TVNewsCheck Focus on Technology

So Soon? Next-Gen Broadcast TV In Works

When it meets in Washington in two weeks, the Advanced Television Systems Committee board is expected to move forward with plans to develop a new standard for TV broadcasting in the next five to 10 years. It will enable TV stations to broadcast more programming, more reliably to more places and explore new business opportunities. For viewers, it may mean another traumatic transition similar to one leading up to the final June 2009 switch from analog to digital.
TVNewsCheck,

It’s been less than two years since TV broadcasting switched off the last analog transmitter and went all digital. But the actual digital broadcast standard — ATSC DTV — is actually a lot older than that.

In fact, it’s 15 years old if you start counting from when the FCC adopted it, 16 if you start counting from when the consortium of technology companies — the so-called Grand Alliance — put the system together and a few years older still if you go back to when the various components of the system were actually invented.

Story continues after the ad

That’s a long, long time ago given the lighting speed with which electronic media evolves these days. And that’s why far-sighted broadcasters and technologists, under the aegis of the Advanced Television Systems Committee, have begun work on the next-generation TV broadcasting standard.

Even as some viewers still fiddle with DTV converter boxes, next-gen proponents say a new system is needed within the next several years so that TV stations can broadcast more programming, more reliably to more places and explore new business opportunities.

“At some point, broadcasting, like everything else, has to move to the next stage of technology,” says Mark Richer, president of the ATSC, whose board is expected to take the next step toward a next-gen standard when it meets in Washington in two weeks.

Jim Kutzner, chief engineer, Public Broadcasting Service, and chairman of ATSC’s next-gen planning committee, agrees that it’s time. “If you don’t start now, many years down the road you’ll be in the same place.”

Kutzner also sees the effort as a hedge against the FCC’s proposal to take big swatches of spectrum from broadcasters and make it available to wireless broadband providers. The FCC is pushing the plan, despite stiffening opposition of broadcasters.

“If the broadcasters are consolidated down into a smaller amount of spectrum, then we will have far less spectrum to transition from where we are today to where we want to be in the future,” he says.

To be determined is the urgency. While some proponents would like to put it on the fast track and bring the standard home within five years, others are looking at five to 10 years.

Whenever it comes, next-gen TV will not be backward compatible with DTV as color TV was with the original black-and-white TV in the 1950s. This will mean another traumatic transition similar to one leading up to the final June 2009 switch from analog to digital.

“Sometimes to build a better mousetrap, you have to start over,” said Richer. “That’s what we are going to do.”

The standards-setting work is still in its early stages, but already there seems to be a consensus that the third iteration of broadcasting — the first was 1941-vintage NTSC — should be far more efficient in its use of spectrum than today’s DTV system. Proponents talk of achieving it in a couple of different ways.

First, the standard would feature improved compression of video, audio and other content. “Broadcasters could use far fewer bits to deliver the same program at the same quality or deliver higher quality using the same bits we use today,” PBS’s Kutzner says.

And, second, it would allow stations to pump more bits through any given bandwidth. How many more Kutzner couldn’t say, but certainly, he says, “a substantial improvement” over the 19.4 mbps in 6 MHz now possible with DTV. “There are new techniques that approach Shannon’s Law, the theoretical limit of the ability to push bits through a channel,” he says.

The standards setters would also look for a marked improvement in the transmitted signal so it could be received on small indoor antennas and on mobile devices.

The current DTV transmission system — VSB — has been criticized for its poor propagation, especially in the VHF band. To receive it reliably, rooftop antennas are needed in most places.

And for mobile service, ATSC had to come up with a supplementary standard that forces stations to use up precious bandwidth to transmit a second signal that is suitable for viewing only on small screens.

“The ATSC is not tasked with figuring out how can we deliver broadcasting to a wider area, but they are thinking about, within the area that stations serve, how can we up the reliability in more diverse receiving configuration like indoor reception,” says Lynn Claudy, SVP, science and technology, National Association of Broadcasters, which is taking an active role in the next-gen push.

One option already under consideration for the standard is a multi-carrier OFDM modulation scheme that was considered, but finally rejected, for DTV in the 1990s, and which is widely used in other parts of the world.

ATSC may be feeling a little competitive heat to get going on a next-gen standard. NHK in Japan is developing a system, Richer says. And in Europe, some broadcasters are already on the air with a second-generation standard called DVB-T2.

