Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

The Future of TV is Up in the Air (theverge.com) 68

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Broadcasters are betting that antennas and modern DVRs will help them stay relevant. But a stalled transition to ATSC 3.0 and massive growth of linear streaming services could throw a wrench into those plans. From a report: Antenna television is back. In recent years, millions of cord-cutters have rediscovered antennas as a reliable way to watch broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX, all for free -- and now, broadcasters are eager to get the rest of us hooked. They've been marching ahead with the deployment of ATSC 3.0, a next-generation broadcast format that supports 4K, HDR, Dolby Atmos audio, and even interactive apps over the air, no cable or streaming subscription required.

A little over a year ago, one of the country's biggest broadcasters made an unexpected acquisition to help bolster the transition: The E.W. Scripps Company, which operates dozens of ABC, NBC and Fox stations as well as a handful of nationwide broadcast networks, quietly bought Nuvyyo, a Canadian startup best known for its Tablo DVR devices for cord-cutters. The acquisition, which hasn't been previously reported, is part of Scripps' multibillion-dollar bet on acquiring stations, networks, and spectrum for an ATSC 3.0-powered antenna TV future. But the transition to ATSC 3.0 has been anything but smooth. Five years after its launch, the format is still not available in many major markets. Support from TV makers has been limited, and some of the promised features likely won't be available for years to come. Meanwhile, free streaming TV channels are growing by leaps and bounds and are quickly becoming a viable alternative to both cable and antenna TV. As it stands, the future of broadcast TV is looking remarkably fuzzy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Future of TV is Up in the Air More

The Future of TV is Up in the Air

Comments Filter:

  • Background Radiation (Score:5, Funny)

    by neoRUR ( 674398 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @04:26PM (#63359805)

    The best thing you can see with an old TV is the background Radiation of the Universe.

  • Antenna television ... as a reliable way to watch broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX, all for free -- and now, ... They've been marching ahead with the deployment of ATSC 3.0, ... that supports 4K, HDR, Dolby Atmos audio, ...

    Maybe it's just me, but very little of what's broadcast on those networks needs, or benefits much from, those technologies, certainly not all the commercials. To be fair, that's probably the same for most content on many (most?) cable channels too.

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @04:34PM (#63359837)
      The interactivity & "engagement" is for the advertisers, not the viewers. They want to show that people actually watch the ads.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      The "And", for the networks at least, is what is not mentioned there: DRM: https://www.atsc.org/atsc-docu... [atsc.org]

      And this is the exact reason consumers should be pushing against it.

      • The "And", for the networks at least, is what is not mentioned there: DRM: ...

        Yup. It's everywhere. As I noted elsewhere, before the analog to digital transition, I built/used a MythTV system, with analog tuners, with my cable service. Then Cox dropped analog and went digital only. I could have switched to digital tuners, but their new signals were encrypted requiring a CableCard. I could have added an external Silicon Dust unit that accepts a CableCard to my MythTv system, but they started enforcing the Copy Control bit (randomly, then universally) preventing saving/recording.

    • Antenna television ... as a reliable way to watch broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX, all for free -- and now, ... They've been marching ahead with the deployment of ATSC 3.0, ... that supports 4K, HDR, Dolby Atmos audio, ...

      Maybe it's just me, but very little of what's broadcast on those networks needs, or benefits much from, those technologies, certainly not all the commercials. To be fair, that's probably the same for most content on many (most?) cable channels too.

      Viewing of NFL game broadcasts by local stations OTA certainly would benefit.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @04:58PM (#63359911)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by crow ( 16139 )

      I just saw a YouTube video about some computer in the 80s in England that did just that. It could download software that was broadcast on regular TV broadcasts. I could see Microsoft issuing patches that way (digitally signed), allowing you to update a computer without Internet access, though that's a lot of work for a very small market, so in practical terms, it would be cheaper to mail out flash drives than set of the infrastructure to send out code over TV.

      It's still a cool idea.

      • Maybe I'll remember some details later, but when I was in high school we had an experimental box from the cable company hooked up to our Mac. It basically implemented unidirectional UUCP via cable, it might have even been that literally underneath for all I know — if I were doing it at the time, that's definitely what I would have done, because why reinvent the wheel? Especially because they were delivering some USENET groups, and also files. Anyway it was connected to our Mac with a serial cable. The

    • That was tried by the Nabu Network in 1983 on cable TV systems, broadcasting data at 6 megabits per second! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It could have worked over the air just as easily as any TV channel.

