I read this week that Sky are not interested in 4K at the present time due to the lack of source material. They also said they were not interested in "UHD Lite" and would wait for further system developments.
They are waiting for Phase 2 approval in 2-3 years time like all other European broadcasters are.
No point jumping the gun like the UK mobile telecoms industry did with 4G. Anyone who has tried to get a non-UK (as in not meant for the UK market) mobile phone to connect to 4G will know what I mean.
It's a shame because the BBC usually like to be at the forefront of technology like this.
I don't care what people say they look bloody brilliant even on a 55" screen 6ft viewing distance to my eyes. A step up on HD ( mostly the slight increase in colour depth ), but not the same leap SD to HD was, not even close.
There's not a tv On sale in the UK with more than 8 bit or Hd BT709 colour gamut ...
But looking at a HDR al least 10'bit , brighter display with a wider colur gamut ..
Even prof displays do not render BT 2020 yet .,,
with a higher frame rate and immersive sound .. That's a WOW factor.... !!!!!!
I.e UHD 1 ph2
And you can see it at more than 1.5 H which is the visual accuity based in a UHD1 display .. ..
1.5 H on a 55" is about 1.2 m....
They are waiting for Phase 2 approval in 2-3 years time like all other European broadcasters are.
No point jumping the gun like the UK mobile telecoms industry did with 4G. Anyone who has tried to get a non-UK (as in not meant for the UK market) mobile phone to connect to 4G will know what I mean.
We use the same bands as Europe and the same technologies as every other country. As long as it supports 800/1800/2600MHz LTE it will work here. You can buy a phone in France or Germany, for example, and it will work here on any network. A US phone might not because they use different bands.
I'm not sure what you are on about. Most phones aren't designed for any one market in mind - usually entire continents or globally. The US is an exception due to their legacy unique needs
The only phone that has any real problem is the original version of the iPhone 5, but that was never sold as being 4G compatible, it was just a happy coincidence that it supported one of the bands that EE and 3 use.
Anthony David -Can you please advise where you have read that Sky UK are not interested in launching 4K in the near future ?
It's very interesting as Sky sports are doing so much testing in 4K at present with one event done this week in 4K apart from RF cameras then down scaled for broadcast and even been testing at small no league grounds to see how current equipment copes with lower light levels.
Anthony David -Can you please advise where you have read that Sky UK are not interested in launching 4K in the near future ?
It's very interesting as Sky sports are doing so much testing in 4K at present with one event done this week in 4K apart from RF cameras then down scaled for broadcast and even been testing at small no league grounds to see how current equipment copes with lower light levels.
No European broadcaster is likely to start a full time UHD service until phase 2 of UHD has been agreed (which is probably 2 to 3 years away). It is most likely that the first 4k services will be IPTV based (BT Sports probably)
The Mrs had sky fitted yesterday and I was speaking to the installer with regards to sky and 4K. He said yes it is coming this year, he seams to belive before new Premier league season but it may slip. Will be a new box and sub for the service. All boxs will be connected to a central hub wirelessly. So going along iptv route? when pressed he wouldn't give any more details, other than installers had seen it.. And I'd only just bought a new 50inch Panasonic TV ( As thought Sky wouldn't be launching 4k for awhile yet😠.)
The Mrs had sky fitted yesterday and I was speaking to the installer with regards to sky and 4K. He said yes it is coming this year, he seams to belive before new Premier league season but it may slip. Will be a new box and sub for the service. All boxs will be connected to a central hub wirelessly. So going along iptv route? when pressed he wouldn't give any more details, other than installers had seen it.. And I'd only just bought a new 50inch Panasonic TV ( As thought Sky wouldn't be launching 4k for awhile yet😠.)
It's going to be horrible when most don't have fast Broadband or Fibre in their area yet.
It's going to be horrible when most don't have fast Broadband or Fibre in their area yet.
