The fact that the multiplexes are temporary is irrelevant. The whole point is that they are to encourage uptake of Freeview HD so that they can switch more multiplexes to DVB-T2 in 2018 when more spectrum space is lost. Just because these channels (plus the likes of BBC Four HD) are on those temporary multiplexes doesn't mean they will disappear in 2018. The channels themselves will likely remain, and I'm sure they'll appear on satellite eventually.
Because its selfish for one.
And petty to use the LF card when its nothing to do with the BBC in the first place!
Nothing selfish about my going into Currys & someone buys a Samsung TV for £500-00 & they want to charge me £600-00 for the same TV for no good reason. Explain why I should pay the same licence fee as those that get the services I want. I already waited a few years just to get HD while my friends in other parts of the country had it for two or three years.
In fact, after 2022, even more DTT channels are likely to dissaperar.
At least with Freesat HD the channels we have got are there for "the long haul",
At DSO 2 which is when the temp muxes stop, the uk DTT platform will almost certainly change its modulation and coding , emitting the PSB's in HD only and having about 100 SD slots on the com muxes ... Or one HD for two or three SD s.
The uk broadcast market has embraced digital with no predominate platform but a completely set of platforms and channel mix .... Which gives the viewer a range of ways of viewing on main TV . Small TV tablet phone etc ... And with additional services delivered over IP to complement the broadcast content .....
Explain why I should pay the same licence fee as those that get the services I want. I already waited a few years just to get HD while my friends in other parts of the country had it for two or three years.
Siimpe the LF is imposed by government ... As it has been fir almost 100 years ...
With the trigger being the owing of equipment,
The government employ some one to collect the money. .. Was the post office but the BBC do it mire efficiently.
The LF gies to the government .. The consolidated fund no less
From which they give the BBC an agreed amount... And the take back the money for Broadband roll out, and tell the BBC to pay fir s4c. Local BT infrastructure and the continuing content purchase from local TV... Quite a good slice !
The BBC has to use its money efficiently .. In fact as the LF is in deemed a tax the NAO have rights so the BBC is audited twice ... I think no other mutil billion pound public service is..
And this means that it tends to serve those who it is easy to serve first ...
But mindful of smaller c,mmunities wherever they are.
You might like to note that the BBC when satellite broadcasting became affordable ( let's forget the BBC own satellites for the moment ... It paid Hughes off)
It provided its services there and used the technology so that Cornwall can view BBC Scotland etc ... Whilst the second largest PSB shunned satellite.
Despite satellite having the lower% coverage than DTT PSB muxes,
But together they could access the 1% to take it to 99.5% ..
And P*ss off a lot of Viewers who would need to change their TV sets as SD emission would be stopped by the PSBs- so they would need to buy Freeview HD boxes) ... Hence COM7/8 to help the move . but I cannot see the government giving the BBC more money!
but as this is a Sat forum - it probably can be done on Freesat as there are few SD boxes to be replaced .
But Sky still has around 2 million SD STB in service.... which is a problem for it to get replaced.
The Government is very keen to get DVB-T2 AVC AAC done at the same time as terrestrial antenna have to be changed at DSO2 - whenever that is!
On any broadcast service there is also the issue that you need to get the whole value chain chnaged - and much of it is not under the control of influence of one (group of) orgastsion. -
so historically the broadcasters have taken the lead and broadcast to sheep not people..... e
which for any one could be seen to be a short term waste of money ...
hence starting to do it gradually rather than all at once
more recently the set manufacturers have tried to lead but without sustaining Broadcasting their sets do not sell! (and they make an even greater loss_)
I've said it before, if you wait for all those tv's to obsolete, then you'll be waiting for ever. There will be SD tv's around and in use beyond 2030 and maybe longer - there are still working tv's (mostly in museums) from the 1920's!! - That's 90+ years old!
There is only 1 answer to the SD problem and that is to be bold and turn native SD transmission OFF. Perhaps start with Freesat / Sky then Freeview afterwards.
It won't leave SD tv owners out in the cold because all that's needed is a HD box to downscale the transmission, so no new tv required and HD boxes have fallen in price a lot recently.
As for funding, why should the BBC fund people to buy HD set top boxes?
When other items in people's houses become obsolete, does the government fund that? PC's obsolete and become unusable every 4 or 5 years but people buy their own and PC's are expensive!