Edit Article

Tags

Comments (21) -

William Nickname posted 10 months ago
Genachowsky and the wireless industry will never let this get out of the gate. ATSC is wasting their time and effort. We're witnessing the end of OTA broadcast right now. In ten years it will be acient history.
Oracle Nickname posted 10 months ago
Hey Harry! This is great news! You know that WatchTV, Inc. in Portland, OR has been trying to get an experimental license through the FCC to test many of the technologies you discussed in your article. A test of the capabilities and advantages of OFDM based broadcast standards like CMMB, ISDB-Tb, DVB-T2, etc., would provide helpful insight to the ATSC in their deliberative process concerning next-gen broadcast TV. I guess all that is necessary is to get the FCC to agree. Unfortunately, they seem more interested in driving broadcasters out of business, as opposed to helping them to succeed and thrive in the future. Hopefully the ATSC can get something going sooner that later . . . The technology clock is ticking very quickly and broadcasters need every advantage they can get to remain viable and competitive now and in the future.
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
this much more serious than an LPTV station searching alone for a new technical model.
Amy Brown posted 10 months ago
Yea.... you are correct Oracle! However, for some reason, old Harry Boy chooses NOT TO COVER ANY OF THE LOW POWER TV ISSUES in his publication. Log on to www.SpectrumEvolution.org or www.free-internet.us for more info on what the LPTV Industry can and is trying to do to help!
Harry Jessell posted 10 months ago
Harry is not so old, and PJ did a column on LP just this week.
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
older (and wiser) than she, I suspect.
Reaperducer Nickname posted 10 months ago
Not interested in going through yet another TV transition. If this happens, I'll just give up on TV and get my content through the internet.
RustbeltAlumnus2 Nickname posted 10 months ago
Remain viable? That boat sailed long ago. The NAB concocted HDTV in the early 1990s as a way to protect their unused spectrum, though they never imagined that digital compression would actually may it feasible to work (thank you, Woo Paik). Anyway, it looks like the old playbook is being used again: "Don't take away the spectrum we're wasting because we intend to use it in 5 years, honest!"
Snap Nickname posted 10 months ago
Rustbelt, your the one who is behind the times. Yeah, let's let AT&T and Verizon waste broadcast spectrum... That sounds like a great idea. That is what they are planning on doing with it. They are wasting what they have now, so why shouldn't we give them more to waste. All they have to do is fail to put enough antennas on their towers, and refuse to build more POTS, and suddenly they have a "spectrum crisis." Meanwhile, OTA antennas are flying off the shelves and broadcasters are adding more channels and services, which is going to lead to more people dropping pay-TV for OTA. But, we can't have that... OTA isn't going to die on its own, so we need to kill it with a made up "spectrum crisis."
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
the NAB actually started on HDTV around 1985. Digital HDTV was in the 1990s. Rants are one thing. Starting off with the wrong facts could be another reason you're an alumni.
Snap Nickname posted 10 months ago
Also, broadcasters/ATSC... get it right this time. If we have to go through another transition, come up with something that will still be a good system in 50-100 years. There are going to be a lot more OTA viewers in 5 -10 years, so expect that there is going to be more transition/converter box cost for consumers than there was last time.
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
Nobody's an Oracle, even people using that as a nickname
D BP Nickname posted 10 months ago
In a way this ties in with the FCC objectives of broadcasters doing more with less (spectrum) and making VHF usable again. So it's possible that the Commission will smile favorably on the ATSC's efforts to change from 8-VSB to OFDM. Whether the public, having just purchased new HDTVs, will follow suit is another question. A change in transmission standard could very well spell the end of broadcast TV--the current trend of cord-cutting notwithstanding. And of course, many of us are still paying for exciters, encoders and other equipment that could be rendered obsolete should a new standard be finalized. But such is progress.
Oded Bendov Nickname posted 10 months ago
To survive and grow, OTA DTV needs to provide robust wide-area service for hand-held and mobile devices and there is no way to do that with ATSC SFN, regardless if the ATSC standard is 8VSB or M/H. If you are technically oriented go to http://www.tvantenna.tv/papers.asp and read "Why are the ATSC-8VSB and M/H Standards Fundamentally Unsuitable for Next Generation Television Broadcasting and How to Painlessly Transit to ATSC/OFDM Network"
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
Which simply raises the question why you didn't submit the paper to the ATSC NGBT (PT-2) group when asked twice over the last 8 months. Do you or Mr. Bendow prefer diatribes over submitting your ideas to due process organizations of engineers? Note that Mr. Aitken and Mike Simon of R+S did such a submission, as did many others. My guess: chicken.
ChoppedLiver Nickname posted 10 months ago
OK, no more damned TV system changes. We amde it through the last unfunded mandate from the unelected idiots at the FCC; we'll not do it again. There is simply no need to overhaul (again) the entire TV infrastructure and certainly no money to do so! Nor is there any incentive. So just stop. Now. And by the way, 3D is dead. There, I said it.
John Terhar posted 10 months ago
Yea, transitioning from MPEG2 to MPEG4 would be a welcome addition to Over-The-Air TV. Now, multiple streams are causing objectionable macroblocking. But did everyone forget the NTSC-ATSC conversion? It was like birthing a baby. If the original standards had called for a way to update the codecs, this would be easy but now, it's not. Running a TV station isn't a license to print money, like it was in the good old days. A couple million for the next digital transition just isn't in the budget.
PSIPthing Nickname posted 10 months ago
hindsight is always so clear. Just how would a standard built upon MPEG-2 contemplate and support a standard where the MPEG-4 work had yet to begin? Doing as you desired could have actually held back MPEG-4 as "downloadable codecs" were contemplated. ATSC M/H can be adopted for an investment of less than 200K, and if NGBT is made mandatory, the FCC would be doing that.
HowardMBurgers Nickname posted 10 months ago
Original estimates of 20% or greater of TV viewers did not make the transition in 2009. With the additional and increasing competition for eyes and ears, why would broadcasters be interested in losing potentially more of an audience in the interest of whatever new technologies may or may not be on the horizon? But to government officials.. "Gee this went so well before, why don't we have another transition until nothing is left?"
Johnny Fever posted 10 months ago
LEAVE HD-1 alone. If you want to screw with the 'extras' and add a mobile 'HD-3" - fine, but don't screw with the over the air HD-1. People just spent a lot of money, and will not and cannot spend that money again. LEAVE it ALONE. Tell the FCC what they can do with themselves and the spectrum grab. LEAVE TV ALONE. AMEN.
Mike Hemion posted 10 months ago
Why do they have to develop a new system? Why don't they just adopt the system that every other country uses throughout the world? The FCC doesn't want OTA TV to exist. Evidence of this was the cancelled experimental license of the TV station that wanted to experiment with OFDM. November 2011 will be here before you know it and it might be time for "change".

