OFCOM Sells Off The 800Mhz Band Then The 700Mhz Band - What's Next?

13468913

Comments

  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    It was just "BBC" in those days. BBC2 hadn't been thought of let alone BBC3, BBC4, etc.

    Indeed but if I had said you were happy with just the BBC, it could have been interpreted differently.
    And there were the same number of programmes worth watching back then as there are now except you didn't to go searching for them all over the place.:p

    Well, there wouldn't be much to search through with just 1 channel. :p
  • chrisychrisy Posts: 9,418
    Forum Member
    DragonQ wrote: »
    I will completely lose all faith in OFCOM if they don't set minimum quality standards alongside a move to DVB-T2 & AVC.

    I guess you mean HEVC.

    I don't expect to see any move to HEVC except in conjunction with 4K resolution.

    a) It causes confusion (look at the NImux "you need a Freeview HD receiver" "but it's not in HD!" "Yeah, but it's DVB-T2 and MPEG4" "I have no idea what you're talking about" etc)
    b) By the time DVB-T2/HEVC is available, DVB-T2/MPEG4 will be even more established than it is currently
    c) You seem to be suggesting DVB-T2/MPEG4 kit should be obsoleted, perhaps even before DVB-T/MPEG2 ceases broadcasting
    d) I'm too tired to think of a 'd'
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    chrisy wrote: »
    I guess you mean HEVC.

    I don't expect to see any move to HEVC except in conjunction with 4K resolution.

    a) It causes confusion (look at the NImux "you need a Freeview HD receiver" "but it's not in HD!" "Yeah, but it's DVB-T2 and MPEG4" "I have no idea what you're talking about" etc)
    b) By the time DVB-T2/HEVC is available, DVB-T2/MPEG4 will be even more established than it is currently
    c) You seem to be suggesting DVB-T2/MPEG4 kit should be obsoleted, perhaps even before DVB-T/MPEG2 ceases broadcasting
    d) I'm too tired to think of a 'd'
    No I didn't mean HEVC, for the reasons you mention. I meant AVC, considering I said "AVC".
    ntscuser wrote: »
    Again, so what?

    Not everyone is obsessed with the total number of channels they can receive, especially when most are not worth watching.
    You said the system was good long-term planning, but it is clearly inferior to what we have.

    We don't have enough HD channels, that's true, but it's nothing to do with the technology, that's just the pay TV model we have.
  • chrisychrisy Posts: 9,418
    Forum Member
    DragonQ wrote: »
    No I didn't mean HEVC, for the reasons you mention. I meant AVC, considering I said "AVC".

    Apologies, reading too much into your other comments.
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    DragonQ wrote: »
    You said the system was good long-term planning, but it is clearly inferior to what we have.

    I fail to see how in any way it is 'inferior'. True it doesn't have as many ancient repeats, shopping, soft-porn and pay channels but I think most of us could live happily without those.

    What we have here is ever increasing numbers turning to Sky and Virgin because they are sick to death of having to upgrade aerials and receivers every few years.
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    What we have here is ever increasing numbers turning to Sky and Virgin because they are sick to death of having to upgrade aerials and receivers every few years.

    They are probably turning to Sky and Virgin for a diet of even more repeats and pay channels. Sky and Virgin aren't immune to changes in technology.

    I've not needed an aerial upgrade. In fact one of the aerials here has probably been in place since the UK started using UHF (long before I moved here) and works fine with the original internal coax cabling (VHF grade).
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    jj20x wrote: »
    They are probably turning to Sky and Virgin for a diet of even more repeats and pay channels.

    Or simply to get a decent reception of a reasonable number of channels without fear their system will become obsolete after the next game of musical chairs with the channel numbers or interference from 4G mobiles.
    jj20x wrote: »
    I've not needed an aerial upgrade. In fact one of the aerials here has probably been in place since the UK started using UHF (long before I moved here) and works fine with the original internal coax cabling (VHF grade).

