Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

U.S. DTV News & Discussion

155K views 600 replies 141 participants last post by  Robbers Bhell 
#1 ·
FCC Cites Dell For Failure To Label TV Sets
(Broadcasting & Cable)

Dell.com has joined the list of online TV sales Web sites cited by the FCC for failure to label analog-only TV sets.

As of May 25, sets without digital tuners must be clearly marked, either on the set or in close proximity, with the warning that the set will not receive over-the-air broadcasts after February 2009 unless equipped with a converter box.
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=152842
 
#451 ·
I really doubt if they would re-design ATSC to support a 2 or 3 MHz channel when all they have to do is put multiple broadcasts on one 6MHz channel. Using the same standard with H.264 only requires new encoders and decoders (not that expensive actually). A new standard would require replacing the entire broadcast infrastructure.

The other thing that would help save spectrum is remapping the channel allotments to have transmitters in the same area use adjacent channels more often. With DTV, adjacent channel interference is not a big problem if the signal strengths are similar, but is a problem when one is much stronger than the other.
 
#452 ·
RE: multiple channels sharing a single 6Mhz frequency


These are the only stations that I know of that currently share multiple major network channels using sub-channels,
a single antenna and single channel concept.
____________________________________

Channel: WICU Erie PA
SJL Broadcasting, Inc

Digital 12 (VHF)
Virtual 12 (PSIP)

12.1 NBC WICU HD
12.2 The CW SD
12.3 CBS WSEE SD
______________________________________

Channel: WSEE Erie PA
Lilly Broadcasting, LLC

Digital 16 (UHF)
Virtual 35 (PSIP)

35.1 CBS WSEE HD
35.2 The CW SD
 
#455 ·
These are the only stations that I know of that currently share multiple major network channels using sub-channels,
a single antenna and single channel concept.
And they are using H.264? I didn't think any broadcasters in the US were using it yet since no TVs support it yet. I know of lots of instances of more than one broadcaster using the same physical channel and MPEG.2. Some even have both in HD.
 
#453 ·
#454 ·
Mixed expectations!

I now seems that the 2009/2011 transition was just the stepping stone toward the possibilty of many interesting developments to come.

Spectrum evolution?
http://www.spectrumevolution.org/category/mission

Instead of creating another mixed bag of broadcast standards, a global broadcast standard is needed to ensure affordable equipment development & manufacturing. Neighboring borders would have to work together as one shared entity to ensure against spectrum co-channel issues.

We apparently are headed for some very interesting advancements in broadcast TV., but likely at a cost of having less OTA broadcast channels.
 
#456 ·
if they were using h264, they'd be guaranteed lower ratings than a shortwave radio broadcast:D
maybe a pc based tuner could watch, be about it. so u know what that answer is.
I think Rochester has one station with two 720p Programs.

The wireless operators don't "need" anything. As it stands, to this day they still waste as much as they own.
They may "want", but there is a big difference between need and want.

With any luck, whatever process they come up with we can hope is so complicated noone will want anything to do with it.
 
#458 ·
if they were using h264, they'd be guaranteed lower ratings than a shortwave radio broadcast:D
maybe a pc based tuner could watch, be about it. so u know what that answer is.
Yes, that was kind of my point. :) What is currently being done doesn't prove that things can't be done differently in the future. AFAIK, most cases where two stations share one channel are affiliates where one "owner" owns two affiliate stations.

Currently the FCC licences a 6MHz channel to one "station' as that is all they could do with NTSC. With ATSC there is no reason they couldn't change the model to licence out a virtual sliver of that channel (in Mbits rather than MHz). It would then be up to the stations involved to either strictly enforce those limits or come up with a statmux agreement where they can borrow data packets from each other on an as needed basis.

While I agree that wireless operators don't have an urgent need for more bandwidth now, things will likely be different ten or twenty years down the road. now is the time to plan for that, so that evolutionary changes can be made rather than waiting until the last minute and springing a massive change on everyone.
 
#459 ·
Frequency Sharing

I think there is more than a couple US stations that share the same frequency... Personally, I know of stations in Soo Michigan that share the same frequency, as well, I have snagged some New York State channels via tropo that also shared frequencies...
 
#460 ·
Sharing transmitters amongs competing stations won't work with the current commerical scheme US and Canadian stations have, unless they go with the UK model of no stations broadcasting themselves, but a central broadcast authority or co-operative taking care of broadcasting with shared systems.

Option B is to allow individual stations to maintain their own transmitters, using a section of the 6 Mhz assigned to them.

