Cut the Cord → FCC Declares TV Ownership Rules Don?t Apply to ATSC 3.0 ?Broadcast Internet"

»www.cordcuttersnews.com/ ··· rce=home

This week, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that existing television station ownership rules won’t apply to efforts to build out what FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has described as “broadcast internet.”

The decision came in the form of a declatory ruling, with the FCC stating that stations can lease spectrum to provide broadcast internet service without worrying about the long-standing TV ownership restrictions. As an example, the FCC said a broadcaster could lease spectrum to other broadcasters, including those in the same geographic market, or to third parties for broadcast internet use without running afoul of existing rules.

Broadcasters can now legally collude to sublease spectrum. Remember folks, voting has consequences.

As far as the internet stuff goes, I do not see that happening. First it is only a one direction signal. Home, etc are not going to be able to afford an ATSC 3.0 transmitter or the power it takes to run it. Second you are not talking about all that much total bandwidth(roughly 50Mbps per channel at any real range).

»current.org/2019/12/in-f ··· irstnet/
»ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107 ··· tive.pdf

PBS is literally arguing to take spectrum away from TV broadcasts to do this very thing. 1Mbps currently. That is enough to deliver a good enough 1080p 720p channel.

(50 Mbps) * 30 days = 16.2 terabytes

16TB of multicast data is a lot of data.

Legal collusion is allowed to sublease spectrum. "Hey Y wants to pay $X/year for bandwidth. Let's agree to limit our bandwidth to 10Mbps max and sublease the rest?"

The reason first responders do not want it is that it is one direction only. One way communication is of little use. In the case of the school camera footage, the footage has to get from the school to the TV station and then back out to the first responders. That means that the first responders has to have one set of equipment to receive the TV signal AND separate equipment for communications. There is only so much room and so much power available in a police car. Having a separate specialize vehicle also does not work because of the time it takes to arrive on scene.

The same applies to most other other uses. IF you used it for general internet stuff you are splitting less than 50Mbps among however many users (50/10000?) and you still need a return channel.

Even with 265 compression 1080p is closer to the 4-5Mbps range than it is to 1Mbps. With ATSC 3.0(265 compression) 480p@1Mpbs, 720p@2Mpbs, 1080p@4-5Mpbs. and 4k@14Mbps are the generally accepted numbers. Even with the 38Mpbs predicted "typical" available bandwidth than is a lot of sub channels.

As far as multiple stations sharing the same physical channel, that was how it was setup back in the fall of 2017(?). Two (or more) stations would share one physical channel to maintain ATSC 1.0 simulcast requirements and share a second physical channel for their ATSC 3.0 channels. AFTER their 3.0 broadcast has been on line for five years the stations are allowed (but not required) to stop the 1.0 simulcast. Unfortunately the simulcast requirement did not have a requirement on resolution. So it is fairly likely after the 3.0 technology gets better understood (much like 1.0 took a while for stations to get a good handle on) the 1.0 MAY become 480P only broadcast(to push people to 3.0). As a guess I would see that occurring in 2023 or later.

2 years on the board and you really don't understand the technical terms you use.

TV streams use a unicast message. (The stream request happens in multicast) syn syn-ack ack )It's literally pointless to use a multicast broadcast because your not continually interact with the broadcast stream. Your using at best a layman understanding of how the stream request works to inflate your argument.

Please fact check yourself before you put out your theory as some sort of technical knowledge.

»www.vsicam.com/_faq/what ··· ~:text=A Unicast transmission/stream sends,of hosts on a network.

»www.pcmag.com/encycloped ··· xt=Known as the "SYN, SYN,IS FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.

You fail to even acknowledge in your own link they intentionally change the term to datacasting. Because atsc 3.0 uses adaptive technology to switch between multicast and unicast interdependent of the needs of live tv.

"Datacasting is not subject to congestion during emergencies. The licensed television
spectrum is controlled by the TV station licensee and manned 24/7 by professional
engineers. When they allocate bandwidth to public safety, the same quality of service
will always be available.
 Datacasting can be used to multicast data to a large number of users for the same cost
as the transmission of data to a single user. Datacasting can make more efficient use of
available bandwidth and reduce the load on LTE bandwidth, freeing that spectrum up
for other uses.
 Datacasting leverages a system designed primarily for the transmission of high quality
video and audio streams. Thus, it has the innate ability to address the public safety
community’s desire for high quality audio and video data transport."

Your confusion on the topic is leading to bad technical statement of which you misunderstood.

My point is that PBS wants to take bandwidth away from channels already. This broadcast "internet" feature does the same.