The only possible reason I can see for funding anything is in the case of pensioners on Pension Credit. Everyone else should stand on their own two feet.
....and what should be done for those on Pension Credit is supply them with 4K set top boxes (obviously switch native SD off once 4K standard are agreed ie hurry up!). That way the upgrade issue is avoided when it becomes time to turn native HD off when 8K is launched. A little more now is a lot saved later.
It's time to realise you cannot have 4 different transmission standards simulcast as it's too expensive and when 4K / 8K boxes can be made to downscale to HD / SD, there's really no reason to keep broadcasting these lower scale transmissions natively in the long term.
But in the short term, 4K needs to be agreed, native SD turned off when the 1st 4K transmissions are started, and everyone except those on pension credit currently on SD should be left to buy their own set top box thus avoiding mass funding issues. Those on pension credit should get a free downscaling 4K box to avoid ever having to provide free ones again in their lifetimes.
As for a nail in Freesat's coffin, you've obviously never seen it compared to Freeview. It has channels Freeview doesn't such as CBS Reality, CBS Drama, CBS Action, RT HD, NHK HD to name a few. Channel wise, it's horses for courses Freeview has some Freesat doesn't and vice versa. Having seen both, I personally prefer the Freesat mix.
...and going forward, Freesat has unlimited bandwidth, I understand Freeview has no bandwidth left (only what is temporarily borrowed off 4G until 2018). When 4K and 8K arrive, what is Freeview going to do then? 4K and 8K require a LOT more bandwidth to transmit so in the absence of HUGE codec gains, the only options I can see is to lose channels, reduce quality across the board (all channels), or not transmit 4K / 8K on Freeview.
According to bandwidth tests in Korea, 4K has required a 30 Mbs transmission rate. Compare that to HD on Freeview / Freesat atm which I believe is around 8Mbs and you start to see the problem:
1x 4K Channel uses the bandwidth of around 4 x HD channels. So for every 4K channel you add to Freeview once it's maxxed out, potentially you have to remove 4 HD channels or 8 SD ones, unless extra bandwidth or codec improvements can be found.
1x 4K Channel uses the bandwidth of around 4 x HD channels. So for every 4K channel you add to Freeview once it's maxxed out, potentially you have to remove 4 HD channels or 8 SD ones, unless extra bandwidth or codec improvements can be found.
The fact that UHD will require new equipment anyway means that it should definitely coincide with a switch to HEVC. That way two channels can fit on a single multiplex/transponder, with a push to three per multiplex/transponder in future years after codec improvements.
There is only 1 answer to the SD problem and that is to be bold and turn native SD transmission OFF. Perhaps start with Freesat / Sky then Freeview afterwards.
It won't leave SD tv owners out in the cold because all that's needed is a HD box to downscale the transmission, so no new tv required and HD boxes have fallen in price a lot recently.
Yes !!!! - and if the DSAT platform could be split - Freesat could Go HD now with very few viewers using it missing out as the vast majority of Freesat Boxes are HD.
.. but Sky have 2million or so....SD
and the COMM7/8 activity is trying to move things-
But either Vince Cable withdrawing the Freeview "tick" leaving only Freeveiw HD (+) or by DTG changing the D book would speed things up!
But in the short term, 4K needs to be agreed, native SD turned off when the 1st 4K transmissions are started, .....
I would separate these two _ yes the Standards need to be set - and are being .... with a view to the future (Which tended not to happen with HD) Hence looking at HDR HFR Gamut and Audio -
UHD1 emission is something new and probably by its nature a "Events" format - as you shoot UHD very differently to SD/HD.... because it is immersive.
this may have implications on how it is delivered (and not emitted)!
But the sooner plans are made for the PSB to stop SD emission the better
-and to stop it at break points in their C&M And transmit contracts would also be a good thing - and roughly halve the cost of TV emission. (BBC in paticaular with 7 PSB Streams would benefit say under halfway though its charter!))
As for a nail in Freesat's coffin, you've obviously never seen it compared to Freeview. It has channels Freeview doesn't such as CBS Reality, CBS Drama, CBS Action, RT HD, NHK HD to name a few. Channel wise, it's horses for courses Freeview has some Freesat doesn't and vice versa. Having seen both, I personally prefer the Freesat mix.
