Open Mike by John Hane

Next TV Standard Must Be Truly Universal

What if you could buy a 50-inch television, mount it anywhere in your house, and receive dozens of channels on it for free and without any futzing around? What if most or all broadcast signals, in their native form, were easily receivable on tablets and smartphones?

The engineers who worked heroically to push broadcasting across the digital threshold had barely caught up on their sleep before agitation for more change began to erupt. The National Broadband Plan concluded that the amount of over-the-air viewing doesn't justify the number of television stations, and that the FCC could use incentive auctions to re-pack broadcasting into a smaller band of spectrum. Now incentive auctions are the law. This decade we will likely see more broadcast spectrum repurposed for mobile services and another "transition" as hundreds of broadcasters conform their facilities.

So what's the connection between incentive auctions and talk of a new technical standard? The FCC thinks we need more spectrum for mobile services — in large part because of rising use of video on mobile devices. But the FCC's rules dictate a broadcast television technical standard that means much of the most popular video — which is already available free-to-air — can't be received by mobile devices.

Story continues after the ad

The FCC is right that spectrum best suited for mobile services should be useful for mobile services. So why stop with the highest frequency TV channels? If we're going to do all the work of another transition, why not open a path for consumers to access the entire TV band with mobile devices? Many of the same forward-looking broadcasters that championed 8-VSB are working with others on a new standard that incorporates next-generation transmission technologies, as an article in TVNewsCheck reported earlier today. ATSC 3.0 would be easily accessible on mobile devices and provide a much better indoor viewing experience too. And it will be ready to deploy when incentive auction repacking takes place.

But will every broadcaster want to upgrade at the same time? And what about consumers? FCC rules require all broadcasters to use the same digital standard to ensure universality — so every television can receive every broadcast signal. But not everybody thinks that's the best policy. Back in the 1990s the FCC itself debated whether it should select one standard, approve several standards or simply let the market work things out. It adopted the ATSC standard, but it also asked whether the requirement to use that standard should sunset after critical mass of deployment was reached.

Nobody wants a television Babel. But what does universal access mean when people increasingly consume their video on-the-move and on devices that we don't think of as televisions? In my home near downtown Bethesda, Md., pretty close to many of the Washington, D.C. region's television towers, I can reliably receive only three stations, even with an attic-mounted antenna. I can't receive any broadcasts on any of my computers, tablets or other mobile devices.

I love broadcast television, but in my case, it's difficult or impossible to use most of the time. Millions of other Americans either don't use over-the-air television directly, or use it less than they otherwise might, for similar reasons.

Brand Connections

As things have turned out, universal use of the first ATSC standard has not fostered universal access to broadcast television today. While all televisions in theory can receive all digital broadcasts, the need for often unwieldy external antennas and fixed installations leads most people to get their television (even their broadcast television) through a different delivery system — usually cable or satellite. And increasingly, people watch video on devices that don't have ATSC television receivers at all — mobile and transportable devices like smartphones, tablets and computers that aren't even tethered by power cords, much less by large, external antennas.

So the government-mandated broadcast standard, which was probably a necessary element of the first transition, hasn't translated into universal access. By today's very high standards, the original ATSC standard is inflexible and, for most consumers, too hard to use. My Android smartphone works everywhere in my house — on the same frequencies broadcasters used to use. I don't even have to think about it.

What if I could buy a 50-inch television, mount it anywhere in my house, and receive dozens of channels on it for free and without any futzing around? What if most or all broadcast signals, in their native form, were easily receivable on tablets and smartphones?

My bet is that OTA usage would grow enormously and become far more "universal". Nobody would distinguish between mobile and "fixed" television because it would be the same service. Networks and program suppliers wouldn't be able to block broadcast stations from replicating their programming on mobile devices because the bitstream could be the same.

Wireless carriers would eagerly include OTA capability in their devices, because the cost would be low, network congestion would be reduced and they could count on a consistent, uniform quality of service indoors and when mobile (wireless carriers get lots of customer support calls when features don't work consistently on devices they deploy).

All of this sounds great but, of course, broadcasters, the government and consumers just spent billions transitioning to ATSC. And who would choose the next standard and manage the next transition? Who would pay for the transition? Wouldn't we just face the same issue again — by the time the next transition is complete, it would be time to upgrade again?


