About 23 million households access TV over the air in the US. It's larger in the EU at around 250 million households receiving digital over the air TV.
PA has always been the poster child of fringe areas. Cable and Satellite started there. ATSC 3.0 is SFN capable meaning its all set up for remote repeaters simulcasting. But there has to be a business case.
Another great video with excellent demonstration on the facts of our new "digital life's". There is no need to analyse further more the technical aspects to understand what is happening with the global broadcasting industry and the political "lobbies"! Regardless of all of this, I'm more than happy who someone have "The Testical" to enlighten the people who watched the video, without drow them to stupid political argument for who's, how's and why? Well done Mike! I'm really glad for the algorithm's who makes me "stumble" in your channel! 73s de SV2ODL
Thanks for watching. The most difficult situation is during the transition where the old and new waveforms have to coexist with no more channel spectrum made available. This is tough on the broadcasters.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I agree, and the 'lighthouse' model is not a totally applicable case for many markets. The next 5 years are sure to yield some interesting solutions by the engineering teams.
Thank you very much Mike, for the very technical informative video on the various DTV waveform formats and the pros and cons of each method of broadcasting DTV signals. We could use some common sense when choosing a system.
The broadcasters need an argument that leads to revenue to sustain OTA. Currently that is limited to ads. So they are of course interested in new competitive services that leverage their most valuable asset - SPECTRUM.
I used to be concerned about this, but now all of our communication and entertainment (except my radio station) come over optical systems. Great show! 73's🎙KD9OAM🎧
Wow you have a vast technical background! Thanks for sharing this with us. Way above my technical knowledge, but I still feel smarter having had watched this. I would love to see you do a video series on aviation communication some time. Still waiting on the peanut gallery's take on this video, but that's for later I guess. You run a great channel. Take care and 73
Aviation coms is an even more stodgy subject! Any change is glacial. There still might be that piper cub with a 1947 AM transceiver out there! I visited the FAA in Nashua NH (BOS CENTER) in 1997 when they were upgrading their antique radar screens from 1950 Raytheon tubes with analog CRT letters, to PC processors and displays. Motorola won the bid with 400 MHz Power PCs, a vast upgrade. Of course these were essentially obsolete when installed!
@@MIKROWAVE1 Really cool. You got to visit ZBW! I used to live in near Columbia, SC. about a mile from an RCAG site and ten miles south of CAE airport as well. Made for some really interesting radio monitoring. I also got to visit the Columbia airport control tower. You had to call and get permission and they would let you in. This was pre- 911, so they were more easy going. I just happened to go the day they had a big class on operating radio just for pilots, so I got to sit in a room full of pilots, so it was an awesome experience! Right now I'm in western Maine and I can just barely copy ZBW in Augusta. I'm making a beam with a folded dipole driven element with a filter and pre-amp for 134.95. I've got an old Narco Com10 radio that has a blown final, which I want to bypass and use just the receiver. It has 50 Kc channel spacing as it was new in 1967. Another subject, but I've recently got an ARC-5 transmitter for $10 at a flea market and I'm watching your series on this. I've never owned or used one and it's a basket case with only the oscillator tube and no cover or roller inductor. My grandfather was in HI. in WW2 in the signal corps. I don't know what radios they used to decode the Japanese messages, but this is what he and my great uncle did. (who was my grandfather's twin brother). He wasn't sure about the radios, just said he was "going up in the megs". He was great at cw, although not a ham, he helped me study in 1993 when I was first a Johnny novice. Thanks for getting back to me. I love your channel here and you do a great job in putting all of this together with a sense of humor to boot! 73-W1RMD
Interesting, but the limitation with digital is there always a need to use error correction, when you have noise and path issues you can only go so far by doing this. That is why I am working on a new hybrid TV transmission system that is both analog and digital, somewhere between to transmit a signal without the requirement for error correction, where noise reduction is used. By doing this you always get a picture no matter what, it also has very high level of spectrum efficiency, as 100% bandwidth used to send information, making it go over very long distances. This has a lot in common with narrow band television systems that were used in the 1920 to the 1930's, it can also be used via sky-wave propagation at something like VHS quality. As this is a very new approach to modulating TV it has keep me busy two a bit years working on it, as I have just got the modulator working last weekend. Therefore technology is always been worked on and what was once was seen as impossible can now be done, making for a new ways to sent TV pictures.
