The FCC needs to step in and put an end to all the DRM shenanigans. OTA TV should be able improve quality and coverage without big companies trying to change the way TV has been working for 80 years. As far as FAST goes even if local programing is on there I feel it will be a long time until high speed internet is an almost universal thing. The ISPs don't just don't want to spend the money to lay the fiber. There are still too many people who are under or not served. If done right ATSC 3.0 could be up and running in a few years and all most people would need is a cheap converter box similar to when we went to ATSC 1. LOVE your content but I think ATSC 3 is an important step forward in replacing what is now almost a 30 year old technology.
I fully respect your opinion and thank you for posting it, but going back to the motivation thing, the content holders only wanted ATSC 3.0 to get encryption. They're not gonna spend a bunch of money to put up new broadcast equipment and give you a better picture when they own the cable companies. They want a mandate you own their cable box. They want to drive value to their offerings. I think it's dead in the water. FAST channels skip distribution costs and go straight to the creators who want viewers and ad revenue.
I'm perfectly fine with ATSC 3.0 being D.O.A. exactly like I'm happy with CBDC {Central Bank Digital Currency} being stopped. Neither offered the consumer anything close to offsetting what we'd lose. Neither seemed to be in our best interest. ATSC 3.0 would have made a handful who profit from encryption quite wealthy and the vast majority of consumers pay more. If "government" actually worked for us, I might be able to get a PBS and FOX station which are licensed to SERVE my county but not my physical area. I'd much rather see efforts go into serving electromagnetic black holes like I live in Western NY, and improving the sub-channels on the 3 towers I can pick up. I've seen clearer images through the bottom of beer bottles.
It might come to that. Our country is divided by the media and we need to hold our news organizations accountable for delivering an unbiased news. The problem is greed once again. Power and greed have corrupted good willed people, ideas and ideals again and again.
I believe TV should be free. And if you pay for cable there should not be any commercials on cable channels it's all about greed. Local sports should be on regular TV they make enough in ticket sales and beer commercials. Internet providers also. The only TV that is worth watching is reruns from the 60s and 70s. Doesn't look good anymore. 73
If you have issues with ATSC 1.0 8- VSB breaking up when a plane goes over or just when it feels like it and you have a decent signal strength, that's multipath. 1.0 does a poor job on this. 3.0 is a true digital COFDM waveform that handles multipath. That is why you want it.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I live in the center of Silicon valley where we have 3 airports and I've never had this happen on any of my 140+ channels. ATSC 3.0 is not going to happen as quickly as everyone thinks it will. You have to think what is the motivation for large media companies that own the content and are also your ISPs to put up equipment for you to gain free access to it. It's a blatant conflict of interest. They have no desire to give you access to the content when you'll pay for it. For those of you that love capitalism, bend over.
@@PeterC408 Yes, I agree on all of the motivations and conflicts among players. There always are these with any new platform. But greed and investiture will win after critical adoption and roll out (which I think is the premise here - that it won't). There just are too many opportunities for new services on the backbone, some two-way, and not purely OTA free TV based. This argument continues. I'm more interested in raw technical signal performance in more fringe areas. Here in NH, we have real issues with multipath. Same with the birthplace of bad TV - the hills of PA. Where I came from in Northern NY, you had to use cut Yagi's for each channel.
Yes, Sony and Samsung have been quiet on the issue. Samsung is #1 in the US but LG is #2... so if Samsung leaves, it's over. It is a very competitive space where every dollar counts. I am surprised anyone is putting tuners in these things at all. Get rid of the Smart part as well, we can handle that. Anything you put in there is going to be old in 3 years anyway. Might as well put the Smarts on the outside of the unit.
@kalijasin who patents free to the air (OTA) TV? Stupid concept, now buried forever, most likely. Why so glum? We could do 1080 with ATSC 1.0, but few did.
@@PeterC408I don’t watch a lot of TV but would prefer a very high quality monitor without a tuner, speakers, apps or other junk. I don’t think anyone makes one. Perhaps an industrial monitor. Forget ATSC 3.0, they blew that.
Glad it was helpful! I was excited to see ATSC 3.0 but only to see more channels at a higher resolution. Seems like there is another path to get there and it opens things up reducing costs and giving people even better access.
LG didn't suspend its ATSC 3.0 implementation because they didn't like it - it was because of a patent and licensing fee issue with one of the makers of ATSC 3.0 components - which you didn't mention.
It's a read through the lines thing. Again, motivation. This is FREETV, no patents, no licensing, no certifications... If customers were demanding it, they would push for it. I am all for SMART TVs to get stupid. I don't want a tuner, I don't want a processor, I don't want to be part of your eco-system. Just give me a monitor and make it affordable. Trust me, ATSC 3.0 is over because the motivations from the involved parties are incongruent. Put a fork it in, Not sure why you want it to be around. The internet is here and it provides a level playing field.
@@PeterC408 So, you want to continue to settle for content broadcast in 1080i and 720p resolution (ATSC 1.0) and not gain the capability to receive OTA content in 1080p and possibly 4K UHD? Once again the US stagnates and South Korea and Japan move ahead. Also, according to FCC regulations, if a TV does not have a built-in Tuner, it can't sold as a TV - it has to be sold as a video display or monitor - further confusing TV shoppers - Vizio tried that in 2016 and was not successful.
Personally, I'd love to have broadcast that could do true 1080p and 4k, but not if it's at the price of DRMing everything. I suspected ATSC 3.0 might be in trouble as soon as it was set up as privately-led initiative.@@robertsilva631
FCC is not forcing down ATSC 1.0 TV stations that do not want to downgrade to failing DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV. ATSC 1.0 TV may be here for a long time until open source no DRM ATSC 4.0.
Yes, no one is forcing anyone; The point is that OTA doesn't really make sense any more. It may becoming irrelevant. OTA was how my father got television when he was young. It continued to make sense during the cable transformation but the Internet is here to stay and its everywhere that OTA can be.
* OTA DRM ATSC 3.0 is failing because of DRM (No OTA TV for you). * Current OTA ATSC 1.0 TV stations are not being forced to downgrade to DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV. * (IMO) Do not buy ATSC 3.0 TVs until DRM is removed.
I don't think we should have a tuner in a TV anyway. In fact, no Smart TVs at all. I want a capable streaming platform that is powerful enough to last as long as the TV. What good is having a TV tuner in your TV if you can't record it. No one wants to watch LIVE, unbuffered TV, when you can't even pause it.
Changing channels on my Tablo 4 is slow. You have to go left, up or down and then hit enter wait for the buffet and finally watch?? After channel change it buffers and then plays? Changing ota channels on my Samsung TV is fast, just up and down. Never buffers. Any ideas?
Ota picture quality on my Samsung TV has a slight edge over the Tablo 4. Tablo picture is good, just not quite as good as the picture using the Samsung tv tuner.
The existing ATSC 1 system is somewhat adaptable to being able to transmit Mpeg 4 / H264 video, it just isn't allowed by the FCC at this point. One could use the secondary channels to broadcast 4K as long as the main channel is Mpeg 2. Older TVs would not be able to decode the secondary channels but would decode the main channel. Many TVs are already capable of playback of mpeg 4 as a separate program stream on an atsc channel (bandwidth). Digital Rights Management and Encryption isn't gonna fly with the public. That would be the demise of ota broadcast television. So far, I haven't seen any real advantages to ATSC 3. I also don't see any financial gain to area targeted advertising. This would increase costs and decrease revenue for a TV station!
I was considering that very tuner you showed a screenshot from, but I'm legally blind, and could not read anything it was displaying. Do you know if there's an accessibility feature in the tuner that lets us enlarge the text it displays? By the way, I agree, FAST needs to be protected for everyone. Now that I know ATSC 3.0 is going to be a tier driven, paywalled product, I want absolutely nothing to do with it. I can't afford cable, or satellite. I can just barely afford slow internet. LOL I have to use an OTA antenna, and I'm SO dreading June of 27, which will be the end of live, OTA television, for me, and anyone else who can't afford ATSC 3. Thanks for sharing this.