38Mbps (I do not believe at all it will be this high)
-10Mbps (2x 3Mbps 1080p + 4x 1Mbps 720p)
28Mbps
= 84Mbps available after collusion with 3 others broadcasters

(84 Mbps) * 30 days = 27.21600 terabytes

27TB can be broadcast out each month. OS updates, Steam game updates, preloaded movies, games, TV, OS updates, etc.

You started out claiming 1Mbps for 1080 and now you are saying 3Mbps for 1080. Now you are claiming 1Mbps for 720p. Where are you getting these numbers? I stated the currently generally accepted numbers above. 1080 4-5Mbps.

The raw bandwidth of 3.0 is 57 Mbps. So 38Mbps (57-19Mbps for error correction and overhead), is generally thought to be the the number most markets will settle on. A balance of bandwidth and range, more error correction has greater ranger but less bandwidth. In theory you could go anywhere from 1Mbps(extreme range) to 57Mbps(very short range, sub mile?).

Again all those Tb are split between how many users(10,000+?). Which movie gets preloaded? How are you going to ask for what you want? Which steam game? Most of us do not want the same things(internet wise).

No no no the atcs 3.0 Turner has to be a data server storing all those petabyte in its local cache. Making sure all content is instantly available so you can watch all broadcasting streams simultaneously. (Sarcasm)

Meanwhile back in the real world none of that actually occurs.

»www.digitaltrends.com/ho ··· y-atmos/

Where did I claim 1Mbps for 1080? "Generally accepted numbers" is completely meaningless when there is a profit motive to drop bitrates and/or resell excess bandwidth.

Whomever the broadcasters collude to sublease said bandwidth to gets to decide this. New movies, new games, new OS update, new app updates, whatever. e.g. Amazon FireTV recast Box preloads new prime shows. How do you ask for what you want preloaded? By any means including smoke signals.

"1Mbps currently. That is enough to deliver a good enough 1080p channel."

Seriously you don't even remember your own statement 4 post up??

Sorry, typo. I meant to say 720.

Even 720 is 2Mbps with 265. 480 is 1Mbps.

This pretty much sums it up:

" By any means including smoke signals."

Where are these bitrate and resolutions found in the ATSC3.0 standard?

First ATSC3.0 uses 265/HEVC so it would not be a ATSC3.0 "standard". Just as the 38Mbps is not a "standard". The birates come from what is commonly used for HEVC/265. Netflix would be one of the more common commercial sources. Considering that one of OTA's big advantages over cable has been OTAs better picture quality, it is unlikely that 3.0 broadcasters will drop their picture quality below the competitors(ie use higher compression on the same codec).

The declaratory ruling would say that any TV station could enter into lease agreements with any any other station, or stations, in a single market to offer internet services without triggering the FCC's attribution rules. According to people familiar with the item, it does not eliminate or propose to eliminate the requirement that broadcasters have to deliver a TV signal on their primary channel.

"This decision would help ensure that broadcasters and other innovators have the flexibility to generate the scale and geographic footprint — both locally and nationally — that may be necessary to support certain Broadcast Internet services without being subject to regulations unrelated to the provision of such services," Carr said. "It is critical that we provide certainty to broadcasters, investors, tech companies, and innovators that these agreements will not be subject to dated rules designed to regulate television stations — not autonomous vehicles or telemedicine applications."

Carr said he expects that the clarification will boost investment in broadcasting, investment that will help them invest in local news and public service, plus help them get a bigger piece of the ad pie being gobbled up by the internet.

Why are you falsifying what happen?

H.265 not "265."

"Even 720 is 2Mbps with 265. 480 is 1Mbps" is not part of any ATSC3.0 standard. That is what I thought and just wanted confirmation.

What is the absolute legal minimum bitrate and resolution required for the primary channel? Will 1Mbps 720p HEVC channel qualify? Broadcasters are free to sell the 37Mbps excess?

There is no part of the ATSC 1.0 that sets bitrates either. To do so would just be silly. The birates are set by the broadcasters to an acceptable quality level for that particular resolution of that content. As I stated above it is highly unlikely that chosen quality level will be below that of the competition. Thus at least 2Mbps for 720. Broadcasters are highly motivated to move all their content to 3.0 as fast as they can (minimum of five years 1.0 simulcast). The 3.0 transmitters are much cheaper to power. The content will not need to be altered from the source(say CBS corporate) to the TV set. Adding the watermarks, weather alerts, etc, is all done at the TV rather than the station via a sub channel(think close caption). On 1.0 all that requires remuxing the signal at the station. The equipment and extra personnel to do that are expensive.

First, in virtually every market there will be a minimum of two streams, at least for the first five years of that particular 3.0 broadcast. You need one physical channel to meet the simulcast requirements and a second physical channel for the 3.0 broadcast. Which means that two broadcasters will have to cooperate.