"Most" might be pushing it, given that the rural broadband projects are well underway and in a year or two we'll see a lot of progress. Urban areas are more likely to have decent broadband already anyway
The county I live in is one of the first to start and we're well past 50% coverage by now
"Most" might be pushing it, given that the rural broadband projects are well underway and in a year or two we'll see a lot of progress
Depends on your view of 'progress', when the fibre speeds don't even reach decent ADSL speeds - as it's an improvement I suppose it's 'progress', but no where near what's required for these ambitious imaginings of TV via broadband.
Incidentally I was talking to a guy earlier in the week (his broadband was appalling), and he said it was the same where he was in London as well, with plenty of the capital having pretty well unusable broadband.
Current 4K sets that have HDMI 2.0 will a firmware upgrade to HDMI 2.0a make HDR work or is it something in the hardware you need ?
I read this below and have to admit I was confused
Current 4K TV sets with HDMI 2.0 connections aren’t able to properly display content that’s been mastered in HDR, but this should be fixed with an upgrade to 2.0a.
Robert Blanchard, President of the HDMI Forum, suggested that you won’t need to rush out and buy a new TV set just because it has HDMI 2.0a ports.
Depends on your view of 'progress', when the fibre speeds don't even reach decent ADSL speeds - as it's an improvement I suppose it's 'progress', but no where near what's required for these ambitious imaginings of TV via broadband.
30Mbit should be and is possible from some distance from the cabinet - plenty for IPTV. I know you're "no can do" Nigel, but only the facts matter
ncidentally I was talking to a guy earlier in the week (his broadband was appalling), and he said it was the same where he was in London as well, with plenty of the capital having pretty well unusable broadband.
"Plenty" you seem to enjoy throwing out these exaggerations. Parts of London do indeed have problems, but this is a separate issue to rural broadband.
Applying the N Goodwin pessimistic standard to satellite would mean that it'd never get off the ground, because "no one" would ever want a dish bolted to the wall, "no one" could get permission for satellite dishes in rented properties, no block of flats would ever put the money into communal setups, and of course a few people having obstacles in the way of the satellite pretty much means no one can pick it up.
Depends on your view of 'progress', when the fibre speeds don't even reach decent ADSL speeds - as it's an improvement I suppose it's 'progress', but no where near what's required for these ambitious imaginings of TV via broadband.
This is an example of the sort of progress at one of my former addresses. Fibre has been available for a few years. It's such a vast improvement over ADSL and that's the best it will ever be because it meets the governments minimum speed criteria.
FTTC Range A (Clean) 7.1 3.6 1.2 0.8 -- Available
FTTC Range B (Impacted) 5.5 2.1 1.2 0.5 -- Available
WBC ADSL 2+ Up to 4 -- 2.5 to 6.5 Available
WBC ADSL 2+ Annex M Up to 4 Up to 0.5 2.5 to 6.5 Available
ADSL Max Up to 3 -- 2 to 6 Available
WBC Fixed Rate 1 -- -- Available
Fixed Rate 1 -- -- Available
Applying the N Goodwin pessimistic standard to satellite would mean that it'd never get off the ground, because "no one" would ever want a dish bolted to the wall, "no one" could get permission for satellite dishes in rented properties, no block of flats would ever put the money into communal setups, and of course a few people having obstacles in the way of the satellite pretty much means no one can pick it up.
Slight difference though, is that once the satellite has been launched, almost anyone can fit a cheap dish to their property and receive signals.
With Fibre, it isn't that simple, as it not only needs your exchange being compatible, but also your local cabinet, if both criteria aren't met, fitting a fibre modem will not help whatsoever.
30Mbit should be and is possible from some distance from the cabinet - plenty for IPTV. I know you're "no can do" Nigel, but only the facts matter
I've no problem with 30Mbit , but they are not offering anything like that on a nationwide basis - with many fibre speeds not even approaching decent ADSL speeds (although of course it's still a great improvement over the previous ADSL speed in such areas).
Applying the N Goodwin pessimistic standard to satellite would mean that it'd never get off the ground, because "no one" would ever want a dish bolted to the wall, "no one" could get permission for satellite dishes in rented properties, no block of flats would ever put the money into communal setups, and of course a few people having obstacles in the way of the satellite pretty much means no one can pick it up.