    Good for you. You probably haven't had to pay to upgrade a receiver which was supposed to be compatible with 8k transmissions but turned out it wasn't either.
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    Or simply to get a decent reception of a reasonable number of channels without fear their system will become obsolete after the next game of musical chairs with the channel numbers or interference from 4G mobiles.

    Early Sky boxes are technically obsolete, also, successive generations of the PVR introduce new features such as HD, MPEG4, internet connections and larger disk capacity. For Virgin Media, similarly the legacy boxes are slow and pretty much obsolete. The original PVRs and are MPEG2 only, so are holding back conversion to MPEG4, they don't have the options / apps available on the more recent TiVo boxes.

    We'll just have to wait and see if interference from 4G mobiles will be a major problem. When Tetra was introduced for the emergency services there were scare stories that DTT reception would be wiped out and everyone would have to be issued with filters. In reality it didn't wipe out DTT at all and the vast majority of the population most likely haven't noticed that it was introduced.

    Cable will continue to use the same UHF channels as 4G as it is delivered through the co-ax and not over the air. Hopefully the quality and shielding of the co-ax will block any interference but we can't really be certain until 4G services start using the 800Mhz band.
    Good for you. You probably haven't had to pay to upgrade a receiver which was supposed to be compatible with 8k transmissions but turned out it wasn't either

    A lot of people were fooled into paying for aerial upgrades they didn't really need by unscrupulous installers, that was a problem.

    I agree that a lot of legacy DTT equipment was rendered useless with the introduction of 8k transmissions. I didn't have a problem as I had already stopped using a 2k STB when I purchased a HD ready TV. Of course, being HD ready didn't actually mean it could receive the DVB-T2 HD channels when they arrived. However the screen failed while the TV was still covered by an extended warranty. As it was uneconomical to repair it, I was asked to choose a replacement. Obviously I selected a DVB-T2 model, so actually have pretty much avoided any problems with equipment becoming obsolete, more by chance than planning.
  • Luis EssexLuis Essex Posts: 2,267
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jj20x wrote: »
    Well, there wouldn't be much to search through with just 1 channel. :p

    That's the case if someone has square eyes. Radio Times also had listing for the wireless programmes. Wireless services were still dominant and TV was just a bonus if you could afford it. In retrospect the introduction of ITA’s offerings in 1955 was perfect timing. Wartime rationing had finally totally ceased in the previous year and now was the time when the future appeared even more promising than ten years before.

    :)
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    Luis Essex wrote: »
    In retrospect the introduction of ITA’s offerings in 1955 was perfect timing.:)

    That was botched as well.

    An assumption was made that everyone who owned a Band I-only receiver would buy an add-on down-convertor and additional aerial for Band III. In the event I don't know a single person who did. Instead, they waited until their old TV needed replacing and then bought (or rented) a combined Band I/III TV set.

    The downside was only mitigated by the fact that most people at the time did not already own (or rent) a TV of any kind so when they eventually did it was already equipped to receive ITV. (We got lucky and moved house shortly after the introduction of ITV and had to buy a new TV anyway).

    The exact same mistake was made with the introduction of UHF, 625-lines and colour. Almost everyone waited until their old VHF 405-line monochrome set was worn out before replacing it with a new receiver. That didn't happen until the mid 1970s by which time British TV manufacturers were all but bankrupt..
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    I fail to see how in any way it is 'inferior'.
    It is quite clearly technically inferior. Again, the content can be disputed. If we got rid of the shopping and porn channels we could have a nice number of entertainment channels with good image and sound quality. Alas, we do not.

    Freesat's good though. I don't know if they have a similar system in the US.
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    It is quite clearly technically inferior. Again, the content can be disputed. If we got rid of the shopping and porn channels we could have a nice number of entertainment channels with good image and sound quality. Alas, we do not.

    Getting rid of the shopping channels would release a few spaces for extra entertainment channels but it's basic supply and demand. The 3/4 resolution used to cram channels onto the COM muxes shares the cost between more broadcasters. Perhaps the mux operators discovered that broadcasters were willing to pay for a slot at that price point but not pay the larger price needed for a higher bandwidth / quality slot.

