RTE goes Betamax???

Andy454

I know I probably posted this a while back - but just looking through all the different posts since July about which tv is compatible with the Irish DTT and which one is not, considering there is 1000's of makes, models manufacturers etc etc is it not time that people realised that RTE have adpoted the way of going Betamax rather than vhs?

When it appears that just about everywhere else broadcasts using mpeg2 and every LCD / plasma set sold here in the last 8 years supports mpeg2 does it not make sense to adopt this standard rather than mpeg4?

Surely the main principle behind rte and public service broadcasting is that the signal is accessable to as many people as possible, not a select few?

I am fully aware of the true quality of High Definition, through skyHD, there is alot to be said however to the ability to buy any bog standard LCD set and plug it in anywhere and recieve a digital picture without the necessity to use plug in decoders or go looking for that 1 in a million back street doggy shop that sells a cam that actually converts the signal.

Surely there is something to be said for Backward compatibility?

Also - has anyone even considered the fact that all of RTE's stars & Celebs are only Mpeg2 compatible?

The true glory of HD might turn the 6'one news cast slot into the late late night thriller!

jhegarty

I think it's fairer to say RTE are going DVD instead of VHS (in the early days of DVD that it).

Andy454

jhegarty wrote: »

I think it's fairer to say RTE are going DVD instead of VHS (in the early days of DVD that it).

the format of a dvd has never changed though - u don't have to upgrade the dvd player you bought yesterday, last week, month, 14 years ago when dvd's first came out to play the dvd you bought today....

jhegarty

Andy454 wrote: »

the format of a dvd has never changed though - u don't have to upgrade the dvd player you bought yesterday, last week, month, 14 years ago when dvd's first came out to play the dvd you bought today....

I am comparing it to DVD when everyone had a VHS in their houses , and very few people had DVD players ...

mjsmyth

@Andy454

Emmm... sorry?? "every LCD / plasma set sold here in the last 8 years supports mpeg2"

My LCD happily displays mpeg 2 and mpeg 4. I presume you mean that they have a built in mpeg 2 DTT tuner.

Mpeg 4 offers many many benefits over Mpeg 2, most notably better compression. This means more channels in less space and also HD.

There is already talk of Freeview in the UK going Mepg 4 in future. Other countries in Europe also use Mpeg 4 for DTT. Mpeg 4 is the current future of DTT broadcasting.

Using Mpeg 4 is not akin to RTE using Betamax in any way. Using Mpeg 2 would be akin to using VHS to record HD.

Of course thats just point of view.

mj

SPDUB

mjsmyth wrote: »

This means more channels in less space and also HD.

More Channels with nothing to fill them so that they are reduced to the likes of Dail TV

mjsmyth

Lets not forget here, RTE is just a small part of Irish DTT. Boxer is another part. Just because there is more space does not mean that RTE will use it.

Would people rather the people behind DTT stuck with old technology more limited in terms of what it can supply, or look to the future and use newer technology so that should the need arise, there will be bandwidth available for DTT HD and many other channels?

I know which one I would go for.

KeRbDoG

I believe it to be a good idea that RTE are thinking of the future and not using what might be considered old technology of MPEG2.
The original poster might just be a bit miffed as they might have bought a UK TV with a built in MPEG2 tuner.

SPDUB

mjsmyth wrote: »

Just because there is more space does not mean that RTE will use it.

So what's the point of extra space ?

mjsmyth

Boxer.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0721/digital.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_TV_Ireland
http://www.boxer.se/?page=1365

xlogo

Andy454 wrote: »

I know I probably posted this a while back - but just looking through all the different posts since July about which tv is compatible with the Irish DTT and which one is not, considering there is 1000's of makes, models manufacturers etc etc is it not time that people realised that RTE have adpoted the way of going Betamax rather than vhs?

When it appears that just about everywhere else broadcasts using mpeg2 and every LCD / plasma set sold here in the last 8 years supports mpeg2 does it not make sense to adopt this standard rather than mpeg4?

