ATSC 3.0: A New Broadcast Standard for the UltraHD and Mobile Age

[gene]

While the home theater world has become somewhat hyper-focused on UltraHD, we’ve seemingly forgotten about good old broadcast television. Fear not, ATSC 3.0, a new broadcast standard for UltraHD, immersive audio, and the mobile age, is just over the horizon.

Check out our in-depth article that will tell you everything you need to know about ATSC 3.0's incredible feature set and why it's arrival just cannot come soon enough.

Read: ATSC 3.0: A New Broadcast Standard for the UltraHD and Mobile Age

 

[agarwalro]

Thank you for the excellent write up.

 

[TheoN]

@agarwalro, glad you liked the article! A big nod again to Rich Chernock and the time he took to speak with me for this article. You'll find stuff consolidated in this article that you just won't find readily anyplace else. ATSC 3.0 is something to really look forward to!

 

[wiyosaya]

Thanks for the informative article.

As I see it, the most important advance is in the ability to receive the signal. IMHO, this was one area where the ATSC transition was a dismal failure. I live not too far from a reasonably sized metropolitan area (500K population - within a 5-mile radius of the primary transmitters). There are four primary stations and several low-power stations in our area. I also live in a valley in the area, and it just so happens that the geographic conditions combine to make reception difficult at best. The only solution that I found was to use a pre-amp that has a less than 1db noise figure. This brings in most of the local stations except for one of the low power stations, and in the summer time, at least, brings in stations from 90+ miles away using a small directional antenna in my attic.

Where OTA DTV could have been "free cable over the air" it failed dismally, IMO. In researching my situation, I found others in the country that had similar reception problems - one notably in Boston, MA.

I also realize that there are areas in the country where DTV has become, effectively, free cable over the air. Again while researching my situation, I found that there are some areas of the country that receive 70+ channels over the air.

From the reception test described, if ATSC 3.0 only delivered great reception to all those with a receiver, I think that would be enough to make it a success. Don't get me wrong, I want the advanced audio and video features, but as an OTA source of entertainment, those features are meaningless if you cannot receive the signal due to the multipath interference problems that plague ATSC 1.0 or other problems that might crop up that degrade reception to the point where the signal is unusable.

And I get the IP TV part, however, there are people who still depend on OTA who cannot afford internet service.

A co-worker of mine comes from Germany. He says that they solved the reception problems and the kind of mobile reception described in the article already exists in Germany and Europe. IMO, it is about time that it comes to the US. I only hope that it does get rolled out here in the US.

 

[TheoN]

Thanks for the informative article.

As I see it, the most important advance is in the ability to receive the signal. IMHO, this was one area where the ATSC transition was a dismal failure. I live not too far from a reasonably sized metropolitan area (500K population - within a 5-mile radius of the primary transmitters). There are four primary stations and several low-power stations in our area. I also live in a valley in the area, and it just so happens that the geographic conditions combine to make reception difficult at best. The only solution that I found was to use a pre-amp that has a less than 1db noise figure. This brings in most of the local stations except for one of the low power stations, and in the summer time, at least, brings in stations from 90+ miles away using a small directional antenna in my attic.

@wiyosaya the ability to receive the signal in so many different and difficult situations was one of the exciting takeaways about the ATSC 3.0 standard. A few years ago, I put an OTA antenna on my roof to get better picture and audio over traditional cable. There are a few stations, however that seem to be just problematic enough to give me zero reception under ATSC 1.0. All the different aspects of ATSC 3.0 seem to be extremely well thought out. Hopefully, we'll be able to get an update sometime early next year and see how that standards process has progressed.

 

[wiyosaya]

@wiyosaya the ability to receive the signal in so many different and difficult situations was one of the exciting takeaways about the ATSC 3.0 standard. A few years ago, I put an OTA antenna on my roof to get better picture and audio over traditional cable. There are a few stations, however that seem to be just problematic enough to give me zero reception under ATSC 1.0. All the different aspects of ATSC 3.0 seem to be extremely well thought out. Hopefully, we'll be able to get an update sometime early next year and see how that standards process has progressed.

I do agree that the ATSC 3.0 spec seems well considered. I still find it very frustrating that ATSC 1.0 reception issues seem much less well considered. Multipath interference has been known about for a long, long time. One would think that since it was already a known problem with analog TV, the transition to the digital realm would have brought a scheme that did not suffer the same problems. I do hope that 3.0 comes on-line next year. It is unfortunate, though, that it is not backward compatible.

 

[TheoN]

While it's a shame that there won't be backwards compatibility, it seemed to me that the Committee was well aware of coming up with a solution, such as the HDMI dongle, to address that. ATSC 3.0 will at least be designed to address an upgradable future path, which is certainly exciting.