      The receiver + computer just had a bootstrap ROM to download the OS from the network, then that would fetch the menu of the day, and then it could download the program you wanted to run. Since it was unidirectional (designed as bi-directional, but cable TV hardware of that time didn't work that way)

  • Local stations have things that streaming does not (Score:5, Informative)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @05:00PM (#63359915)

    Particularly local news, events, and content .
    Also, local ads. Rememebr that ads serve as a product/service discovery method, diminished by internet search, but still relevant.

    Having said that, most people lost the savvy and interest to use OtA TV, and local TV stations, instead of using the extra BW of ATSC3.0 to give better quality Image, are using it to enable more low quality muxes*. Because more multiplexes mean more channels and more channels means more ads

    Also, they do not invest in what makes them unique (locoal content), instead, they are firing their local content staff left right and center...

    * An analog channel was 6Mhz (in NTSC, in PAL/SECAM it was 5Mhz,in a few regions was 7Mhz). With OG-ATSC, that could hold 2HD channels, but instead, stations went to 1HD 3SD or (6SD). Probably with ATSC3, most station poerators are NOT going to go with 4k, or 1440p, not even 1080P HDR High bitrate. No, you should consider yourself fortunate if they give you 1 (or two if they are feeling generous) 720P Channels, and the rest is SD filler

    • Sorry to bother, do you have some bibliography about the digital broadcasting? (like the info you just writed). Thanks, very kind.

      • Sorry to bother, do you have some bibliography about the digital broadcasting? (like the info you just writed).
        Thanks, very kind.

        Yes and no.
        In my country/region (Venezuela/LatAm) we went with ISDB-T, and I have Bibliography on that (on my BC847C stricken Synology DS1515+ NAS and in the pain in the ass hyperbackup drive).

        About ATCS I followed development on 1.0 on my IEEE magazines (proud member since 1992) and the internet. And 3.0 only interest me in as much as it was the first OtA 4K Standard, and parts of it will be used by Brazil's TV3.0 , but no specific bibliography to speak of.

        Sorry

        Nonetheless, the internet is your friend, if

        • That's complete rubbish, there is DVB-T2 in the UK which is definitely located in Europe.

          • That's complete rubbish, there is DVB-T2 in the UK which is definitely located in Europe.

            Not to go beyond DVB-T2 means no DVB-T3. The Europeans went from analog to DVB-T(1), and From DVB-T(1) to DVB-T2, and decided (in the early '10s) not to go beyond DVB-T2, ergo, no DVB-T3

            IF they changed their minds in the late '10s or early '20s, , and we end up seeing a DVB-T3 , well, that's a different thing.

  • OTA User Here (Score:3)

    by btroy ( 4122663 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @05:07PM (#63359935)
    Our TV is primarily used for OTA (over the air) channels and then streaming from a device. I'm amazed how many channels I get and the quality of the picture for primary channel.

    There are likely millions of these TV's in use in the U.S. for watching OTA programming. Because of that legacy of equipment, moving from ATSC 1 to 3 will require something very similar to when we moved from analog to digital, a legislative push.

    As far as the pay for use DVR, probably not likely to happen. The market of people using OTA are generally like me, cheap. Honestly, more people are willing to spend money on streaming services.
    • I like the idea of OTA in concept. In practice, though, I have to wonder if there are enough viewers using it to make it worth the spectrum and the shift to a new OTA tech specification that requires all new hardware, or if it would be better to just convert it all to unlicensed spectrum the general public could use for things like new forms of wireless networking.

      This is no slam on those who enjoy OTA, it's just that someday I'm betting the broadcasters will shift over to streaming themselves as a matter
      • With much effort, I can precariously balance a 40 year old bow tie and get OTA on a 7 year old roku tv, which buffers 2 hours letting me skip ads. It was much easier to stream Locast when it it existed, as a nonprofit rebroadcaster specifically allowed by copyright law, until a (Iâ(TM)m sure, now, very comfortably retired) judge decided Locast didnâ(TM)t keep their donations siloed enough in his/her opinion. I watched more legacy TV, and far more OTA ads when Locast existed, but given the graying

      • This is no slam on those who enjoy OTA, it's just that someday I'm betting the broadcasters will shift over to streaming themselves as a matter of cost efficiency, rather than maintaining studios with big antennas and high power broadcast gear, and then who provides content for OTA? It isn't just all the TVs that would have to switch to a new ATSC spec, it's the broadcasters, and I bet their equipment is a lot costlier.

        In terms of energy there have been recent studies in Europe showing broadcast is well less than half the cost of OTT.

        ATSC3 is long term better for broadcasters due to the massively increased efficiency. The system allows them to dial in what they want trading off bandwidth for distance / power depending on which is more important for their market.

        • I don't doubt that the total cost in energy of OTT services is more than broadcast, but it sounds like a silly comparison to begin with. It's not like the Internet backbone structure, ISPs, DNS, home networks, or individual user devices would stop being operated if users were perusing Facebook rather than watching OTT TV streaming. Much of that runs even when users are dormant.