FAST Channels are something new. They are IP (over the internet) Ad Supported Free TV. So unlike standard OTA, your internet needs to be on to get these. The quality is excellent and I can schedule their recording and skip commercials. Very happy with the TabloTV Tuner ( and I have owned a half dozen). ATSC 1.0 will be with us way beyond this coming June. I wouldn't be surprised if ATSC 3.0 is cancelled all together. As far as the larger text, I looked and do not see anything. Perhaps this is a platform feature but I do not see a way to increase the font size of the Closed Caption that is displayed. Hop on-line and ask them if there is a way to support this that I do not see. If not, perhaps the best way for you is to use a TV Tuner that will record to PLEX, because they have this playback option.
@@PeterC408 I was actually not referring to closed captioning, but the channel lineup menu interface. But, thanks for checking on that. I will go onto the factory website, and reach out to them. :)
I went to the interface for my NVIDIA Shield to see if turning on accessibility would help the Tablo interface, but I do not see accessibility features their either. My ROKU device does have an accessibility section but it does not appear to affect the Tablo App. I hope that you are successful. Let know what you find. A friend of mine has macular degeneration and I am just realizing how difficult it can be. Let us know what you find.
If a tv upscales very good I think it's just as good as ATSC 3.0 next gen tv. It is too expensive for broadcasts to upgrade equipment for 4K. I think next gen tv will lose a lot of interest. My tvs look good with upscaling over the air broadcasts. 😊 Just my opinion. 😊
I think it looks pretty good but 4K is 4x bigger than 1080P, so you are asking an algorithm to create 4 pixels from the information contained in 1. It is a tough order and amazing that they have managed to do as well as they do. Real 4K is really special but no one is going to spend the big bucks to give us all 4K tv for free, not when the same stakeholders can charge you for it and get you to pay it.
From what I understand the broadcaster's main cost is the software upgrade on their existing systems. A few pieces of new hardware will be needed, but a lot of the equipment used for current signal processing and broadcasting is still relevant. FWIW: 4G may look good on big screens (like 70" and up), but when comparing two 45" screens (one 4K the other just HD) the picture quality is so minor to me that I wouldn't want to spend the $$$ to upgrade.
Good video. You're saying what a lot of people are thinking, but the industry isn't ready to admit. With no mandate forcing ATSC 3, it'll only happen if TV manufacturers put it in most of their models, which they're not doing. The push for DRM when it wasn't properly implemented on many of the ATSC 3 TV's already sold is just another nail in the coffin.
I love having my plex dvr and recording shows. I like to be able to enjoy the shows on my time. I also want to keep them as long as i want. I don't want to pay for steaming services to rewatch shows. I think the reception, video quality and more efficient video codec of atsc 3.0 is a needed improvement, however the DRM restrictions they want to put on it will likely be what makes consumers not accept it. I have an HDhomerun flex4k for nearly 2 years now. It was made before the DRM crap came in to play for anything but optional subscription services like Evoca.
Check out this unit. It is a dual tuner ATSC 1.0 but it also supports a growing number of FAST channels (currently 43, Internet based channels that are high quality, schedulable and recordable) and it doesn't take a physical tuner to record them. You get two OTA tuners and two virtual tuners. Great stuff ua-cam.com/video/xq7g2tMllic/v-deo.html
LG dropped nextgen tv because of an infringement lawsuit, not because of DRM. And the company that filed the lawsuit will most likely target Sony and Samsung next. So forget about nextgen tv, it's dead.
Yes, and when I broke up with my high school girlfriend, I said it was me not her. It was totally her. NextGen it totally dead because the motivations from the involved parties are incongruent. This is FREETV, no patents, no licensing, no certifications.
I am a huge fan of Tubi they offer many FAST channels but they can not be scheduled or recorded... it is enjoy live or nothing. This little TabloTV tuner has 2 OTA tuners and 2 virtual tuners for IPTV FAST channels. Now you can schedule them to record and watch later. Super good quality and a really nice feature.
They are pulling it back...encrypting channels that were previously unencrypted. They thought they were going to be able to highjack our public airwaves and make it their own distribution network out of it. Not so fast there, Baba Looey.
The big benefit of ATSC 3 would be higher resolution but *modern TVs can upscale 1080P so well that it is hard to tell that you are watching 1080P* . HDR Would be nice, but the reality is that broadcast TV has little content that would exploit HDR. Reality TV shows just don't benefit that much. If you are in the market for a new TV though, it is worth getting a TV that has a good upscale capability. Sometimes I struggle to see that my TV is playing a 1080P program, but one of the reasons I bought the TV that I did was because it was one of the top rated TVs for upscaleing. DRM Would kill broadcast TV for me and if that happens, it won't matter that there is high res and HDR, because I won't watch broadcast anymore and would probably not miss it. There just isn't that much good on network television.
Doubt I've watched even 20 hours of TV this year. It's all garbage and the ads are offensive to intelligence. It's nothing but an adolescent brainwashing and teenage waste land.
Speaking of internet equity T-Fiber might be available before Fixed Wireless or other carriers with the exception of possibly Verizon 5G home Internet since based on performance Verizon is clearly mistaken to not list my address as a qualifying address since I see speeds up to 600 MBPS and 20-30 up depending on location on my 2 year old 13 Pro Max iPhone
Careful to think that mobile performance will equal phone performance. Phones are first priority on phone networks, Home Networking customers are lower priority which may explain why they say it is "not available" they have no "extra bandwidth" in your area could be the reason.
My Sony has ATSC3.0 but it already has stations Locked with encryption on the Buffalo side Canada isn't even going to bother bringing in atsc 3.0 they're doing a wait and see to see how it goes in the US most stations in Canada say the cost is prohibitive
I wholeheartedly support the idea that everyone should have access to the internet. But tying that to the future of television - not so much. The fact is that even if we could, as a thought exercise, snap our fingers and magically give everyone high-speed access to the internet at home, asking a large segment of our society to set up something like streaming service/services (whatever they are) is, quite simply, far too big of an ask/expectation (think about it - the elderly, the poor, the non-tech savy, the people who are simply not going to be able to get this across the finish line for whatever reason). The idea behind free television/social equity is not about being able to get a job, or find out what to do about the chemicals under your sink. It's about being able to plug in a low-tech t.v. and get a signal, and by that, having a basic ability to stay connected to our society, culturally, and during important news events. So no, I'm not with you on this.
I think we are on the same page. Sure setting up streaming services is a hurdle but so is learning to read. Public access to Libraries makes information available to all, even though equal access to education may not be. Low-Tech TV is information. News is a public resource that must be granted to all but it is at its core, information. The internet is the new source of information, even if we are talking about chemicals under that sink... it's information. The libraries of Alexandria were burned not by invaders but by the PEOPLE who were excluded access to them. It was an esoteric circle of the learned and elite. You couldn't join the learned unless you were already learned. Ensuring public library access to everyone is the right thing to do even though only a select few will chose to accept the invitation.
I imagine that FAST channels will resist allowing their signals to be recorded by consumers, for the same reason broadcasters resisted it - DVRing ad-supported content means you can skip through the ads. (Now, ad implementation on most FAST content is currently very primitive. Ads appear at random times rather than during content-intended ad breaks, are often highly repetitive, and in some cases, stupidly low-res. If FAST becomes established over time, I expect they'll fix this.) Tablo may start getting legal pushback on this feature. The only features of ATSC 3.0 that most consumers would care about were 1. higher resolutions on both main and subchannels enabled by newer codecs, and 2. more robust transmission of signals in the new format. The rest of it was chum for advertisers and broadcasters (especially DRM). It's always seemed nonsensical to me for an OTA format to require a parallel internet connection (which, unless I'm mistaken, DRM does). If you have an internet connection, you have a superior pathway for video transmission available rather than OTA, which has issues with multipath, geographical signal blockage, distance-from-the-tower problems, out of date codecs, etc. By contrast, IP video has none of those issues, and as well has potentially global reach. The only consumer reasons to keep OTA are that not everyone has broadband, and OTA's reliance on public frequencies means the FTC can, at least theoretically, resist industry abuses. There are also the industry reasons to keep OTA, of course, which are inertia and broadcast re-transmission fees. Neither is a particularly compelling reason to keep OTA if it's an obsolete technology. Instead, we'd be better off making sure affordable broadband is universally available, then transitioning current OTA into IP transmission.