 

[wiyosaya]

Well, I hate to continue be a thorn in your side, but an HDMI dongle will serve only some users. I have two Gen 4 HDHomeRun Prime units where the only connection to my HTPC is through Ethernet. This gives me DVR functionality, and there is no other connectivity to the Primes. In addition, the Primes are located in my basement because this significantly reduced the amount of coax needed to feed the tuners. For me, an HDMI dongle is unlikely to be a "drop-in" replacement, and at least as of this day, the upgrade path that would offer the least resistance is one that is similar to the setup that I have already. In other words, HDHomeRun Primes with ATSC 3.0 tuners connected to my HTPC through Ethernet (even if I have to change to 10G Ethernet).

I understand the need to put a stake in the ground and how difficult it is to keep abreast of ever-changing technology, however, I browsed the ATSC site several months ago, and it seemed like they were unwilling to accept comments from the general public - in other words - real-life users like me. As expert as the people likely are on the committee, my bet is that at least some real-life users would offer good suggestions. In my opinion, when anyone operates in an "expert vacuum" they always miss something. As an employee of a large, well-known company, I' saw a similar complacency lead to that corporation's eventual demise.

My main reason for skepticism is that the problems with multipath reception issues were enough to effectively kill the promise of OTA DTV - at least to some, and speculating, probably the most effected were those on the low end of the income scale and those living in "difficult" reception areas. As I see it, this was a major mistake and one that may not be so easily overcome. It was a major undertaking to get the country to go from analog to digital, and without backward compatibility, it might be another major undertaking to get the country to go from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 given that many people out there are already colored by the difficulties with ATSC 1.0.

I've been a "TV antenna enthusiast" for pretty close to 50-years. Going to ATSC 1.0, I receive fewer channels, even with subchannels from my local stations, than I did with analog. With ATSC 3.0, the promise comes back and it sounds like it will be fulfilled this time, however, I would likely be more enthusiastic had ATSC 1.0 increased the number of stations I receive.

But on with the future. I am, none-the-less, excited that it sounds like they finally have the OTA reception issues resolved. I just hope that it will be hailed by all of the general populace.

 

[TheoN]

Well, I hate to continue be a thorn in your side, but an HDMI dongle will serve only some users. I have two Gen 4 HDHomeRun Prime units where the only connection to my HTPC is through Ethernet. This gives me DVR functionality, and there is no other connectivity to the Primes. In addition, the Primes are located in my basement because this significantly reduced the amount of coax needed to feed the tuners. For me, an HDMI dongle is unlikely to be a "drop-in" replacement, and at least as of this day, the upgrade path that would offer the least resistance is one that is similar to the setup that I have already. In other words, HDHomeRun Primes with ATSC 3.0 tuners connected to my HTPC through Ethernet (even if I have to change to 10G Ethernet).

While I can't speak authoritatively, my impression is that the HDMI dongle option was just one of several ideas and options being floated about. I do think we'll have a much better idea of things come early 2016. Hopefully we'll have more at that time and can do a follow-up.

 

[RichB]

The transition from SDTV to HDTV 1080P was huge and worth going back to OTA to get it.
I did excactly that. Even then, it was a big transition and investment for broadcasters.

I don't see that same carrot here. Don't get me wrong, these are nice enhancements, but I am waiting for an IP based content where I chose the my specific channel mix.
I will not be putting an antenna back on my roof and sweating through every thunderstorm.

- Rich

 

[TheoN]

The transition from SDTV to HDTV 1080P was huge and worth going back to OTA to get it.
I did excactly that. Even then, it was a big transition and investment for broadcasters.

I don't see that same carrot here. Don't get me wrong, these are nice enhancements, but I am waiting for an IP based content where I chose the my specific channel mix.
I will not be putting an antenna back on my roof and sweating through every thunderstorm.

- Rich

@RichB if the standard goes through the way it's been described, those sweating through thunderstorm days would be over with ATSC 3.0. The focus on delivering content anywhere, anytime, on any device without a physical rooftop antenna is a huge shift for broadcast TV. The IP-based content you mention is part of the standard. Not sure if you were able to see that paragraph in the article. IP is a core part of ATSC 3.0.

 

[RichB]

@RichB if the standard goes through the way it's been described, those sweating through thunderstorm days would be over with ATSC 3.0. The focus on delivering content anywhere, anytime, on any device without a physical rooftop antenna is a huge shift for broadcast TV. The IP-based content you mention is part of the standard. Not sure if you were able to see that paragraph in the article. IP is a core part of ATSC 3.0.

I must have misinterpreted this:

For the first time, ATSC 3.0 will also introduce support for IP-based broadband delivered content as part of the TV service. In ATSC 3.0 broadcasting is going to be considered part of the Internet. Broadcasters will have the option of sending some elements over the air and others over the Internet. For example, let’s say you are watching TV and a storm is coming through your area and it messes up your antenna signal.​

- Rich

 

[dmusoke]

Gene:

Thanks for the article and great write up indeed. But i'm disappointed that the audio still remains the same...lossy. Lossy dolby in 7.1.4 or a 22.2 channel setup is still lossy audio.