...and going forward, Freesat has unlimited bandwidth, I understand Freeview has no bandwidth left (only what is temporarily borrowed off 4G until 2018). When 4K and 8K arrive, what is Freeview going to do then? 4K and 8K require a LOT more bandwidth to transmit so in the absence of HUGE codec gains, the only options I can see is to lose channels, reduce quality across the board (all channels), or not transmit 4K / 8K on Freeview.
So personally, I hardly see Freesat as the loser here.
And neither do I see Freeview loosing for many years . as at DSO 2 it can gain more channels
It may not carry UHD services or may be just one (in an IP PLP) because of the content that UHD programmes contain...... It is interesting that unlike HD the broadcasters do not see UHD as being the natural extension of what was launched as "High Definition TV" in 1936 - it is a very different experience to "looking though the Pipe" of Television.....
And the commercial imperatives may be that in the UK with the two largest ISP being media companies that IP delivery of UHD becomes popular!
But looking say 20 year ahead who know what TV will be like!!!
Who would have thought that we could have personal VOD to our phones of Live BBC programming!
The link with mobile devise phone/Tablet ( but not necessarily Mobile emission standards - think DVB -T2 or Wifi) that is another factor we need to consider .... as DTG are doing!
Interesting times!
But the UK Has the unique mix of Broadcasters, value chains and technologies/ Platforms that works - which is why radical change is not the way forward!!!!
Yes !!!! - and if the DSAT platform could be split - Freesat could Go HD now with very few viewers using it missing out as the vast majority of Freesat Boxes are HD.
.. but Sky have 2million or so....SD
Personally I fail to see this as a problem.
If you can afford to pay up to £71 per month for a tv subscription, then you can afford to pay a one off £50 for an upgrade to a HD2+ box.
It needs someone to take control and require an SD native transmission switch off, or at least rubber stamp a decision made within the BBC Trust to do so.
At some point, someone is going to have to do this and I doubt very much that 2 million SD Sky boxes will have died a death before the bandwidth is required for 4K services to begin.
Personally I think at the same time, Sky and the Freesat board should get together and set minimum high quality standards for the transmission of HD and 4K over satellite in the UK eg. HD might be 12mbs and 4K 30mbs plus native resolution on both and permitted codec stipulations. This is the only way to reverse the quality slide we've seen in recent years and the only way to guarantee that picture quality doesn't get worse from the cheaper channels.
If both Sky and Freesat agree a standard, then broadcasters have no choice but to adhere to it if they want to reach those pay audiences as well as the free ones, and especially more so if an intention is announced to require minimum standards for Freeview as well. It might result in less channels on Freeview to enable this, but surely that has to be a good thing given some of the poorer ones that exist.
If you can afford to pay up to £71 per month for a tv subscription, then you can afford to pay a one off £50 for an upgrade to a HD2+ box.
It needs someone to take control and require an SD native transmission switch off, or at least rubber stamp a decision made within the BBC Trust to do so.
At some point, someone is going to have to do this and I doubt very much that 2 million SD Sky boxes will have died a death before the bandwidth is required for 4K services to begin.
Personally I think at the same time, Sky and the Freesat board should get together and set minimum high quality standards for the transmission of HD and 4K over satellite in the UK eg. HD might be 12mbs and 4K 30mbs plus native resolution on both and permitted codec stipulations. This is the only way to reverse the quality slide we've seen in recent years and the only way to guarantee that picture quality doesn't get worse from the cheaper channels.
If both Sky and Freesat agree a standard, then broadcasters have no choice but to adhere to it if they want to reach those pay audiences as well as the free ones, and especially more so if an intention is announced to require minimum standards for Freeview as well. It might result in less channels on Freeview to enable this, but surely that has to be a good thing given some of the poorer ones that exist.
with MPEG4/AVC and presumably h.265 (hevc) all channel encoding is statmuxed meaning it varies anyway, according to what is on the channel, so most HD channels don't need that high a bit rate all the time unless they show fast moving content like sport.
This is why the BBC's DVB-S2 tps have only 4 channels and usually have a fair amount of null packets so that when they show sport or other bitrate hungry content then the bandwidth is there, at other times it doesn't need it.