Very good . I have noticed most new 4K TV sold in us have both ATSC 1 and ATSC 3 receivers built in. The ATSC 2 was never rolled out. Now they are MW (AM) and FM digital broadcast is different and not a mandate so far. Also known as HD radio in US. Other countries using different digital for their AM/FM broadcast. Like DAB . Digital Audio Broadcasting. I can see you doing videos on this as well. Over the years our TV band is US changed a bunch. Loss of CH 1 and upper UHF channels to CH 83. there was re packing of TV stations so no spaces between them. Now the DTV channel is just a number and not the frequency . With a ATSC to NTSC converter the old TY still works. Now in HAM radio we can use both analog and digital TV in out amanture bands . Like the video. RF is RF . still analog ,just digital modulated. 73
And TV will continue to evolve. There are a lot of assumptions about how it will or will not be used, but technically its mature - just software and ASICs at this point. ATSC 1.0 is supported till 2027. So that is a few years for OTA to get sorted before 3.0 gets its bandwidth and we can really see what it will do for both viewers and broadcasters.
Mike since you tackled DTV, maybe suggest looking into the IBOC digital radio that was tried on AM and is currently on many FM stations. Did you know the IBOC system takes up more bandwidth, into the adjacent channels on both sides, than what the AM or FM analog bandwidth uses. Why is the FCC not concerned about this interference?
Interesting! Theoretically this is better use of the channels bandwidth - efficiency... since for instance a 200 kHz channel allocation on FM is an awful big chunk for just stereo audio. But interference is always an issue in a high dollar market.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I checked a local DFM station on 99.3 mhz with my spectrum analyzer & the analog plus the digital signals do occupy a total of 400 khz of bandwidth, going into each adjacent FM channel 99.1 & 99.5. So isn't that an interference issue if you would like to hear the two other adjacent FM stations?
@@MIKROWAVE1 I found this On "Wiki" about IBOC on AM & I have experienced hearing the buzz too. "Both AM and FM IBOC signals cause interference to adjacent-channel stations, but not within the station's interference-free protected contours designated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It has led to derogatory terms such as IBAC (In-band adjacent-channel) and IBUZ (since the interference sounds like a buzz.)"
“57 Channels (and nothing on” - Bruce Springsteen I currently can view 40 channels OTA. Frankly, there is nothing worth watching. I could care less about ATSC 3.0 short of having a signal less susceptible to multipath resulting in pixelization/frozen picture/sound drop out. But I digress. Broadcasters already utilizing 3.0 are encoding their signals… unless you ‘subscribe’ you can’t view. That is a show stopper for me. I do appreciate your technical information… thank you.
There are some nice programs on the OTA where I am. One channel just plays jazz 24/7. Another one runs mystery series. That makes 2 channels of the 127 channels I receive.
ATSC 3.0 has become controversial because broadcasters are demanding encryption, pay TV, and DVR control. Encrypted channels also require an Internet connection to download the keys. ATSC 3.0 also won't require an antenna if you have broadband Internet. Also, the government won't issue rebates for receivers like last time, so people will have to pay for them out of pocket. The receivers cost $100 or more. Because of the controversy and patent licensing disputes, some manufacturers are leaving out support for ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 may even be abandoned. ATSC 1.0 does support H264 on receivers that support it. With all the issues trying to get ATSC 3.0 off the ground, ATSC 1.0 with H264 may end up being the future of digital TV in the US. One television station is also broadcasting H264 over ATSC 1.0.
Yes, and that makes the user experience "I had to pay $100 for this converter and the darn thing doesn't work. I guess I will stream something". I don't plan on going over to ATSC-3. I will get a neighbor to help me carry the TV out to the curb. BTW: In Washington state, there is a station that is broadcasting modern encoding methods on ATSC-1. It seems that because many of the converter boxes can also movies off the hard drive, they have the needed codec and work fine.
