickup one channel (CBS) 15 miles away.
The DAT boss is a decent antenna, tons of reviews online. But on a medium size winegard a few houses over it the signals been clobbered as well. Not even the CBS affiliate. I used to pickup a market 85 miles reliably. Then there were the odd days I’d get channels from a market 120 miles away.
I am lost on your “premium” antenna comment though. Televes is a quality brand with engineers that put out great antennas, just like winegard did for combined UHF/VHF antennas back in the day. It’s a good UHF antenna design.
Yes guilty. I am a cynic when it comes to antennas. There are lies, and then there are antenna lies. Hee.
😂😂😂
There is a big ink spot on your shirt.
It's a fishing lure!
@@W1RMD I don't see any fish.
I think it is the microphone in one of those fluffy windsock things what ever you call them.
@@steviebboy69 It's effective and unique. No wind noise, so it works. We like to have fun here, even if my dry since of humor comes from the bad humor ice cream man. Take care.
Atsc 3.0 is a joke, no one going to pay to watch Ota TV, 😂😂😂
Basically you are correct. People will throw away the antenna and stream instead. The FCC can then take back the rest of the spectrum and sell it as a bargain rate to their buddies.
@@kensmith5694 😅😅😅
I'm rather enjoying it, and I'm not paying anything. You do realize we make the rules, right?
@@wesmckean1443 You aren't paying currently but there is talk of subscription based content.
@wesmckean1443 it's early and testing days, and I hear payment plans to watch the signal, they just want to be like netflix and all the rest, and no money makes the rules