Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday May 29 2017, @03:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the Looks-Better==Is-Better? dept.

Consumer Reports is running an article titled Free Over-the-Air TV Is Going to Get Better. They're rolling out a new standard, ATSC 3.0.

According to the article, you'll be able to watch OTA (over the air) TV on your phone or tablet! I wrote an article a few years back wondering why you couldn't already.

It's a fairly long and very informative article, but very much worth a read. It only talks about American broadcasts, no word about when or if it will reach other countries, but my guess is it won't be long.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:44PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:44PM (#517177)

    "wondering why you couldn't already"

    Answer: Money. Same reason most phones don't get free radio despite having FM tuners (although that's getting better, slowly).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:49PM (#517181)

      I don't understand your "money" reason.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday May 29 2017, @03:56PM (#517183) Journal

        Mobile companies make money from charging for mobile data [npr.org] and hence frequently turn off things like FM tuners in devices. If you allow people to catch OTA broadcasts for free, the mobile companies lose out on data revenue.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:56PM (#517269)

          ATSC 3.0 has special sauce in it that makes mobile reception (as in receiving while moving) work better.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:08PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:08PM (#517188)

    They could be using those improvements to offer more channels rather than channels that have so many wasted pixels that they aren't actually visible to most viewers. Apart from wealthy viewers that would probably be getting the content from other sources, this makes absolutely no sense for people watching OTA.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:18PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:18PM (#517193)

      They could be using those improvements to offer more channels rather than channels that have so many wasted pixels that they aren't actually visible to most viewers.

      Since most channels are wasted pixels anyway, I don't see much difference :)

      For example, consider how much of a typical cable TV package is just padding. How many reality TV channels do viewers really need or want?

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:30PM (#517200)

        How many reality TV channels do viewers really need or want?

        None. There are YouTube channels for reality crap. Speaking of, where's the SoylentYT channel complete with "Uncle Nigger's Clubhouse" and Soylent staffers in blackface?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:02PM (#517224)

        This is over the air, so none of your comment applies. There's a huge need for more OTA channels which is the main reason this is happening. The cable companies hate the competing platform.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:55PM (#517289)

          This is over the air, so none of your comment applies.

          It was a comparison. I was pointing out that if you add more channels, you'll and up in the same situation as cable TV, with a few decent channels and a lot of useless waste. Might as well use the waste to slightly improve the good stuff instead.

          There's a huge need for more OTA channels which is the main reason this is happening.

          Why what is happening, 4K? I thought that the whole problem was that this (aka more OTA channels) isn't happening.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:01PM (#517275)

      They could be using those improvements to offer more channels rather than channels that have so many wasted pixels that they aren't actually visible to most viewers.

      Why do you think they are not doing that?
      The new spec includes h265 which is really good at squeezing high-quality out of low-bitrates. That means broadcasters can multiplex even more channels in each dedicated slot.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:49AM (#517448)

        That remains to be seen as more and more of those local stations are owned by a smaller and smaller number of companies, I'd be very surprised if they used this in a way that would actually benefit people rather than padding their bottom line at our expense. Especially with all the idiots out there that don't understand that there's no meaningful difference between current HDTV and 4k as far as home viewing goes.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:03AM (#517550)

      Why would anyone want more channels, when they already don't have enough content to fill out all the channels?

      Looking at most TV channels, it's mostly reruns.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:49PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:49PM (#517906)

        The only broadcasts that actually benefit from 4K, over 1080, are those which either use HDR or HFR ... a.k.a. Sports.

        How many OTA broadcasts will still have sports 2 years from now? Shifting sports to paid networks is how the cable industry survives...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:14PM (#517191)

    The digital cliff makes digital TV an inferior replacement for analog TV. I took one look at ATSC reception artifacts, and I abandoned OTA broadcast TV entirely. I only watch streaming video on the internet now, and I avoid adaptive streams, so the only effect of poor reception is a reduction of buffering speed but never a reduction of media quality.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:47PM (#517353)

      I find OTA digital has less artifacts and tunes in faster than the same channel on cable. Half the time I try to change channels on cable it won't even tune in and shows the weak or scrambled channel message, then I have to run up and down the channels to get it back. The cableco can shove their cablecard/tuner adapter up their ass sideways.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:17PM (#517192)

    I wrote an article a few years back wondering why you couldn't [watch OTA TV on your phone or tablet] already.

    Probably because you'd have a hard time getting sufficiently good VHF reception for an ATSC broadcast with an antenna that fits in a phone. It might be reasonable for higher UHF broadcasts, but then people would complain if they can only receive some of the stations broadcast in their area.