Affordable broadband is the key. Covid made us work and learn from home and it became obvious that reliable internet is no longer a luxury but a basic need. This would also accelerate the ability to vote from home. Travelling to a Polling Place seems so last, last century. Some districts intentionally have limited polling places to create long lines and keep some Americans from voting!!!! This is just wrong. It is not a democracy if only some people can vote. You can record FAST channels and get this, it doesn't even consume one of your OTA tuners to do it. You can record 2 OTA and 2 FAST channels at the same time. And their in high resolution!!!
Absolutely right about broadband. We need a Tennessee Valley Authority type program to get broadband everywhere, at an affordable price. WRT polling, the current effort to make voting easier centers around vote-by-mail. Those opposing it allege there are security issues (which IMHO are way overblown). But you can count on their bringing up the same allegations about internet voting. I'll have to have a look at the Tablo. In my case I already have more TV content than time to watch it, so I haven't been trying to get even more. :)@@PeterC408
The problem to be solved does not exist. Consumers were thinking that they were going to get 4K FREE TV. I was thinking, who is paying for this? When is the other shoe going to drop? and then it did. It was encryption. Comcast and other Providers were looking at the new spec as a FREE network for them to gain more customers. They would simply encrypt their content and make you pay to unlock it. Fortunately, consumer watchdogs spoke up and rallied the troops and shut that down. Now the providers are no longer interested. ATSC 1.0 wasn't even utilized fully. We can go to 1080i resolution like my local PBS, but none of the networks do this. Some are still broadcasting over VHF because they don't care about this market. OTA has a great picture and they want their compressed and encrypted signal to look better, so they defeature the OTA signal. They want to sell you a cable box and monthly service to watch their commercial laden, ad supported content. They don't want a cheaper solution, we are the product. Sound bitter? Perhaps just a little.
ATSC 1.0 is still here and working great. If you look at TabloTV as an example, it is ATSC 1.0 + recordable F.A.S.T. channels. It is the best of both worlds really.
FCC is not forcing down ATSC 1.0 TV stations that do not want to downgrade to failing DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV. ATSC 1.0 TV may be here for a long time until open source no DRM ATSC 4.0.
Yeah, I think ATSC 3.0 is pretty much dead going forward. Not sure about your predictions with streaming services and how they will evolve, but it does look promising. It seems like the big media companies can get behind it, too, consolidating all their existing 'channels' as 'subchannels' under one major national channel. But then where would that leave the FCC-issued OTA broadcast station licenses and the local stations? Would they go obsolete or just be repurposed, maybe use some of the higher frequencies to expand 5G systems and/or the internet in general?
I look forward to Dish pushing their services if they fail to bring out an Air TV tuner. And I'll say, no thanks I have 2gbps Internet, why do I need a dish?
ATSC 3.0 is going to be the standard and their will be no replacement since too much money has been spent. I am guessing the FCC will have to get involved to salvage the mess the ATSC committee created when attempting to roll out the standard.
In the grand scope of things, no money has been spent yet. They can right off Billions at the blink of an eye. Look at Verizon who spent $54 Billion buying 5G frequencies they struggle to deploy. This is chump change to BlueChip stocks.
"Because some of them are digital." They're ALL digital. "What it is is live TV content that's ad-supported." Uh... wait... isn't that what regular OTA TV _already is?_
There are some new channels worth your attention. They are called F.A.S.T. channels, they are IP (internet) based but you can record them ( and it doesn't take one of your tuners). Effectively this box has 4 tuners (2 OTA and 2 Digital). They are great, look outstanding and are recordable.
@@PeterC408: 1. When you say "OTA and... digital," you're not making sense. All the OtA TV channels today (here in the USA, at least) *ARE* digital. So if FAST is supposedly a different thing than OtA, even though they're both digital, then what it stands for is a misnomer because the OtA channels are _already_ free, ad-supported television. So I wish you had made that distinction at the beginning so that it wouldn't have just sounded like you're talking about some kind of thing that someone's calling "new" even though it's not. But thank goodness people can re-edit and reupload (to replace) their videos, or at least make new ones as addendums to the originals... or at the VERY least... just have the suggestion in mind for any future time that they may happen to bring it up... or pin the clarifying comment, etc.
FCC delayed switch over for another ten years... no need for a new tv for the near future...no stations in Erie Pa are atsc 3, and i don't see it happening for a while...
I’m not used to Internet live channels. I barely use them. It’s reductive to record if you can watch on-demand. Recording requires storage space, which is another technology that I used to use a lot in the VCR days, but digital storage never caught on. I tried to look for such technology 10 years ago like Tivo, an expensive rip-off. So ATSC 3.0 is dead. I predict Nothing will replace it.
On the contrary... Live Channels were not very interesting because I would join in the middle or had to watch 5 episodes in a row. Now that I can record them (USB drives are very cheap) I can watch when -- I WANT. Not when it happens to be on. Also the quality is all digital and perfect! Look into it. This will replace OTA
Happy to share what I am learning... I too am learning about this. Here are the channels www.tablotv.com/shows-channels/#see-internet-channels and read 3 tag line, " Internet-based free streaming channels you can watch and RECORD with Tablo. Free streaming channels require an internet connection." Get one. I think you will totally dig it.
ATSC 3.0 is DOA due to Death by planning. Many projects will fail from over planning over engineering, incompatibilities and greed. I hope Sony and Samsung follow along with LG and reject ATSC 3.0 as well that should put the nails on that coffin.
Not sure their is someone to sue. The manufacturers sold you Next Generation TV and technically they support it. They call it "the Bleeding edge" for a reason. Sometimes you get cut. Anyone else out there grow up with a Beta-max?
The only reason that I was interested in ATSC 3, was to hopefully pick up channels that ATSC 1 would not pick up. VOTING FROM HOME SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED!
Yes, we need to be intimidated our polling places by mouth breathing vigilantes who have mistaken freedom for the right to do whatever they want. Better yet, we can redistrict marginalized communities and make it impossible for them to vote. If you believe in true freedom, then the transgender community should be our poster child. Freedom means other people can do things we don't agree with. Of course, we will vote from home.
Dude! Great reply. When I was young, my Dad told me that retirees decide every election because they are the only one who can sacrifice an entire day to stand in line and vote. I live in a senior community in Florida where many of my neighbors never leave the neighborhood (Kroger food delivery). So, even crazy, delusion Trumpers want to vote from home.
@@PeterC408 "Trans" people marginalize themselves by pretending to be something they are not. Then they have the gall to tell you which pronouns you must use for them, and play victim if you don't. They are the poster child for self-indulgent, entitled behavior.
The only way voting over the Internet can happen is with some kind of block chain that would absolutely prevent any cheating. And democrats will NEVER allow that!
Here in Canada AATSC is not even a blip on the Radar. There is one test lab and one test channel and that was four years ago with no progress beyond that. The leading telecom companies have moved to IPTV through xFinity. Tehy have little or no interest in OTA broadcasting.
I have no affinity for XFinity and I don't think OTA is going to be dead here in the states but there is a lot more expanding we can do with ATSC 1.0 and FAST channels. I think Tablo is on the right track. I just need a unit with more internal memory.
@@PeterC408 In the states its possible but here in Canada we have a few select large monopoly player (4 or 5 depending how you count) and they have locked in regional monopolies. Our government at the federal level is content to let them merge and become larger monopolies which I think will prevent ATSC from taking hold in any significant way.
That's all the world needs right now. I am not paying an extra $100 to get ATSC 3.0 I wouldn't pay $30!!! It aint going to happen, not the way we thought it was at least. Rule #1 - no Fortune 500 company is going to invest in a FREE technology that competes with the one they are trying to sell you.
I disagree about Tablo. Tablo is now owned by Scripps, who also own dozens of over the air TV stations and they're turning on encryption on ATSC 3.0. The move to ATSC 3.0, and Sinclair and Scripps fully admitted this, is content control and ad targeting capabilities for advertisers because linear TV has been bleeding advertisers to the internet. Sinclair admitted ATSC 3.0 failure will mean death of broadcast.
Scripps actually has a really good news service that you can get with this. This is a ATSC 1.0 Tuner, not ATSC 3.0 and it does not have encryption. The FAST IP channels that they have added are recordable and very good quality. Give it a try. You will like this and Scripps too. I am so sick of US news, too many commercials.
