Does ATSC 3.0 Work Better Than ATSC 1.0 On Low VHF Frequencies (Channels 2-6)?

[olmjax]

Since there are a myriad of significant signal challenges TV stations have experienced on Low Band VHF with the current 8VSB-based ATSC 1.0 standard, I want to know if the OFDM-based ATSC 3.0 standard has a more robust signal in comparison to the current ATSC 1.0 when it comes to indoor reception. I know that in South Korea, which is already using the ATSC 3.0 standard and has done so for about 3 years now, uses the UHF band exclusively for ATSC digital TV. As a result, there has not been any testing done in Low VHF in that country so it is unknown if ATSC 3.0 will offer better signal performance in indoor environments than the current ATSC 1.0 standard. On the other hand, the United States and neighboring countries in North America use the Low VHF band for OTA TV and many TV stations have moved back to Low VHF (Channels 2-6) due to the FCC repack. If ATSC 3.0 is to become the official standard for OTA TV in the future, it must be able to work much better than ATSC 1.0 in all TV frequencies from VHF (Channels 2-13) to UHF (Channels 14-36).

EDIT: The topic of the thread should read "Does ATSC 3.0 Work BETTER Than ATSC 1.0 On Low VHF Frequencies (Channels 2-6)?"

 

[KeithE4]

Since there are a myriad of significant signal challenges TV stations have experienced on Low Band VHF with the current 8VSB-based ATSC 1.0 standard, I want to know if the OFDM-based ATSC 3.0 standard has a more robust signal in comparison to the current ATSC 1.0 when it comes to indoor reception. I know that in South Korea, which is already using the ATSC 3.0 standard and has done so for about 3 years now, uses the UHF band exclusively for ATSC digital TV. As a result, there has not been any testing done in Low VHF in that country so it is unknown if ATSC 3.0 will offer better signal performance in indoor environments than the current ATSC 1.0 standard. On the other hand, the United States and neighboring countries in North America use the Low VHF band for OTA TV and many TV stations have moved back to Low VHF (Channels 2-6) due to the FCC repack. If ATSC 3.0 is to become the official standard for OTA TV in the future, it must be able to work much better than ATSC 1.0 in all TV frequencies from VHF (Channels 2-13) to UHF (Channels 14-36).

EDIT: The topic of the thread should read "Does ATSC 3.0 Work BETTER Than ATSC 1.0 On Low VHF Frequencies (Channels 2-6)?"

Is anyone testing ATSC 3.0 on VHF, low or high? Here in Phoenix, all testing has been on UHF.

 

[Kelly A]

Since there are a myriad of significant signal challenges TV stations have experienced on Low Band VHF with the current 8VSB-based ATSC 1.0 standard, I want to know if the OFDM-based ATSC 3.0 standard has a more robust signal in comparison to the current ATSC 1.0 when it comes to indoor reception.

In theory, yes. Practically, no.

As with ATSC 1.0, VHF DTV may have the benefits of favorable propagation characteristic's, but suffers badly from terrestrial noise interference. Since the adoption of things like florescent and LED replacement light bulbs and consumer devices with switching power supplies, the low end of the TV band has become increasingly noisy. ATSC 3.0 and the compression therein, means less room for extra (spare bits). Essentially that means reception via VHF can be lest robust.

 

[ContinuousWave]

V3 has a 14-15db increase in noise and co channel rejection vs V1...so yes, lowband TV will live again with V3