Rural Ohio 'Hobbyist' Cites ‘Extremely Limited’ ATSC 3.0 Receiver Options
Radio communications and TV "hobbyist" Roger Davis, a self-described “rural resident at the fringe” of a small TV market in eastern Ohio, sees the ATSC 3.0 transition “as an opportunity for broadcasters to serve rural populations in ways never before…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
possible,” said his filing posted Thursday at the FCC in docket 16-142. His were the very first comments received in the FCC’s NPRM on all aspects of 3.0, five years into its voluntary deployment (see 2207060019). On the NPRM’s call for feedback on the market availability of 3.0 receivers, “my perception as a consumer is that while receivers are available, they are extremely limited in terms of choice at this time,” said Davis. He has been researching new TVs from several top manufacturers, “but I see that the ATSC 3.0 tuner capable models are restricted to higher priced units,” he said. Since NextGenTV stations “are generally simulcasting on lighthouse transmitters with no additional content or features, there is no compelling reason for me to switch to a new expensive television at this time,” he said. The 3.0-capable SiliconDust gateway device he bought in October 2020 “is fine for my hobbyist needs right now,” he said. But he worries that “much of the promise of ATSC 3.0 will be left behind as streaming options become more profitable and more prevalent,” he said. NextGenTV’s backers cite the current availability of many dozens of 3.0-capable TV models from LG, Samsung and Sony, at price points starting under $500, with approximately eight more models on the way from Hisense later this year. Comments in the NPRM are due Aug. 8, replies Sept. 6.