TV Home Forum

HD plans "jeopardise" Freeview

(February 2008)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BR
Brekkie
I think views to HD are changing now though as it becomes more and more dominant - and HD TV's seem to be pretty much the norm now if you're looking for a new television - and people who buy a HDTV will expect to be able to receive HD TV.


I think a mixture of the two plans is for the best. As I said in the opening post, my main problem is the way they achieve clearing one mux for HD, not so much the principle - but long term just one HD mux isn't viable at all, so the extra space as proposed by the DTG should also be utilised too - or at least reserved for possible future use, and then if they're not used within 5-10 years, sell them of then.
GC
GaryC
The argument made about a 'limited' number of HD services makes freeview HD unviable is false; just like the DVB-T2 argument.

These will only ever be a limited demand from channels for HD on DTT

Bandwidth on freeview is abour £6M for 3Mbit/s (24/7) becouse of limits of capacity and the 20 million boxes installed [source: ofcom communications market data]

Only bbc/itv/4 could afford the likely £18M+ to broadcast in HD on DTT. Sky will not use DTT distribution for HD, and Movie rights will always have an on-demand & pay window and no high value films will be free - have you watched film4 selection since its been FTA!

Who are these 10+ HD broadcasters going to be? at that price?

26 days later

BR
Brekkie
So looks like OFCOM are ignoring the concerns of practically everyone and pushing ahead with their rather flawed Freeview HD plans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/03/digitaltvradio.television


They're guaranteeing the BBC one channel, but saying the others will had to bid for them - even though they'll probably have to sacrifice some of their own Freeview spectrum to accommodate the changes.



It's just not workable at all IMO - the only way HD on Freeview can really work long term is with more space, and OFCOM are more concerned about making a profit from selling spectrum than securing the future of British TV.


They'd be far better off focusing on making Freesat the HD alternative to Freeview, rather than the free alternative to Sky.
DC
DrCheese
Ofcom really don't have a flaming clue. 4 Channels is NOT enough. Whist at the moment 4 HD channels would be fantastic but by 2012 it's going to look pretty laughable, even more so as freesat would have existed for 4/5 years by that stage and will have a much larger amount of HD content.

Ofcom's plans just aren't quick enough. I'm sure the long term plan is convert every mux to DVB-T2 but they can't get away with doing that for 10/15 years else they risk alienating everyone who's buying mpeg2 freeview equipment at the moment.

DTT is a joke in this country and its all down to terrible planning right from the start with OnDigital. Switchoff is taking way to long as it is and if ofcom go ahead with these plans it will doom Terrestrial in the UK
If ofcom insist on going down this route they should get DVB-T2 and mpeg4 into every single new box sold asap (This is somewhat hard given that T2 isn't even finalised)
Madness.
NJ
Neil Jones Founding member
Brekkie posted:
So looks like OFCOM are ignoring the concerns of practically everyone and pushing ahead with their rather flawed Freeview HD plans.


Sometimes I wonder why OFCOM bother to consult when they've made up their minds about what they're going to do anyway.

I don't quite see how this is going to work bearing in mind the whole point of Freeview was you buy a box and have done with it. Now you're going to have to throw it away and get another one that can pick up HD channels - all four of them.

Freesat should, in my opinion, be the "upgrade" route from Freeview. Freeview as it stands now is fine for the bedroom and kitchen TVs where you'll either be distracted from it or fall asleep in front of it anyway. You're not going to stop peeling potatoes or stay awake all night to admire a HD picture. Freesat is marketing HD as a selling point subject to suitable hardware. The other "upgrade" from Freesat is pay Sky an arm and a leg for the rest of the channels. If you should want HD in the bedroom/kitchen/loft and you have Freesat or Sky then the hardware is available to send it wirelessly.
BR
Brekkie
Completely agree. That's the sort of route New Zealand have taken, though strangely their terrestrial version has more space than the satellite version, so it's that which is branded FreeviewHD, in addition to the already launched Freeview via satellite.
DB
dbl
At least NZ has more of a advantage to us, since they started their Freeview last year. So they can take advantage of MPEG4 H.264 which is a much efficient codec.
NG
noggin Founding member
dbl posted:
At least NZ has more of a advantage to us, since they started their Freeview last year. So they can take advantage of MPEG4 H.264 which is a much efficient codec.


Estonia is doing the same I believe - and France are using MPEG2 for SD FTA but H264 for pay-TV and HD AIUI.
NG
noggin Founding member
Looking at the plans today - AIUI - then Ofcom are working on the following ?

Mux B shifts from DVB-T to DVB-T, and delivers an approx 32Mbs data rate - possibly a bit higher but not much?

This is to contain FOUR HD services. That gives around 8Mbs per service.

BBC HD is currently 16.5Mbs, and some of the Sky HD services are nearer 18-20Mbs.