          From a broadcaster perspective, the cost of providing service through OTT is a different calculation as well, because they aren't

          • I don't doubt that the total cost in energy of OTT services is more than broadcast, but it sounds like a silly comparison to begin with. It's not like the Internet backbone structure, ISPs, DNS, home networks, or individual user devices would stop being operated if users were perusing Facebook rather than watching OTT TV streaming. Much of that runs even when users are dormant.

            Here is one such report. Their calculation accounts for shared infrastructure. (pg9-11)

            https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__dat... [ofcom.org.uk]

            From a broadcaster perspective, the cost of providing service through OTT is a different calculation as well, because they aren't laying the fiber, setting up the routers, managing DNS, etc., they're operating on a common service that's already in existence.

            Again the report accounts for shared infrastructure however it does not address the issue of cost to broadcasters only aggregate energy / carbon costs.

            At the end of the day it costs money to consume energy. From report difference is falling on the broadcasters side. ISPs and CDNs are unlikely to absorb their energy costs without passing them along with a customary markup. I don't pre

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by G00F ( 241765 )

      so if I have a modernish TV, what do I need in order to get OTA channels?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by btroy ( 4122663 )

        so if I have a modernish TV, what do I need in order to get OTA channels?

        It depends on your distance from the transmitters. But basically you need an antenna and 75 ohm connector (usually comes with antenna).

        In U.S. you can learn this at https://www.fcc.gov/media/engi... [fcc.gov].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        a ten buck antenna.

        I'm going to have to run a cable through the attic to put an antenna outside or in my garage, but that's because they just built a school that blocks the line of sight to the transmitter eight miles away from part of my house.

  • My biggest complaint about DTV aren't that it's 1080p (or 1080i or 720p/i), it's that the audio sync is off. This is likely due to my TV, but surely a standard could better enforce that.

    Another thing that would help compete with streaming services would be to incorporate multiple audio and text streams for better captioning and alternate language support (and perhaps to provide alternate audio streams like one that makes dialog more prominent for older audiences).

    The Wikipedia page for ATSC 3.0 [wikipedia.org] doesn't me

  • I am a fan of OTA (Score:3)

    by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @05:19PM (#63359969)
    My OTA reception is not subject to the vagaries of my cable TV reliability or my internet connectivity. Plus, they cannot easily monetize based on my viewing habits or inject targeted advertising. Also, it tremendously cheaper. OTA is a win for the viewer.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      >My OTA reception is not subject to the vagaries of my cable TV reliability or my internet connectivity.

      it can.

      about three weeks ago we had a big windstorm, with 80mph gusts.

      It put enough dust in the air that there were specklings in our OTA recordings from that night.

      (and that won't even be our biggest storm this year; we typically get t least one with 100mph gusts).

      hawk

  • I cut the cord several years ago, bought a powered attic antenna, and hooked it up to our four-tuner Tablo. Added a few Roku client devices and haven't looked back. The local stations through the Tablo account for 60%+ of our viewing, with the rest from a handful of streaming services. Local news and primetime programming recordings OTA is usually the first choice. At the end of the day, we are still only paying a fraction of what DirecTV or the cable company was charging.

  • I use my TiVo Roamio connected to an antenna for most of my TV and if stations near me go to ATSC 3.0, does that mean Iâ(TM)ll have to buy a new tv tuner system?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      I've heard that the plan is to set up some kind of legacy 1.0 transmitters which will have a few of the primary network channels, even mixing multiple networks on the same transmitter. Given bandwidth limitations they will probably down-sample them to SD. But for most of the current SD sub-channels you will probably be unable to receive them once the station upgrades its transmitter.
  • I won't setup an antenna to stream local channels but if you will allow me to stream them over the internet I may occasionally watch. But whenever a company tries to provide options to allow streaming local channels over the internet (e.g. Locast) the broadcast TV industry keeps suing them out of existence. Do broadcasters want people to watch or not??

  • ATSC 3.0 for me has been a game changer in the Washington DC market at least. In the boonies of Frederick County, MD, it was very difficult for me to get CBS Channel 9.1 from Washington DC on ATSC 1.0 from my attic antenna for Baltimore Ravens games. Extremely finicky signals coupled with the fact that they were VHF which is highly prone to disturbance from solar radiation and even the recessed lights in my home killed the signal when I switched them on!

    Enter ATSC 3.0. I manage to get a consistent signal ac

  • Towers are expensive. Transmitters are expensive. Staff to run them are expensive. Broadcasting a signal is bad for the bottom line. Advertising? The internet has cut in to that revenue stream. So they reduce the quality of programming to save bucks, pushing the good stuff to OTT streaming.