Surely the main principle behind rte and public service broadcasting is that the signal is accessable to as many people as possible, not a select few?

I am fully aware of the true quality of High Definition, through skyHD, there is alot to be said however to the ability to buy any bog standard LCD set and plug it in anywhere and recieve a digital picture without the necessity to use plug in decoders or go looking for that 1 in a million back street doggy shop that sells a cam that actually converts the signal.

Surely there is something to be said for Backward compatibility?

Also - has anyone even considered the fact that all of RTE's stars & Celebs are only Mpeg2 compatible?

The true glory of HD might turn the 6'one news cast slot into the late late night thriller!

I think a lot of other European countries have also tried to future proof and gone MPEG-4 - France , Germany....

L1011

To abuse the analogies already used, its like going DVD in 1996 - very shortly after it came out, but when it was clear it would get adopted.

SPDUB

mjsmyth wrote: »

Boxer.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0721/digital.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_TV_Ireland
http://www.boxer.se/?page=1365

If your answer to what's the point of extra space is Boxer then when did they get permission to transmit on the PSB Mux

mjsmyth

I really do fail to see what the issue is here.

It is well known that mpeg 4 gives better compression than mpeg 2. That better compression means more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. It also means that HD can be realistically broadcasted on DTT.

On the PSB multiplex (run by RTE), there will be at least the 4 current PSB channels plus possibly 4 others that are being mentioned.

On the other 3 multiplexes run by Boxer, I have no idea what will be on them.

If there is free space on the PSB multiplex run by RTE and Boxer wishes to use it, then where is the problem? I am sure that some sort of agreement between RTE and Boxer could be reached.

As others have pointed out, Ireland is not alone in trying to future proof its investment in DTT by using mpeg 4. Had we gone down the route of Mpeg 2, it would have been, in my opinion, extremely stupid and a waste of money.

People who bought TV's with mpeg 2 DTT receivers in them bought them at a time when no specification was in place for Irish DTT and no one had suggested that it was going to be mpeg 2. It was mentioned on here numerous times that people should hold off on buying a DTT receiver until matters became clear, unfortunately some chose to ignore the advice.

mj

SPDUB

mjsmyth wrote: »

I really do fail to see what the issue is here.

It is well known that mpeg 4 gives better compression than mpeg 2. That better compression means more channels in the same amount of bandwidth.

On the PSB multiplex (run by RTE), there will be at least the 4 current PSB channels plus possibly 4 others that are being mentioned.

The point is that people keep saying the use of mpeg4 is good because there are more channels available .

But there is nothing to put on them and to even get 8 they've had to go down the route of Dail TV and Plus 1 channels

Extra channels for the PSB mux at least is not a good sale point and I'd laugh if a sales person tried to use that line on me to buy a STB or TV

mjsmyth

"Extra channels for the PSB mux at least is not a good sale point and I'd laugh if a sales person tried to use that line on me to buy a STB or TV"

The selling point will not be that, it will be either go digital or get no TV.

You seem to be against the use of mpeg 4. Why? What do you se as the big selling points of using it?

SPDUB

mjsmyth wrote: »

The selling point will not be that, it will be either go digital or get no TV.

No ,that's the selling point in 2012 and by that point I probably will need a new telly anyway

mjsmyth wrote: »

You seem to be against the use of mpeg 4. Why? What do you se as the big selling points of using it?

No , I'm against the use of extra channels as a selling point for mpeg4 especially in regard to the PSB mux and there is no big selling point of using it with the current Boxer set up

Scottish paddy

Anyone who knows the broadcasting history of this country will recognise that this is basically the same old argument from the start of tv here……….. “lets just use the same old system as the British……sure we’ve already got the sets” (405 lines) Fortunately the progressive argument won out and we went with 625 lines, only to find the UK changing over to 625 lines some years later. Here we go again……….. “lets just use MPEG 2” while most of Europe is actually adopting MPEG 4 and even the UK is carrying out MPEG 4 tests for HD. These same people will be the first to slag off the Irish authorities in the future for having adopted an inferior system with no HD capability once the British start broadcasting DTT HD on MPEG 4.

watty

About a Dozen coutries are adopting MPEG4 DVB-t. UK is betamax (or really Philips N1700) for DAB and DTT and the current DTT rollouts are "VHS". DVB-t2 *MIGHT* be DVD, or CDi.