    Actually the antennas usually don't fit in the phone at all. For FM reception (also in the VHF range) typically a headphone connection is required and the headphone wires are used as part of the antenna. The quality of reception is usually pretty terrible, but FM will work in much less favourable conditions than a TV broadcast.

    If it worked at all you'd probably have to move around a bunch to find a good spot to watch your broadcast, and then stay in one spot while you watch it. All in all, it will be much more reliable to use the phone's internet connection over the mobile network to receive video and audio.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:42PM (#517656)

      Ideally, an antenna should be 1/4 of the wavelength of the carrier wave. For FM radio around 100MHz, the full wavelength is 3 metres. So, a 75cm antenna is best. This can be achieved with 75cm of coiled wire (or even 75cm of etched wire) inside a smaller device but manufacturers are too stingy to add such components. For UHF television transmission, frequencies generally used are from 470MHz to 890MHz [wikipedia.org]. So, one or more antennas ranging from 15cm to 8.4cm would be required.

  • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday May 29 2017, @04:33PM (3 children)

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @04:33PM (#517206)

    According to the article, you'll be able to watch OTA (over the air) TV on your phone or tablet!

    If, and it's a big IF the device makers put the chips in them. I wouldn't hold your breath.

    Also all that 4K OTA goodness is going to require either a new converter box or a new TV since nothing shipping today contains an ATSC 3.0 tuner.

    But at least there is some good news: ATSC 3.0 will allow for subscription OTA channels (if the stations can bribe...er...lobby hard enough for them) and it can show targeted advertising too!

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:20AM (2 children)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:20AM (#517421) Homepage Journal

      Also all that 4K OTA goodness is going to require either a new converter box or a new TV

      You may be able to simply update software, especially on a "smart" TV. Digital, unlike analog, doesn't always require rewiring.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:37PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:37PM (#517620)

        You may be able to simply update software, especially on a "smart" TV.

        I'm not aware of that being a thing. Its like Android phones, the software development stops permanently before the first retail unit is shipped. It is technically possible, yes.

        Its quite possible if things are optimized enough the hardware isn't going to have the oompf to handle it. There is no software way to make a 1st edition / model roku settop box handle 4K although the newer ones do.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:13PM (#517641)

        Hardware-accelerated decoding says "probably not". If your smart TV has enough CPU to decode h.265 in software, somebody done goofed -- they could save a whole dollar going with a cheaper SoC.

        If your smart TV is new enough, there's a chance it may have hardware support to decode h.265, and then all you have to do is hope the manufacturer deigns to push a software update rather than simply changing it for next year's models and hoping you'll buy that.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:52PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:52PM (#517217)

    There is no need for 4K pixels. Much lower quality should be enough. Higher resolutions and colors can (and currently are) abused to brainwash the viewer using mind-control technologies. A sudden flash of something here and a sudden flash there, and do it enough times so the viewer becomes a mindless drone who can be triggered to do anything at any time.

    DO NOT let anything come near your five senses that you cannot trust. DO NOT listen to the enemy. When a true friend gives you a video (4K or not), you can watch it. But when a jew gives you something, anything, DO NOT go near it.

    Be wary of TV (and all media) of all kinds. You don't know whether that is a friend broadcasting images and sound (to be downloaded into your mind) or not. You don't want to read or watch gutter journalism.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 29 2017, @05:21PM (4 children)

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday May 29 2017, @05:21PM (#517228) Homepage

      I see someone could use some socialised mental health care.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:22PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:22PM (#517230)

        Stop CENSORING my THOUGHTS.

        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday May 29 2017, @06:52PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Monday May 29 2017, @06:52PM (#517265)

          I don't think that word means what you think it means.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:49PM (#517263)

        That you are incapable of realizing what's going on and the techniques used is not really our problem. So this "care" stuff is utterly bullshit.

        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:14PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:14PM (#517803) Homepage

          That you are incapable of realizing what's going on

          You're delusional*. Get some help.

          *please note that one of the symptoms is not being able to realise you're delusional.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by BigotDetectorGoesBing! on Monday May 29 2017, @06:58PM

      by BigotDetectorGoesBing! (5877) on Monday May 29 2017, @06:58PM (#517271)

      But when a jew gives you something, anything, DO NOT go near it.