When I'm required to provide Internet access is the day I won't be watching TV. I will just watch DVDs and VHS tapes. Besides there is nothing but garbage on the network TV stations. There is more to life than wasting hours behind the tube or video monitor. Television is supposed to be free, they put commercials on cable TV channels which should also be free of commercials. When you pay for a service there should not be any ads to watch. 73
@@kensmith5694 just because you don't want tv programs I can think of many other uses for that box. I have a lot of DVDs and Some VHS tapes I will still watch. But I will join you with my dish receiver and converter boxes I also have an obsolete DVR ready for the junk heap. When you cut the cord that's what it means cut. You don't reconnect it. Off grid means what it says. Not connected via cable. You don't have to live in the 1800's to live off grid. I never want a TV watching me it's supposed to be the other way around. 73
Here in the US the move to ATSC-3 as seen by the viewing public breaks down as: 1) Instead of my $30 box or existing TV I now need to buy a $100 box to be able to watch the same programs. 2) Because of the DRM and encryption nonsense, many of the programs still won't be received, the new box doesn't do the pause, rewind and recording things the old one did and it won't send the program to may phone for me. Sadly advanced technology is being made not to be as good even though technically it can be far better.
Technically the standard is all set up to use repeaters and multiple towers. But it is a hard sell to do it correctly, which is to use repeaters in SFN mode to fill in the fringe gaps, because the broadcast model has always been the big signal off one tower.
No, you need to buy a new converter for about $100 and then it still won't work because of the DRM and encryption nonsense. You will have to connect the internet to get the magic keys. At that point you may as well just stream it and throw away the antenna.
The way I explain OFDM is like this: Imagine being in a large cathedral with lots of echo and reverb. If the organist would start sending out a message in morse code, the dots and dashes will blend into each other. If instead he plays chords, but more slowly, you can carry the same amount of information, but the chords blending together is less of a problem as they are longer. It's also something that's been done in Germany since about 1991 for DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting). The main problem with terrestrial distribution in Germany is actually that there is to little spectrum around. Single Frequency Networks kinda eased that, but with LTE taking much of the "digital dividend" you still end up with your typical 3 muxes. Granted H.265 gives very decent pictures even at rather meager bitrates so you can still have 17 or so channels, but only few people rely on DVB-T2 to get their TV. Around half of Germany gets it's TV via satellite, while the other half is on cable.
@@MIKROWAVE1 Yeah, while I was a student our semester of information technology engineers made a trip to the regional broadcaster some years after they started DAB+. The engineer conducting the tour asked if anybody had a DAB radio. Nobody showed hands until I've said that I've _seen_ one. So it's kinda weird here.
Wow! I'm not a math inclined FPGA developer but I sure worked with those folks at Analog Devices and several Defense Contractors. To them it is just one analog function they tweak of many in a whole family of tools.
Not everyone in the US is within reach of the highspeed internet. A lot of folks can point an antenna at a city 50 miles away and watch TV. They can read a book in the time it takes a web page to load over the tincans and string network they have.
Very complicated but I'm glad I watched. Thanks for your time and effort in putting this together in a digestible format.
About 23 million households access TV over the air in the US. It's larger in the EU at around 250 million households receiving digital over the air TV.
That's because Cable, fiber and Satellite is so prevalent here in the U.S..
In my area of PA, three stories high I get no DTV signals. Surrounded by hills not mountains.
PA has always been the poster child of fringe areas. Cable and Satellite started there. ATSC 3.0 is SFN capable meaning its all set up for remote repeaters simulcasting. But there has to be a business case.
Another great video with excellent demonstration on the facts of our new "digital life's".
There is no need to analyse further more the technical aspects to understand what is happening with the global broadcasting industry and the political "lobbies"!
Regardless of all of this, I'm more than happy who someone have "The Testical" to enlighten the people who watched the video, without drow them to stupid political argument for who's, how's and why?
