ST
That may well be the case, but the telecoms companies paid through-the-nose for their 3G licences, and the government doesn't have the cash to pay them back (they spent it years ago).
Brekkie posted:
Who wants mobile TV anyway? Ask the public if having content on a 4 inch screen or a 40 inch screen is more important to them, and I'm sure most would opt for HD anyday.
That may well be the case, but the telecoms companies paid through-the-nose for their 3G licences, and the government doesn't have the cash to pay them back (they spent it years ago).
TI
Nothing to write home about - only one or two new channels and at first very little in the way of HD content. People had no reason to upgrade, so they didn't bother - although nowadays inbuilt HD tuners are more common, there's still a long way to go before we get anywhere near the UK in terms of takeup (Australia hovers at 20% I think).
Add some more channels, however, and people are more likely to spend the money - they get more stuff to watch. ABC2 is the only 'real' new channel,the others are mostly rebroadcasts with dodgy filler (old lifestyle series, some obscure American drama and quite a lot of sport) stuck in between.
I daresay the principle benefit is HD, and so far not too many people are interested. If it was anywhere else I'd say it's something that should go on satellite, but the structure of things (channels with different local content for different areas, and limited capacity mainly taken up by Foxtel) doesn't allow for it.
cwathen posted:
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.
Add some more channels, however, and people are more likely to spend the money - they get more stuff to watch. ABC2 is the only 'real' new channel,the others are mostly rebroadcasts with dodgy filler (old lifestyle series, some obscure American drama and quite a lot of sport) stuck in between.
I daresay the principle benefit is HD, and so far not too many people are interested. If it was anywhere else I'd say it's something that should go on satellite, but the structure of things (channels with different local content for different areas, and limited capacity mainly taken up by Foxtel) doesn't allow for it.
JA
jay
Founding member
So currently the 20million people who now own a Freeview box will all have to now buy a new box so they can receive the 4 HD channels announced?
And what about everyone with a HD TV that won't be able to receive the HD Freeview channels as the in-built tuner isn't an MPHEG-4 or whatever it is. Don't fancy trying to explain that to the older generation of this country who have only just got their head around widescreen.
And what about everyone with a HD TV that won't be able to receive the HD Freeview channels as the in-built tuner isn't an MPHEG-4 or whatever it is. Don't fancy trying to explain that to the older generation of this country who have only just got their head around widescreen.
NG
But it was always going to be.
AFAIK no UK HD-Ready IDTV has ever had anything more than an SD Freeview receiver built in. It isn't as if the government's choice of HD system has rendered the TV obsolete - they simply didn't have any HD reception capabilities.
It isn't like the HD-Ready IDTVs have HD MPEG2 DVB-T reception capabilities (as used in Aus) or HD H264 DVB-T (as used in Sweden currently - but they are likely to switch to DVB-T2 as the UK are adopting)
The SD MPEG2 DVB-T broadcasts are likely to remain for the foreseeable future - it is only the HD broadcasts that are using a different system - and they have to as they are HD...
noggin
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
Yep - any HD-ready integrated digital TV is obsolete without the addition of a HD set top box.
But it was always going to be.
AFAIK no UK HD-Ready IDTV has ever had anything more than an SD Freeview receiver built in. It isn't as if the government's choice of HD system has rendered the TV obsolete - they simply didn't have any HD reception capabilities.
It isn't like the HD-Ready IDTVs have HD MPEG2 DVB-T reception capabilities (as used in Aus) or HD H264 DVB-T (as used in Sweden currently - but they are likely to switch to DVB-T2 as the UK are adopting)
The SD MPEG2 DVB-T broadcasts are likely to remain for the foreseeable future - it is only the HD broadcasts that are using a different system - and they have to as they are HD...
NG
Yes - it could never work any other way. SD Freeview boxes have neither the ability to output and HD signal, nor the ability to receive an HD signal and downconvert it to HD.
As a result there is no requirement to broadcast HD in a manner compatible with existing HD receivers - as there are none. Thus we can chose the latest technology for HD - which will be far more efficient than the antiquated US and Australian systems launched 10 years ago (with technology older than that)
noggin
Founding member
jay posted:
So currently the 20million people who now own a Freeview box will all have to now buy a new box so they can receive the 4 HD channels announced?
Yes - it could never work any other way. SD Freeview boxes have neither the ability to output and HD signal, nor the ability to receive an HD signal and downconvert it to HD.
As a result there is no requirement to broadcast HD in a manner compatible with existing HD receivers - as there are none. Thus we can chose the latest technology for HD - which will be far more efficient than the antiquated US and Australian systems launched 10 years ago (with technology older than that)
NG
Nothing to write home about - only one or two new channels and at first very little in the way of HD content. People had no reason to upgrade, so they didn't bother - although nowadays inbuilt HD tuners are more common, there's still a long way to go before we get anywhere near the UK in terms of takeup (Australia hovers at 20% I think).
Add some more channels, however, and people are more likely to spend the money - they get more stuff to watch. ABC2 is the only 'real' new channel,the others are mostly rebroadcasts with dodgy filler (old lifestyle series, some obscure American drama and quite a lot of sport) stuck in between.
I daresay the principle benefit is HD, and so far not too many people are interested. If it was anywhere else I'd say it's something that should go on satellite, but the structure of things (channels with different local content for different areas, and limited capacity mainly taken up by Foxtel) doesn't allow for it.