Or perhaps MPEG2 is like CDi / Video CD and MPEG4 is DVD. Poor analogy as there is no increase in Quality at all. It's to save space. MPEG2 doesn't leave enough space for competing with Cable or Satellite or to have space for HD, as it's twice the bandwidth of MPEG4.

Unfortunately DVB-T2 is likely to be the HD standard and it's about a year too late to be adopted for our rollout. It's a different tuner head, not a firmware update. However HD needs a different receiver and it's own MUX and a DVB-t2 receiver for HD will do DVB-t also.

Unlike VHS/Betamax or 405/625, an MPEG4 DVB-t receiver for Ireland will work perfectly on MPEG2 DTT systems. In fact all new receivers will have MPEG4 shortly as they drop production of MPEG2 only chip sets.

SPDUB

Scottish paddy wrote: »

Anyone who knows the broadcasting history of this country will recognise that this is basically the same old argument from the start of tv here……….. “lets just use the same old system as the British……sure we’ve already got the sets”.

I'm perfectly content for them to use Mpeg4 and I swear I will never be complaining about that decision

However just as people are complaining about the sale of Mpeg2 equipment in this country on bad faith grounds (it won't work when the service actually launches but people may be fooled by the mention of Digital and buy it ) I believe you are going down the route of bad faith by selling equipment on the basis of extra channels when the buyer is most interested in the PSB mux

Mickey Mouse channels are most definitely not a strong basis to push extra channels as a selling point

GerardKeating

Andy454 wrote: »

Surely there is something to be said for Backward compatibility?

Backward compatibility means that the new sets support the older standard, and most all the mpeg-4 sets will support mpeg-2.

Andy454

GerardKeating wrote: »

Backward compatibility means that the new sets support the older standard, and most all the mpeg-4 sets will support mpeg-2.

a colour television signal is compatible with a black and white, should the same principle not apply to mpeg 2 sets?

In all fairness, I bought a brand new samsung tv only 2 months ago and that isn't compatible with the mpeg 4 signals, even though the set has hd compatible and digital ready sprawled all over it.

There doesn't appear to be any legislation to make retailers aware that the set your buying is not compatible with the irish dtt nor is there any inference on the tv box.

The uk's method is simple - has it got a tick - yes it has - its digital compatible.

HENCE a far easier transition.

Once the switch off begins here - there will be widespread annoyance and confusion when people find their set which they believe to be all knowing can't recieve mpeg 4 streams.

I don't believe rte has much HD programming to offer that will span more than a single channel at the moment therefore they really should consider simulcasting rte in mpeg 2 and a hd channel for their hd content.

I have sky hd so i don't really care about boxers offering.

But rather than have wires streaming all over the house, for convience sake, i would like to have a neat setup in the kitchen and bedroom with just the tv on the wall and a small antenna getting the digital picture, I'm sure most older people would prefer a simple setup as well rather than finding av & then navagating the control of a set top box.

reslfj

xlogo wrote: »

I think a lot of other European countries have also tried to future proof and gone MPEG-4 - France , Germany....

German DTT is MPEG-2 only and there are not - YET - any plans to change that. Germany just finished ( Nov 25. 2008) the ASO process for the main public service broadcasters ARD/ZDF and the large private (COM) broadcasters. They now need to move the DTT multiplex partly on VHF to UHF and then add a few more transmitter masts.

The Germans wanted no public 'noise' about MPEG or T2 during the ASO process.

There is an increase in the use of terrestrial TV after ASO.

When Germany is ready to introduce new DTT services, DVB-T2 will be on the market and will undoubtedly be used together with MPEG-4.
If Germany will try pay-TV over DTT - DVB-T2 is very likely, too.