      Bing!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:49PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @10:49PM (#517355)

      Is it tinfoil hat day today?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:04AM (#517523)

        No it is straw man day: Take an interesting concern (e.g. possibility of using redundancy in media channels to exert subliminal subversion), or a concern which is distorted version of real possibility, smear antisemitism, racism, or other common antisocial tarnish over it, then post it as troll so that public forms and internalizes association between the concern and general cookiness. Presto: easy, inexpensive, effective and preemptive censorship.

        It is possible to manipulate public in other ways, too. Make a persona (or a few) with which a target group can identify, and one (or a few) with which a target group is going to antagonize, and then let your two sock puppets "argue" on a topic you wish to build opinion about in the target group. It is actually an ancient oldie - Socratic dialogue, only on public message boards it produces stronger illusion of reality then in literature, because of its interactive (more lifelike) appearance.

        That's why I became an AC, because I want to drive a point home: learn to separate the ideas communicated from what you think you know about those who source them, especially from what they are trying to make you think that they are, take the essence of those ideas and evaluate their own merit.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:50PM (#517662)

        No, Fridays are tinfoil hat days. That way, the truly mad conversations extend throughout the weekend. We then return to more serious matters on Mondays when the cubicle farm dwellers return.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @05:15PM (#517227)

    I wonder at the lack of mentioning that ATSC 3.0 includes significant additions to "digital rights management" and may result in things like TV capture cards or OTA PVRs no longer working.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:43PM (#517262)

      I wonder at the lack of mentioning that ATSC 3.0 includes significant additions to "digital rights management" and may result in things like TV capture cards or OTA PVRs no longer working.

      That would be redundant.
      The summary already said: "American broadcasts".

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by number11 on Monday May 29 2017, @05:31PM (5 children)

    by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @05:31PM (#517235)

    Unfortunately, it'll take a lot more than a few tech changes to make OTA TV better. Higher resolution isn't better, it's at best a marginal improvement.

    Making TV better would require better programming, which costs money. Getting rid of the stupid (but cheap to produce) reality shows, quiz shows, infomercials. Fewer shows glamorizing cops/CSI/cowboys, and more good drama or real but expensive to produce news (not the "if it bleeds, it ledes" stuff). Instead, the networks have made content even worse (because it's much cheaper to produce).

    So, good luck with that. I don't have cable (my observation has been that cable provides 200 channels of crap, rather than 20) but I do have OTA. I turn the screen onto "TV" once every few weeks (mostly it serves as a computer monitor), flip through the channels, and actually watch a program once every few months. Being drunk helps.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Monday May 29 2017, @05:48PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @05:48PM (#517239) Journal

      Being drunk helps.

      +1 Informative

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 29 2017, @06:52PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday May 29 2017, @06:52PM (#517266) Journal

      I'd say making TV better takes removing the perverted incentives and being independent for real. Not something likely to happen anytime soon with regards to OTA or cable.

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday May 29 2017, @06:55PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Monday May 29 2017, @06:55PM (#517267)

      I use cable for on-demand, for things like Dr. Who, Forged in Fire, some anime, etc.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:39PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:39PM (#517600) Journal

      Making TV better would require better programming, which costs money. Getting rid of the stupid (but cheap to produce) reality shows, quiz shows, infomercials. Fewer shows glamorizing cops/CSI/cowboys, and more good drama or real but expensive to produce news (not the "if it bleeds, it ledes" stuff). Instead, the networks have made content even worse (because it's much cheaper to produce).

      Well said. You can be fascinated by shadow puppets if the story is well-crafted enough. The story's the thing. Gluing sequins and jewels on the outside doesn't help if the box is empty. The box is still empty.

      I don't have cable (my observation has been that cable provides 200 channels of crap, rather than 20) but I do have OTA. I turn the screen onto "TV" once every few weeks (mostly it serves as a computer monitor), flip through the channels, and actually watch a program once every few months. Being drunk helps.

      It's amazing you do that much. When I encounter an old-fashioned TV with commercials I can't get away fast enough. If I happen upon one of those execrable filling stations that blare TV at you over the pump, I make sure not to go there again. We cut the cord 15 years ago and couldn't imagine going back.

      There was once a Simpsons episode, I believe it was, where they shut off the TV (or it broke, or something), and the children became well-behaved, pleasant. Marge and Homer started working out and slimming down and taking up art and music and outside the children gamboled on the lawn all to the strains of Beethoven's "Pastorale." It was a riot when I first saw it, but since giving up TV I have found it to be unexpectedly true.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:47PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:47PM (#517628)

      Getting rid of the stupid

      In the recent spectrum auction, about half my local OTA stations took the money and are shutting down before ATSC 3.0 will roll out.

