HDMI 2.0 was approved in 2002. So if you have a TV 50 inches or larger and a HDMI 2.0 port your TV probably supports 4k.
I think fox and nbc have sports in 4k available through their app. other 4k programming being made available to some distributors. The networks do need a 4k business model for their affiliates. maybe it’s secret.
But does not support ATSC 3.0. Failure to launch was in reference to that.
Since local OTA broadcast is under the control of each network affiliate I’m not sure what failure to launce means. All the various broadcasters in an DMA have to not only come up with the money but also be willing to enter into business agreements for lighthouse channels. And get all of that approved by the FCC.
I don’t think they just walk over and flip a switch on a wall and poof ATSC 3.0 is up and running.
Think, is this betamax or vinyl video? That sort of thing.
If your are a ATSC 1.0 OTA user and you are at the end range for any number of channels you want ATSC 3.0 to go live. You don’t care about 4K.
COFDM provides better reception for users at the edge. Where I live users at the ATSC 1.0 edge switched to ATSC 3.0 and now receive better reception from stations farther away.
But for those OTA users who don’t have reception issues having a OTA community with better overall reception is not important.
I’m one of those guys on the fringe of reception for ATSC 1.0. As matter of fact,. I lost all reception this morning for about 2.5 hours. So I fall into the category of those folks more interested in better reception. My 65" tv looks just fine in 720 or 1080. So 3.0 can’t come fast enough for me.
Jim
There has been serious money invested in the technology. It requires upgrades to the antennas, broadcasting equipment and other items just to convert to the new technology.
Currently, only the very high end TVs are shipping with ATSC 3.0 tuners, and a few select boxes have them (so a TV can display the channels). It is in the very beginnings of release now.
The biggest advantages isn’t the “4K” signal, it is the stability of reception, increased bandwidth (allowing more channels - testing has shown they can broadcast over 30 channels on a signal RF channel), and the possibility of “premium” channels over the air (i.e. ESPN, Discovery, etc) that would be encrypted and a fee would be charged for the premium channels.
It will be 3-5 years before I think it really gets going…
Perhaps. But we were saying 3-5, about 3-5 years ago… so there’s that. The introduction of DRM, etc. is why I think this will be a huge mess once it “really arrives” (not the so so nice testing done today).
IMHO, opportunity turned into exploitation…
The DRM, along with supposed “pay channels” are okay with me (I don’t have to pay to watch ESPN if I don’t want to), but it would be great to have the ability to view channels that I am interested in.
That being said, if the broadcasters think that the majority of people will pay to receive current OTA broadcasts (i.e. CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS, CW and current sub channels), they don’t understand the whole cord-cutting movement.
And I have a fear that they may try it. The average cable/streaming subscriber is paying $10-$15 for a few channels that is free OTA right now. I absolutely refuse to pay for them. I didn’t mind paying $20-$40 a month for cable back in the day (I am showing my age now), but I will NEVER pay current rates for 150 channels I never watch…and certainly not $75-$200 a month.
Unlike ATSC 1.0, my guess is now, what will “arrive” to you will not be capturable (without licensing you won’t be able to get on your own). We’ll see, but right now, it’s smelling like a real skunk.
In several of the big markets (2+ million TV viewers), the broadcasters were collecting $2,000,000+ per month from cable and streaming services. As antennas have grown in popularity far less people are paying that fee, and the broadcasters are looking to get back some of that money.
I hope you are wrong - but time will tell. Rumors are all over the place right now…
I share your concerns and I worry we may be looking at “features” such as expiration dates on recordings and inability to forward through commercials. Plus all the spying I’m sure they intend to do.
If it’s a concern then stick with what you have. But eventually all tuners will probably be hybrid. The cost wil come down and the price difference between atsc 1.0 only and hybrid won’t justify manufacturing atsc 1.0 tuners.
If you have a hybrid tuner no one is forcing you to actually tune a atsc 3.0 channel.
I’m all for new technology I just have concerns about the implementation. Even though it’s a long way off they are forcing us to switch.
I thought consumers were forced to switched from analog to digital by the government. They had NTSC transmissions turned off…
No one is forcing you to switch to ATSC 3.0. And since you either wish ATSC 3.0 would fail or think it will fail for any number of reasons, there is no real problem. Especially since no one is forcing you to actually tune an ATSC 3.0 channel.
The networks aren’t going to keep 1.0 going any longer then they have too so yes we will eventually be forced to switch. I’m not sure why you think I wish or believe 3.0 will fail. There is literally zero chance it will fail. I’m actually hoping it will be great. All I said is I have some reservations about what they are going to do with the standard. I’m not sure why you seem to be so bothered by my opinion.
However, I on the other hand, believe it can absolutely fail, or at least fail to fully displace. Time will tell. I’m just not quite as optimistic about it, not anymore.
Interesting perspective. I could see a prolonged coexistence in some of the less crowded markets.
Don’t be in a hurry for ATSC. When I first read about ATSC 3.0, I thought surely they aren’t going spend hundreds of millions of dollars or more just to do something nice for the consumer. I suspected that corporations were behind it and wondered what sort of consumer abuse was up and coming. So I did a little digging…
Looks like I was right. This is an older article but the concerns remain. It was concerning but not surprising considering, as the article mentioned, that the FCC was not on the consumer’s side with regards to data collection and net neutrality.
If I have a tablo HDMI model and my TV and tablo aren’t connected to the internet who is spying on me? All I have to do is connect the tablo every 2 weeks to get any new guide data.