You're rather exaggerating the issue - which is you seem to be claiming that IPTV will replace TV broadcasting - my point is there are no plans to make decent broadband available on a nationwide scale to make it viable.
Cost wise, it's still FAR more expensive than satellite transmission, which gives much greater coverage for a minimal cost.
Slight difference though, is that once the satellite has been launched, almost anyone can fit a cheap dish to their property and receive signals.
With Fibre, it isn't that simple, as it not only needs your exchange being compatible, but also your local cabinet, if both criteria aren't met, fitting a fibre modem will not help whatsoever.
The point I'm making is that it is easy to keep saying that something won't work, even if it will.
Yes, you're right about the second point, but of course the availability of FTTC or even FTTP is growing all the time, even in rural areas
I've no problem with 30Mbit , but they are not offering anything like that on a nationwide basis - with many fibre speeds not even approaching decent ADSL speeds (although of course it's still a great improvement over the previous ADSL speed in such areas).
You're rather exaggerating the issue - which is you seem to be claiming that IPTV will replace TV broadcasting - my point is there are no plans to make decent broadband available on a nationwide scale to make it viable
I can't agree here. Some (not many or most) people will continue to lose out for the time being, but there are alternative technologies being looked at, like fibre to the remote node (smaller cabinet installed nearer the home that runs off the big one further down the street) or full fibre to the premises to more homes. As I say in every post in this thread, we're talking about the future, not right now
I'd rather we had more fibre to the premises from the beginning, but BT is more interested in short term profits and buying football rights and mobile networks
Cost wise, it's still FAR more expensive than satellite transmission, which gives much greater coverage for a minimal cost.
Except that it isn't, especially when most of your users are going to have fibre broadband either installed or available to them. IPTV is compelling because your users are already paying for most of the distribution costs for you due to having internet connections.
Applying the N Goodwin pessimistic standard to satellite would mean that it'd never get off the ground, because "no one" would ever want a dish bolted to the wall, "no one" could get permission for satellite dishes in rented properties, no block of flats would ever put the money into communal setups, and of course a few people having obstacles in the way of the satellite pretty much means no one can pick it up.
Indeed. If someone abroad was reading this forum they'd be forgiven for thinking everyone in the UK was stuck on hopeless 1Mb ADSL connections. Some people are, but most people aren't.
According to Ofcom the average download speed is currently 22.8Mbps, having nearly doubled over the last 2 years:
February 2015 = 22.8Mbps
October 2014 = 18.7Mbps
April 2014 = 17.8Mbps
August 2013 = 14.7Mbps
March 2013 = 12Mbps
I can't agree here. Some (not many or most) people will continue to lose out for the time being, but there are alternative technologies being looked at, like fibre to the remote node (smaller cabinet installed nearer the home that runs off the big one further down the street) or full fibre to the premises to more homes. As I say in every post in this thread, we're talking about the future, not right now
And as I say, HOW FAR in the future - I suspect probably much longer than you seem to be forecasting.
But considering we already have far higher bandwidth and quality at much cheaper prices via broadcasting, what would the advantage of a much more limited service requiring much higher costs for the users?.
And as I say, HOW FAR in the future - I suspect probably much longer than you seem to be forecasting.
But considering we already have far higher bandwidth and quality at much cheaper prices via broadcasting, what would the advantage of a much more limited service requiring much higher costs for the users?.
I strongly believe that in the next few years, things will be quite different - as I say, some local authorities are pushing for 99% coverage in the short term and many of the BDUK programmes have barely started.
Just as 5 years ago, a lot of people were on ADSL and struggling to get 10Mbps, and today a lot of people are now on FTTC/FTTP and getting several tens of megabits (or are in a position to get it)
You keep making it sound as if no one has the internet in their house. This isn't true, and will be less true as time goes on. As will the type of connection - BT is already doing the bare minimum ADSL investment as they don't see the point when FTTC/FTTP will take over 100% sooner rather than later.