Don't be surprised if FIFA World cup 2010 from ZA (16.06.2010-11.07.2010) will be on DTT and HD in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and other large cities in Germany.
ARD/ZDF has announced that it will be in HD on Astra 1x 19.2.


Lars

reslfj

Andy454 wrote: »

a colour television signal is compatible with a black and white, should the same principle not apply to mpeg 2 sets?

In all fairness, I bought a brand new samsung tv only 2 months ago and that isn't compatible with the mpeg 4 signals, even though the set has hd compatible and digital ready sprawled all over it.

You did not check if it was a prudent time to buy a new TV for DTT (it isn't). I know you didn't check what 'HD-Ready' was all about either.

It is NOT like it has been a secret, that the future of Irish terrestrial TV was changing this summer.

Andy454 wrote:

There doesn't appear to be any legislation to make retailers aware that the set your buying is not compatible with the irish dtt nor is there any inference on the tv box.

Did you vote for those politicians that did not pass those laws ?
You now - "Small government - free market - no regulations" - Yes !

Andy454 wrote:

The uk's method is simple - has it got a tick - yes it has - its digital compatible.

But this is going to change - very soon - as the UK will in one year and four days begin to transmit the new DVB-T2 HD multiplex.
Most in the UK do not know yet - as Ofcom will not harm the market for TV sets before the first DVB-T2 products are 'closer to the market'.

Andy454 wrote:

Once the switch off begins here - there will be widespread annoyance and confusion when people find their set which they believe to be all knowing can't recieve mpeg 4 streams.

Then they learn the value of doing 'homework' and patience.

Lars

reslfj

watty wrote: »

About a Dozen countries are adopting MPEG4 DVB-t.

Dozen is 12 isn't it ? That's a lot. Can you name all of them ?

watty wrote:

In fact all new receivers will have MPEG4 shortly as they drop production of MPEG2 only chip sets.

After both DVB-C2 and DVB-T2 are included in the same chip, production of DVB-T-only chips will be dropped, too. Maybe around model-year 2011/12.

If the cable providers want DVB-C2 fast, it will be sooner rather than later.

Most existing electronic equipment will come under much pressure to be replaced with new low power/low CO2-emission models.

Lars

GerardKeating

Andy454 wrote: »

a colour television signal is compatible with a black and white, should the same principle not apply to mpeg 2 sets?

But as i said, you have it backwards; with your analogy, mpeg2 is "black & white" and "mpeg 4" is "colour".

One upon a time, we only had old 405 lines B&W tv and then the shiny new 625 lines colour came in. The new TV support both formats and the old 505 line yokes went in the bin.

Andy454

GerardKeating wrote: »

But as i said, you have it backwards; with your analogy, mpeg2 is "black & white" and "mpeg 4" is "colour".

One upon a time, we only had old 405 lines B&W tv and then the shiny new 625 lines colour came in. The new TV support both formats and the old 505 line yokes went in the bin.

As regards analagies - I admit you can't really make one, Irish dtt switchover is going to be in a league of its very own! as time may very well tell.

Well, the tv was bought for me as a birthday present, but it is a very popular make - samsung.

I bought a sony 40 inch for the living room just under 2 years ago.

Neither tv is compatible with Irish DTT, nor is my aunts 42 inch toshiba, my neighbours 37inch sony or my grandmothers brand spanking new phillips.


What is the point in broadcasting a signal no one can readily recieve? if "the masses" already have reception equipment, does it not make more sense to use the format they can recieve.

Only time will tell if people will buy a stb or a cam to recieve the signal.

Where the ordinary joe soap is concerned, I doubt if he will ever understand the difference between an mpeg2 and mpeg 4 signal and will ultimately turn the process of receiving dtt into an expensive extra.

How many of these dealers will charge 200 -300 euros for installing a "digital adapter", I heard of dealers in Mayo, Galway, Kerry that charge a nice 300 euro for re-aligning a satellite dish!

