Hacker News Reader

Comment by RF_Enthusiast | Hacker News Reader

I think this is clever: a TV station in Oregon is delivering on the promises of ATSC 3.0 with ATSC 1.0.

They are broadcasting a mix of high-definition channels, including four channels in 4K, two in 1080p, and eight in 720p, all on a single RF channel. Viewers can experience some of the benefits of ATSC 3.0, like higher resolutions, without needing a new ATSC 3.0 compatible TV or tuner.

If you click through to the full interview, the owner of the station (who bought the station for a place to test his ideas) says there are even some fringe benefits, like increased effective range.

View on HN

> Viewers can experience some of the benefits of ATSC 3.0, like higher resolutions, without needing a new ATSC 3.0 compatible TV or tuner.

How many TVs/tuners are compatible with HEVC over ATSC 1.0 is a real question I have. I'm pretty sure my computer based tuners would be fine; AIUI, it's still an mpeg transport stream, and demultiplexing doesn't care about the codec, and my player app can figure that out (or not, but I think it would), but I don't know if even my recent atsc 1.0 only tvs know about this and they do have the codecs supported for smart tv.

Otoh, if they're broadcasting in ac-3 audio instead of ac-4 that's common on atsc 3.0, that's a big compatability win. I can't get ac-4 to work well at all.

> How many TVs/tuners are compatible with HEVC over ATSC 1.0?

Great question to which I don’t know the answer. My intuition is the video decoder is the compatibility limiter but it’s beyond my expertise but not my interest.

this Q is covered in the longer-form interview, but in short, here's what I've seen and heard from audience feedback:

-If it's a UHD TV, and has an ATSC1 tuner, it seems everything we test or encounter will decode HEVC pictures, up to 2160p, at up to 30 FPS

-If it's a 1080 only TV, but has usb/sd/mmc card support, and made after 2020, it's likely that it'll decode HEVC up to 1080p30

-If it's a 1080 but made between 2013 and 2020ish, and has usb/mmc/sd/etc, it's likely it'll at least decode AVC up to 1080p60

If someone is using a USB or network tuner, and decoding on something like a computer, laptop, tablet, etc. with software like the VideoLAN CLient (VLC), the "Channels" app (for hdhomerun units), or ffplay/etc. then it's totally likely everything will work up to the limits of their system. That seems to be 2160p30 at least, today, but likely p60 if they've got a semi-recent GPU or fast enough cpu to decode & push frames around to their display.

https://www.rabbitears.info/screencaps/or-eug/185855-0_0.htm

Are they also offering the streams online? Very cool project!

There's very little incentive for an OTA broadcast station to offer a stream. These stations are always claiming to work on constrained budgets (what company doesn't?). They can't just air the same ads on the stream they do OTA, so there's that loss of revenue on top of the additional cost of hosting the streams. Replacing the ads in the stream with streaming friendly ads comes at an additional tech cost too, plus you need to either hire people to run it or pay someone to manage it for you. Also, you can typically find all of the content via other streaming platforms, so the station may not even have streaming rights for the content they have broadcast rights for

>They can't just air the same ads on the stream they do OTA...

>Replacing the ads in the stream with streaming friendly ads...

I'm ignorant and genuinely curious - why can't they just live stream what's being broadcast OTA with the same ads?

There are a couple issues. One is rights. It might be prohibited by contract.

Also, there’s money left on the table. Server side inserted ad solutions are available and monetize better.

And OTA ads are often hyper-local, because you know exactly the area they can be seen.

There's zero utility in seeing an ad for Big Bill Hell's cars outside of the Baltimore metro area.

> with the same ads?

Not sure if it's still the case but the AFTRA union made that somewhat difficult for many years. The ad itself needs to be cleared for digital streaming and use electronic reporting if it uses union talent. When we carry "network" programming, some of the ads slots belong to the network, and some to the local station. We have no visibility on network ads, so we had to assume they were not clear, and could never be streamed.

This was an issue in radio, too.

> Replacing the ads in the stream with streaming friendly ads comes at an additional tech cost too

There are several ad exchanges which will manage this entirely for you.

> plus you need to either hire people to run it or pay someone to manage it for you.

You can do most of it with automation. You just need to create a "break in" and "break out" signal to send to the advertising platform.

> so the station may not even have streaming rights for the content they have broadcast rights for

This is most of the issue. CBS, NBC and ABC don't give you very much latitude with their national network content. So local news and sports are usually the only space you can sell into. I've seen a lot of broadcasters setup scheduled streams that have full programmatic replacement running on them that only exist when local sports are in season and for the few hours a week they're actively played.

> There are several ad exchanges which will manage this entirely for you.

sort of. there's still a lot to be done on the station's end to do this

> You can do most of it with automation.

Yes, I can, and do. However, not every you can. There are 3rd party companies that do this, but it's not what every station wants to do.

Your comment reads as if you're writing everything off except the part you like. It's one of those situations where the station mangers look at all of the pros/cons, adds it up, and then makes a decision. They all contribute

> there's still a lot

define "a lot."

> not every you can

I assumed you would use the already existing automation system. Almost all of them have a mechanism to easily do this.

> as if you're writing everything off except the part you like.

I have a point of view that is different than yours. I'm suggesting that the points you've raised do not all share equal value in the decision making process, and if I had to guess, were based off slightly outdated experiences in the industry.

> outdated experiences in the industry.

clearly, you don't know me or what i do, but we all know what happens with assuming

you do recognize that the frequency with which you post here puts you on top 20 lists?

I imagine they have zero streaming rights to the vast majority of their content.

Any licensed content would have to be separately licensed for streaming online.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com