Well done Mike! I'm really glad for the algorithm's who makes me "stumble" in your channel!
73s de SV2ODL
Very well done! You did a great job of making a concise, waveform based presentation.
Thanks for watching. The most difficult situation is during the transition where the old and new waveforms have to coexist with no more channel spectrum made available. This is tough on the broadcasters.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I agree, and the 'lighthouse' model is not a totally applicable case for many markets. The next 5 years are sure to yield some interesting solutions by the engineering teams.
Thank you very much Mike, for the very technical informative video on the various DTV waveform formats and the pros and cons of each method of broadcasting DTV signals. We could use some common sense when choosing a system.
The broadcasters need an argument that leads to revenue to sustain OTA. Currently that is limited to ads. So they are of course interested in new competitive services that leverage their most valuable asset - SPECTRUM.
I used to be concerned about this, but now all of our communication and entertainment
(except my radio station) come over optical systems. Great show! 73's🎙KD9OAM🎧
You can not easily dismiss the free TV idea. Its part of the American Dream. Do you remember the government converter giveaway for ATSC 1.0?
@@MIKROWAVE1 I am not wanting to be dismissive my friend, I guess I'm just getting a little cynical in my old age.
Wow you have a vast technical background! Thanks for sharing this with us. Way above my technical knowledge, but I still feel smarter having had watched this. I would love to see you do a video series on aviation communication some time. Still waiting on the peanut gallery's take on this video, but that's for later I guess. You run a great channel. Take care and 73
Aviation coms is an even more stodgy subject! Any change is glacial. There still might be that piper cub with a 1947 AM transceiver out there! I visited the FAA in Nashua NH (BOS CENTER) in 1997 when they were upgrading their antique radar screens from 1950 Raytheon tubes with analog CRT letters, to PC processors and displays. Motorola won the bid with 400 MHz Power PCs, a vast upgrade. Of course these were essentially obsolete when installed!
@@MIKROWAVE1 Really cool. You got to visit ZBW! I used to live in near Columbia, SC. about a mile from an RCAG site and ten miles south of CAE airport as well. Made for some really interesting radio monitoring. I also got to visit the Columbia airport control tower. You had to call and get permission and they would let you in. This was pre- 911, so they were more easy going. I just happened to go the day they had a big class on operating radio just for pilots, so I got to sit in a room full of pilots, so it was an awesome experience! Right now I'm in western Maine and I can just barely copy ZBW in Augusta. I'm making a beam with a folded dipole driven element with a filter and pre-amp for 134.95. I've got an old Narco Com10 radio that has a blown final, which I want to bypass and use just the receiver. It has 50 Kc channel spacing as it was new in 1967. Another subject, but I've recently got an ARC-5 transmitter for $10 at a flea market and I'm watching your series on this. I've never owned or used one and it's a basket case with only the oscillator tube and no cover or roller inductor. My grandfather was in HI. in WW2 in the signal corps. I don't know what radios they used to decode the Japanese messages, but this is what he and my great uncle did. (who was my grandfather's twin brother). He wasn't sure about the radios, just said he was "going up in the megs". He was great at cw, although not a ham, he helped me study in 1993 when I was first a Johnny novice. Thanks for getting back to me. I love your channel here and you do a great job in putting all of this together with a sense of humor to boot! 73-W1RMD
Interesting, but the limitation with digital is there always a need to use error correction, when you have noise and path issues you can only go so far by doing this. That is why I am working on a new hybrid TV transmission system that is both analog and digital, somewhere between to transmit a signal without the requirement for error correction, where noise reduction is used. By doing this you always get a picture no matter what, it also has very high level of spectrum efficiency, as 100% bandwidth used to send information, making it go over very long distances. This has a lot in common with narrow band television systems that were used in the 1920 to the 1930's, it can also be used via sky-wave propagation at something like VHS quality. As this is a very new approach to modulating TV it has keep me busy two a bit years working on it, as I have just got the modulator working last weekend. Therefore technology is always been worked on and what was once was seen as impossible can now be done, making for a new ways to sent TV pictures.
