Talk:ATSC-M/H

Chapter Technology

The idea was to give a short overview. At the end we have now some details to Signaling like SMT. Also this additional detailed information concerning DVB-H. I will move this inofrmation to chapter "Signaling". --Gueni (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

rkeidar: I decided to remove the sentence mentioned below since the ATSC-M/H is fairly simple to implement especially compared to DVB-H, so I agree that it is in appropriate claim, with the single hesitation wether the equalizer could work effectively. I also remove some irrelevant comments that where made to promote one's technology over another based on one's politics point of view. Let's keep the page clean of politics and focus on the technology being described

I believe the comments regarding "burdens of ATSC M/H being greater are not fair at this point and it is unlikely that any reasonably decisive and unviased data exists at this point to support this comment or conclusion. Since ATSC M/H has not been commercially launched and initial products are still being finalized it's not fair to make broad comments trying to it's performance characteristics to other commercial systems when no real data exists.

Put some more details in the "Introduction"

• ATSC-M/H is mobile TV extension of available wireless TV standard ATSC
  
• Change to A/53 and A/153
  
• ATSC is optimized for fixed reception in typical North-American environment
  
• ATSC is not robust enough against multipath radio interference in mobile environment

before it was declared as "problem". I think this new wording is more neutral
Gueni (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Put some structuring points into

• Evolution of mobile TV Standard

The remaining available text is still under the point "Principle"
Gueni (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Gueni

Structure of Standard

• information I get from ATSC organisation, nearly unchanged

Gueni (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Signaling

More Information about different layers used in the system. Some remaining information in section "Principle" is already moved into section Proposals Gueni (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparision to DVB-H

I think it is very helpful to explain differences and similar aspect between standards. But I think it is not so helpful to benchmark this with such a strong evaluation.

"ATSC-M/H improves many of the ill design errors of DVB-H"

I propose here:

"ATSC-M/H improves design by detailed analyse of experience with DVB-H"

Please let us improve. Gueni (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AAC outside M/H

Has there ever been discussion of AAC in ATSC outside M/H (e.g. during the addition of AVC in 2008)? —Wulf (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

interoperability with ATSC

Exactly how will it be broadcast? will it be a subchannel of a main signal and take up bandwidth, like 4.4? or will it broadcast on a designated "mobile" channel? what will its relation to normal ATSC channels be? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the same question I had when I came to the article. No answer? Is this simply not yet known? Otherwise how can this very detailed article fail to answer its most basic question? Ariel. (talk)

From what I can tell, ATSC-M/H frames are just another type of payload that can exist within a 19.4Mbps 8VSB datastream. You can have all legacy ATSC frames, all ATSC-M/H frames, or a mix of the two competing for that 19.4Mbps of bandwidth. For legacy ATSC tuners, ATSC-M/H frames are flagged with an unknown frame ID and will simply be ignored. If you're only using ATSC-M/H frames, then your subchannels would start at .1 and go up. If you're using mixed frames, you'll probably have legacy ATSC audio-video (AV) streams with lower subchannels and ATSC-M/H AV streams with higher ones.

What I can't tell from the article is if ATSC-M/H phase frames and checksum frames only correct ATSC-M/H frames (and the AV streams contained within them) or the entire 8VSB datastream (including legacy ATSC AV streams). Dinjiin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ATSC-M/H. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403205237/http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-1-2011.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-1-2011.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-1-2011.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-2-2011.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-4-2009.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-5-2009.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-6-2011.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-7-2009.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-8-2009.pdfPart
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a153/a_153-Part-9-2011.pdfPart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)