I know for some they wont ever believe that, but its true and its an efficient way to encode, it also means that programs don't have to take up loads of room on PVRs!
coders are also becoming more efficient, on DTT COM 7 MUX can now get 6HD channels and 2-3 SD channels on, with apparently no loss in picture quality for the HD channels. I don't know for sure as I cant get COM 7 at the moment, but nobody has complained in the freeview forum yet that pq is bad of those HD channels.
I agree about Sky SD boxes though Sky has the money to replace them especially if they do none PVR models for customers who don't currently have SD PVRs that would be dirt cheap and charge extra if the customer wants a PVR model say £30.
for those who don't have a sky sub anymore they would just have to lump it and change to freeview or freesat HD, how many none subscribers have sky SD boxes now?
all of 28 degrees east should go DVB-S2 though and encode at MPEG4/AVC even for those broadcasters that still only use SD channels they could all be in 720*576 mode then instead of ether 704*576 or 544*576.
What I find more confusing is the thought that they are sacrificing proper TV channel bandwidth so that more people can watch repeats on a 4inch phone screen. Next they'll try and tell us that MP3 is the best way to hear music
all of 28 degrees east should go DVB-S2 though and encode at MPEG4/AVC even for those broadcasters that still only use SD channels they could all be in 720*576 mode then instead of ether 704*576 or 544*576.
I agree, and I think Sky easily has enough cash to fund this, but 720x576 is in some ways worse than 704x576, FYI. The outer 16 columns of pixels aren't part of the "active image" is most configurations, and TVs regularly fail to deal with this correctly.
I agree, and I think Sky easily has enough cash to fund this, but 720x576 is in some ways worse than 704x576, FYI. The outer 16 columns of pixels aren't part of the "active image" is most configurations, and TVs regularly fail to deal with this correctly.
720*576 wouldn't be an issue if broadcasters used the full 720 pixels rather than blank the edges, yes some TVs might crop those edge bits but it wouldn't be so bad.
720*576 wouldn't be an issue if broadcasters used the full 720 pixels rather than blank the edges, yes some TVs might crop those edge bits but it wouldn't be so bad.
Actually that would be bad since that's not how 720x576 is meant to be used in broadcasting. Might as well stick with 704x576.
Actually that would be bad since that's not how 720x576 is meant to be used in broadcasting. Might as well stick with 704x576.
a lot of DVDs are encoded like that though and it is better when upscaling the image to HD as it uses the full 720 across the 1920 wide of HD! also turning the overscan off you dont get the thin black bars that you do at the sides with the 16 columns of black pixels.
That's the whole point though, there isn't meant to be black bars with 704x576, it's meant to be full 16:9. There was a whole thread on this last year if you want to understand more.
for those who don't have a sky sub anymore they would just have to lump it and change to freeview or freesat HD, how many none subscribers have sky SD boxes now?
.
Probably far more than have freesat HD and SD boxes total. With single box households and many more in use with subscribers as second room FSFS and FTA boxes.
What I find more confusing is the thought that they are sacrificing proper TV channel bandwidth so that more people can watch repeats on a 4inch phone screen. Next they'll try and tell us that MP3 is the best way to hear music
The Licence gives permission to use equipment capable of receiving TV - the fact that the revenue raised happens to help fund the BBC is not relevant.
As someone with poor to non-existent DTT coverage, I couldn't even begin to countenance somehow depriving the majority of their full coverage simply because of topography and the inevitability that overcoming the issues is very low down the "cost-benefit" slope.
Should I be asking the government or the BBC to cut down my forest ?
It is unfortunate that the Royal Mail's statutory "Universal Service Obligation" is not applied to other public service organisations in which case everyone would have the right to the same delivery of Freeview channels as they do with their mail wherever they live. Ofcom may grant exceptions to the minimum Universal Service requirements though. These include remote or inaccessible addresses. RM were granted an exception due to a property being on Forestry Commission land so your trees are safe from being cut down!
I am quite sure that even counting all the freeview masts, inc the Psb freeview lite relays & self help relays, that freeview doesn't have 99.9% coverage. Think it's about 98.5%, but down to barely a potential (if everyone who needed a new aerial went and got one at significant cost depending on signal stength) 90% for the primary service, and down to a potential 70% if you expect to receive all the new channels (the so called temporary and local TV services).
Even satellite doesn't offer 100% coverage due to the signal being angled and therefore can be blocked by very steep very close hills (there's an example of this near to me) and likewise tall building or trees being right next door and in front your dish.