The difference in price between FTTC and ADSL is not huge at a wholesale level. It's perfectly conceivable that a company like Sky may be willing to sell you a cheap internet connection that is provisioned on FTTC(P), limited to say 20Mbit internet access with everything left over for IPTV.
And even if Sky won't, hopefully someone else will - competition is always good. BT and TalkTalk seem to be trying to add new channels to their services, delivered over IP. For anyone who isn't Sky, satellite broadcasting is basically impossible to break into.
According to Ofcom the average download speed is currently 22.8Mbps, having nearly doubled over the last 2 years:
February 2015 = 22.8Mbps
October 2014 = 18.7Mbps
April 2014 = 17.8Mbps
August 2013 = 14.7Mbps
March 2013 = 12Mbps
No doubt Ofcom's figures are correct but this is another classic example of how using the mean to represent average distributions can distort what is really happening. The nature of "superfast" broadband is always going to skew the result upwards. Median (real world middle value) or mode (most frequently occurring value) would be much better indicators of what is actually happening here.
Comments
No point jumping the gun like the UK mobile telecoms industry did with 4G. Anyone who has tried to get a non-UK (as in not meant for the UK market) mobile phone to connect to 4G will know what I mean.
And what bands do we have that aren't used anywhere else?
There's not a tv On sale in the UK with more than 8 bit or Hd BT709 colour gamut ...
But looking at a HDR al least 10'bit , brighter display with a wider colur gamut ..
Even prof displays do not render BT 2020 yet .,,
with a higher frame rate and immersive sound .. That's a WOW factor.... !!!!!!
I.e UHD 1 ph2
And you can see it at more than 1.5 H which is the visual accuity based in a UHD1 display .. ..
1.5 H on a 55" is about 1.2 m....
We use the same bands as Europe and the same technologies as every other country. As long as it supports 800/1800/2600MHz LTE it will work here. You can buy a phone in France or Germany, for example, and it will work here on any network. A US phone might not because they use different bands.
I'm not sure what you are on about. Most phones aren't designed for any one market in mind - usually entire continents or globally. The US is an exception due to their legacy unique needs
The only phone that has any real problem is the original version of the iPhone 5, but that was never sold as being 4G compatible, it was just a happy coincidence that it supported one of the bands that EE and 3 use.
It's very interesting as Sky sports are doing so much testing in 4K at present with one event done this week in 4K apart from RF cameras then down scaled for broadcast and even been testing at small no league grounds to see how current equipment copes with lower light levels.
Try this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/20/breaking_fad_ses_uhd_4k_concerns/ plus the statements with their last quarterly report denying the rumour published in the Telegraph (without any source quoted) that all the others then reported as fact.
No European broadcaster is likely to start a full time UHD service until phase 2 of UHD has been agreed (which is probably 2 to 3 years away). It is most likely that the first 4k services will be IPTV based (BT Sports probably)
It's not here yet!
It's going to be horrible when most don't have fast Broadband or Fibre in their area yet.
"Most" might be pushing it, given that the rural broadband projects are well underway and in a year or two we'll see a lot of progress. Urban areas are more likely to have decent broadband already anyway
The county I live in is one of the first to start and we're well past 50% coverage by now
Depends on your view of 'progress', when the fibre speeds don't even reach decent ADSL speeds - as it's an improvement I suppose it's 'progress', but no where near what's required for these ambitious imaginings of TV via broadband.
Incidentally I was talking to a guy earlier in the week (his broadband was appalling), and he said it was the same where he was in London as well, with plenty of the capital having pretty well unusable broadband.
Current 4K sets that have HDMI 2.0 will a firmware upgrade to HDMI 2.0a make HDR work or is it something in the hardware you need ?
I read this below and have to admit I was confused
Link
30Mbit should be and is possible from some distance from the cabinet - plenty for IPTV. I know you're "no can do" Nigel, but only the facts matter
"Plenty" you seem to enjoy throwing out these exaggerations. Parts of London do indeed have problems, but this is a separate issue to rural broadband.