Yep - the Aussie DTV system has not been regarded as a success in any way shape or form AFAIK. They recently decided to re-appraise - and spent a lot of time analysing the success of Freeview in the UK.
It is important to remember that the current SD Freeview system is the most successful in the world in terms of over-the-air digital TV systems based on percentage take-up of the population, prior to analogue switch-off.
noggin
Founding member
timgraham posted:
cwathen posted:
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.
Add some more channels, however, and people are more likely to spend the money - they get more stuff to watch. ABC2 is the only 'real' new channel,the others are mostly rebroadcasts with dodgy filler (old lifestyle series, some obscure American drama and quite a lot of sport) stuck in between.
I daresay the principle benefit is HD, and so far not too many people are interested. If it was anywhere else I'd say it's something that should go on satellite, but the structure of things (channels with different local content for different areas, and limited capacity mainly taken up by Foxtel) doesn't allow for it.
Yep - the Aussie DTV system has not been regarded as a success in any way shape or form AFAIK. They recently decided to re-appraise - and spent a lot of time analysing the success of Freeview in the UK.
It is important to remember that the current SD Freeview system is the most successful in the world in terms of over-the-air digital TV systems based on percentage take-up of the population, prior to analogue switch-off.
BR
DTT in Australia is only really just beginning. ABC have been permitted a second channel for years, but the commercial networks haven't until recently, with just one HD channel each, which simulcasts the main channel but will "breakaway" from the schedule for HD programme usually after 10.30pm - and usually completely one night a week. In 2009 they will be permitted another SD channel.
Now as we face the HD dilemma that might not seem such a bad idea, but even up until last year Australian DTT felt as if it was being left way behind - and the main incentive to get people to switch would always be more channels, not a better quality picture.
Now as we face the HD dilemma that might not seem such a bad idea, but even up until last year Australian DTT felt as if it was being left way behind - and the main incentive to get people to switch would always be more channels, not a better quality picture.
NG
Yep - but the DTT service in Aus has been running for approx the same amount of time as the UK.
The difference is that the Aus govt dictated HD and SD simulcasting on DTT (so SD only DTT receivers still worked without having to receive and downconvert HD broadcasts) and also set very strict rules on broadcasting extra channels.
Unlike the UK where BBC Three, BBC Four, News 24, BBC Parliament, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, E4, More4, FilmFour , Five Life/Fiver and Five US etc. are all spin offs of analogue terrestrial services on DTT, in Aus the legislation prevented this, instead dictating basically an HD-only service (and the HD system is of 1998 vintage)
This is widely regarded as the main reason DTT has not taken off in the same way as Aus as it has in the UK - the transmissions have been taking place for roughly the same amount of time in the most populous areas AIUI.
Now as we face the HD dilemma that might not seem such a bad idea, but even up until last year Australian DTT felt as if it was being left way behind - and the main incentive to get people to switch would always be more channels, not a better quality picture.
Yep - HD has only really become a selling point in the last year or two as affordable LCD and Plasma screens of a larger screen size have become cheap enough and thin enough to be adopted in large numbers.
noggin
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
DTT in Australia is only really just beginning. ABC have been permitted a second channel for years, but the commercial networks haven't until recently, with just one HD channel each, which simulcasts the main channel but will "breakaway" from the schedule for HD programme usually after 10.30pm - and usually completely one night a week. In 2009 they will be permitted another SD channel.
Yep - but the DTT service in Aus has been running for approx the same amount of time as the UK.
The difference is that the Aus govt dictated HD and SD simulcasting on DTT (so SD only DTT receivers still worked without having to receive and downconvert HD broadcasts) and also set very strict rules on broadcasting extra channels.
Unlike the UK where BBC Three, BBC Four, News 24, BBC Parliament, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, E4, More4, FilmFour , Five Life/Fiver and Five US etc. are all spin offs of analogue terrestrial services on DTT, in Aus the legislation prevented this, instead dictating basically an HD-only service (and the HD system is of 1998 vintage)
This is widely regarded as the main reason DTT has not taken off in the same way as Aus as it has in the UK - the transmissions have been taking place for roughly the same amount of time in the most populous areas AIUI.
Quote:
Now as we face the HD dilemma that might not seem such a bad idea, but even up until last year Australian DTT felt as if it was being left way behind - and the main incentive to get people to switch would always be more channels, not a better quality picture.
Yep - HD has only really become a selling point in the last year or two as affordable LCD and Plasma screens of a larger screen size have become cheap enough and thin enough to be adopted in large numbers.
TI
It should be interesting to see what happens here next year, when the restrictions on extra SD channels are also lifted - a number of commercial stations have indicated interest. Picture quality will be an issue though, since they'll be running two SD (in the ABC's case three if they get their way with ABC3) services as well as a 720p or 1080i HD channel which tend to be quite bandwidth-hungry.
There was some interest in the HD channels, but the shine has pretty quickly worn off - old lifestyle repeats and a few token new shows imported from the US. The only local HD-exclusive show was axed a few weeks ago because there is no way to measure ratings for digital channels and thus no way to sell it to advertisers.
There was some interest in the HD channels, but the shine has pretty quickly worn off - old lifestyle repeats and a few token new shows imported from the US. The only local HD-exclusive show was axed a few weeks ago because there is no way to measure ratings for digital channels and thus no way to sell it to advertisers.