I am quite sure that even counting all the freeview masts, inc the Psb freeview lite relays & self help relays, that freeview doesn't have 99.9% coverage. Think it's about 98.5%, but down to barely a potential (if everyone who needed a new aerial went and got one at significant cost depending on signal stength) 90% for the primary service, and down to a potential 70% if you expect to receive all the new channels (the so called temporary and local TV services).
Even satellite doesn't offer 100% coverage due to the signal being angled and therefore can be blocked by very steep very close hills (there's an example of this near to me) and likewise tall building or trees being right next door and in front your dish.
Yes !!!! - and if the DSAT platform could be split - Freesat could Go HD now with very few viewers using it missing out as the vast majority of Freesat Boxes are HD.
.. but Sky have 2million or so....SD
That is just the number of subscribers - there are almost certainly far more SD boxes than that still in use as FTA and FSFS boxes both in single box non subscription homes and used as sub free secondary boxes in Sky sub homes. If they went HD only now well over 4 million boxes would have to be replaced - around 25% of satellite users and this so soon after a large portion of the population has had to replace systems with DSO.
Comments
Nothing selfish about my going into Currys & someone buys a Samsung TV for £500-00 & they want to charge me £600-00 for the same TV for no good reason. Explain why I should pay the same licence fee as those that get the services I want. I already waited a few years just to get HD while my friends in other parts of the country had it for two or three years.
At DSO 2 which is when the temp muxes stop, the uk DTT platform will almost certainly change its modulation and coding , emitting the PSB's in HD only and having about 100 SD slots on the com muxes ... Or one HD for two or three SD s.
The uk broadcast market has embraced digital with no predominate platform but a completely set of platforms and channel mix .... Which gives the viewer a range of ways of viewing on main TV . Small TV tablet phone etc ... And with additional services delivered over IP to complement the broadcast content .....
With the trigger being the owing of equipment,
The government employ some one to collect the money. .. Was the post office but the BBC do it mire efficiently.
The LF gies to the government .. The consolidated fund no less
From which they give the BBC an agreed amount... And the take back the money for Broadband roll out, and tell the BBC to pay fir s4c. Local BT infrastructure and the continuing content purchase from local TV... Quite a good slice !
The BBC has to use its money efficiently .. In fact as the LF is in deemed a tax the NAO have rights so the BBC is audited twice ... I think no other mutil billion pound public service is..
And this means that it tends to serve those who it is easy to serve first ...
But mindful of smaller c,mmunities wherever they are.
You might like to note that the BBC when satellite broadcasting became affordable ( let's forget the BBC own satellites for the moment ... It paid Hughes off)
It provided its services there and used the technology so that Cornwall can view BBC Scotland etc ... Whilst the second largest PSB shunned satellite.
Despite satellite having the lower% coverage than DTT PSB muxes,
But together they could access the 1% to take it to 99.5% ..
I've said it before, if you wait for all those tv's to obsolete, then you'll be waiting for ever. There will be SD tv's around and in use beyond 2030 and maybe longer - there are still working tv's (mostly in museums) from the 1920's!! - That's 90+ years old!
There is only 1 answer to the SD problem and that is to be bold and turn native SD transmission OFF. Perhaps start with Freesat / Sky then Freeview afterwards.
It won't leave SD tv owners out in the cold because all that's needed is a HD box to downscale the transmission, so no new tv required and HD boxes have fallen in price a lot recently.
As for funding, why should the BBC fund people to buy HD set top boxes?
When other items in people's houses become obsolete, does the government fund that? PC's obsolete and become unusable every 4 or 5 years but people buy their own and PC's are expensive!
The only possible reason I can see for funding anything is in the case of pensioners on Pension Credit. Everyone else should stand on their own two feet.
....and what should be done for those on Pension Credit is supply them with 4K set top boxes (obviously switch native SD off once 4K standard are agreed ie hurry up!). That way the upgrade issue is avoided when it becomes time to turn native HD off when 8K is launched. A little more now is a lot saved later.
It's time to realise you cannot have 4 different transmission standards simulcast as it's too expensive and when 4K / 8K boxes can be made to downscale to HD / SD, there's really no reason to keep broadcasting these lower scale transmissions natively in the long term.
