TiVo Community Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Does anyone know if TiVo is planning to launch a ATSC 3.0 compatible DVR?
Only TiVo knows, and they are not sharing. That said, they probably have plans. And plans for plans. And plans for plans for plans. But that does not mean those plans will turn into shipping product.

Back in early 2019 there was a proof of concept evaluation of a ATSC 3.0 USB tuner dongle connected to a TiVo, but it was never productized. With the current ATSC 3.0 tuners being rather expensive per tuner any new TiVo OTA product with all ATSC 3.0 tuners likely makes sense only somewhere down the line of wide ATSC 3.0 rollout (in most markets today there is one shared ATSC 3.0 transmitter being used by a group of the local OTAs and they are all experimenting as to what makes sense for them) when not only will the price per tuner likely drop, but there are a lot more ATSC 3.0 transmitters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
unless TiVo can manufacture a hybrid ATSC 1.0/3.0 tuner for this new Tivo like Silicon Dust did
While I am sure you can find exceptions, all the tuner silicon available (which SiliconDust used too) does ATSC 1.0 in addition to ATSC 3.0. However it is (still) a rather expensive silicon offering, which for an (all) ATSC 3.0/1.0 tuner TiVo would increase the BoM substantially. SiliconDust fudged their offering by providing just a pair of ATSC 3.0/1.0 tuners in addition to a pair of ATSC 1.0 (only) tuners (so four tuners total, but only two are ATSC 3.0/1,0 capable). In previous years one might expect the 2Q (April-ish) NAB conference for some vendors to announce their new silicon, but NAB has been pushed back to 4Q (October-ish) this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
From what I read Silicon Dust retrofitted the 2 hybrid tuners into their existing quatro tuner and they only have 100Mbs ethernet on the quatro box so they don't have the band width to support 4 ATSC 3.0 tuners. Not sure they have the bandwidth to support 2 ATSC 3.0 streams either since I think ATSC 3.0 can use 57Mbs.
That is consistent with what they have said. It was done to give them something to offer so that they (and the early adopters) can test out certain ways of dealing with ATSC 3.0. Both the early adopters, and SiliconDust, have found that there are some real world issues as some of the stations have done the most interesting things (HEVC interlaced? Who would have thought? [as I understand it, pretty much no one implemented HEVC interlaced rendering correct (except for LG)]). And while the issues will get understood/resolved, it is still early times.

It should be noted that while an ATSC 3.0 stream is up to ~57Mbps, no single channel is using all that bandwidth (except for certain tests) and as the SiliconDust devices only transport the single (sub) channel selected (not the raw stream except for certain dev modes) the 100Mbps Ethernet tends not to be an issue for these early adopters and tests (although could be for future cases).

It is presumed that SiliconDust will eventually offer some newer pure ATSC 3.0 tuner box with a new design that will be able to support what they are learning, and that will likely include all the other changes necessary to fully utilize the full ATSC 3.0 capabilities (which could include higher network speeds, crypto functionality for stations use of protected content, and likely a faster SoC to manage it all). And while I would imagine that SiliconDust would like to keep the price point reasonable, adding all those features may push the price higher at least in the near term (eventually prices come down, but that would mean you are no where near being a leader in the marketplace).

I think this new box is only $20 more than the previous model.
Well, $50, so (while perhaps a little profit there) ~$25 extra per tuner over the previous variant.

As I recall the tuner silicon which was expected to be used (AFAIK no one was done a teardown to validate) was a MaxLinear tuner chip that is designed to be a chip that can support every existing terrestrial standard from across the world (one tuner to rule them all), which makes it both attractive (SiliconDust, and others, will be able to design one version of their tuners that work everywhere rather than market specific variants), and somewhat more expensive to manufacture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Any device they put out in the next 5-10 years will likely be a hybrid 1.0/3.0 tuner like silicon dust since even in markets where 3.0 has went live already 1.0 will be a thing for 5 years or more.
The SiliconDust quad tuner (two ATSC 3.0/1.0 tuners, two ATSC 1.0 only tuners) was a compromise due to pricing at the time of design (they could have gone 4 ATSC3.0/1.0 tuners, but the device would have been close to double the price). These days, I would expect any newly designed devices to be only the combined ATSC 3.0/1.0 tuners given the availability, at a cheaper price point, of such universal tuners (in fact the newest tuner silicon is universal across both the US and other world delivery systems (DVB-T/T2), just needing the appropriate firmware to be loaded into the tuner for the country to be used in, so one tuner to rule them all).

As to when TiVo will get the message and start delivering actual product is anyone's guess (ATSC 3.0 program delivery has other complexities than just a tuner demod).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Millions of people will never get OTA because the signals have to follow the laws of physics.
While Scotty famously said "Ye cannae change the laws of physics" he always found a way to side step those laws later in the episode.