This approach to a digital switchover may prove expensive, confusing and most of all frustrating to those people already with tv sets in weak signal areas.

zilog_jones

GerardKeating wrote: »

One upon a time, we only had old 405 lines B&W tv and then the shiny new 625 lines colour came in. The new TV support both formats and the old 505 line yokes went in the bin.

Actually, 405-line transmissions continued until 1982 here and 1985 in the UK - long after colour was introduced, never mind 625 line! The current situation is different though - RTÉ are in no way obliged to support MPEG2 DTT because they never started transmission outside of the unofficial tests.

Andy454 wrote: »

Well, the tv was bought for me as a birthday present, but it is a very popular make - samsung.

I bought a sony 40 inch for the living room just under 2 years ago.

Neither tv is compatible with Irish DTT, nor is my aunts 42 inch toshiba, my neighbours 37inch sony or my grandmothers brand spanking new phillips.

I'm sure they never claimed they were compatible specifically with Irish DTT. I got a new TV last year without any digital TV receiving capabilities, knowing that sets designed for Freeview or whatever may very well be useless here.

What is the point in broadcasting a signal no one can readily recieve? if "the masses" already have reception equipment, does it not make more sense to use the format they can recieve.

What "masses"? A lot of the Irish models of recent TVs have no DTT tuners, and a lot of people still have older TVs that pre-date easily available integrated tuners. It's going to be more or less just like the introduction of DTT in the UK, where the majority had to buy STBs to receive it. It's not like that wasn't successful.

The Cush

reslfj wrote: »

Dozen is 12 isn't it ? That's a lot. Can you name all of them ?

DVB-T/MPEG4 Countries

ireland
france (MPEG2&4)
norway
estonia (first country in the world to launch DTT using the MPEG-4 AVC, Dec 2006)
slovakia
denmark (1 MPEG2 mux now - MPEG4 BY 2012, all 4 muxes to be MPEG4)
hungary
lithuania
latvia
poland
slovenia
ukraine (MPEG2&4)
croatia (hdtv)
russia (planned)
sweden (migrating to MPEG4)
montenegro
new zealand
israel
columbia (planned)
singapore (hdtv)

bk

Personally I think the whole argument is pointless.

Using a separate set top box is a much better and flexible idea then using built in abilities. The world and technology is changing far too fast to rely on anything built in.

70% of people in Ireland already use external STB's (UPC and Sat), so it really isn't anything new to anyone.

Most people are probably going to end up using external STB's anyway as they will want PVR capabilities.

Pat Gleeson

mjsmyth wrote: »

I really do fail to see what the issue is here.

It is well known that mpeg 4 gives better compression than mpeg 2. That better compression means more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. It also means that HD can be realistically broadcasted on DTT.

Agreed, but even here there is a fly in the ointment, so to speak. The UK are migrating to MPEG-4 also, but with HD in mind, they are using
MPEG-4 DVB-T2, which has up to 49% better compression over and above MPEG-4 DVB-T being rolled out here.

Link (Digital Spy):

http://http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a129735/new-dtt-standard-49-percent-more-efficient.html

reslfj

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

mjsmyth wrote: »

I really do fail to see what the issue is here.

It is well known that mpeg 4 gives better compression than mpeg 2. That better compression means more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. It also means that HD can be realistically broadcasted on DTT.

Agreed, but even here there is a fly in the ointment, so to speak. The UK are migrating to MPEG-4 also, but with HD in mind, they are using
MPEG-4 DVB-T2, which has up to 49% better compression over and above MPEG-4 DVB-T being rolled out here.

MPEG-4 can compress more but also more and better. In MPEG-4 there are many more options, e.g. better options to compress movement like in sports transmissions. The real-time MPEG-4 compression hardware has not until now been able to use all MPEG-4 options, but this is rapidly changing.
Using MPEG-2 for anything other than support of legacy MPEG-2 receivers is very unwise - to put it politely. MPEG-2 will only be implemented in new chips as a subset of MPEG-4 for backward compatibility.