    The porn channels don't do much for the image of freeview but removing them wouldn't mean more entertainment channels. They only occupy time slots not required by the main broadcasters.
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    That was botched as well.

    An assumption was made that everyone who owned a Band I-only receiver would buy an add-on down-convertor and additional aerial for Band III. In the event I don't know a single person who did. Instead, they waited until their old TV needed replacing and then bought (or rented) a combined Band I/III TV set.

    I'm not sure that it was botched, what other option did they have? Advancements in technology and additional services will invariably mean that new equipment is needed. It's always going to take time for new services to reach critical mass.
  • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,219
    Forum Member
    jj20x wrote: »
    I'm not sure that it was botched, what other option did they have?

    Well for one thing they should not have waited till after the 1953 Coronation before announcing the new network because that is when the vast majority of TV sets in use in the UK at that time were purchased. Everyone who had bought a TV then had in effect been sold a pup.

    I'm also unconvinced there was no room for ITV in Band I as flicking through the selector knob every day I was unable to find any signal here on Band I other than BBC Midlands except for a very weak one from BBC Yorkshire. (And we had an unusually high mounted aerial).
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ntscuser wrote: »
    Well for one thing they should not have waited till after the 1953 Coronation before announcing the new network because that is when the vast majority of TV sets in use in the UK at that time were purchased. Everyone who had bought a TV then had in effect been sold a pup.

    Which is clearly unfortunate and possibly not unplanned. The industry would have seen this as an opportunity to unload obsolete stock.
    I'm also unconvinced there was no room for ITV in Band I as flicking through the selector knob every day I was unable to find any signal here on Band I other than BBC Midlands except for a very weak one from BBC Yorkshire. (And we had an unusually high mounted aerial).

    There definitely wasn't room for ITV in Band I. The problem being that VHF coverage areas are vast, with large overlap regions. Your whole region wouldn't only have overlaps with Yorkshire but with neighbouring transmitter areas to the south, east, west and probably other directions between. It was quite a task that the BBC managed to get the coverage they did on the 5 Band I channel slots.

    Band III was also used by the BBC to fill in the many gaps where coverage on Band I hadn't been possible.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hopefully the fact that HEVC has no special provisions for interlaced video (it merely supports field encoding) means it'll finally die.
  • jj20xjj20x Posts: 2,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Hopefully the fact that HEVC has no special provisions for interlaced video (it merely supports field encoding) means it'll finally die.

    Yeah, 8K interlaced would be ridiculous. :p
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 788
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Hopefully the fact that HEVC has no special provisions for interlaced video (it merely supports field encoding) means it'll finally die.

    HEVC can handle interlace...

    From wikipedia:
    "HEVC was designed with the idea that progressive scan video would be used and no coding features are present specifically for interlaced video.[1] HEVC instead sends meta-stream data that tells how the interlaced video is sent.[1] Interlaced video may be sent either by coding each field as a separate picture or by coding each frame as a different picture.[1] This allows interlaced video to be sent with HEVC without needing special interlaced decoding processes to be added to HEVC decoders.[1]"

    ...but yes, I wish interlace would just die!
    jj20x wrote: »
    Yeah, 8K interlaced would be ridiculous. :p
    4K and 8K UHD are progressive only. Yay for common sense!
  • andyhurleyandyhurley Posts: 1,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Winston_1 wrote: »
    Band 1 was never sold off to mobile operators. It was discontinued in the UK in 1984 when 405 closed down. Mobile phones did not exist in 1984.

    Yeah, Vodafone didn't launch until a whole year later...
    ;)
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lf2k7 wrote: »
    HEVC can handle interlace...