So you would say ok to a free 4K TV picture, of course but that isn't going to happen. We still have ATSC 1.0 and these new F.A.S.T. channels seem amazing. There are over 1400 of them, and now that we can record them, it just got more interesting.
The TV Content does not belong to the provider or the TV Stations It belongs to the public which me and you if you don’t believe me you need to talk to the FCC because there’s FCC rules that say we’re the owners of the content!
Hey Steve. The airwaves do indeed belong to all of us but the content (the work of the actors and actresses, producers, directors) that belongs to the people that produced it. That said, if they want to use our airwaves to distribute it, they gotta play by the FCC rules.
The Internet is in megabytes and Gigabytes uploads and downloads your device converts it into gigabits inside the computer or other device and then it is converted into into gigabytes when you upload it to the Internet if you don’t believe it you can ask any electronic Technician and they will verify what I’m saying to you is correct if they tell any different they’d be lying and you know they are not going to lie to you
Hey Steve. Thanks for the response. I am a computer scientist so I am pretty confident in my response. Let me tell you there is no computer conversion going on between Megabytes and Megabits (or Gigabytes and Gigabits). It is simply like saying Gallons vs Cups. So my car takes 15 gallons (or 240 cups) of gasoline. Except for no one talks about gasoline in cups, we talk about gallons. Same thing with networking, we talk about Megabits. With hard drives we talk about Megabytes. It is just that there are 8 Bits to a Byte so we multiply by 8. Now that the Internet is getting faster, I am totally cool with switching but some habits die hard. With Modems we used to talk about Kbps because they were so frigging slow... my how things have evolved so quickly. It has been one wild ride. Stay curious! It's all good. Learning is fun and I try to learn something everyday.
ATSC 1.0 is already here and fully underutilized by TV stations. Again, think about MOTIVATIONS of the different parties. Even the local TV Stations do not like ATSC because OTA customers do not provide direct funding.... sure we provide viewership, which are worth advertising dollars but Comcast, DirectTV, HULU and UA-camTV pay them real $$$$$ to rebroadcast their channel on their networks! There is just no one that really wants it to happen other than the consumer. You need two parties to dance. My experience with matters such as this predict that ATSC 3.0 is as dead as the VHS rental market, like it or not.
100%. It is sad but true. Money is THE great motivator. Now, look at the parties involved and their motivations. Content providers, want money. TV stations want money. TV manufacturers want customers. Customers want High Quality and FREE. Here is why it won't work: Many of the TV Stations are owned by Content providers. They want MONEY. OTA makes them very little money. Now, On-Line Streaming Service providers like HULU and UA-camTV PAY them money $$$ to license their channel and provide a BETTER QUALITY picture on local channels than people can get OTA. That is why they are broadcasting in 480, when they could already push out 1080P. There is no way in hell they are going to spend millions to get us a better picture and give up the revenue from On-Line Streaming Providers. BUT THEY HAVE SPENT MILLIONS ALREADY!??? They thought that they would be able to turn on encryption and force you to get their cable box!!! Now that they can't,,, deal is off. They have lost interest. 100%
tablo tv?!! do they put in writting about being able to get the fast channels that i want??!! if not, it's not worth the trouble. none of it means anything without a guarentee.
UA-cam can be tricky with the strikes. No one can argue the legal validity of the private use of the VCR, it is well understood. That said, I was surfing 7ft waves this weekend. What are you doing with your youth? Hello Kitty 😸😹 I wish everyone could enjoy their youth as much as I have but it seems some are cheating themselves by eating too much.
@@PeterC408: I was just talking about how you slipped and said "VCR" instead of "DVR," and chalking it up to your age, hehe. I'm really not sure how supposedly eating too much has anything to do with the subject of accidentally using old terminology on a more current product as a potentially age-based goof-up.
I did mention that it older data and it was indeed true for a number of years. The reason I hesitated is because things change and LG kind of leapfrogged them with OLED but this is easy data to look up. Here, I am searching Google for "Samsungs share of the US TV market" and here is what pops up www.nexttv.com/news/samsung-maintains-us-market-share-lead-in-smart-tv-at-32 Oh, looks like it has slipped 9 points since I looked it up in 2015. I am sure that it was a steady decline too.
This is hypothetical but what if there is another 9/11 and you need to get the breaking news but the channel you getting the breaking news on is encrypted?
Well some news networks, like CNN, are pay only right now, So in this event, you would have to find your news elsewhere. No one has more commercials than FOX News right now, followed closely behind by CNN. So you are paying for it with commercials and with a subscription. As much as I like capitalism, it can go too far.
"National News" does not exist. ABC is owned by Disney, that is why your newscasters are always bantering about the movie they just saw or how anxious they are to try the new ride at Disneyland. It is a huge commercial. My local traffic guy was broadcasting from a roller-coaster acting like he was on assignment at Disneyland. Every once in a while the slide in, "our parent company" but that it. These large conglomerates are trying sway your vacation, your spending, and even your vote. Now they were trying to steal the airwaves. When the next 9/11 happens, we are all screwed unless we fix this. The news is sacred in most countries. Here is has become a frigging joke and that is the truth. I get my news from DW and BBC although I have been enjoying Script News recently.
Well, I think we are in agreement but perhaps the terms got confused. The Content ( meaning the programming, shows, news, etc) does belong to the content creators which might be a TV Station, but the airwaves belong to the public. Absolutely. OTA broadcast is a requirement of the FCC to make content available to everyone, but who really wants it? The TV Stations don't really want it because cable companies, UA-cam TV and HULU pay them for the retransmission rights. This gives them a much larger audience than OTA alone. The Content Owners (owners of the show) just want to get paid. Retransmission fees and a larger audience mean more for them. TV manufacturers don't want it because it hits their BOM cost. The only ones that really want it is us, the public. It is our airwaves. For years stations have been compliant but barely. Some stations are still in VHF and 480 pixels. The current spec supports up to 1080i.
The FCC needs to step in and put an end to all the DRM shenanigans. OTA TV should be able improve quality and coverage without big companies trying to change the way TV has been working for 80 years. As far as FAST goes even if local programing is on there I feel it will be a long time until high speed internet is an almost universal thing. The ISPs don't just don't want to spend the money to lay the fiber. There are still too many people who are under or not served. If done right ATSC 3.0 could be up and running in a few years and all most people would need is a cheap converter box similar to when we went to ATSC 1. LOVE your content but I think ATSC 3 is an important step forward in replacing what is now almost a 30 year old technology.
I fully respect your opinion and thank you for posting it, but going back to the motivation thing, the content holders only wanted ATSC 3.0 to get encryption. They're not gonna spend a bunch of money to put up new broadcast equipment and give you a better picture when they own the cable companies. They want a mandate you own their cable box. They want to drive value to their offerings. I think it's dead in the water. FAST channels skip distribution costs and go straight to the creators who want viewers and ad revenue.
FCC sold out.
FCC needs to stop sharing...RF signals on 1.0 focus 1.0 not 3.0
@@kalijasinif you want that we have to vote in people who will give the FCC back their teeth.
ATSC 3.0 started out as a great thing but took a huge LEFT turn onto a DEAD end road !!! It now deserves to die a painful death 😡
It didn't live up to the Hype.
I'm perfectly fine with ATSC 3.0 being D.O.A. exactly like I'm happy with CBDC {Central Bank Digital Currency} being stopped. Neither offered the consumer anything close to offsetting what we'd lose. Neither seemed to be in our best interest. ATSC 3.0 would have made a handful who profit from encryption quite wealthy and the vast majority of consumers pay more. If "government" actually worked for us, I might be able to get a PBS and FOX station which are licensed to SERVE my county but not my physical area. I'd much rather see efforts go into serving electromagnetic black holes like I live in Western NY, and improving the sub-channels on the 3 towers I can pick up. I've seen clearer images through the bottom of beer bottles.
It might come to that. Our country is divided by the media and we need to hold our news organizations accountable for delivering an unbiased news. The problem is greed once again. Power and greed have corrupted good willed people, ideas and ideals again and again.
I believe TV should be free. And if you pay for cable there should not be any commercials on cable channels it's all about greed. Local sports should be on regular TV they make enough in ticket sales and beer commercials. Internet providers also. The only TV that is worth watching is reruns from the 60s and 70s. Doesn't look good anymore. 73
@@ronb6182 Absolutely!