But in the short term, 4K needs to be agreed, native SD turned off when the 1st 4K transmissions are started, and everyone except those on pension credit currently on SD should be left to buy their own set top box thus avoiding mass funding issues. Those on pension credit should get a free downscaling 4K box to avoid ever having to provide free ones again in their lifetimes.
Problem sorted.
Unsightly dish? Are aerials pretty?
A dish mounted on a chimney is actually less visually intrusive than an aerial if done properly:
One near me:
Dish on left, Aerial on right:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2rx8aci.jpg
Most people notice dishes more but only because they are mounted lower down on most houses and then there are solutions such as:
1. Clear (see through) dishes - eg. http://www.satcure.co.uk/reviews/images/Pic8-SatDish.jpg
2. Disguised Dishes - eg: http://www.yell.com/static/image/a35b9321-1367-4ec7-8676-5ab56176c749_image_jpeg?t=tr/w:550/h:412/m:FitPad
3. Mounting down the garden - eg: http://freesatsupport.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/a/garden_2.jpg
As for a nail in Freesat's coffin, you've obviously never seen it compared to Freeview. It has channels Freeview doesn't such as CBS Reality, CBS Drama, CBS Action, RT HD, NHK HD to name a few. Channel wise, it's horses for courses Freeview has some Freesat doesn't and vice versa. Having seen both, I personally prefer the Freesat mix.
...and going forward, Freesat has unlimited bandwidth, I understand Freeview has no bandwidth left (only what is temporarily borrowed off 4G until 2018). When 4K and 8K arrive, what is Freeview going to do then? 4K and 8K require a LOT more bandwidth to transmit so in the absence of HUGE codec gains, the only options I can see is to lose channels, reduce quality across the board (all channels), or not transmit 4K / 8K on Freeview.
According to bandwidth tests in Korea, 4K has required a 30 Mbs transmission rate. Compare that to HD on Freeview / Freesat atm which I believe is around 8Mbs and you start to see the problem:
1x 4K Channel uses the bandwidth of around 4 x HD channels. So for every 4K channel you add to Freeview once it's maxxed out, potentially you have to remove 4 HD channels or 8 SD ones, unless extra bandwidth or codec improvements can be found.
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/oth/0a/07/R0A070000350004PDFE.pdf
I believe even the OFCOM document sets out a case for reducing channels on Freeview post 2018.
So personally, I hardly see Freesat as the loser here.
Yes !!!! - and if the DSAT platform could be split - Freesat could Go HD now with very few viewers using it missing out as the vast majority of Freesat Boxes are HD.
.. but Sky have 2million or so....SD
and the COMM7/8 activity is trying to move things-
But either Vince Cable withdrawing the Freeview "tick" leaving only Freeveiw HD (+) or by DTG changing the D book would speed things up!
I would separate these two _ yes the Standards need to be set - and are being .... with a view to the future (Which tended not to happen with HD) Hence looking at HDR HFR Gamut and Audio -
UHD1 emission is something new and probably by its nature a "Events" format - as you shoot UHD very differently to SD/HD.... because it is immersive.
this may have implications on how it is delivered (and not emitted)!
But the sooner plans are made for the PSB to stop SD emission the better
-and to stop it at break points in their C&M And transmit contracts would also be a good thing - and roughly halve the cost of TV emission. (BBC in paticaular with 7 PSB Streams would benefit say under halfway though its charter!))
And neither do I see Freeview loosing for many years . as at DSO 2 it can gain more channels
It may not carry UHD services or may be just one (in an IP PLP) because of the content that UHD programmes contain...... It is interesting that unlike HD the broadcasters do not see UHD as being the natural extension of what was launched as "High Definition TV" in 1936 - it is a very different experience to "looking though the Pipe" of Television.....
And the commercial imperatives may be that in the UK with the two largest ISP being media companies that IP delivery of UHD becomes popular!
But looking say 20 year ahead who know what TV will be like!!!
Who would have thought that we could have personal VOD to our phones of Live BBC programming!
The link with mobile devise phone/Tablet ( but not necessarily Mobile emission standards - think DVB -T2 or Wifi) that is another factor we need to consider .... as DTG are doing!
Interesting times!
But the UK Has the unique mix of Broadcasters, value chains and technologies/ Platforms that works - which is why radical change is not the way forward!!!!
Personally I fail to see this as a problem.