MPEG-4 will also help things like PVR's, where the harddisk recording is done by storing the received compressed MPEG-2/4 directly onto the disk. As MPEG-4 uses only 50-67% bits compared to MPEG-2 - the capacity of a given harddisk will increase by 50-100%.

DVB-T2 does not compress anything.

DVB-T2 is transporting more bits/second over the same 8 MHz wide UHF channel than DVB-T is able to.

It does this by using a very much stronger FEC (forward error-correcting code) - the LDPC/BCH code. The use of this stronger FEC allows more useful bits and fewer correction bits to be transmitted.
The use of LDPC/BCH alone increases the capacity of DVB-T2 by about 30%.
While the better LDPC code was already known around 1960, it was not known how to calculate the error-corrections in the receiver within a realistic time-frame. New very efficient algorithms has since been designed and used for the last several years in many digital communication systems . DVB-S2 being a very important example.
LDPC/BCH is now included in DVB-T2 and will also be in the DVB-C2 standard, when it is published in 2009 Q1/2.

DVB-T2 is also eliminating much other overhead within the DVB-T protocol. This overhead was included in the DVB-T standard to make it easier to build receivers with fewer chips (in 1996/98). Since then silicon-chips has increased about 100 times in capacity and one single chip can now contain more than one DVB receiver. E.g this capacity increase has enabled the 32k mode in DVB-T2 and not just the 2k (UK) mode and 8k modes of DVB-T. In DVB-T2 there will thus be 4 times more memory in the 'COFDM' decoder-part than is needed in a DVB-T decoder decoding the 8k mode.
With 100 times more transistors/mm2 it will, however, have no impact on the cost of a DVB-T2 chip.

There is less signalling overhead, sometimes less pilot carriers - 2% less here, 5-6% less there, plus x%, plus y%,... - it all adds up. The current BBC DVB-T2 test/demo uses a bit rate of 36.1 Mbps and not the 24.13 Mbps of 64-QAM DVB-T. That is a 49.6% higher bit rate.

The higher bit rate of DVB-T2 will enable significant better performance of statistical multiplexing, too.

But the most important point is - Money.

When a DVB-T2 multiplex has 150% capacity over a DVB-T multiplex it follows that 2 DVB-T2 multiplexes can replace 3 DVB-T multiplexes.
And this is totally independent of whether MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 are used for compression.

This will reduce the investment in transmission equipment and the electricity bill by 1/3. Electricity is a significant cost in DTT transmissions and CO2 will be in the years to come.


Lars

L1011

Are there any T2 receivers available at all? We cannot afford to delay the DTT turn-on any longer, the fact that it got delayed so long in the first place is what affords us the chance to use MPEG4...

reslfj

MYOB wrote: »

Are there any T2 receivers available at all? We cannot afford to delay the DTT turn-on any longer, the fact that it got delayed so long in the first place is what affords us the chance to use MPEG4...

First. I did just comment on the technical side of MPEG-4 and DVB-T2. Every time the word compress or MPEG-4 is said to be part of DVB-T2 I get :mad: - it is NOT and false information destroys the basis for any healthy debate.

When you have waited a long time in any queue - you may argue
'do something - we cannot wait any longer' and you may leave the queue or do something even less prudent.

Or you may argue
'now we have waited this long - we can wait that short while longer'

One cannot say the first argument is better or worse. But a few years into the future - you will most likely have forgotten everything about the short extra wait, but not if you did something stupid.

It is in fact a very useful method to look at decision options - to place oneself into the future and try to figure out how the options look from there.

'Watty' argued this summer that Boxer would start in January 2009 and that was at least a full year earlier than any DVB-T2 devices could be on the market - Fair enough - not just a little extra wait but a full year or more.

Since then Boxer has postponed its start until September 2009 and DVB-T2 is in silicon and being successfully tested - OK prototypes - but in real silicon.