@@ronb6182 "I believe TV should be free." As should water, telephone, and electricity.
All they need to do is stop DRM. I just got ATSC 3.0 and I finally have ABC in Philly over the air. Only ABC and FOX are DRM free here.
If you have issues with ATSC 1.0 8- VSB breaking up when a plane goes over or just when it feels like it and you have a decent signal strength, that's multipath. 1.0 does a poor job on this. 3.0 is a true digital COFDM waveform that handles multipath. That is why you want it.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I live in the center of Silicon valley where we have 3 airports and I've never had this happen on any of my 140+ channels. ATSC 3.0 is not going to happen as quickly as everyone thinks it will. You have to think what is the motivation for large media companies that own the content and are also your ISPs to put up equipment for you to gain free access to it. It's a blatant conflict of interest. They have no desire to give you access to the content when you'll pay for it. For those of you that love capitalism, bend over.
@@PeterC408 Yes, I agree on all of the motivations and conflicts among players. There always are these with any new platform. But greed and investiture will win after critical adoption and roll out (which I think is the premise here - that it won't). There just are too many opportunities for new services on the backbone, some two-way, and not purely OTA free TV based. This argument continues. I'm more interested in raw technical signal performance in more fringe areas. Here in NH, we have real issues with multipath. Same with the birthplace of bad TV - the hills of PA. Where I came from in Northern NY, you had to use cut Yagi's for each channel.
Hey Peter, BIG fan!!! I totally agree with you. This new service should be available to everyone over the air. Thanks for speaking up as always. :)
Thanks. I never was one for biting my tongue which tends to get me in trouble sometimes 😮
Thanks PETER. Much appreciated. Keep the content coming. Hope you have an incredible night. Much love and RESPECT
Thanks, you too!
LG recently announced they are removing ATSC 3.0 from their TVs. Assume others will do the same.
Yes, Sony and Samsung have been quiet on the issue. Samsung is #1 in the US but LG is #2... so if Samsung leaves, it's over. It is a very competitive space where every dollar counts. I am surprised anyone is putting tuners in these things at all. Get rid of the Smart part as well, we can handle that. Anything you put in there is going to be old in 3 years anyway. Might as well put the Smarts on the outside of the unit.
Because they got sued for patent infringement.
@kalijasin who patents free to the air (OTA) TV? Stupid concept, now buried forever, most likely. Why so glum? We could do 1080 with ATSC 1.0, but few did.
@@PeterC408I don’t watch a lot of TV but would prefer a very high quality monitor without a tuner, speakers, apps or other junk. I don’t think anyone makes one. Perhaps an industrial monitor. Forget ATSC 3.0, they blew that.
All I have to say is.... thank you for this video and your time
Glad it was helpful! I was excited to see ATSC 3.0 but only to see more channels at a higher resolution. Seems like there is another path to get there and it opens things up reducing costs and giving people even better access.
LG didn't suspend its ATSC 3.0 implementation because they didn't like it - it was because of a patent and licensing fee issue with one of the makers of ATSC 3.0 components - which you didn't mention.
It's a read through the lines thing. Again, motivation. This is FREETV, no patents, no licensing, no certifications... If customers were demanding it, they would push for it. I am all for SMART TVs to get stupid. I don't want a tuner, I don't want a processor, I don't want to be part of your eco-system. Just give me a monitor and make it affordable. Trust me, ATSC 3.0 is over because the motivations from the involved parties are incongruent. Put a fork it in, Not sure why you want it to be around. The internet is here and it provides a level playing field.
@@PeterC408 So, you want to continue to settle for content broadcast in 1080i and 720p resolution (ATSC 1.0) and not gain the capability to receive OTA content in 1080p and possibly 4K UHD? Once again the US stagnates and South Korea and Japan move ahead. Also, according to FCC regulations, if a TV does not have a built-in Tuner, it can't sold as a TV - it has to be sold as a video display or monitor - further confusing TV shoppers - Vizio tried that in 2016 and was not successful.
Just to keep it clear - it was a software program included as part of the ATSC 3.0 package ( a'proc' for all of you oldster computer folks).
Personally, I'd love to have broadcast that could do true 1080p and 4k, but not if it's at the price of DRMing everything. I suspected ATSC 3.0 might be in trouble as soon as it was set up as privately-led initiative.@@robertsilva631
LG was sued for patent infringement.
Unlike most, I actually read the full complaint.
FCC is not forcing down ATSC 1.0 TV stations that do not want to downgrade to failing DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV. ATSC 1.0 TV may be here for a long time until open source no DRM ATSC 4.0.
Yes, no one is forcing anyone; The point is that OTA doesn't really make sense any more. It may becoming irrelevant. OTA was how my father got television when he was young. It continued to make sense during the cable transformation but the Internet is here to stay and its everywhere that OTA can be.
This mess reminds me of the RIAA and what they did to digital music. The consumers have to stand up and push back against this crap.
If you want to see a cool digital music program, check out this one ua-cam.com/video/l3JHTwWmFaE/v-deo.html
* OTA DRM ATSC 3.0 is failing because of DRM (No OTA TV for you).
* Current OTA ATSC 1.0 TV stations are not being forced to downgrade to DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV.
* (IMO) Do not buy ATSC 3.0 TVs until DRM is removed.
I don't think we should have a tuner in a TV anyway. In fact, no Smart TVs at all. I want a capable streaming platform that is powerful enough to last as long as the TV. What good is having a TV tuner in your TV if you can't record it. No one wants to watch LIVE, unbuffered TV, when you can't even pause it.
Changing channels on my Tablo 4 is slow. You have to go left, up or down and then hit enter wait for the buffet and finally watch??
After channel change it buffers and then plays? Changing ota channels on my Samsung TV is fast, just up and down. Never buffers.
Any ideas?
Ota picture quality on my Samsung TV has a slight edge over the Tablo 4. Tablo picture is good, just not quite as good as the picture using the Samsung tv tuner.
True. All TV tuners that I have worked with are a little slow. I would be surprise
The existing ATSC 1 system is somewhat adaptable to being able to transmit Mpeg 4 / H264 video, it just isn't allowed by the FCC at this point. One could use the secondary channels to broadcast 4K as long as the main channel is Mpeg 2. Older TVs would not be able to decode the secondary channels but would decode the main channel. Many TVs are already capable of playback of mpeg 4 as a separate program stream on an atsc channel (bandwidth). Digital Rights Management and Encryption isn't gonna fly with the public. That would be the demise of ota broadcast television. So far, I haven't seen any real advantages to ATSC 3. I also don't see any financial gain to area targeted advertising. This would increase costs and decrease revenue for a TV station!
I was considering that very tuner you showed a screenshot from, but I'm legally blind, and could not read anything it was displaying. Do you know if there's an accessibility feature in the tuner that lets us enlarge the text it displays? By the way, I agree, FAST needs to be protected for everyone. Now that I know ATSC 3.0 is going to be a tier driven, paywalled product, I want absolutely nothing to do with it. I can't afford cable, or satellite. I can just barely afford slow internet. LOL I have to use an OTA antenna, and I'm SO dreading June of 27, which will be the end of live, OTA television, for me, and anyone else who can't afford ATSC 3. Thanks for sharing this.
FAST Channels are something new. They are IP (over the internet) Ad Supported Free TV. So unlike standard OTA, your internet needs to be on to get these. The quality is excellent and I can schedule their recording and skip commercials. Very happy with the TabloTV Tuner ( and I have owned a half dozen). ATSC 1.0 will be with us way beyond this coming June. I wouldn't be surprised if ATSC 3.0 is cancelled all together. As far as the larger text, I looked and do not see anything. Perhaps this is a platform feature but I do not see a way to increase the font size of the Closed Caption that is displayed. Hop on-line and ask them if there is a way to support this that I do not see. If not, perhaps the best way for you is to use a TV Tuner that will record to PLEX, because they have this playback option.
@@PeterC408 I was actually not referring to closed captioning, but the channel lineup menu interface. But, thanks for checking on that. I will go onto the factory website, and reach out to them. :)
I went to the interface for my NVIDIA Shield to see if turning on accessibility would help the Tablo interface, but I do not see accessibility features their either. My ROKU device does have an accessibility section but it does not appear to affect the Tablo App. I hope that you are successful. Let know what you find. A friend of mine has macular degeneration and I am just realizing how difficult it can be. Let us know what you find.