There are many ways to get to Chicago! Nothing beats peak power and physics and of course, Shannon.
Very good . I have noticed most new 4K TV sold in us have both ATSC 1 and ATSC 3 receivers built in. The ATSC 2 was never rolled out. Now they are MW (AM) and FM digital broadcast is different and not a mandate so far. Also known as HD radio in US. Other countries using different digital for their AM/FM broadcast. Like DAB . Digital Audio Broadcasting. I can see you doing videos on this as well. Over the years our TV band is US changed a bunch. Loss of CH 1 and upper UHF channels to CH 83. there was re packing of TV stations so no spaces between them. Now the DTV channel is just a number and not the frequency . With a ATSC to NTSC converter the old TY still works. Now in HAM radio we can use both analog and digital TV in out amanture bands . Like the video. RF is RF . still analog ,just digital modulated. 73
And TV will continue to evolve. There are a lot of assumptions about how it will or will not be used, but technically its mature - just software and ASICs at this point. ATSC 1.0 is supported till 2027. So that is a few years for OTA to get sorted before 3.0 gets its bandwidth and we can really see what it will do for both viewers and broadcasters.
...no more pilot. Oh well. Thanks Mike! 73 de W3IHM
Mike since you tackled DTV, maybe suggest looking into the IBOC digital radio that was tried on AM and is currently on many FM stations. Did you know the IBOC system takes up more bandwidth, into the adjacent channels on both sides, than what the AM or FM analog bandwidth uses. Why is the FCC not concerned about this interference?
Interesting! Theoretically this is better use of the channels bandwidth - efficiency... since for instance a 200 kHz channel allocation on FM is an awful big chunk for just stereo audio. But interference is always an issue in a high dollar market.
@@MIKROWAVE1 I checked a local DFM station on 99.3 mhz with my spectrum analyzer & the analog plus the digital signals do occupy a total of 400 khz of bandwidth, going into each adjacent FM channel 99.1 & 99.5. So isn't that an interference issue if you would like to hear the two other adjacent FM stations?
@@MIKROWAVE1 I found this On "Wiki" about IBOC on AM & I have experienced hearing the buzz too. "Both AM and FM IBOC signals cause interference to adjacent-channel stations, but not within the station's interference-free protected contours designated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It has led to derogatory terms such as IBAC (In-band adjacent-channel) and IBUZ (since the interference sounds like a buzz.)"
@JCWise-sf9ww That is the definition, apparently. The station must accept this interference under those rules.
“57 Channels (and nothing on” - Bruce Springsteen
I currently can view 40 channels OTA. Frankly, there is nothing worth watching. I could care less about ATSC 3.0 short of having a signal less susceptible to multipath resulting in pixelization/frozen picture/sound drop out. But I digress. Broadcasters already utilizing 3.0 are encoding their signals… unless you ‘subscribe’ you can’t view. That is a show stopper for me.
I do appreciate your technical information… thank you.
There are some nice programs on the OTA where I am. One channel just plays jazz 24/7. Another one runs mystery series.
That makes 2 channels of the 127 channels I receive.
ATSC 3.0 has become controversial because broadcasters are demanding encryption, pay TV, and DVR control. Encrypted channels also require an Internet connection to download the keys. ATSC 3.0 also won't require an antenna if you have broadband Internet. Also, the government won't issue rebates for receivers like last time, so people will have to pay for them out of pocket. The receivers cost $100 or more. Because of the controversy and patent licensing disputes, some manufacturers are leaving out support for ATSC 3.0. ATSC 3.0 may even be abandoned. ATSC 1.0 does support H264 on receivers that support it. With all the issues trying to get ATSC 3.0 off the ground, ATSC 1.0 with H264 may end up being the future of digital TV in the US. One television station is also broadcasting H264 over ATSC 1.0.
Yes, and that makes the user experience "I had to pay $100 for this converter and the darn thing doesn't work. I guess I will stream something".
I don't plan on going over to ATSC-3. I will get a neighbor to help me carry the TV out to the curb.