Comments (7) -

Tom Buono posted over 4 years ago
This is an excellent article that hits on some of the key issues regarding television in the future. Television should absolutely be mobile-friendly. The projections for tablet and smart phone usage highlight why this needs to be the case. One point that has not been mentioned is the importance of television for public safety during emergencies. Through SpectraRep, we have been using television for public safety applications for 12 years. Television communications for public safety could have been used throughout Katrina and Sandy, while the cellular networks were down. Television's broadcast nature represents a tremendous advantage over cellular when content needs to be sent to the masses or when the demand for cellular exceeds its expected usage. The public and public safety officials are relying on smart phones for their communications on a more regular basis and television to mobile devices can save lives and keep the public informed. Today, some broadcasters have made the investment to install equipment to broadcast to mobile devices and there are dongles and a few smart devices equipped to receive OTA television, but it is in its infancy. Marketplace demand will accelerate growth, but broadcasters are faced with a chicken and egg dilemma and the current ATSC standard is not ideal for mobile applications.
G√ľnter Marksteiner posted over 4 years ago
There is nothing to disagree about, except perhaps the inference that there will be some "cost" to a broadcaster wanting to expand his services by using a better transmission standard. OK, so one might need to buy a new digital modulator and a more efficient video encoder. So what. This capital equipment expense doesn't even move the needle in comparison to day-to-day operating overhead for any commercial TV station. Nothing else at the transmission facility needs to change. Every IOT amplifier is inherently compatible with every emission standard as is the rest of the broadcast chain. WHDT could be offering advanced services by the end of the week if the government would simply step out of the way and allow broadcasters to run their business the way that the market demands. The fact that OTA delivery is a minor part of each broadcaster's delivery system provides the very opportunity to move quickly to correct mistakes of the past. The fundamental ideas to focus on are multipath-tolerant RF delivery to 1 m AGL (not 10 m AGL), vertical and horizontal RF transmission modes, and in some instances where terrain is a controlling factor, multiple on-channel transmitters. So where's the barrier? Certainly any broadcast engineer would find the task amusing simple and straightforward - at least in comparison to the myriad of FCC compliance, over-regulation, and meaningless paperwork which every TV station operator must put up with every month.
onthesidelines Nickname posted over 4 years ago
One thing to watch out for when comparing television broadcasting with mobile services is that wireless companies for the most part subsidize the frequent update of their customers' devices. This allows for a continual evolution of standards as the typical customer will be upgraded every few years without paying a big chunk of money up front. But who is going to subsidize the upgrade of the viewers' television receivers? As a free, non-subscription service, there is no model to cover the cost of regular upgrades. And viewers who are forced to replace televisions constantly as a result of technology updates are more likely to just abandon broadcast television permanently rather than pay for continual upgrades.
John Hane posted over 4 years ago
It is true that carriers control the supply of devices, and they use device subsidies in part to manage what they have to provide at the network level. But the upgrade cycle across almost all electronic devices today is getting shorter and shorter. Computers, game consoles, tablets, etc are all upgraded regularly with no subscription model, because they incorporate new technologies that provide a better experience. Yes, broadcasters will need to find a way to transition gracefully, and that means in most cases broadcasting in two different standards simultaneously. I think that should be considered when we talk about repacking. I don't think anyone should be forced to buy a new television, any ore than they should be forced to upgrade their computers. But they also shouldn't be denied the benefits of better computers until everyone is ready to upgrade! If we had an all-or-nothing model for computers we'd all be using WIndows 3.1 and 386 processors. A model that permits ongoing introduction of new technology and service enhancements enfranchises vastly more people than it would ever disenfranchise.
Scooter Nickname posted over 4 years ago
This digital conversion was a perfect time to restore Channel 1, as all the channels are aliased, anyway. But no....
Ray Barrington posted over 4 years ago
Yes, keep broadcast - but maybe reduce the number of station, letting multiple owners use the subchannels of one particular station. Instead of station A, B and C, have the three combine to own the physical apparatus - the transmitter and tower - and each station take a spot on the channel as one of the subchannels. We're seeing many smaller markets putting multiple "major" networks on their subchannels - say, CBS on .1, Fox on .2, etc. Why not let separate owners sell and promote those "stations" on one transmitter?
videographer Nickname posted over 4 years ago
Any station that is currently making use of their subchannels (as mine is) would get screwed by frequency sharing. If all of this hoo-hah is just to make local TV "mobile-friendly," do the smart thing and make a deal with Aereo. They are filling the gap that 8VSB left wide open, and doing so with existing tech and infrastructure. Then when and if full-coverage WiFi comes along, we all have access to local stations with no proprietary equipment to buy - in fact, the TV stations won't have to do *anything.*
Marketshare Blog Playout Blog




