<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I hope you haven't forgotten about my ATSC 3.0 transmitter open
source implementation.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/drmpeg/gr-atsc3">https://github.com/drmpeg/gr-atsc3</a></p>
<p>It's an almost complete implementation of the PHY layer and can
be used to transmit Transport Streams. It does not implement the
ROUTE/DASH higher layers.</p>
<p>Here's a demo clip where I back off the power to find the minimum
required SNR (2 to 3 dB for 9/15 QPSK).<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmIGM0I3NE0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmIGM0I3NE0</a><br>
</p>
<p>There was an open source receiver repository (libatsc3) for the
upper layers, but it's been deleted. I just e-mailed the author to
find out what's going on.<br>
</p>
<p>Despite getting some press for my transmitter in TV Technology
and IEEE Broadcast Technology Magazine, I've never received any
feedback.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion/learning-about-atsc-30on-the-web-or-on-the-bench">https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion/learning-about-atsc-30on-the-web-or-on-the-bench</a></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bts.ieee.org/images/files/newsletters/BTS-4thQtr2022-web_1.pdf">https://bts.ieee.org/images/files/newsletters/BTS-4thQtr2022-web_1.pdf</a></p>
<p>The ATSC 3.0 roll out is in a bit of turmoil right now due to
broadcasters applying encryption/DRM to their channels. The most
popular STB style receivers are not capable of decryption and
consumers are being disenfranchised. A couple thousand complaints
have been filed with the FCC.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=(proceedings.name:(%2216-142*%22))">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=(proceedings.name:(%2216-142*%22))</a></p>
<p>Hopefully, that link works. If it doesn't, use the link below and
search for the 16-142 proceeding.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings</a></p>
<p>There's also been videos on some YouTube channels.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NhV5BdEWqo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NhV5BdEWqo</a></p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnW3ed9yR4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnW3ed9yR4</a><br>
</p>
<p>Since there's no reduced bandwidth option for ATSC 3.0, it's not
very ham friendly. Folks are reluctant to fire up full 6 MHz wide
signals, especially on 70 cm.<br>
</p>
<p>Ron W6RZ<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/20/23 10:44, Michelle Thompson via
Ground-Station wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACvjz2V2uRboDU1g8oO657HX4KeJmPgwNgSGO+1XCqLAE9s+HQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I have a meeting in the works to talk to ATSC
committee leadership about open source implementations. <br>
<br>
There's a clear difference between DVB and ATSC in ease of use
for open source work. ATSC folks are interested in hearing more
about how things can improve.<br>
<br>
If you can help with this effort, please get in touch so we can
put our best effort forward in communicating with ATSC. <br>
<br>
If you know of someone that would be a positive addition to the
discussion, please forward this and let me know how to get in
touch with them. <br>
<br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">-Michelle Thompson</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>