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2933.17 -15.40 (-0.52%)
NYSE 8094.39 +0.00 (+0.00)
S&P 500 1357.66 -4.55 (-0.33%)
Updated 02/22 7:51ä ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for 2月 21, 2012
  • 1.
    2.9/8
  • 2.
    2.8/7
  • 3.
    2.1/5
  • 4.
    1.7/4
  • 5.
    1.4/4
  • 6.
    0.5/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Hank Stuever

    Clinton, a four-hour PBS American Experience documentary, is an honest but sometimes tediously predictable exercise in the further Wikipedia-ing and storage-packing of those years. Whether intentional or subliminal, the film conveys the obvious and completely mortal recognition of time's inevitable passage, but not much else.

  • David Knowles

    Nancy Buriski's HBO documentary The Loving Story chronicles the lives of Richard and Mildred Loving, the interracial couple whose court case brought down the last remaining miscegenation laws in the United States. The Loving Story is a perfect time capsule that illuminates the racist past of our country with a uniquely personal and poignant emphasis. It's a film that will continue to be enjoyed whether viewed on Valentine's Day, during Black History Month or any other time of year.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    Smash, NBC’s series about backstage Broadway, comes with New York and Hollywood names off screen (Steven Spielberg, Therese Rebeck) and on (Debra Messing and Brian d’Arcy James). Given that pedigree, you’re expecting to be bowled over by the pilot, but it ends up feeling like a collage of devices from the zillions of previous backstage plays, musicals and movies. However, be patient — Smash gets better as it goes along and by Episode 3 it shows signs of becoming an addictive pleasure along the lines of this season’s Revenge.

  • Lori Rackl

    Pop some Dramamine before watching ABC's new horror series, The River, because the shaky camera work is more likely to make you seasick than scared. You can, however, skip the sleeping pill. The River's two-hour premiere should suffice. Billed as a thriller, the show tries hard to be terrifying and eerie in a Paranormal Activity kind of way. It ends up being hokey and, even worse, boring.

  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad