#1
|
||||
|
||||
Latest on TV channel repacking
Let the games begin:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...A-16-453A1.pdf Another nail in the coffin of OTA TV ? jr |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Going by the chart, it would appear that all that will be left for OTA will be VHF 2-13 and UHF 21-29.
If stations are going to be repacked, how many subchannels can fit on one 6MHz channel without compromising resolution? As an example, I have a station in my area on PSIP 22 (=RF channel 11). 22.1 1080i 22.2 720p 22.3 480i Another is PSIP 3 (=RF channel 33) 3.1 1080i 3.2 480i 3.3 480i 3.4 480i These both sound pretty full up to me. Where are all the subchannels supposed to go? I'm also guessing that this will pretty much make 4K broadcasting very difficult to implement.
__________________
Tom Last edited by OvenMaster; 05-01-2016 at 01:05 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Then again...
Supposedly the FCC is requiring channel repacking in only 37 TV markets: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/8...chs-in-37-dmas
__________________
Tom |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I always wonder when I see stuff like this “what will be the next shoe to drop”… they could perhaps compress the FM band into a few mHz of digital broadcasting, or take some of the higher frequency ham bands… I shudder to think of future spectrum grabs possibly being considered.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I tend to be libertarian in general but the auctioning off the bands is wrong, it is a limited resource and depending on the frequency, the use that it could be put to. I don't like this at all, they should have kept the TV channels from 2 to 69 or at least the 2 to 51 plan. One question I'd like to ask is with the old analogue (AMPS) cellphones gone, if the wireless people are so much into wanting space, why not use the 869 - 894 Mc analog cellphone bands for that? I think in general, we are rushing into things that could backfire because "they are the newest at the moment." Take APCO-25 digital modulation for example, I heard it could be jammed easily and it is a battery hog for HT's. Many towns, cities and States have given up the old VHF-Lo (30 to 50 Mc) and even some of the VHF-Hi (148 - 174 Mc) for the newer 700 and 800 Mc frequencies. Those are good for urban areas but out in the sticks of rural America, or even the suburbs, they are more problematic. Some say Pittsburgh police is behind the times still using it's old 1970 era analogue UHF system in the 453 Mc range, but it still does the job.
4K, I think it is just another gimmick or excuse to thrust another broadcast standard change. OK, I can accept the ATSC change, it did or does had its problems, but for those of us who watch OTA TV, it does give us more channel choices. It is getting like the old stereo debate I like to use: If you buy a $100 stereo, it sounds good but the $250 sounds a lot better. The $500 stereo is even better still. When you get up to $1000, there is improvement, but not as much as you get from the $250 over the $100 or even the $500 one over the $250. Now when you get to $5000, there isn't as much improvement over the $1000 unless you are a true audiophile and purist. I think these TV formats are the same thing, there is some point the "law of diminishing returns" kicks in and it will get to the point where it costs more in money, time and aggravation that it is worth. Just my thoughts.
__________________
Mom (1938 - 2013) - RIP, I miss you Spunky, (1999 - 2016) - RIP, pretty girl! Rascal, (2007 - 2021) RIP, miss you very much |
Audiokarma |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I believe the television industry is trying too hard to reinvent the wheel every few years. ATSC digital TV does allow for more channels, which I like (adding MeTV, Antenna TV and COZI to standard cable service was one of the best things to happen to TV in years, IMHO, since it brings back the older shows; they are the channels I watch the most since I grew up watching many of them, and since I don't care for the junk on the major networks), but this business of higher and higher definition--sheeesh! They can only go so far with improving image quality; after a certain point (which I believe the industry has already reached with 4K) they will be wasting time, money and resources, not to mention annoying heck out of people with those high-pressure aggressive ads in the newspapers, etc. for 4K (a. k. a. "UHD") and even something called "S" UHD TV, whatever that is.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am fed up with this constant fiddling with TV broadcast standards and the equally constant aggressive advertising for them every time something new appears. Don't get me wrong--I don't mind digital TV, as it improves the quality of even 1950s-'70s reruns, not to mention providing more programming choices with subchannels; I don't know when I have enjoyed watching TV more than I do since the DTV subchannels arrived. What I do mind is how each new broadcast standard since DTV itself makes the last one(s) obsolete. I have given up completely on cable TV, except to have an account so my Roku player will get the local TV channels in my area. However, even Roku is not immune to upgrades; my Roku 1 player will put an announcement on my TV screen every so often stating that, in paraphrase, my cable service will be even better with a newer Roku player. Even that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the newest Roku, their version 4, does not have analog audio and video inputs; all the Roku 4 has is one HDMI connector for A/V output. This is