      I'm pretty sure I'm watching more youtube and internet streamed video than OTA, so when OTA goes away I won't miss it very much.

      I am a bit annoyed about the silo -ification of content. No, I'm not signing up to some dodgy website to watch the latest Trek series assuming thats all on schedule.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:03PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:03PM (#517276)

    Please let it be IPv6.

    Never good to create new standards that rely on deprecated older ones.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:33PM (#517303)

      Please let it be IPv6.

      Or UUCP. That one is really good because both of the U's stand for UNIX.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:55PM (#517748)

        The MPAA won't allow that because the C stands for Copy.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday May 29 2017, @09:04PM (1 child)

    by digitalaudiorock (688) on Monday May 29 2017, @09:04PM (#517311) Journal

    As someone who records my TV content from OTA HD stations, I read absolutely NOTHING good into any of this, except that they'll probably receive even more push back around this conversion than they did around the conversion to digital.

    It sounds like all the ATSC tuners become obsolete(?) which totally blows. Other than that, what do I get besides resolution I really don't need and possible many many times the disk space used?...and that's all assuming they don't manage to push DRM into this mess, which you know they want...or something akin to the broadcast flag [wikipedia.org] fiasco of years ago.

    I'm still trying to figure out how pay TV companies were expressly forbidden from encrypting (or requiring a box for) stations that could be received over an antenna in any given market...yet somehow that rule mystically vanished as far as the digital broadcasts were concerned, even after the digital stations where all that was available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that many cable providers encrypt everything now. There seems to be no limit to this country's willingness to let corporations fuck up just about anything that's actually good is there?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday May 29 2017, @09:23PM (9 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @09:23PM (#517317) Journal

    Looks-Better==Is-Better?

    I don't think so.

    Significant events in television broadcasting technology history (US-focus):

    1920s - television broadcasts begin.

    This was an improvement: "TV" is much better than "no TV" on the TV scale. (Keep this one in mind, there is another event in 2009 where it becomes real important.)

    1941 - Color is added as an option, pioneered by CBS.

    This was an improvement: Color TV is better than no color TV.

    1984 - Stereo sound becomes available, introduced by NBC.

    This was an improvement: Stereo sound is better than mono-but-hi-fi sound.

    2009 - Nearly a hundred years of technology infrastructure in both broadcast and receiving sets is discarded as broadcast television is completely discontinued. Introduced in its place is a much more narrow-band token broadcasting service carrying digital channel data. All television sets ever produced before this date became, and remain, unable to receive broadcast television.

    This was not an improvement. An improvement means you take something and make it better. That didn't happen. Instead of adding digital HD capabilities, TV was discontinued entirely, and then an inferior technology was introduced that "Looks-Better" if you happen to live right beside its transmitter, but doesn't reach the areas that broadcast TV reached before, eliminating the TV reception ability of huge swaths of the planet.

    I live in one of those places, by the way: There are TV stations 25, 35, 40 miles away, all of which I could easily receive before on rabbit ears, and none of which I can receive now well enough to watch even on an outdoor amplified antenna. (Note: A great digital HD picture that freezes every couple seconds (or minutes) accompanied by great quality audio that cuts in and out is not watchable, in case you were curious. The powers that be seem to not have been curious.)

    A couple years from now maybe: Resolution of digital TV increases to 4K.

    This perhaps would be an improvement in that it will suck ever so slightly less: Instead of not being able to receive Digital HD TV, those enormous areas that used to pick up TV just fine will then not be able to receive Digital HD 4K TV. On second thought, receiving nothing vs. receiving a shinier nothing is in fact no improvement at all.

    So, Looks-Better!=Is-Better.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:43PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:43PM (#517326)

      Pro-Tip: You are an outlier.
      Analog TV didn't work perfectly for everybody either.
      Sucks to be you, but your problems are rare.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday May 29 2017, @10:11PM (2 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @10:11PM (#517338) Journal

        Sucks to be you, but your problems are rare.

        People who watch over-the-air TV are rare, because it's more common to have a cable or satellite provider.

        But among most non-urban areas where watching over-the-air TV was previously well-supported, "Can't pick up anything watchable" is by far the most common result of the replacement of broadcast analog TV with the less robust all-or-nothing digital broadcasts.

        By land mass, areas that are not urban make up almost all of the planet.

        Previously, in most areas, it was a matter of how high your antenna, and whether it was pointed at the right city. Now, it almost doesn't matter. Either you get a perfect signal that's watchable, or you get less than a perfect signal, which isn't watchable.