    But you also get to force every cable subscriber to pay for your channel thanks to government regulation...and there's sports and news that keep your channel in demand so when a provider stops playing ball the customers g

  • We just got rid of our HDTV from 2004 earlier this year (it was a tube TV that weighed almost 200 pounds). ATSC has been around for twenty years. Changing to support a new standard means obsoleting tons of equipment. Yes, it enables 4K HDR content. It uses H.265 instead of MPEG-2 to enable that, along with a different encoding method. That change in encoding method almost certainly means an existing computer tuner that extracts the bitstream (like my HDHomerun tuner) won't just extract the new bitstrea

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Changing to support a new standard means obsoleting tons of equipment.

      Not so much. Back during the analog to digital conversion, I picked up a couple of nice ATSC tuner boxes, cheap (like $50 each). They fed my old sets with composite or component video, HDMI or a channel 3 modulator. As time has passed, I have scrapped the old TV sets. But the tuners still work fine. I imagine that when ATSC 3.0 comes out, new boxes will be available. The old ones will go, but the nicer flat panel, big screen TV sets will stay.

      There's a reason that audiophiles swear by component systems. Yo

  • Their first mistake was trying to work with TV makers! TV makers are slow and horrible to implement anything that adds cost (especially anything related to broadcast TV which they know 95% of their customers don't care about).
    ATSC? Cablecard? None of that was ever working or widespread. And no one wants to replace their TV to get a new service.
    The other big problem is the antenna and cabling required to hook up your TV for broadcast. Unless you are wired (or willing to pay someone to do it) it's too much of

  • Guys, you just published that 100-300Tb SSDs are going to be available soon, there are going to be massive switch to 4K and 8K movie formats and 1Gb fiber networks. So don't waste your time on trying to save TV, it is impossible. I see TV news channels at TV screens at airports, you know it is like a time travel, I have that warm nostalgia feeling of coming back to my childhood when I watched TV for the last time.

  • We already have a broadcaster pushing 9 streams over a single channel using crummy h.262 codecs as-is. ATSC3 will free up a ton of capability for a lot more channels.

  • There is no way I'll ever go back to OTA TV. There will be ads galore, which I refuse to endure: I'd rather watch nothing than been forced to watch ads. The news? I get everything I need and I want online, from any sources that I am interested in, and it is a far better experience than having to listen to a talking head reading the news for you. Local news? The same, with the additional advantage that there are always local forums that give you further information.

    As far as I am concerned OTA TV may rot in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      I rarely see ads because my MythTV only records the few shows I want to watch, and a lot of those are on PBS. Unless I'm watching live I can just skip them. Also, having grown up GenX, my brain can easily tune out ads, so well that sometimes I even forget to skip them.

  • ...might as well use it.

    I did a presentation on my "OTA cord-cutting adventure" for my local Unix Users' Group, highlighting how the SiliconDust software was Unix software, only ported to Win and Mac. It's one command to run a Linux daemon to pile up all your OTA TV as simple, unencrypted .MPG files on your LInux box, and share that out with SMB to the rest of the house. The TV is connected to a cheap ultrabook that can show the OTA-captured .MPG files, run Netflix and another streamer, play downloads.

    Rese

  • Why focus so much energy on broadcast TV; fix the licensing model so local stations can live-stream over the internet, maybe even with a modest DVR type of functionality. Or go full-monty and let local stations be on-demand portals to the network...

  • Seems a lot easier to just pirate shows.

  • But will they have shows worth watching ? (Score:3)

    by bsdetector101 ( 6345122 ) on Saturday March 11, 2023 @07:01AM (#63361209)
    Broadcasters are betting that antennas and modern DVRs will help them stay relevant. broadcast networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX, all for free. BUT......who wants to watch crappy shows ? I gave up DishTV over 10 years ago, because there was nothing that the family wanted to watch across ALL networks. Out of 250 channels, we were down to 2-3 channels that maybe we watched some. Antenna won't do me any good anyway as I live to far away, too many trees, hills.

  • I switched to OTA a long time ago. There is only one problem: no content, too much commercials. The only thing worth watching is the first few minutes of local news until they go into an infinite series of commercials. Water, water, everywhere....

  • ATSC 3.0 has other benefits. It uses robust OFDM modulation instead of the fragile 8VSB that is used for ATSC 1.0, so it will hold up much better in the face of multipath distortion and many more people will be able to get good reception with indoor antennas. Between the higher data rate and the much more efficient video compression, each channel will have 8x as much capacity on average (stations can choose their bit rate, which is a tradeoff between capacity and robustness), allowing more channels to be ca

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close