Why wasn't HD lossless audio considered? Why no DTS-MA option which the market chose as the standard for blurays?


- David

 

[wiyosaya]

Keeping the ATSC 3.0 over IP aspect out of this, what will this mean for OTA distant stations?

For instance, there are three relatively large metropolitan areas within about a 100 mile radius of my location. In analog days, I could receive TV from these three locations year-round. Now, I am only able to receive stations from two of these locations during the summer.

What size/kind of antenna, if any, will I need to receive stations from these metropolitan areas?

Thanks.

 

[TheoN]

I must have misinterpreted this:

For the first time, ATSC 3.0 will also introduce support for IP-based broadband delivered content as part of the TV service. In ATSC 3.0 broadcasting is going to be considered part of the Internet. Broadcasters will have the option of sending some elements over the air and others over the Internet. For example, let’s say you are watching TV and a storm is coming through your area and it messes up your antenna signal.​

- Rich

Thanks for pointing that out. As I understood things, the IP-layer will go along with the OTA layer. In theory, you could use the IP-layer to get audio from a local broadcast (home team) a remote broadcast (visitor team) or something else. One big take-away that I got is that this is in broad strokes the plan. The way I understood the details, is that even though all these things are part of the spec, it will depend on the broadcaster as to what aspects they will provide. We'll hopefully know more specifics about all this in the new year, but it's important to underscore that ATSC 3.0 is a complete paradigm shift. It's not OTA TV as you've known it. It will have an IP-layer to it that will allow for some pretty slick potential.

 

[TheoN]

Keeping the ATSC 3.0 over IP aspect out of this, what will this mean for OTA distant stations?

For instance, there are three relatively large metropolitan areas within about a 100 mile radius of my location. In analog days, I could receive TV from these three locations year-round. Now, I am only able to receive stations from two of these locations during the summer.

What size/kind of antenna, if any, will I need to receive stations from these metropolitan areas?

Thanks.

@wiyosaya As I understood things, you can't necessarily correlate that at this point in time. While ATSC 1.0 is really made for roof-top antennas, ATSC 3.0 is going to do a much better job of reception. In other words, with ATSC 1.0 there's no way you'd get reception in a basement antenna. With ATSC 3.0, you'd get a signal. I'm hyperbolizing to be sure but you get the point. ATSC 3.0 will have a much greater tolerance for reception and have built-in adaptability. In my particular scenario, I put up my OTA and I'm getting very distant stations 80+ miles away with ease. My sense is that based on your experience with ATSC 1.0 you'll find ATSC 3.0 a God-send.

 

[TheoN]

Gene:

Thanks for the article and great write up indeed. But i'm disappointed that the audio still remains the same...lossy. Lossy dolby in 7.1.4 or a 22.2 channel setup is still lossy audio.

Why wasn't HD lossless audio considered? Why no DTS-MA option which the market chose as the standard for blurays?


- David

@dmusoke That's certainly a great point. I'll be sure to ask that question. As a general comment, audio unfortunately seems to take a back-seat with many of the streaming services. And in some cases, we don't even get multichannel. We consumers need to be much more vocal about audio. If and when Blu-ray dies, so does our ready access to lossless audio with movies. I don't know about you all but that's always been a big concern of mine.

 

[wiyosaya]

@wiyosaya As I understood things, you can't necessarily correlate that at this point in time. While ATSC 1.0 is really made for roof-top antennas, ATSC 3.0 is going to do a much better job of reception. In other words, with ATSC 1.0 there's no way you'd get reception in a basement antenna. With ATSC 3.0, you'd get a signal. I'm hyperbolizing to be sure but you get the point. ATSC 3.0 will have a much greater tolerance for reception and have built-in adaptability. In my particular scenario, I put up my OTA and I'm getting very distant stations 80+ miles away with ease. My sense is that based on your experience with ATSC 1.0 you'll find ATSC 3.0 a God-send.

Thanks for your reply.

I was more wondering if Rich Chernock said anything about this especially in regards to what the range of the OTA signal is expected to be, in other words, is having an antenna going to be a requirement for distant stations? Really, what I am wondering about is signal propagation and its expected range. With what has been demonstrated, it sounds like distant stations might also not need an outdoor/attic antenna.

Absolutely, in my situation, ATSC 1.0 was a step backward as far as OTA reception goes. However, ATSC 3.0 could very well be the leap forward some, myself included, hoped 1.0 would be. As you might expect, I do have a "but" - but if distant station reception is worsened like it is for some 1.0 users, I would also have to consider this aspect a step backward. I am not expecting anything like 500 mile range, but it would be interesting, for me at least, to have an understanding of the absolute radius of reception that is expected by the committee for an ATSC 3.0 signal.

One final thing, did Rich mention anything about feedback from the FCC or other regulatory agencies? The govt stepped in and offered voucher coupons, and many people were disappointed. I have to wonder, pun not intended, how the govt will receive ATSC 3.0.