    From wikipedia:
    "HEVC was designed with the idea that progressive scan video would be used and no coding features are present specifically for interlaced video.[1] HEVC instead sends meta-stream data that tells how the interlaced video is sent.[1] Interlaced video may be sent either by coding each field as a separate picture or by coding each frame as a different picture.[1] This allows interlaced video to be sent with HEVC without needing special interlaced decoding processes to be added to HEVC decoders.[1]"
    It does annoy me when people quote me and then completely agree with what I say whilst implying they are correcting me.
    lf2k7 wrote: »
    ...but yes, I wish interlace would just die!
    It should have died with the advent of HD. I can understand that they needed it for backwards compatibility at the start of the transition to digital but there was absolutely no reason for any HD standards to be interlaced. It's incredibly inefficient and if whoever decided these things had realised that, they would've chosen 1080p/50 & 1080p/60 as HD standards (requiring essentially the same bandwidth as 1080i/25 & 1080i/30).
  • 2Bdecided2Bdecided Posts: 4,416
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    HD started in the US with MPEG-2 and CRTs.

    1080p60 requires a higher coded bitrate that 1080i60 using MPEG-2, especially when viewed on a CRT.

    Handling the uncompressed bitrate of 1080p60 was considered out of the question. Remember we are talking about 1998...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

    Cheers,
    David.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    2Bdecided wrote: »
    1080p60 requires a higher coded bitrate that 1080i60 using MPEG-2, especially when viewed on a CRT.

    Does it now? I know this isn't the case for AVC.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 449
    Forum Member
    2Bdecided wrote: »
    Why? Politically? Legally? Technically?

    Politically. There would have been a massive outcry if the government had tried to switch off analogue TV transmissions before a majority of consumers had already switched to a digital system, and the pace of voluntary conversion looked like it was going to do most of the rest of the job.

    Now, of course, money can often be used to smooth over the issue, or at least offering free replacement equipment. The government did this with the Switchover Help Scheme, paid for by increased television licence fees. Again, the cost of doing it for the next technology change may be unacceptably high - politically - if not enough people have voluntarily upgraded.

    You could argue that the mobile phone networks should pay the cost of replacing everyone's Freeview equipment. However, the 4G auction has brought in only two-thirds of the estimated amount - falling over £1bn short - and that included a large chunk of spectrum at 2.6 GHz, as well as the 800 MHz band.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 449
    Forum Member
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Does it now? I know this isn't the case for AVC.

    Conventionally, when describing a mode, if a rate is specified for a progressive mode, the number of frames per second is used. For interlaced, the number of fields per second is used. The number of whole frames per second is half this.

    Progressive requires a bit less than twice the bitrate of interlaced, if you're talking about the same overall frame rate, as 2Bdecided was. That is, if the progressive system is set up to show 60 whole frames per second, compared with an interlaced system that shows 60 fields per second.

    If the progressive system uses the same overall frame rate as the interlaced system - i.e. half the number of field per second as the interlaced system - then, as long as the content was originally progressive, it compresses better than interlaced, in both MPEG-2 Visual and MPEG-4 AVC. That's why the BBC use encoders that can change modes between 1080p25 and 1080i50 at the start of any Group of Pictures.

    Motion looks better with a higher frame rate. Since the capacity wasn't there to run at 60 frames per second - ATSC only provides 19.4 Mbps per radio channel - interlaced mode was selected.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kruador wrote: »
    Conventionally, when describing a mode, if a rate is specified for a progressive mode, the number of frames per second is used. For interlaced, the number of fields per second is used. The number of whole frames per second is half this.

    Progressive requires a bit less than twice the bitrate of interlaced, if you're talking about the same overall frame rate, as 2Bdecided was. That is, if the progressive system is set up to show 60 whole frames per second, compared with an interlaced system that shows 60 fields per second.
    I'm afraid you're wrong. With AVC, encoding 1080p/50 (50 frames per second) takes barely any more bandwidth than 1080i/25 (25 frames per second/50 fields per second), because interlacing is inherently inefficient in the digital world.

    A quick look on Wikipedia provides 3 references for this alone:

    http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/events/ibc11-ebutechnical/presentations/ibc11_10things_1080p50.pdf
    http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreports/tr014.pdf
    http://www.atd.net/HDTV_faq.html
Sign In or Register to comment.