        This answers the question, is "Looks-Better" equal to "Is-Better". No, it isn't. We measure that by previous coverage area compared to current coverage area. No TV is not better than TV regardless of how pretty the picture would be if you had TV.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @11:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @11:53PM (#517377)

          But among most non-urban areas where watching over-the-air TV was previously well-supported, "Can't pick up anything watchable" is by far the most common result of the replacement of broadcast analog TV

          Facts not in evidence.
          You are the outlier. Stop indulging in the base rate fallacy.

          PS. No need to lecture me about how OTA works. I cancelled my cable-tv subscription over a decade ago.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @04:31AM (#517460)

          But among most non-urban areas where watching over-the-air TV was previously well-supported, "Can't pick up anything watchable" is by far the most common result of the replacement of broadcast analog TV with the less robust all-or-nothing digital broadcasts.

          If that were true, the FCC would be flooded with complaints about it. And yet they aren't.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:53AM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @06:53AM (#517504) Journal

        Analog TV didn't work perfectly for everybody either.

        The difference between analog and digital TV:

        Analog TV degrades gracefully if reception gets worse. You just get more noise, both in the image and the sound. Depending on the content, even stuff with very much noise can be useful to watch. Sure, you don't want to watch a concert on a super noisy channel. But if you are after information, even very noisy channels can give you recognizable video and audio content.

        Digital TV fails catastrophically if reception gets worse. While it can compensate a certain level of reception noise (and indeed looks better in that range), as soon as the noise gets too large, you get unwatchable content. Not barely watchable, unwatchable. Information throughput zero.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:24AM (#517531)

          Graceful degradation was not a design requirement in analog TV, it was more of a lucky coincidence, or a result of evolution. In this case, only the people on the geographical margins suffer, but as the noise floor rises, this problem will affect more OTA-ers, which will prompt regulators to demand amends to the system, probably stronger forward error correction, and/or layered quality, with FEC being weaker for the additional information which carries more quality (resolution). Or, even if they don't push such a thing, then equipment producers will develop algorithms for their products to always try to reconstruct content from damaged frames instead of discarding them completely.

          I say give it time. Analog TV probably itself haven't had good reception in its first decades.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:43PM (#517327)

      Ah, but you misunderstand who it was "better" for.

      It was better for the content providers, as now everything is digital they can tack on DRM as they like. Better for you the consumer, was never on the table.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday May 29 2017, @10:55PM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 29 2017, @10:55PM (#517357) Journal

        Better for you the consumer, was never on the table.

        Well, I wouldn't say never was--it was just long ago. In the United States, licensed radio (since 1927) and television (since 1934) broadcasters are required by the Federal Communications Commission to serve in the public interest. This was begun during a time when "serving in the public interest" actually meant acting in the interest of public service.

        Commonly "public service announcements" are one tool that they use to meet this goal. News and weather broadcasts were also started for the purpose of the benefit to society and communities they would provide, not because they looked like good ways to make money or serve the interests of content providers.

        That's pretty much all in the past, of course, but I am old enough to remember when it was taken seriously, and I grew up against that framework. I was actually surprised when the digital disaster happened--in the public interest it would have been added to conventional broadcasting ability, and not have completely replaced it. It was not lost on me, as it seems to have been on so many others, that the radio spectrum formerly devoted to television was sold for cash not long after, despite digital's failures in coverage area and signal degradation.

        The More You Know(tm):
        http://jux.law/public-service-announcement-requirements/ [jux.law]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_announcement [wikipedia.org]
        http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm [unt.edu]
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101541768 [npr.org]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_effect [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:29AM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday May 30 2017, @02:29AM (#517426) Homepage Journal

      Introduced in its place is a much more narrow-band token broadcasting service carrying digital channel data.

      Which gives me over three times as many networks on the same channels, all without snow, static, or other analog noise. WTF? Digital was a great improvement, grandpa!

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:38PM (#517321)

    You mean they will start producing something actually worth watching?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:20PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @01:20PM (#517607)

    When we switched to digital TV, I noticed that the picture was batter, but the plot wasn't.

    Don't expect much of an improvement in the new higher, high def.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @05:00PM (#517753)

      When we switched to digital TV, I noticed that the picture was batter, but the plot wasn't.

      So the plot was pitcher? :-)

      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:06PM

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday May 30 2017, @10:06PM (#517917)

        No, the plot was fully baked cake.

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(1)