If you can afford to pay up to £71 per month for a tv subscription, then you can afford to pay a one off £50 for an upgrade to a HD2+ box.
It needs someone to take control and require an SD native transmission switch off, or at least rubber stamp a decision made within the BBC Trust to do so.
At some point, someone is going to have to do this and I doubt very much that 2 million SD Sky boxes will have died a death before the bandwidth is required for 4K services to begin.
Personally I think at the same time, Sky and the Freesat board should get together and set minimum high quality standards for the transmission of HD and 4K over satellite in the UK eg. HD might be 12mbs and 4K 30mbs plus native resolution on both and permitted codec stipulations. This is the only way to reverse the quality slide we've seen in recent years and the only way to guarantee that picture quality doesn't get worse from the cheaper channels.
If both Sky and Freesat agree a standard, then broadcasters have no choice but to adhere to it if they want to reach those pay audiences as well as the free ones, and especially more so if an intention is announced to require minimum standards for Freeview as well. It might result in less channels on Freeview to enable this, but surely that has to be a good thing given some of the poorer ones that exist.
with MPEG4/AVC and presumably h.265 (hevc) all channel encoding is statmuxed meaning it varies anyway, according to what is on the channel, so most HD channels don't need that high a bit rate all the time unless they show fast moving content like sport.
This is why the BBC's DVB-S2 tps have only 4 channels and usually have a fair amount of null packets so that when they show sport or other bitrate hungry content then the bandwidth is there, at other times it doesn't need it.
I know for some they wont ever believe that, but its true and its an efficient way to encode, it also means that programs don't have to take up loads of room on PVRs!
coders are also becoming more efficient, on DTT COM 7 MUX can now get 6HD channels and 2-3 SD channels on, with apparently no loss in picture quality for the HD channels. I don't know for sure as I cant get COM 7 at the moment, but nobody has complained in the freeview forum yet that pq is bad of those HD channels.
I agree about Sky SD boxes though Sky has the money to replace them especially if they do none PVR models for customers who don't currently have SD PVRs that would be dirt cheap and charge extra if the customer wants a PVR model say £30.
for those who don't have a sky sub anymore they would just have to lump it and change to freeview or freesat HD, how many none subscribers have sky SD boxes now?
all of 28 degrees east should go DVB-S2 though and encode at MPEG4/AVC even for those broadcasters that still only use SD channels they could all be in 720*576 mode then instead of ether 704*576 or 544*576.
I agree, and I think Sky easily has enough cash to fund this, but 720x576 is in some ways worse than 704x576, FYI. The outer 16 columns of pixels aren't part of the "active image" is most configurations, and TVs regularly fail to deal with this correctly.
720*576 wouldn't be an issue if broadcasters used the full 720 pixels rather than blank the edges, yes some TVs might crop those edge bits but it wouldn't be so bad.
a lot of DVDs are encoded like that though and it is better when upscaling the image to HD as it uses the full 720 across the 1920 wide of HD! also turning the overscan off you dont get the thin black bars that you do at the sides with the 16 columns of black pixels.
A comment I wholeheartedly agree with.
I agree dishes can be made almost invisible - but don't put them where you can't reach them with a broom (unless you have no other choice).
Cheers,
David.
The Licence gives permission to use equipment capable of receiving TV - the fact that the revenue raised happens to help fund the BBC is not relevant.
As someone with poor to non-existent DTT coverage, I couldn't even begin to countenance somehow depriving the majority of their full coverage simply because of topography and the inevitability that overcoming the issues is very low down the "cost-benefit" slope.
Even satellite doesn't offer 100% coverage due to the signal being angled and therefore can be blocked by very steep very close hills (there's an example of this near to me) and likewise tall building or trees being right next door and in front your dish.
Not to mention listed buildings & so on.
Comm DTT coverage 93 % In fact DTT covers a few more
Com78 DTT coverage about 70%
DSAT coverage about 95 to 96 %. Because of terrain or man made occlusion .
That is just the number of subscribers - there are almost certainly far more SD boxes than that still in use as FTA and FSFS boxes both in single box non subscription homes and used as sub free secondary boxes in Sky sub homes. If they went HD only now well over 4 million boxes would have to be replaced - around 25% of satellite users and this so soon after a large portion of the population has had to replace systems with DSO.