Overnights, adults 18-49 for September 27, 2016
  • 1.
  • 2.
  • 3.
  • 4.
  • 5.
  • 6.
Source: Nielsen


  • Rob Owen

    Easily fall’s best broadcast network comedy pilot, NBC’s The Good Place offers a clever high-concept premise that’s complemented with intelligent, sometimes absurdist humor. Created by Michael Schur, co-creator of NBC’s Parks and Recreation, The Good Place is a highly serialized series that’s essentially set in heaven and stars Kristen Bell and Ted Danson. NBC made five episodes of The Good Place available for review, and the show not only holds up, but also it improves, deepening characters that initially feel one-note and frequently leaving viewers guessing with cliffhanger endings to many of the episodes. The combination of snappy dialogue and winning but flawed characters makes The Good Place a great bet for fans of smart TV comedy.

  • Maureen Ryan

    Pitch has swagger, for good reason. It gets the big things right; the Fox drama about the first female baseball player in the Major Leagues is one of the year’s most assured and exciting debuts. But part of what impresses about the pilot is also the way it confidently strings together so many small but telling details. Ginny (Kylie Bunbury) is the first woman to be called up from the minors to the big leagues, and no show since Friday Night Lights has done a better job of portraying the internal and external pressures that weigh heavily on young athletes asked to do much more than merely succeed on the field. Pitch will likely do a good job of getting viewers to root for it. The hope is that the show won’t be an impressive, short-lived curiosity, but rather a long-term phenomenon.

  • Kevin Fallon

    In a fall TV season that’s already making a splash for championing diverse, distinctive voices in an array of projects that they created, wrote, and starred in, Better Things on FX stands out. The show is created by, written by, and starsPamela Adlon. She plays Sam Fox, the single mother of three daughters modeled after her own reality-show-ready experience raising three girls in Los Angeles following a divorce. Sam is also, like Adlon, a working actress — on shows both raunchy, a la Californication, and animated for children, like her role on Recess. It’s a refreshingly blunt take on single motherhood without sacrificing the warmth of parental love, portraying the dance between selfishness and selflessness that’s at the heart of being a parent — especially one weathering the hormonal fireworks of a household of four women at different ages.

  • David Wiegand

    The fall TV season doesn’t count as much as it used to — we already know that. But no matter how many retreads the broadcast networks throw at viewers in the next few months, this fall will be memorable because of the premiere of Atlanta on Tuesday, Sept. 6, on FX. The half-hour comedy created by and starring Donald Glover (Community), simply and brilliantly recalibrates our expectations of what a TV comedy is and how black lives are portrayed on the medium.

  • Louisa Ada Seltzer

    The second reboot of the 1980s John Candy movie Uncle Buck, bumped by ABC from midseason, has the same tired jokes you'll find on any second-rate sitcom. Too bad, because Mike Epps is appealing and ABC would be wise to keep him around for future shows, but there’s just not enough to this show to suggest it will last past summer. It also airs against NBC’s America’s Got Talent, summer’s No. 1 program on broadcast, which may make it even harder to find an audience.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    Bryan Cranston brings his Tony Award-winning interpretation of President Lyndon B. Johnson to television in an adaptation of the Robert Schenkkan play All the Way, and it’s still quite a sight to behold, just as it was on Broadway in 2014. Nothing beats witnessing this kind of larger-than-life portrayal onstage, of course. But the television version, presented by HBO, offers plenty of rewards, allowing Cranston to work the close-ups and liberating him from the confines of a theater set. Cranston’s performance is a gem — in his hands, this accidental president comes across as an amazing bundle of contradictions, someone who seems at once too vulgar for the job and just right for it.

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