The former could re-use most existing ATSC transmitting equioment, with just a change to encoders, to allow multiple 720P or 1080i channels per channel.
The latter would require new modulators as well, which can modulate a 1080i H.264 bitstream on 2 -3 Ghz of carrier.
 
#461 ·
Extreme multi-channel configurations

Here's one station in Georgia that has 10 480i stations and 10 radio stations.
http://www.wanntv.com/
Obviously they must be using some type of compression or packet sharing techniques. With no psip/epg info as far as I can tell.

There is also a similar broadcaster in LA supporting 12 480i channels plus a few radio stations.
 
#462 ·
#463 ·
From that article:
The main statistics used in STDM are: each input device's peak data rates (in kbps, or kilobytes per second), and each device's duty factors (which is the percentage of time the device typically spends either transmitting or receiving data).
In this case, data rate for each subchannel is continually analyzed and adjusted to minimize artifacts. Of course, priority can be assigned in order to keep quality for one at the expense of others.
 
#464 ·
Technically, stations are not sharing frequencies. Station A multiplexes station B's data to its stream and sends it out. There are several reasons why this happens in US markets.

First, there are markets, especially small ones, where there are not enough transmitters for all the networks. In the analog days stations would have secondary affiliations, and the programming from the secondary network would be shown at a different time. Now, a station can put their secondary network on a subchannel.

Second, co-owned stations sometimes back each other up with SD subchannels. This happened in LA and occurs in other markets, especially where one of the two stations doesn't quite cover the whole market.
 
#465 ·
^^^there is also a third reason (though this is similar to your second one):

Third, better coverage for a LPTV/Class A station. An example of this is WWNY (CBS) and WNYF (FOX) in Watertown, NY are both owned by United Communications Corporation. WNYF is a Class A station but not only do they broadcast in HD on their primary channel, but also broadcast in SD as a sub-channel on WWNY's full power transmitter to get better coverage. Interestingly WNYF has a repeater in Massena - South Colton that only broadcasts in SD but also has WWNY in HD on a sub-channel.
 
#466 ·
That is in small markets. In most markets in the US and Canada, the individual stations have indivudual transmitter facilities, at most sharing an antenna.
They major network commercial stations like that, because that gives them the perception of or an actual competitive advantage over other stations in the market, with transmitter loation HAAT, frequency, power, and antenna pattern.

You are asking more stations to use the same actual transmitters, which commercial stations might not want to do, which could eliminate that advantage.
 
#471 ·
Blackburst, go back a few posts and read the opinion piece I linked to. Yes, the legislation is almost in place. Two major points to remember:

1) This is still a voluntary parocess for broadcasters. To be able to reclaim any reasonable amount of spectrum will require more than one or two stations per market in the northeast to participate. I do not see that happening.

2) DTV assignments within 200 miles or so of the Canadian border are negotiated and codified in agreements/letters of understanding between our two countries. This is a MAJOR impediment to redoing assignments in most of the northeast US to support auctions.

If wireless operators ever need more spectrum, it will be in urban areas where DTV is most heavily used. If this was all about broadband for rural areas, there's already plenty of spectrum for that.
 
#472 ·
I heard today that the americans are looking at chipping away at the spectrum again into the uhf below 700 mhz, I think that if the wireless companies get there way that it will be the end of over the air. :eek:
 
#475 ·
Nice overview of the auction process

Here is an interview with a communications attorney that summarizes how the spectrum auction will (or won't) work based on the legislation just passed. Some things to note:

1) Canadian and Mexican cooperation will be needed. The lawyer predicts that some Canadian stations would have to change frequency to make this all work.

2) upwards of 10 stations each in the New York, Baltimore/Washington, and Los Angeles markets, plus participation of border area stations will be needed to make the auction work. Personally, I don't see 10 stations from my area wanting to sell.
 
#476 ·
If this plays out it will mean the following:
The death of OTA and subsequent rise of further cable TV subscription costs. If it costs approx $70/month now, imagine how much it'll cost after OTA is gone. This could potentially kill off the TV altogether.

The mobile networks don't really need any more spectrum, these are just power and money games. If anything, the VHF spectrum should be given to them. The rest should be stopped.
 
#477 ·
no VHF-Hi auction ....

VHF-Hi is very important in mountainous regions, so please let's hope they don't touch it

In the mountains north of Montreal, channels 7, 8, 9 ,10, 11, 12, 13 are coming strong and clear depending were you are, at the contrary of UHF channels
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top