6 ms·

That's already widely done in the US. If you plug in an antenna and scan for local channels, what used to be one analog TV channel on colloquially-named "chann

That's already widely done in the US. If you plug in an antenna and scan for local channels, what used to be one analog TV channel on colloquially-named "channel 7" in the defined channel 7 frequency range will now be seen as "channel 7-1" which is often (but not always!) actually broadcast on the old frequency. During the ATSC transition, it was important to retain the branding and consumer memory of "channel 7" even when the RF transport frequency changed. The transition opened the ability to have an arbitrary number of digital subchannels, 7-2, 7-3, etc etc. The total bitrate available on a given ATSC broadcast is fixed, but it can be partitioned among multiple MPEG streams. The typical setup is one (occasional two) HD channels and several SD channels. Obviously there's a balancing act between bitrate and visual quality for each subchannel. It's often used as a way to broadcast older (read: cheaper) syndicated SD content on which they can run more ads while keeping the main HD channel quality reasonably acceptable.

wmf 1mo ago
That's not what I'm talking about though. We should have repacked ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox onto a single channel.
- jyoung8607 1mo ago
  Seventeen years ago, when we transitioned, the state of available and deployed equipment, codecs, and home receivers would not have permitted it. I mean sure, you could pack four streams into one 6MHz channel. They could even be "HD" insofar as the transmitted stream is 720p or 1080i. The result would have been MPEG-2 program streams of about 4.5Mbit each instead of about 18-19Mbit (assuming no other subchannels). That would make live sports or anything with significant motion look like absolute dogshit. You might say that you don't care about that, and that is fine for you. However, in that case, I would respectfully submit that opinion to be far from the center of the bell curve of television-viewing American public of that era. We could do a lot better with ATSC 3.0. So, there might someday be a second round of broadcast frequency reclamation, just as there was with ATSC 1.0.
  - wmf 1mo ago
    If you limit it to 480i I think 4.5 Mbps would be fine. If you use a cherrypicker sports could burst to a higher bitrate.
    - jyoung8607 1mo ago
      The original transition (and release of extra frequencies) was a delicate and painful process with lots of involved parties who had to spend lots of money to make it happen. Politically speaking, it could only happen if everyone involved saw some actual benefit from the change. If you got into a time machine and tried your plan two decades ago, the conversations would have gone something like this: ----- Government: "Hey broadcaster, we need you to throw out and upgrade all your broadcast equipment that's working just fine today." Broadcaster: "Why?" Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast channel bandwidth." Broadcaster: "Why else?" Government: "That's really it." Broadcaster: "How about instead, I take a little bit of that money you're asking me to spend, and give it to your political opponent's campaign?" ----- Government: "Hey citizens, we need you to buy a new TV or buy an adapter for your current TV that's currently working just fine." Citizen: "Why?" Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast channel bandwidth." Citizen: "Why else?" Government: "That's really it." Citizen: "How about instead, I vote for the opposition candidate who says he'll let me keep my TV and my money?" ----- We're able to juggle broadcast frequencies more easily after the transition. Not only did we shrink the broadcast frequency range at the time of transition, we did it again about ten years ago with far less pain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_wireless_sp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_sp... TL;DR: 480i would have been an absolute non-starter.
    - Kirby64 1mo ago
      480i? Nobody owns CRTs anymore, so interlaced content is inferior in many ways. 720p is already garbage for 2026. We shouldn’t be reducing resolution, if anything it should be going up.
  - thomasjb 1mo ago
- TheAdamist 1mo ago
  Atsc 3.0 does this in a lot of areas, it is in my area, all the channels are multiplexed from one broadcast, although it's hard to tell on the tv since you get the virtual channel numbers that are different and the same as the atsc 1.0 channels
  - cogman10 1mo ago
    The very VERY unfortunate thing about ATSC 3.0 is it has an internet optional requirement which broadcasters have decided to use as a gate for watching ATSC content. They've turned it into a premium service rather than just simply using the open codecs.
- toast0 1mo ago
  If you're gonna smash everything onto a single channel, you may as well turn the whole thing off. Gonna look like absolute trash. Might be almost acceptable with atsc 3, except for the diaster of DRM and new proprietary audio codecs that brings.

wmf 1mo ago

That's not what I'm talking about though. We should have repacked ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox onto a single channel.

jyoung8607 1mo ago
Seventeen years ago, when we transitioned, the state of available and deployed equipment, codecs, and home receivers would not have permitted it. I mean sure, you could pack four streams into one 6MHz channel. They could even be "HD" insofar as the transmitted stream is 720p or 1080i. The result would have been MPEG-2 program streams of about 4.5Mbit each instead of about 18-19Mbit (assuming no other subchannels). That would make live sports or anything with significant motion look like absolute dogshit. You might say that you don't care about that, and that is fine for you. However, in that case, I would respectfully submit that opinion to be far from the center of the bell curve of television-viewing American public of that era. We could do a lot better with ATSC 3.0. So, there might someday be a second round of broadcast frequency reclamation, just as there was with ATSC 1.0.
- wmf 1mo ago
  If you limit it to 480i I think 4.5 Mbps would be fine. If you use a cherrypicker sports could burst to a higher bitrate.
  - jyoung8607 1mo ago
    The original transition (and release of extra frequencies) was a delicate and painful process with lots of involved parties who had to spend lots of money to make it happen. Politically speaking, it could only happen if everyone involved saw some actual benefit from the change. If you got into a time machine and tried your plan two decades ago, the conversations would have gone something like this: ----- Government: "Hey broadcaster, we need you to throw out and upgrade all your broadcast equipment that's working just fine today." Broadcaster: "Why?" Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast channel bandwidth." Broadcaster: "Why else?" Government: "That's really it." Broadcaster: "How about instead, I take a little bit of that money you're asking me to spend, and give it to your political opponent's campaign?" ----- Government: "Hey citizens, we need you to buy a new TV or buy an adapter for your current TV that's currently working just fine." Citizen: "Why?" Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast channel bandwidth." Citizen: "Why else?" Government: "That's really it." Citizen: "How about instead, I vote for the opposition candidate who says he'll let me keep my TV and my money?" ----- We're able to juggle broadcast frequencies more easily after the transition. Not only did we shrink the broadcast frequency range at the time of transition, we did it again about ten years ago with far less pain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_wireless_sp... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_sp... TL;DR: 480i would have been an absolute non-starter.
  - Kirby64 1mo ago
    480i? Nobody owns CRTs anymore, so interlaced content is inferior in many ways. 720p is already garbage for 2026. We shouldn’t be reducing resolution, if anything it should be going up.
- thomasjb 1mo ago
TheAdamist 1mo ago
Atsc 3.0 does this in a lot of areas, it is in my area, all the channels are multiplexed from one broadcast, although it's hard to tell on the tv since you get the virtual channel numbers that are different and the same as the atsc 1.0 channels
- cogman10 1mo ago
  The very VERY unfortunate thing about ATSC 3.0 is it has an internet optional requirement which broadcasters have decided to use as a gate for watching ATSC content. They've turned it into a premium service rather than just simply using the open codecs.
toast0 1mo ago
If you're gonna smash everything onto a single channel, you may as well turn the whole thing off. Gonna look like absolute trash. Might be almost acceptable with atsc 3, except for the diaster of DRM and new proprietary audio codecs that brings.