Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Torschlusspaniker t1_j6atzo4 wrote

I very much want atsc 3.0 to be a thing and I am sick of waiting.

Glad I did not pull the trigger and buy a tuner. At this rate the spec will be replaced before it even gets rolled out.

19

Mechanicallvlan t1_j6c4het wrote

I've been pretty disappointed with it. ABC and FOX are still broadcasting in 720p. My NBC affiliate's 1080p broadcast has been so shitty and compressed that I flip to the old 1080i ATSC 1.0 broadcast.

11

elister t1_j6d1qjp wrote

ATSC 3 is broadcast in the Seattle area, but there's no 4k content. Superbowl is on Fox this year, I expect their 4k channel to broadcast it 4k, but it's probably going to be unconverted from 720p. Otherwise all the main networks are broadcasting 4k signals.

Note: Bought a hdhr 4k (two 4k, two 1080p tuners) and 4k broadcasts use AC-4 for audio, which only works with their hdhr app. Apps like Kodi, Plex and VLC can't decode AC-4 so all you get is video.

5

teacher_comp t1_j6eam5a wrote

But who cares what resolution something is if you can’t get it at all? In 2007 when I bought my nice antenna, I could get 54 channels here in Seattle. Now, I can only ABC and its crappy subchannels, and that is unreliable. We need to make it work again in the first place.

2

elister t1_j6eo2i0 wrote

When I lived on First Hill, no way could I get all channels. In Kent East Hill, I easily get them all using a $70 antenna built for RVs. You may need to upgrade your antenna if you got a $20 leaf clone.

2

wkomorow t1_j6bg8nf wrote

External tuners and especially DVRs are expensive and only have a few manufacturers at this point. Tablo pulled theirs, some report Homerun HD do not work with some broadcasters. I could use a tuner, but it needs to be in the $50 range. I would pay $200 for a dvr since my recast is dying, but there is no guarantee those on the market will work with the final standards since the standards seem to be evolving.

3

bros402 t1_j6dl9t8 wrote

HDHomeRun works well if you have a cable subscription + a CableCARD

3

elister t1_j6eqwiw wrote

Only drawback are cable companies limiting cable cards to 720p.

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j6dtk9t wrote

Depending on your threshold of pain, there are quite cheap DVRs available. The one I have loses programming on power fails but it's got some cool metering for signal strength. It's the "iView 3300STB ATSC Converter Box".

I think it's $30.

2

wkomorow t1_j6dugzm wrote

Thanks, but we have all major networks using ATSC 3. I can not get one of their ATSC 1 signal. I don't think that DVR can receive ATSC 3. It looks like an interesting device though.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j6dwwdj wrote

You're correct - it cannot see ATSC 3. I somehow missed that that was a constraint here. Oops!

I'm in flyover country so ATSC 3 hasn't made it here.

1

wkomorow t1_j6e0oqe wrote

No problem, it might have been a good replacement for my recast. They just have the big 4 and PBS on a single frequency here using ATSC 3. I would benefit from ATSC 3 now because the ATSC 3 is on rf 22, and one of my networks is on rf 7 (ATSC), which has too much interference on it. I appreciate the response.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j6e3hi1 wrote

> which has too much interference on it.

Edit: I'm being very literal about "interference" here but hopefully, the other pathologies are spelled out.

That doesn't sound right. That should be licensed bandwidth. I can easily see simply R squared loss or multipath being a problem ( multipath rejection being the one killer feature of 3.0 ) but if anybody's emitting on that band, I'd bet the FCC would like to know.

They'll take it less seriously than HF/UHF interference on aviation comms of course.

Then again, 7 is at the edge of a band plan.

https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/areas/interference-resolution

1

wkomorow t1_j6e6w6p wrote

The FCC does know. They are the ones that told me solar inverters are except from section 15 part b of their regs. We have suppression and shielding and cancellation on the inverters and the antenna. Engineers have been out. The only solution that would work is ground install of the antenna, because the issue is localized to the roof. I would lose several stations in a ground install, we did several tests. The only solution is replace all 24 inverters. Not worth it given I mostly watch TV at night, when there is no interference.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j6e8al7 wrote

> They are the ones that told me solar inverters are except from section 15 part b of their regs.

Gaaah! Well, poot then.

> The only solution is replace all 24 inverters.

You are a very thorough human being :)

So being a nerd, I gotta ask - those were NOT granted Part B but because green, they're exempted? I honestly thought everything ever made had to have Part B.

I'd lean on the solar panel vendors to put a grounded Faraday cage on the inverters. At their expense. I'm also wondering why an inverter is emitting in that band... That's pretty high up in frequency for an inverter. Is it a square wave inverter? This is very clearly a design defect.

My experience is that requests like that on legal stationery/letterhead get more attention.... lawyers love doing that sort of thing for you. Especially since there's clearly a tort; FCC regs do not constitute a fully legally binding exemption. Er, they used to not anyway. You're one guy and I imagine the solar panel people have more than one customer...

1

wkomorow t1_j6e9nmy wrote

I am in a iffy reception area (valley surrounded by mountains) with traditionally very heavy cable penetration, so very few antennas around. No one around me has an antenna, which makes giving directions easy - look for the house with an antenna. My inververters are 10 years old and they convert dc to ac at the panel. The newer converters use a better shielding. It is more of an annoyance than a problem.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j6eat0p wrote

I've been on teams that had to get Part B before. Makes me grumpy about it :)

I still feel like the vendor has some measure of liability here. Part B isn't the same level as an electrical hazard but I'd at least try to get a healthy discount on upgraded converters. Find out the depreciation schedule for them , blah blah blah.

Any rate, an interesting issue and thanks for it.

1

elister t1_j6ephz1 wrote

You can find used dual tuner hdhrs off eBay for $50-70. The newer ones have USB for local dvr recording, otherwise it records to a smb share just fine, but your paying $30 year for dvr use.

I used to have the cable card version of the hdhr and you couldn't record ppv/vod or premium channels like HBO and Showtime. Everything else recorded fine.

The files it records can easily be edited. Using any Kodi or VLC client (phone, tablet, media player) I can play the file, even while it's still recording. With Plex, I have to convert the file if I wanted to edit them and naturally have to wait for it to stop recording before I can view it. Also need Plex Pass for hdhr support, which varries from $100-130. Using Android channels app to dvr, it's free, but you can't transfer the files and they can't be viewed from any other device.

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j6dsl7g wrote

Tuners run like $30 bucks for one that can't tolerate things like power failure well.

1

EZJohnson t1_j6dsrs7 wrote

Wow it's almost like forcing the use of an unsupported audio codec with draconian licensing was a bad idea. /s

4

UndyingShadow t1_j6b8pay wrote

If I were a cynic, I’d suggest that this is just wanting to stop transmitting 1.0 so they can get more money from users who stop getting TV and think they have to get cable (since “broadcast TV” fees make up a huge chunk of station revenue)

3

Elon_Kums t1_j6c2pnu wrote

Should just end TV and use the spectrum for something useful.

−6