Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Free TV Will Have 4K Content in a Couple Years

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

mcgrew writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Free TV Will Have 4K Content in a Couple Years | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 59 comments | Search Discussion
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.

  • (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...