Ofcom believes the first STB's will be in the shops late in Q3 2009 well before the December 2nd 2009 launch of DVB-T2 transmissions from Winter Hill.
The EBU writes: 'The first commercial DVB-T2 receivers are expected to be available as early as the middle of 2009'

The question should - IMHO - not be 'DVB-T or T2 ?' - for the answer long term will most surely be DVB-T2 - but rather 'Where is the best and least expensive road to DVB-T2, that do NOT introduce significant delays in starting DTT ?'

Looking at the Boxer original coverage maps only 7 transmittes and 60% of the households was expected to be covered Q2 2009. Adding just 6 month delay to this brings us to Q4 2009. Therefore around 40% of households will NOT need any DTT receiver before 2010 and at least they should be adviced to wait and buy a DVB-T2 model.

Lars

SPDUB

The use of LDPC/BCH alone increases the capacity of DVB-T2 by about 30%.

So you want us to wait for a system that gives us even more empty channels :rolleyes:

Pat Gleeson

DVB-T2 does not compress anything.

DVB-T2 is transporting more bits/second over the same 8 MHz wide UHF channel than DVB-T is able to.

Every time the word compress or MPEG-4 is said to be part of DVB-T2 I get -it is NOT and false information destroys the basis for any healthy debate.

You're both quite correct - I apologise if I mislead (or inadvertantly angered) anyone.
The point I was trying to get across was the efficiency DVB-T2.

I also neglected to mention the 49% improvement in the linked article was between MPEG-2 DVB-T and MPEG-4 DVB-T2, again apologies ...

watty

Due to economics, rights and politics it's absolutley inevitable that only the home grown channels will be successful on DTT. Freesat, FTA sat, Sky and UPC Cable will continue to be the platforms of choice for "foriegn" (i.e. Mostly UK TV) for 80% of people already. Most of the rest aren't interested in paying ANYTHING extra for multichannel or don't what Multichannel. This means that unlike UK there is no pressure on Irish DTT spectrum. Even if all Irish TV was HD tomorrow, it could be accomodated on MPEG4.

It could be likely that extra Mux(es) for HD only would be DVB-T2 + MPEG4. Going with MPEG4 DVB-t (not T2) for the existing services was the correct decision. We very nearly got landed with MPEG2. At the minute there are not even any real plans for Irish HD. Where would the money for equipment and production come from?

Also until analogue Cable is dropped and the remaining 30% upgraded for Broadband there is no pressure on Cable spectrum till HD launches. There is still not enough TV sets or Channel Content for UPC to justify HD launch. No point in considering C2 till then.

The newest most efficent technology is not always the best solution. I've been desiging electronics for quite a while so have idea about it.

reslfj

SPDUB wrote: »

So you want us to wait for a system that gives us even more empty channels :rolleyes:

No - I don't want - I wrote about MPEG-4 compressing more and better than MPEG-2. I wrote that DVB-T2 was not about compression but efficient transmission - HD or SD or audio or text or ...

Then MYOB asked "Are there any T2 receivers available?" and wrote about 'no more delays'.

I then wrote about delays in general and how it is often useful to move ones mind into the future and look at decisions in "imagined hindsight".

If I should suggest anything it would likely be - use 2 muxes with DVB-T2 and not 3 with DVB-T and save 1/3 of the installation cost and 1/3 of the (TX) electricity bill. Maybe I would also suggest, that no new TV's be sold without a very restricted power rating - CO2 you know!

In these difficult times it is more than ever "The economy - stupid"

Pat Gleeson wrote: »

I also neglected to mention the 49% improvement in the linked article was between MPEG-2 DVB-T and MPEG-4 DVB-T2, again apologies ...

This is wrong - The 49.6% improvement is in the useful bit rate - independent of MPEG compression. (36.1 Mbps / 24.13 Mbps) x 100% = 149.6%

watty wrote: »

Due to economics, rights and politics it's absolutley inevitable that only the home grown channels will be successful on DTT.

If 'only' is the same as 'at least' here, I cannot agree more. I am a very strong supporter of public service broadcasts and financing by national governments and/or TV-license.

The necessity of success for the national channels is an absolute - They MUST be successful .