@@PeterC408 I'll certainly try to keep you in the loop on that. :)
If a tv upscales very good I think it's just as good as ATSC 3.0 next gen tv. It is too expensive for broadcasts to upgrade equipment for 4K. I think next gen tv will lose a lot of interest. My tvs look good with upscaling over the air broadcasts. 😊 Just my opinion. 😊
I think it looks pretty good but 4K is 4x bigger than 1080P, so you are asking an algorithm to create 4 pixels from the information contained in 1. It is a tough order and amazing that they have managed to do as well as they do. Real 4K is really special but no one is going to spend the big bucks to give us all 4K tv for free, not when the same stakeholders can charge you for it and get you to pay it.
From what I understand the broadcaster's main cost is the software upgrade on their existing systems. A few pieces of new hardware will be needed, but a lot of the equipment used for current signal processing and broadcasting is still relevant. FWIW: 4G may look good on big screens (like 70" and up), but when comparing two 45" screens (one 4K the other just HD) the picture quality is so minor to me that I wouldn't want to spend the $$$ to upgrade.
Good video. You're saying what a lot of people are thinking, but the industry isn't ready to admit. With no mandate forcing ATSC 3, it'll only happen if TV manufacturers put it in most of their models, which they're not doing. The push for DRM when it wasn't properly implemented on many of the ATSC 3 TV's already sold is just another nail in the coffin.
I love having my plex dvr and recording shows. I like to be able to enjoy the shows on my time. I also want to keep them as long as i want. I don't want to pay for steaming services to rewatch shows. I think the reception, video quality and more efficient video codec of atsc 3.0 is a needed improvement, however the DRM restrictions they want to put on it will likely be what makes consumers not accept it. I have an HDhomerun flex4k for nearly 2 years now. It was made before the DRM crap came in to play for anything but optional subscription services like Evoca.
Agreed. Sorry to say but it looks like Evoca may soon be Re-voca www.denverpost.com/2022/11/30/evoca-discontinue-operations-altitude-tv/
Over the Air, Pay per View, NO THANKS !!
Check out this unit. It is a dual tuner ATSC 1.0 but it also supports a growing number of FAST channels (currently 43, Internet based channels that are high quality, schedulable and recordable) and it doesn't take a physical tuner to record them. You get two OTA tuners and two virtual tuners. Great stuff ua-cam.com/video/xq7g2tMllic/v-deo.html
Most of the IPTV cable companies are already limiting cloud based recordings to 30 days. You have missed the boat on that one, at least in Canada.
I record TV the way that I want to record it. Check this out ua-cam.com/video/jhrEHDKhMYc/v-deo.html it can record just about anything.
LG dropped nextgen tv because of an infringement lawsuit, not because of DRM. And the company that filed the lawsuit will most likely target Sony and Samsung next. So forget about nextgen tv, it's dead.
Yes, and when I broke up with my high school girlfriend, I said it was me not her. It was totally her. NextGen it totally dead because the motivations from the involved parties are incongruent. This is FREETV, no patents, no licensing, no certifications.
TUBI or not TUBI?
I am a huge fan of Tubi they offer many FAST channels but they can not be scheduled or recorded... it is enjoy live or nothing. This little TabloTV tuner has 2 OTA tuners and 2 virtual tuners for IPTV FAST channels. Now you can schedule them to record and watch later. Super good quality and a really nice feature.
"...Might not happen at all."
It's already HERE.
They are pulling it back...encrypting channels that were previously unencrypted. They thought they were going to be able to highjack our public airwaves and make it their own distribution network out of it. Not so fast there, Baba Looey.
The big benefit of ATSC 3 would be higher resolution but *modern TVs can upscale 1080P so well that it is hard to tell that you are watching 1080P* . HDR Would be nice, but the reality is that broadcast TV has little content that would exploit HDR. Reality TV shows just don't benefit that much. If you are in the market for a new TV though, it is worth getting a TV that has a good upscale capability. Sometimes I struggle to see that my TV is playing a 1080P program, but one of the reasons I bought the TV that I did was because it was one of the top rated TVs for upscaleing. DRM Would kill broadcast TV for me and if that happens, it won't matter that there is high res and HDR, because I won't watch broadcast anymore and would probably not miss it. There just isn't that much good on network television.
Upscaling is an amazing technology but going from 1080P to 4K is a huge jump. Basically you have to color 4 pixels based on the input from one.
Doubt I've watched even 20 hours of TV this year. It's all garbage and the ads are offensive to intelligence. It's nothing but an adolescent brainwashing and teenage waste land.
I actually don't care about 4k. I just want improved, stable reception. The DRM/encryption is a non-starter.
Yes, it is a power grab trying to own our free airwaves.
yea no i am not allowing more DRM in my life
Cool. Get a load of this one ua-cam.com/video/-VRH2TILqbA/v-deo.html I bet that you will like it.
Speaking of internet equity T-Fiber might be available before Fixed Wireless or other carriers with the exception of possibly Verizon 5G home Internet since based on performance Verizon is clearly mistaken to not list my address as a qualifying address since I see speeds up to 600 MBPS and 20-30 up depending on location on my 2 year old 13 Pro Max iPhone
Careful to think that mobile performance will equal phone performance. Phones are first priority on phone networks, Home Networking customers are lower priority which may explain why they say it is "not available" they have no "extra bandwidth" in your area could be the reason.
My Sony has ATSC3.0 but it already has stations Locked with encryption on the Buffalo side Canada isn't even going to bother bringing in atsc 3.0 they're doing a wait and see to see how it goes in the US most stations in Canada say the cost is prohibitive
Yes, adding costs to FreeTv is a non-starter.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that everyone should have access to the internet. But tying that to the future of television - not so much. The fact is that even if we could, as a thought exercise, snap our fingers and magically give everyone high-speed access to the internet at home, asking a large segment of our society to set up something like streaming service/services (whatever they are) is, quite simply, far too big of an ask/expectation (think about it - the elderly, the poor, the non-tech savy, the people who are simply not going to be able to get this across the finish line for whatever reason). The idea behind free television/social equity is not about being able to get a job, or find out what to do about the chemicals under your sink. It's about being able to plug in a low-tech t.v. and get a signal, and by that, having a basic ability to stay connected to our society, culturally, and during important news events. So no, I'm not with you on this.
I think we are on the same page. Sure setting up streaming services is a hurdle but so is learning to read. Public access to Libraries makes information available to all, even though equal access to education may not be. Low-Tech TV is information. News is a public resource that must be granted to all but it is at its core, information. The internet is the new source of information, even if we are talking about chemicals under that sink... it's information. The libraries of Alexandria were burned not by invaders but by the PEOPLE who were excluded access to them. It was an esoteric circle of the learned and elite. You couldn't join the learned unless you were already learned. Ensuring public library access to everyone is the right thing to do even though only a select few will chose to accept the invitation.
I imagine that FAST channels will resist allowing their signals to be recorded by consumers, for the same reason broadcasters resisted it - DVRing ad-supported content means you can skip through the ads. (Now, ad implementation on most FAST content is currently very primitive. Ads appear at random times rather than during content-intended ad breaks, are often highly repetitive, and in some cases, stupidly low-res. If FAST becomes established over time, I expect they'll fix this.) Tablo may start getting legal pushback on this feature.
The only features of ATSC 3.0 that most consumers would care about were 1. higher resolutions on both main and subchannels enabled by newer codecs, and 2. more robust transmission of signals in the new format. The rest of it was chum for advertisers and broadcasters (especially DRM).
It's always seemed nonsensical to me for an OTA format to require a parallel internet connection (which, unless I'm mistaken, DRM does). If you have an internet connection, you have a superior pathway for video transmission available rather than OTA, which has issues with multipath, geographical signal blockage, distance-from-the-tower problems, out of date codecs, etc. By contrast, IP video has none of those issues, and as well has potentially global reach. The only consumer reasons to keep OTA are that not everyone has broadband, and OTA's reliance on public frequencies means the FTC can, at least theoretically, resist industry abuses.
