New FCC filing by Silicondust

[nickk]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- ... 8053818887

[Cabal]

Fighting the good fight.

[lenlab]

Well done document. If only the FCC would be able to read and understand the implications laid out. I'm hoping they do!

[cncb]

Have they ever responded to any of your letters? I hope this is not all wasted effort.

[NatHillIV]

Keep up the good fight Nick. I have a 4K tuner of yours that is getting ready to go to work on ALL ATSC 3.0 stations.

[sdust]

It might have been a good time to point out lack of familiarity with the OSI model by ATSC 3.0 proponents.

[jasonl]

Well done document. If only the FCC would be able to read and understand the implications laid out. I'm hoping they do!

I can guarantee you that people at the FCC read everything that gets filed and there are subject matter experts across the entire range of things they need to deal with from engineering to law. If there is something they need additional information on, they will arrange to get it.

[sdust]

I can guarantee you that people at the FCC read everything that gets filed and there are subject matter experts across the entire range of things they need to deal with from engineering to law. If there is something they need additional information on, they will arrange to get it.

If this were the case, we wouldn't be talking about ATSC 3.0. It is a solution in search of a problem.

[jasonl]

The problems are that MPEG2 and AC3 are horribly outdated and inefficient and 8VSB gets destroyed by multipath. ATSC 3.0 solves all of these problems. It just has other problems, some that the FCC can do something about (DRM) and some that it can't (high cost of licensing, uncertainty surrounding patents that aren't part of the licensing pools). Also, generally, the broadcasters who want this have done nothing to sell the general public on why they should care. HDTV was an easy sell for 1.0, but marginally better quality HDTV and marginally better reception isn't moving the needle outside of the early adopter community.

[sdust]

The problem is ATSC holding back modern codecs on ATSC 1.0 for the purpose of selling us ATSC 3.0.
Is seems they've never heard of the OSI model.

[Cabal]

The problems are that MPEG2 and AC3 are horribly outdated and inefficient and 8VSB gets destroyed by multipath. ATSC 3.0 solves all of these problems. It just has other problems, some that the FCC can do something about (DRM) and some that it can't (high cost of licensing, uncertainty surrounding patents that aren't part of the licensing pools). Also, generally, the broadcasters who want this have done nothing to sell the general public on why they should care. HDTV was an easy sell for 1.0, but marginally better quality HDTV and marginally better reception isn't moving the needle outside of the early adopter community.

So DVB-T2 with royalty-free codecs, then?

[jasonl]

The problem is ATSC holding back modern codecs on ATSC 1.0 for the purpose of selling us ATSC 3.0.
Is seems they've never heard of the OSI model.

The ATSC organization published standard A/72 in 2015 to document use of H.264/AVC in ATSC 1.0 broadcasts. The problem is that many TVs don't support it. WJYS in Chicago carried the CHSN sports channels in H.264 for a while, but ultimately had to revert to MPEG2 because they received too any complaints from viewers using old TVs and converter boxes who couldn't watch it. Another problem is that many contracts for diginets require them to be in MPEG2. A third problem is that the FCC still incorporates the original 2006 version of the ATSC standard by reference in their regulations, but one of the considerations going forward is allowing stations to voluntarily switch to full operations using AVC instead of having to have at least one MPEG2 service.

[nickk]

A3SA responded:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- ... 6575027713

[jco23]

A3SA responded:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search- ... 6575027713

you got them scared....

but honestly, I just want your product to be allowed to display those DRM signals - which I get is the crux of your involvement here.

[lenlab]

It does not appear to me that they are scared at all. In fact, they came up with some solid counter arguments that if left unchecked put SD back at square one.