Even if you cross-convert 1080/50i to 720/50p you will curently struggle to deliver decent quality video, even using H264, in less than 14Mbs. (The US H264 satellite services - are using H264 at rates lower than this - and the results are far from great). The BBC HD Freeview trial in London trialled 13Mbs 720/50p and it looked pretty pants compared to the 1080/50i 18Mbs also used at that time on the trial. When two of the ITV/C4/Five services ran simultaneously the results were terrible - with both getting around 12Mbs and looking pretty awful.

Yes - H264 encoders will improve - but will they improve to the point, next year, where they can make an 8-10Mbs HD signal decent picture quality?

Is there any point in adding HD to Freeview if it is rubbish quality. The point of HD is to deliver decent high quality pictures, not just higher resolution junk...
CW
cwathen Founding member
Quote:
I think views to HD are changing now though as it becomes more and more dominant - and HD TV's seem to be pretty much the norm now if you're looking for a new television - and people who buy a HDTV will expect to be able to receive HD TV.

It's rather worrying how HD is being hyped up, with people obsessing over whether or not they're buying HD ready, and then paying out a small fortune because some bloke down the pub says they must have a 1080p or their set will be obsolete in a couple of years, all of this is pushing people into the false belief that as soon as HD comes to Freeview their 'HD Ready' TV will pick it up.

Tonight's Evening Standard even misreported in an article about HD Freeview that most sets sold now are 'wired up' for HD.

The fact that there are presently no domestic sets on the UK market capable of displaying an HD picture in the UK from UK broadcast sources without buying and connecting additional equipment and that DTT HD broadcasting isn't going to change that just isn't being made clear enough.

Quote:
DTT is a joke in this country and its all down to terrible planning right from the start with OnDigital. Switchoff is taking way to long as it is and if ofcom go ahead with these plans it will doom Terrestrial in the UK

I think it's certainly true that it's been mishandled and was rushed in too early leading us to have a system obsolete before it's rollout is even complete. A digital vision which also seems based around more channels with the same content spread more thinly isn't doing anything for the programme quality as well as the poor technical quality of digital TV. The model taken by Australia - waiting for a few years then going straight into broadcasting the same channels in HD on DTT from the get go has IMO ended up in that country getting far more benefit from DSO than we ever will. And to say the UK switchover timetable shows some signs of political motivations allready must be candidate for understatement of the century.

I am however somewhat intrigued by your assertion that switchoff is taking 'way too long as it is' - I don't really understand the opinion some people seem to hold that switching off nasty old analogue will deliver some kind of huge cultural improvement to our country. Surely switchoff should take place when it is ready too, I see no need to rush it.

And consider this point - with analogue virtually any TV with virtually any kind of aerial in virtually any area can pick up the 4 main channels in watcheable (if not particularly amazing) quality. DTT is much more demanding in terms of the type of aerial you have and the signal strength needed just to pick up anything, and a poor signal gives clicking sound and freezing pictures that are unwatcheable.

So we're replacing an extremely robust broadcasting system that is simplicitly itself to pick up and make use of on the most basic equipment in the worst reception areas with one that is much more fragile with much more demanding reception requirements and a much lower 'unwatcheable' threshold; it's not all progress. Fair enough, you can't stop change, but I see no reason for anyone (other than politicians and broadcasters anyway) to particularly want analogue to end even if they don't personally use it any more - I feel a somewhat high number of people will miss it when it's gone.
BR
Brekkie
Well it seems everyone is learning from our mistakes.


All easy to say in hindsight - but of course at the time Freeview was born most people only cared about getting more channels, and I think the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five have now probably got the right amount of channels.
ST
Stuart
cwathen posted:
Surely switchoff should take place when it is ready too, I see no need to rush it.

And consider this point - with analogue virtually any TV with virtually any kind of aerial in virtually any area can pick up the 4 main channels in watcheable (if not particularly amazing) quality. DTT is much more demanding in terms of the type of aerial you have and the signal strength needed just to pick up anything, and a poor signal gives clicking sound and freezing pictures that are unwatcheable.

So we're replacing an extremely robust broadcasting system that is simplicitly itself to pick up and make use of on the most basic equipment in the worst reception areas with one that is much more fragile with much more demanding reception requirements and a much lower 'unwatcheable' threshold; it's not all progress. Fair enough, you can't stop change, but I see no reason for anyone (other than politicians and broadcasters anyway) to particularly want analogue to end even if they don't personally use it any more - I feel a somewhat high number of people will miss it when it's gone.

I actually think that DSO is being dragged out, but I suspect that is due to the logistical problems of upgrading transmitters rather that any unwillingless by the public to accept analogue switch-off. Furthermore, the cost of the most basic freeview boxes has dropped to remarkably low levels.

I accept that analogue is a robust and reliable broadcast method, but it's not possible to make full use of DTT until it has been turned off. In fact, here in Plymouth, the digital muxes will transmit a signal more than 50 times their current strength after July 2009. I suspect that will prove to be quite robust.

As for the DTT HD plans, I believe the government should reserve alot more of the spectrum for it instead of using it as a cash-cow to plug financial holes in the budget.

Newer posts