Applying the N Goodwin pessimistic standard to satellite would mean that it'd never get off the ground, because "no one" would ever want a dish bolted to the wall, "no one" could get permission for satellite dishes in rented properties, no block of flats would ever put the money into communal setups, and of course a few people having obstacles in the way of the satellite pretty much means no one can pick it up.
This is an example of the sort of progress at one of my former addresses. Fibre has been available for a few years. It's such a vast improvement over ADSL and that's the best it will ever be because it meets the governments minimum speed criteria.
Slight difference though, is that once the satellite has been launched, almost anyone can fit a cheap dish to their property and receive signals.
With Fibre, it isn't that simple, as it not only needs your exchange being compatible, but also your local cabinet, if both criteria aren't met, fitting a fibre modem will not help whatsoever.
I've no problem with 30Mbit , but they are not offering anything like that on a nationwide basis - with many fibre speeds not even approaching decent ADSL speeds (although of course it's still a great improvement over the previous ADSL speed in such areas).
You're rather exaggerating the issue - which is you seem to be claiming that IPTV will replace TV broadcasting - my point is there are no plans to make decent broadband available on a nationwide scale to make it viable.
Cost wise, it's still FAR more expensive than satellite transmission, which gives much greater coverage for a minimal cost.
The point I'm making is that it is easy to keep saying that something won't work, even if it will.
Yes, you're right about the second point, but of course the availability of FTTC or even FTTP is growing all the time, even in rural areas
I can't agree here. Some (not many or most) people will continue to lose out for the time being, but there are alternative technologies being looked at, like fibre to the remote node (smaller cabinet installed nearer the home that runs off the big one further down the street) or full fibre to the premises to more homes. As I say in every post in this thread, we're talking about the future, not right now
I'd rather we had more fibre to the premises from the beginning, but BT is more interested in short term profits and buying football rights and mobile networks
Except that it isn't, especially when most of your users are going to have fibre broadband either installed or available to them. IPTV is compelling because your users are already paying for most of the distribution costs for you due to having internet connections.
Indeed. If someone abroad was reading this forum they'd be forgiven for thinking everyone in the UK was stuck on hopeless 1Mb ADSL connections. Some people are, but most people aren't.
According to Ofcom the average download speed is currently 22.8Mbps, having nearly doubled over the last 2 years:
February 2015 = 22.8Mbps
October 2014 = 18.7Mbps
April 2014 = 17.8Mbps
August 2013 = 14.7Mbps
March 2013 = 12Mbps
And as I say, HOW FAR in the future - I suspect probably much longer than you seem to be forecasting.
But considering we already have far higher bandwidth and quality at much cheaper prices via broadcasting, what would the advantage of a much more limited service requiring much higher costs for the users?.
I strongly believe that in the next few years, things will be quite different - as I say, some local authorities are pushing for 99% coverage in the short term and many of the BDUK programmes have barely started.
Just as 5 years ago, a lot of people were on ADSL and struggling to get 10Mbps, and today a lot of people are now on FTTC/FTTP and getting several tens of megabits (or are in a position to get it)
You keep making it sound as if no one has the internet in their house. This isn't true, and will be less true as time goes on. As will the type of connection - BT is already doing the bare minimum ADSL investment as they don't see the point when FTTC/FTTP will take over 100% sooner rather than later.
The difference in price between FTTC and ADSL is not huge at a wholesale level. It's perfectly conceivable that a company like Sky may be willing to sell you a cheap internet connection that is provisioned on FTTC(P), limited to say 20Mbit internet access with everything left over for IPTV.
And even if Sky won't, hopefully someone else will - competition is always good. BT and TalkTalk seem to be trying to add new channels to their services, delivered over IP. For anyone who isn't Sky, satellite broadcasting is basically impossible to break into.
No doubt Ofcom's figures are correct but this is another classic example of how using the mean to represent average distributions can distort what is really happening. The nature of "superfast" broadband is always going to skew the result upwards. Median (real world middle value) or mode (most frequently occurring value) would be much better indicators of what is actually happening here.