I think, however, that these channels need the 'support' of other free or pay channels to ensure the longer term viability of the DTT platform itself.

watty wrote:

It could be likely that extra Mux(es) for HD only would be DVB-T2 + MPEG4. Going with MPEG4 DVB-t (not T2) for the existing services was the correct decision. .

DVB-T2 is not about HD, but about SD, HD, Audio ... Its about less expensive DTT transmissions.

It's not designed 'for after analogue switchoff', but 'for everywhere' where legacy receivers are not a (huge) problem.

Its not only about higher bit-rates, but as much about more robust signals and (much) better coverage.

It is about being better in all important areas of DTT transmission. And more than just better - best.

I am afraid that I agree, that the decision to use DVB-T would have been the correct one, if DTT could have been in the air within the next few months. But this is no longer the case. It may still be the correct decision to transmit DVB-T/MPEG-4 in the first year or two, but I think that the fewer terrestrial receivers sold without DVB-T2 the better.

There are no real need - short of being a shopaholic or personal impatience - to buy anything DTT, before the new multiplexes are in the air where you live.

watty wrote:

We very nearly got landed with MPEG2

:eek:

So did Denmark - the main report about DTT was filled with examples of MPEG-2 only, MPEG-2 for some years, one MPEG-4 multiplex and the rest MPEG-2 etc. Lots of very stupid arguments and politics from many interrest groups - and this as late as 2007. :mad:
It was a huge surprise that the politicians went for MPEG-4 for every new MUX in their June 2007 decision - but a very nice surprise.

CNN showed the "Truth-O-Meter" during the US election campaign - maybe we should introduce this as mandatory for lobbyists ?

At the minute there are not even any real plans for Irish HD.
Where would the money for equipment and production come from?

This has nothing to do with Irish HD. It has everything to do with not forcing yet another generation of STB's upon the Irish viewers within the next few years.

And it has a lot to do with economy of running the DTT network.

On the TX side the investment cost is very small. To change from DVB-T to T2, a new modulator board in each transmitter-rack is all that is needed. Many digital modulators are already programmable for more standards (even for US, Japan and China). (btw. who will supply DVB transmitters for Ireland ?)

Lars

Boxer = Teracom ?

watty

@reslfj Really you are Trolling on this T2 issue. How many posts have you made in proportion on any other topic?

Yes it gives a saving, but one that isn't really needed now and the delay far out weighs the saving. You've stated the arguements for T2 over and over again. We don't need to keep hearing them.

It's only slightly pertinent to this thread, in which the OP mistakenly thought the problem was that Ireland is using MPEG4 vs the existing MPEG2 used in UK.

I think that has been clearly answered.

The LCDs take more power than same Size CRT due to 2/3rds or more loss of stripe filter LCD of reducing backlight, it may be as little as 1/5th light passes. Plasma are not very efficient. The power consumption of all TVs is pretty much proportional related to screen area, so 44" is nearly 4 times a 22". What to you want, reslfj, ban HD? I think while CRTs may give better SD pictures and less power than LCDs, people won't go back.

The bigger issue is lack of building standards, efficiency of Washing machines, Tumble Driers, Freezers, water heating, room heating, commuting distances and time. Not Chargers, CFL vs filament Bulbs, Standby Modes or TV efficiency, though if everything else was "fixed" these would help. They should not be 1st priority.

And if you worry about Electricity / CO2 of Broadcast, shut down all DAB, Only have existing FM, only have one Mux and everything else by satellite. Or make your own entertainments at home and turn it all off.

You have to see the big picture. You are lost in the Forest among the Trees of DVB-T2 and can't see the landscape, buildings, forests and rivers.

watty

I *might* give an infraction to the next person that tells us how stupid we are for not waiting till Sept 2009 or whenever boxes are in shops for DVB-T2, for not adopting DVB-T2.

There is always some newer system -- eventually --


A separate new thread with some juicy piece of DVB-T2 news is OK. Urging a delay to DVB-T2 on every thread that has MPEG2 or MPEG4 or DVB-t mentioned is not.