Similarly, SFN (Single Frequency Networks) can help solve the geographic challenges of some locations, and with the ability of ATSC 3.0 to combine all available sources of the bitstreams (from possibly multiple SFN transmitters, and even the Internet), coverage *can* be quite a bit better. Of course, not all areas will need, or benefit from, all those options, and not all stations will spend the money needed to do the build outs, but IRT ATSC 3.0 capabilities, "it's in there".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
The possibility of improved reception with ATSC 3.0 is real, but not guaranteed. In D.C., there's a low-power station that I had never, ever received when it was broadcasting in ATSC 1.0. They switched to 3.0, and now it comes in rock-solid. (I don't think they increased their power or anything.)
COFDM is in general far more robust, but as with all else, your reception will vary (and while COFDM is in general more robust, there are a couple of cases where it can perform poorer than 8VSB).
In Baltimore, though, there's a new 3.0 station carrying multiple channels, that fails to match the strength of the 1.0 versions. AFAICT, that's mainly because it's using higher data rates, so more channels will fit, but it makes the signal less robust.
ATSC 3.0 allows (but does not require) a broadcaster to offer multiple PLPs (Physical Layer Pipes) which can transmit streams at different robustness/bitrates, allowing (say) a high bitrate "4K" quality stream and at the same time a low bitrate "SD" quality stream, and a receiver that can only reliably receive at the lower bitrate can, at least, see something. The initial lighthouse stations around the country are often still experimenting with what will work best for their situation(s), but it is not uncommon they all start with single high(er) bitrates (especially when as a lighthouse station they have lots of stations trying to fit into the same stream), and only later may start experimenting with additional PLPs or additional SFN transmitters.

In the end, ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) is still a work in progress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
It's 2021 OTA is on borrowed time.
As long as OTA has the DMA rules (exclusive regional monopoly on "national network" content), they can make money just by sitting on their transmitters, as cable and OTT providers must pay for the re-transmission rights. And as long as the OTAs in the major markets are O&O there will be contractual tie-ins that force the cable and OTT providers to include expensive content in their plans (another way to print money).

So, as Mark Twain was once misquoted as saying: "The report of my death has been grossly exaggerated", so too, is the death of OTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
As was said above, proof of concept is a long way to being able to buy one ourselves, but at least they were thinking about it.
The PoC dongle would have been a way to offer existing customers a way to preserve their existing investment in a recent (Bolt/Edge?) TiVo. However, that was then, and this is now, and if TiVo was going to go down that route one might have expected an announcement of a product by now, rather than the (lack of announcement of) staff reductions in the departments that would have been driving such. As I don't see how the PoC dongle would be of interest to the operator market (where TiVo is still investing substantial engineering resources), I would certainly be surprised if such a product gets released at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
I'm a bit skeptical that there will ever be sufficient consumer adoption of 3.0 tuners to allow them to shut down their 1.0 broadcasts.
Today there are (often one) lighthouse ATSC 3.0 transmitters shared with multiple stations. Eventually(*) it is expected there will likely be (one?) remaining lighthouse ATSC 1.0 transmitters for the DMA to support those that have not yet purchased a newer TV(**), with highly compressed subchannels that may technically be HD, but are not going to have great PQ due to the sharing, and the other broadcasters will move their primary transmitter to ATSC 3.0. The exact transition schedules will, of course, vary by market, but it does look like that is the working thinking.

(*) The current regs require (approximately) the same DMA coverage for ATSC 1.0 to continue as has been the norm. In a few years that same coverage will no longer be required, so sharing a transmitter that has different characteristics becomes viable (all the stations, of course, want to maintain their coverage, but they may be willing to compromise at the edges, especially in locations that have had historically complicated coverage).

(**) While everyone is different, the average replacement age of a TV is around 7 years. The newer/larger/expense sets (that tend to be on the higher end of replacement years) are starting to come with ATSC 3.0 tuners, and the cheaper/smaller sets (that tend to be on the lower end of the replacement years) are starting to transition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
I really don't think stations that adopt 3.0 are going to continue broadcasting in 1.0 any longer than they have to, because of cost.
Today in most markets there is a single ATSC 3.0 lighthouse transmitter (with many/most stations sharing). At some (magic) point, it is expected there will be a transition to a single ATSC 1.0 lighthouse transmitter (with all the stations sharing that). That will offer legacy TV's access to the stations content for any reasonable future, while allowing stations to move towards (glorious?) 4K (or simply more sub-channels). Fitting (say) 5 stations content into a single ATSC 1.0 transmitter will require reduction in quality (you can't fit 10lbs of crap into the 2lbs bag), but in many locations it would provide the ability to continue to serve those with older TV's until they mostly disappear. That tail may be long, but since the average age of a TV is 7-8 years, it is not forever (and in hand-waving terms, the FCC requirement of continued support of ATSC 1.0 transmitters aligns with the expected replacement cycle).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
They're getting ready to phase out FiOS TV entirely.
VZ has nearly pulled the plug on TV service a number of times (first nearly a decade ago), and for years now while the CSR's would still sell you FiOS TV if you asked for it, they suggested one/more of the OTTs first (I seem to recall YTTV was mentioned, but I don't remember if that was an official marketing arrangement, or just a mention).
It's not economically viable as a relatively small competitive provider.
TV service is not especially profitable for any of the operators, as much of the revenue that comes in goes out to the content providers. While VZ generally cannot get the deals that the larger operators can, even the larger operators are getting squeezed as content providers ask for more and more and more.

What TV service has to offer to an operator is revenue. And that drives market valuation. And that drives lower borrowing and operating costs. And, of course, market valuation drives C level salary and bonuses. As most of VZ's revenue is in other areas than TV service, dropping TV service will not make much of a dent in overall market valuation. To some extent the same would be true for Comcast. Charter, on the other hand, would probably take a larger hit. Eventually all expect to be an ISP first.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top