The reason for using just 265 is that it could be h.265 or X.265. While technically not correct h.265, X.265, and HEVC are often used interchangeably(think truck vs pickup).

As expensive as TV broadcasts are, who is going to pay that much for a one way 38Mbps signal? It would be 100s(?) of times more expensive than just using "standard" internet solutions, which are much faster. If you point to remote locations, you are forgetting that you still need a return channel.

And those bitrates can be way lower than what you promise. Broadcasters have a financial incentive to shove as many channels as possible into their bandwidth or as explained in the OP, sell the excess.

It can't be anything but h.265/HEVC:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X265
x265 is a library for encoding video into the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265) video compression format

»Re: FCC Declares TV Ownership Rules Don?t Apply to ATSC 3.0 ?Broadcast Internet"
6 channels still leaves 27TB/month to broadcast out after legal collusion.

Customers have 1TB data caps still in 2020. DSL and mobile customers have way lower caps; ATT caps at 150GB.

Did you even bother to read my post?

"While technically not correct h.265, X.265, and HEVC are often used interchangeably(think truck vs pickup)."

The broadcaster DO have a financial incentive NOT to drop the quality of their transmissions below their competitors. That should be obvious. So they are highly unlikely to drop birates below the previously stated levels. They want to move people off 1.0 as soon as possible(after simulcast requirements) as 3.0 is cheaper to operate.

27TB (assuming your numbers are correct) split up over 100,000+ people (27/100,000 = .0027TB ea). No one is going to pay enough for that bandwidth to match the money that the broadcasters will make off the advertising from all the channels that they could send over that bandwidth. Just look at the number of sub channels on a current 1.0 station. If you look down the road ten years each physical channel will have 5-15 sub channels. Say 6 on average. 35 channel @6 each is 210 channels. Enough to finish off cable.

Edit: Bad sentence.

Just because you do something, doesn't mean everyone does. You also made up a fourth "technically not correct" of "265."

"The reason for using just 265"

Their competition is infinite with near infinite bandwidth and channels which works on a near infinite number of devices that provides unicast and multicast content. OTA has absolutely no way to compete directly against that especially when they arrive massively late. Broadcasters can carve out a larger niche than what they have currently by maximizing number of channels/ads and as found in the OP, sell excess bandwidth. This strategy will work so long as American broadband stays garbage with low data caps.

The only one talking about splitting up the 27TB in such a ludicrous manner is you. All 100,000 can receive the same 27TB; 50:50 split with 13.5TB; etc.

"to match the money that the broadcasters will make off the advertising from all the channels that they could send over that bandwidth."

Now maximizing ad revenue matters? I thought broadcasters care about PQ over cold hard cash?

Broadcasters don't give a shit about your goal of "finish off cable" which is a laughable goal in 2020 and even more so in 2030.

Government "regulators" trying to catch up with reality?

"All 100,000 can receive the same 27TB; 50:50 split with 13.5TB; etc."

That is the point. It is the EXACT same 27TB. Each person will not have any way (at that particular time) to choose what data is in that 27TB. It is NOT like the data you can get from your ISP, where you choose what data you get. To be clear the 27TB of data you receive and the 27TB of data your neighbor receives will be EXACTLY the same. There is only 38MBPS of total bandwidth per physical channel and it is only from the station outward, no return signal.

One of the major reasons behind 3.0 (besides cost reductions) is that they want back all the ad revenues that they lost to cable. IF they go to an average of 6 sub channels per physical channel, they will have roughly the same amount channels (combined) as cable does. They can easily do that without lowering the picture quality of the content, they have the bandwidth. Considering that most people have already made it clear that they do not like paying for channels they do not watch (sports for many is a major issue), having the same number of free channels as cable charges for will pull even more people off of cable. Which will put broadcasters back in the drivers seat for ad revenues. Premium channels (HBO, Showtime, Disney, etc) have already moved to OTT. So what does that leave for cable TV to offer?

Your math is wrong and your shift in topic. Is laughable. You don't even understand the transmission scheme. Feel free to actually understand the tech before you quote on it. Also try remember what you said in your last post so you can stay on your own topic.

This entire statement begins with a pretext of you not understanding h.265.

It can be divided up into whatever is needed from whomever leases it. Apple can preload 13.5TB Apple TV content; your neighbor can get 13.5TB of amazon prime shows preloaded to a Fire device. No, your neighbor does not have to get the same content. For people with zero internet, terrible internet, or just your regular 1TB caps, this service allows a quasi "on-demand" streaming to be made available.

Yes, 6 channels. 27TB/month is the excess *after* 6 channels:
»Re: FCC Declares TV Ownership Rules Don?t Apply to ATSC 3.0 ?Broadcast Internet"

You keep flip-flopping between maximizing ad revenue and PQ. Can you pick one and stick to it?