There are also the industry reasons to keep OTA, of course, which are inertia and broadcast re-transmission fees. Neither is a particularly compelling reason to keep OTA if it's an obsolete technology. Instead, we'd be better off making sure affordable broadband is universally available, then transitioning current OTA into IP transmission.
Really long but YES you can record and skip
Affordable broadband is the key. Covid made us work and learn from home and it became obvious that reliable internet is no longer a luxury but a basic need. This would also accelerate the ability to vote from home. Travelling to a Polling Place seems so last, last century. Some districts intentionally have limited polling places to create long lines and keep some Americans from voting!!!! This is just wrong. It is not a democracy if only some people can vote. You can record FAST channels and get this, it doesn't even consume one of your OTA tuners to do it. You can record 2 OTA and 2 FAST channels at the same time. And their in high resolution!!!
Absolutely right about broadband. We need a Tennessee Valley Authority type program to get broadband everywhere, at an affordable price.
WRT polling, the current effort to make voting easier centers around vote-by-mail. Those opposing it allege there are security issues (which IMHO are way overblown). But you can count on their bringing up the same allegations about internet voting.
I'll have to have a look at the Tablo. In my case I already have more TV content than time to watch it, so I haven't been trying to get even more. :)@@PeterC408
Bring DVB-T2 to America. Problem solved. Cheaper equipment for consumers, bigger market.
The problem to be solved does not exist. Consumers were thinking that they were going to get 4K FREE TV. I was thinking, who is paying for this? When is the other shoe going to drop? and then it did. It was encryption. Comcast and other Providers were looking at the new spec as a FREE network for them to gain more customers. They would simply encrypt their content and make you pay to unlock it. Fortunately, consumer watchdogs spoke up and rallied the troops and shut that down. Now the providers are no longer interested. ATSC 1.0 wasn't even utilized fully. We can go to 1080i resolution like my local PBS, but none of the networks do this. Some are still broadcasting over VHF because they don't care about this market. OTA has a great picture and they want their compressed and encrypted signal to look better, so they defeature the OTA signal. They want to sell you a cable box and monthly service to watch their commercial laden, ad supported content. They don't want a cheaper solution, we are the product. Sound bitter? Perhaps just a little.
Sooooo, how do we gain access to ATSC 1.0 or is it not available yet?
ATSC 1.0 is still here and working great. If you look at TabloTV as an example, it is ATSC 1.0 + recordable F.A.S.T. channels. It is the best of both worlds really.
FCC is not forcing down ATSC 1.0 TV stations that do not want to downgrade to failing DRM ATSC 3.0 NEXTGEN-TV. ATSC 1.0 TV may be here for a long time until open source no DRM ATSC 4.0.
Yeah, I think ATSC 3.0 is pretty much dead going forward. Not sure about your predictions with streaming services and how they will evolve, but it does look promising. It seems like the big media companies can get behind it, too, consolidating all their existing 'channels' as 'subchannels' under one major national channel. But then where would that leave the FCC-issued OTA broadcast station licenses and the local stations? Would they go obsolete or just be repurposed, maybe use some of the higher frequencies to expand 5G systems and/or the internet in general?
Or they could fade into obscurity like the CB channels of old. 10-4 good buddy. 👍
I look forward to Dish pushing their services if they fail to bring out an Air TV tuner. And I'll say, no thanks I have 2gbps Internet, why do I need a dish?
ATSC 3.0 is going to be the standard and their will be no replacement since too much money has been spent. I am guessing the FCC will have to get involved to salvage the mess the ATSC committee created when attempting to roll out the standard.
In the grand scope of things, no money has been spent yet. They can right off Billions at the blink of an eye. Look at Verizon who spent $54 Billion buying 5G frequencies they struggle to deploy. This is chump change to BlueChip stocks.
"Because some of them are digital." They're ALL digital.
"What it is is live TV content that's ad-supported." Uh... wait... isn't that what regular OTA TV _already is?_
There are some new channels worth your attention. They are called F.A.S.T. channels, they are IP (internet) based but you can record them ( and it doesn't take one of your tuners). Effectively this box has 4 tuners (2 OTA and 2 Digital). They are great, look outstanding and are recordable.
@@PeterC408: 1. When you say "OTA and... digital," you're not making sense. All the OtA TV channels today (here in the USA, at least) *ARE* digital.
So if FAST is supposedly a different thing than OtA, even though they're both digital, then what it stands for is a misnomer because the OtA channels are _already_ free, ad-supported television. So I wish you had made that distinction at the beginning so that it wouldn't have just sounded like you're talking about some kind of thing that someone's calling "new" even though it's not.
But thank goodness people can re-edit and reupload (to replace) their videos, or at least make new ones as addendums to the originals... or at the VERY least... just have the suggestion in mind for any future time that they may happen to bring it up... or pin the clarifying comment, etc.
I hope you're right about 3.0. I don't want it.
FCC delayed switch over for another ten years... no need for a new tv for the near future...no stations in Erie Pa are atsc 3, and i don't see it happening for a while...
Did they really! That is funny but I am surprised that the FCC delayed it and not all the invested parties.
I’m not used to Internet live channels. I barely use them. It’s reductive to record if you can watch on-demand. Recording requires storage space, which is another technology that I used to use a lot in the VCR days, but digital storage never caught on. I tried to look for such technology 10 years ago like Tivo, an expensive rip-off. So ATSC 3.0 is dead. I predict Nothing will replace it.
On the contrary... Live Channels were not very interesting because I would join in the middle or had to watch 5 episodes in a row. Now that I can record them (USB drives are very cheap) I can watch when -- I WANT. Not when it happens to be on. Also the quality is all digital and perfect! Look into it. This will replace OTA
@@PeterC408 Exactly what live channels are paired with recording ability? I haven’t seen it.
Happy to share what I am learning... I too am learning about this. Here are the channels www.tablotv.com/shows-channels/#see-internet-channels and read 3 tag line, " Internet-based free streaming channels you can watch and RECORD with Tablo. Free streaming channels require an internet connection." Get one. I think you will totally dig it.
ATSC 3.0 is DOA due to Death by planning. Many projects will fail from over planning over engineering, incompatibilities and greed. I hope Sony and Samsung follow along with LG and reject ATSC 3.0 as well that should put the nails on that coffin.
We that that paid all this money, who do we sue!!
Not sure their is someone to sue. The manufacturers sold you Next Generation TV and technically they support it. They call it "the Bleeding edge" for a reason. Sometimes you get cut. Anyone else out there grow up with a Beta-max?
The only reason that I was interested in ATSC 3, was to hopefully pick up channels that ATSC 1 would not pick up.
VOTING FROM HOME SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED!
Yes, we need to be intimidated our polling places by mouth breathing vigilantes who have mistaken freedom for the right to do whatever they want. Better yet, we can redistrict marginalized communities and make it impossible for them to vote. If you believe in true freedom, then the transgender community should be our poster child. Freedom means other people can do things we don't agree with. Of course, we will vote from home.
Dude! Great reply. When I was young, my Dad told me that retirees decide every election because they are the only one who can sacrifice an entire day to stand in line and vote. I live in a senior community in Florida where many of my neighbors never leave the neighborhood (Kroger food delivery). So, even crazy, delusion Trumpers want to vote from home.
@@PeterC408 "Trans" people marginalize themselves by pretending to be something they are not. Then they have the gall to tell you which pronouns you must use for them, and play victim if you don't. They are the poster child for self-indulgent, entitled behavior.
@caulkins69 If you truly believe in freedom, it means allowing others to do things you don't agree with. 👍
The only way voting over the Internet can happen is with some kind of block chain that would absolutely prevent any cheating.
And democrats will NEVER allow that!
I don't think anyone really cares that much about next gen tv. 😂
Here in Canada AATSC is not even a blip on the Radar. There is one test lab and one test channel and that was four years ago with no progress beyond that. The leading telecom companies have moved to IPTV through xFinity. Tehy have little or no interest in OTA broadcasting.
I have no affinity for XFinity and I don't think OTA is going to be dead here in the states but there is a lot more expanding we can do with ATSC 1.0 and FAST channels. I think Tablo is on the right track. I just need a unit with more internal memory.