OK as long as my flat screen TV is working, but when it quits for whatever reason, I will not be able to use the newest Roku box with either of my analog sets, both of which, at 20 and 16 years old, respectively, still work almost as well as when they were new. Oh well, that's progress. I believe Roku wants to make their newer media players, starting with Roku 4, absolutely incompatible with older televisions; this, in turn, is probably because the television industry itself does not want people to use very old TVs anymore. In fact, I get the feeling they will not stop until there are no more CRT TVs in use in this country or in Canada. The repacking of TV channels is, IMHO, one more step closer to converting TV to exclusively streaming video, which will eventually silence the OTA TV stations for good. The Roku players, Google TV, Sling TV, et al. are gaining popularity in the US; there will be no turning back, so I see OTA TV's days as being numbered. I find this very difficult to accept since I don't adjust to change easily, but unfortunately, that's the way it is, and it will only get worse as time goes on. I see a day coming, which may not be too far away, when there will be absolutely no VHF or UHF broadcast TV channels in this country, as all TV will be delivered via streaming video or cable. What were TV channels 2-13 and 14-69 will have been auctioned off to other services, so all anyone will eventually receive on, say, a 1965-1970 TV with a continuous UHF tuner will be police calls and public service radio. For NowhereMan 1966: I find it very difficult to believe that Pittsburgh's police department has not yet converted its communications systems to digital; for crying out loud, this is the 21st century, and things have changed dramatically since the days of analog public service radio. For a city the size of Pittsburgh, a police department that still uses antiquated analog radio gear is almost incredible. I hope they aren't so terribly out of date that they are still using vacuum-tube-powered radio systems on the old and now obsolete 30-50 or 152-174 MHz bands. If they are on the 470-512 MHz UHF band, but still analog, they will be slightly closer to being up to date, but today's public service radio systems are digital. Pittsburgh's police department will not be able to claim it is entirely up to date until their communications system is 100 percent digital, no analog whatsoever. I bet the police department where you live, in Tiltonsville, Ohio, is and has been 100-percent digital for years if not decades.
__________________
Jeff, WB8NHV Collecting, restoring and enjoying vintage Zenith radios since 2002 Zenith. Gone, but not forgotten. Last edited by Jeffhs; 05-25-2016 at 01:23 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Nobody will ever stop me from watching my CRT televisions. Ever. I shudder at the thought of owning a flat TV. I'm going to be getting an HDMI-NTSC converter so I can watch Youtube through my iPhone on my old sets.
__________________
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." -Carl Sagan |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Jeff, as near as I can tell suhd is just a marketing catch-phrase use by Samsung to denote certain high end models with improvments to the display technology.
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-samsung-suhd/ It is NOT a new broadcast system that has anything to do with repacking the tv channels, just a marketing phrase to differentiate thier product from the "rest of the pack", much as US manufacturers used phrases like "NewVista" or "Chomacolor" in the past. jr |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I got one of the cheapo HDMI-Composite converters off eBay and it works great, by all means get one.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I could say alot here but I dont want turn this into a hot topic because of the real reason they thrown this useless crap at us. Because DTV sucks.If they get the reception issues ironed out .I might reconsider on liking the format.Nevermind they compress the daylights out of video and it looks like a crappy internet stream.I went from all locals with a simple wire hooked up now to a half a channel if I stand on the roof of my house .The closes station is about 15 miles and I cant even get that.Sorry about the rant but I'm tired of these corrupt idiots dumping this useless rubbish down our throats to make the wireless telecommunications freaks happy .Rant over.
|
Audiokarma |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Round one... looks like the broadcasters are holding out for high prices:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/000...billion/278926 edit add: Also some push by broadcasters to get ATSC 3 rulemaking finalized: http://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/00...tober-1/278921 jr Last edited by jr_tech; 06-29-2016 at 09:46 PM. Reason: add second link |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Peace and love to you TUD1!! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I plan on installing both a UHF and FM outdoor antenna system. HDTV OTA is still preferable to cable and the main-band HD channels have better pictures than the band-clipped cable channels. I already have a powerful BCB (AM)/HF antenna and I remember when I had a long beam FM antenna how long-distance FM beat the pants off of the Omaha metro "dreck". I haven't listened to local FM, for long periods, in years. My TV and FM will join my AM in general use. I just need to find a way to feed a cable through a wall.
__________________
Rick (Sparks) Ethridge |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|