BTW: In Washington state, there is a station that is broadcasting modern encoding methods on ATSC-1. It seems that because many of the converter boxes can also movies off the hard drive, they have the needed codec and work fine.
When I'm required to provide Internet access is the day I won't be watching TV. I will just watch DVDs and VHS tapes. Besides there is nothing but garbage on the network TV stations. There is more to life than wasting hours behind the tube or video monitor. Television is supposed to be free, they put commercials on cable TV channels which should also be free of commercials. When you pay for a service there should not be any ads to watch. 73
@@ronb6182 Yes the same applies for me. The internet is never going to be connected to my TV. I may need help to carry it to the curb.
@@kensmith5694 just because you don't want tv programs I can think of many other uses for that box. I have a lot of DVDs and Some VHS tapes I will still watch. But I will join you with my dish receiver and converter boxes I also have an obsolete DVR ready for the junk heap. When you cut the cord that's what it means cut. You don't reconnect it. Off grid means what it says. Not connected via cable. You don't have to live in the 1800's to live off grid. I never want a TV watching me it's supposed to be the other way around. 73
Here in the US the move to ATSC-3 as seen by the viewing public breaks down as:
1) Instead of my $30 box or existing TV I now need to buy a $100 box to be able to watch the same programs.
2) Because of the DRM and encryption nonsense, many of the programs still won't be received, the new box doesn't do the pause, rewind and recording things the old one did and it won't send the program to may phone for me.
Sadly advanced technology is being made not to be as good even though technically it can be far better.
Ofdm the magic of 5g, 4g and wifi, not the best for long distance modes😢😮
Technically the standard is all set up to use repeaters and multiple towers. But it is a hard sell to do it correctly, which is to use repeaters in SFN mode to fill in the fringe gaps, because the broadcast model has always been the big signal off one tower.
Will ATSC 3.0 signal feed ATSC 1.0 home receivers?
No, you need to buy a new converter for about $100 and then it still won't work because of the DRM and encryption nonsense. You will have to connect the internet to get the magic keys. At that point you may as well just stream it and throw away the antenna.
The way I explain OFDM is like this: Imagine being in a large cathedral with lots of echo and reverb. If the organist would start sending out a message in morse code, the dots and dashes will blend into each other. If instead he plays chords, but more slowly, you can carry the same amount of information, but the chords blending together is less of a problem as they are longer. It's also something that's been done in Germany since about 1991 for DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting).
The main problem with terrestrial distribution in Germany is actually that there is to little spectrum around. Single Frequency Networks kinda eased that, but with LTE taking much of the "digital dividend" you still end up with your typical 3 muxes. Granted H.265 gives very decent pictures even at rather meager bitrates so you can still have 17 or so channels, but only few people rely on DVB-T2 to get their TV. Around half of Germany gets it's TV via satellite, while the other half is on cable.
DAB's success in Europe has been a story that most Americans have no concept of.
@@MIKROWAVE1 Yeah, while I was a student our semester of information technology engineers made a trip to the regional broadcaster some years after they started DAB+. The engineer conducting the tour asked if anybody had a DAB radio. Nobody showed hands until I've said that I've _seen_ one. So it's kinda weird here.
Please show ifft function in detail 😂😂😂
Wow! I'm not a math inclined FPGA developer but I sure worked with those folks at Analog Devices and several Defense Contractors. To them it is just one analog function they tweak of many in a whole family of tools.
we? Harmful interference are contests and traffic nets.
I prefer the use of spectrum for health reporting QSOs. How are you?
@@MIKROWAVE1 Since you saw me on Saturday you should know.
The BC-221 won't turn on, do I need to plug it in? Is the battery dead?
@@Capecodham Help!
Why bother to broadcast ?
Put it on the internet, avalable on cellular, copper and fibre .
Because the internet is not free over the airwaves that’s why. Broadcast TV is. The broadcasters stay in business from selling advertisements.
Not everyone in the US is within reach of the highspeed internet. A lot of folks can point an antenna at a city 50 miles away and watch TV. They can read a book in the time it takes a web page to load over the tincans and string network they have.