@@PeterC408 In the states its possible but here in Canada we have a few select large monopoly player (4 or 5 depending how you count) and they have locked in regional monopolies. Our government at the federal level is content to let them merge and become larger monopolies which I think will prevent ATSC from taking hold in any significant way.
Re. Tablo: "And it's ATSC 1.0...."
* _only?_
That's all the world needs right now. I am not paying an extra $100 to get ATSC 3.0 I wouldn't pay $30!!! It aint going to happen, not the way we thought it was at least. Rule #1 - no Fortune 500 company is going to invest in a FREE technology that competes with the one they are trying to sell you.
@@PeterC408: My question was because you said "And it's ATSC 1.0" as if that's a special thing, when all the 3.0 boxes have 1.0 in them too.
I disagree about Tablo. Tablo is now owned by Scripps, who also own dozens of over the air TV stations and they're turning on encryption on ATSC 3.0. The move to ATSC 3.0, and Sinclair and Scripps fully admitted this, is content control and ad targeting capabilities for advertisers because linear TV has been bleeding advertisers to the internet. Sinclair admitted ATSC 3.0 failure will mean death of broadcast.
Scripps actually has a really good news service that you can get with this. This is a ATSC 1.0 Tuner, not ATSC 3.0 and it does not have encryption. The FAST IP channels that they have added are recordable and very good quality. Give it a try. You will like this and Scripps too. I am so sick of US news, too many commercials.
if there is no DRM i would say ok.
So you would say ok to a free 4K TV picture, of course but that isn't going to happen. We still have ATSC 1.0 and these new F.A.S.T. channels seem amazing. There are over 1400 of them, and now that we can record them, it just got more interesting.
The TV Content does not belong to the provider or the TV Stations It belongs to the public which me and you if you don’t believe me you need to talk to the FCC because there’s FCC rules that say we’re the owners of the content!
Hey Steve. The airwaves do indeed belong to all of us but the content (the work of the actors and actresses, producers, directors) that belongs to the people that produced it. That said, if they want to use our airwaves to distribute it, they gotta play by the FCC rules.
The content you’re talking about doesn’t belong to the provider it belongs to you and me and the airwaves also belong to you and me
I think you will like this program ua-cam.com/video/-VRH2TILqbA/v-deo.html
The Internet is in megabytes and Gigabytes uploads and downloads your device converts it into gigabits inside the computer or other device and then it is converted into into gigabytes when you upload it to the Internet if you don’t believe it you can ask any electronic Technician and they will verify what I’m saying to you is correct if they tell any different they’d be lying and you know they are not going to lie to you
Hey Steve. Thanks for the response. I am a computer scientist so I am pretty confident in my response. Let me tell you there is no computer conversion going on between Megabytes and Megabits (or Gigabytes and Gigabits). It is simply like saying Gallons vs Cups. So my car takes 15 gallons (or 240 cups) of gasoline. Except for no one talks about gasoline in cups, we talk about gallons. Same thing with networking, we talk about Megabits. With hard drives we talk about Megabytes. It is just that there are 8 Bits to a Byte so we multiply by 8. Now that the Internet is getting faster, I am totally cool with switching but some habits die hard. With Modems we used to talk about Kbps because they were so frigging slow... my how things have evolved so quickly. It has been one wild ride. Stay curious! It's all good. Learning is fun and I try to learn something everyday.
TV stations have spent millions of dollars or more Compined. atsc will happen like it or not.
ATSC 1.0 is already here and fully underutilized by TV stations. Again, think about MOTIVATIONS of the different parties. Even the local TV Stations do not like ATSC because OTA customers do not provide direct funding.... sure we provide viewership, which are worth advertising dollars but Comcast, DirectTV, HULU and UA-camTV pay them real $$$$$ to rebroadcast their channel on their networks! There is just no one that really wants it to happen other than the consumer. You need two parties to dance. My experience with matters such as this predict that ATSC 3.0 is as dead as the VHS rental market, like it or not.
@@PeterC408 after all the money TV stations have spent atsc will become the norm why because money speaks.
100%. It is sad but true. Money is THE great motivator. Now, look at the parties involved and their motivations. Content providers, want money. TV stations want money. TV manufacturers want customers. Customers want High Quality and FREE. Here is why it won't work: Many of the TV Stations are owned by Content providers. They want MONEY. OTA makes them very little money. Now, On-Line Streaming Service providers like HULU and UA-camTV PAY them money $$$ to license their channel and provide a BETTER QUALITY picture on local channels than people can get OTA. That is why they are broadcasting in 480, when they could already push out 1080P. There is no way in hell they are going to spend millions to get us a better picture and give up the revenue from On-Line Streaming Providers. BUT THEY HAVE SPENT MILLIONS ALREADY!??? They thought that they would be able to turn on encryption and force you to get their cable box!!! Now that they can't,,, deal is off. They have lost interest. 100%
It may still be forced upon us and happen the question is how many will be watching it? If they don't get enough viewers it will self implode.
tablo tv?!! do they put in writting about being able to get the fast channels that i want??!!
if not, it's not worth the trouble. none of it means anything without a guarentee.
Write to them. You can get many if these fast changes directly on Android and Roku but this records it!
connecticut nyc market now atsc 3.0 except CW 11 WWOR 9
Just wait. Encryption is coming.
already here antennaMan video
You: "...And your VCR..."
Quote bubble: "DVR."
Haha, that's understandable; you're sort of old, hehe!
UA-cam can be tricky with the strikes. No one can argue the legal validity of the private use of the VCR, it is well understood. That said, I was surfing 7ft waves this weekend. What are you doing with your youth? Hello Kitty 😸😹 I wish everyone could enjoy their youth as much as I have but it seems some are cheating themselves by eating too much.
@@PeterC408: I was just talking about how you slipped and said "VCR" instead of "DVR," and chalking it up to your age, hehe.
I'm really not sure how supposedly eating too much has anything to do with the subject of accidentally using old terminology on a more current product as a potentially age-based goof-up.
I don't believe your claim that samsung own 41% of the USA TV market. timemark 2:37
I did mention that it older data and it was indeed true for a number of years. The reason I hesitated is because things change and LG kind of leapfrogged them with OLED but this is easy data to look up. Here, I am searching Google for "Samsungs share of the US TV market" and here is what pops up www.nexttv.com/news/samsung-maintains-us-market-share-lead-in-smart-tv-at-32 Oh, looks like it has slipped 9 points since I looked it up in 2015. I am sure that it was a steady decline too.
This is hypothetical but what if there is another 9/11 and you need to get the breaking news but the channel you getting the breaking news on is encrypted?
Well some news networks, like CNN, are pay only right now, So in this event, you would have to find your news elsewhere. No one has more commercials than FOX News right now, followed closely behind by CNN. So you are paying for it with commercials and with a subscription. As much as I like capitalism, it can go too far.
incorrect. National news is Not just cnn and the paid channels. Local news channels have national news as well. Their nbc, abc, etc.. affiliates.
"National News" does not exist. ABC is owned by Disney, that is why your newscasters are always bantering about the movie they just saw or how anxious they are to try the new ride at Disneyland. It is a huge commercial. My local traffic guy was broadcasting from a roller-coaster acting like he was on assignment at Disneyland. Every once in a while the slide in, "our parent company" but that it. These large conglomerates are trying sway your vacation, your spending, and even your vote. Now they were trying to steal the airwaves. When the next 9/11 happens, we are all screwed unless we fix this. The news is sacred in most countries. Here is has become a frigging joke and that is the truth. I get my news from DW and BBC although I have been enjoying Script News recently.
The content you’re talking about doesn’t belong to the tv stations it belongs to the public
Well, I think we are in agreement but perhaps the terms got confused. The Content ( meaning the programming, shows, news, etc) does belong to the content creators which might be a TV Station, but the airwaves belong to the public. Absolutely. OTA broadcast is a requirement of the FCC to make content available to everyone, but who really wants it? The TV Stations don't really want it because cable companies, UA-cam TV and HULU pay them for the retransmission rights. This gives them a much larger audience than OTA alone. The Content Owners (owners of the show) just want to get paid. Retransmission fees and a larger audience mean more for them. TV manufacturers don't want it because it hits their BOM cost. The only ones that really want it is us, the public. It is our airwaves. For years stations have been compliant but barely. Some stations are still in VHF and 480 pixels. The current spec supports up to 1080i.