DTT Commercial Multiplexes (was OneVision, Boxer etc...)

Sam Russell

Following on from Cush, the EU jumped the gun by stipulating ASO, before setting DTT standards for the whole of Europe. Unfortunately, the TV standards are in a state of very rapid evolution. A similar thing happened with colour TV, when three competing standards were up for selection: PAL, SECAM and NTSC. Most of Europe went for PAL, but France and Russia went for SECAM, while the inferior American system NTSC continued to be used the other side of the Pond. It continues thus in the analogue world.

I hope the DTT world will not be stuck with a smorgasbord of standards for the next 40 years, with hopeless incompatibilities existing throughout Europe. We had a European attempt to standardise the electrical plug which ended in failure. If there is no agreement on the plug, there is no chance for DTT. A whole generation wasted to bad decisions and lost oportunities.

Given that these things are decided by chipsets, the future will ultimately be decided by chipset developers.

The future will be in the silicon.

L1011

Multistandard for normal reception is not in any way hard to implement on the chips
Multistandard for interactive does add cost with licences here there and everywhere, as well as software updates, etc.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

Following on from Cush, the EU jumped the gun by stipulating ASO, before setting DTT standards for the whole of Europe.

They didn't.
DTT standards were set in the 1990's and they have evolved since then e.g. DVB-T published Mar 1997, latest version Jan 2009. The EU didn't recommend the 2012 ASO until May 2005.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I hope the DTT world will not be stuck with a smorgasbord of standards for the next 40 years, with hopeless incompatibilities existing throughout Europe. We had a European attempt to standardise the electrical plug which ended in failure. If there is no agreement on the plug, there is no chance for DTT. A whole generation wasted to bad decisions and lost oportunities.

There isn't a mishmash of standards for DTT (in Europe), there is a set of standards (which describe transmission, audio, video, interactivity etc. etc.) beginning in the 1990's which have evolved, those countries who introduced DTT since the late 90's are based on the earlier versions, those who introduce DTT later will use the most recent version of a particular standard which is backwards compatible. The first two countries to launch DTT networks, the UK and Sweden, are now beginning to upgrade their networks to newer or later versions - DVB-T2 in the UK, MPEG-4 in Sweden to make efficient use of their spectrum. These two countries coincidentally are well advanced in planning for the Digital Dividend and are two of the nine countries mentioned in my previous post.
As I posted earlier browse thru the standards on the DVB website, as you can see there isn't a huge amount when you consider the list also includes cable, satellite, DVB-H, MMDS and SNG specific standards.

Regarding DTT worldwide, where we had basically three standards for analogue TV PAL/SECAM/NTSC, there are four digital standards DVB, ATSC, ISDB and the Chinese DTMB.

Elmo

@ The Cush

Your kind of confusing the issues. On the one hand you are stating that the EU have an EU wide set of standards, and on the other hand that each country has the ability to just use these standards with other standards from countries who were in advanced stages of DTT (UK and Sweden) having backward compatibility. To me this sounds like 2 countries went off in the 1990s developed their own standards and the EU in the 2000 have spend the last decade trying to make sure that their standards are backwards compatible, while still allowing other new countries to pick and choose their standards from older standards in our case a mishmash of UK and Swedish standards which are backwards compatible and compatible with EU standards. :eek: I am assuming that Newer TVs will all be backwards compatible and that MPEG 4 will be part of most if not all TV sets and STBs. Does the EU allow manufactures continue to produce TV that are not forwards compatible with MPEG 4 rather just letting them have MPEG2?

If Europe had set about creating a proper set of standards under Sweden and the UK then we would now have a set of standards that don't need to be tested by manufactures and broadcasters. Neither Sweden nor the UK had great success with their initial role outs of DTT. ITV Digital failed and Boxer just about failed in Sweden only the government stepped in and turned off Analogue, like us Sweden had a high take up of pay TV in certain areas, and it was an attempt by the Swedish government to force others into Pay TV.

bk

Elmo wrote: »

Just to clarify UPC and other cable companies charge extra for analogue multi-room cable. I have analogue multiroom because I split the cables but UPC would like to charge me €8.50 a month plus a €50 installation fee. Anyone know the proposed One Vision multi-room price or the Sky price. So there is absolutely no such thing as Free Multi-room from a pay providers (I think it should be outlawed).

€8.50 is for Digital Multiroom, not the analogue multiroom. If you install it yourself (very easy, just run some sat/aerial cable from the main box to kitchen, etc.) then it is free.

I think you can get the UPC installers to do it for you, there is a one off charge of €50 I think.

maxg wrote:

Do you really get multiroom for that price?Do you really get multiroom for that price?

Yes, you get UPC's 40 channel digital TV service for €20 per month, outside of Cork this also comes with 17 channel analogue TV service that you can then wire into other rooms in the house. This is why UPC is so popular in Dublin, cheap and easy to get multiroom to every room in the house, very very popular in student accommodation.

Getting back to DTT, I agree with Sam, yes DTT would be way more popular if it included the UK channels for free or even better had 30 channels for free. It would pose serious and badly needed competition to Sky and UPC. Just like how Freeview is now the number one platform for delivering TV in the UK and has forced Sky and Virgin to be much more competitive on price and driven them to be more innovative introducing things like HD, VoD, bundle BB, etc.

Unfortunately due to the uselessness of our politicians and civil servants, we won't see anything like this here. It would have made perfect sense for our politicians to come to agreement with the UK politicians to allow our channels in Northern Ireland, for theirs down here. It would have lead to increased integration between the people of Ireland north and south of the border.

Elmo

bk wrote: »

Getting back to DTT, I agree with Sam, yes DTT would be way more popular if it included the UK channels for free or even better had 30 channels for free. It would pose serious and badly needed competition to Sky and UPC. Just like how Freeview is now the number one platform for delivering TV in the UK and has forced Sky and Virgin to be much more competitive on price and driven them to be more innovative introducing things like HD, VoD, bundle BB, etc.

What was the most popular platform before Digital Terrestrial Television in Britain?

Up to 1985 UK cable companies couldn't provide anything but the 4 UK channels, unlike here were the rule was to provide a better signal to those in areas with spillover.

You cannot describe Ireland in the same manner as Britain.

Analogue TV was the number 1 platform in the UK up to the role out of FreeView.

I know I post this allot:-

Yes, you get UPC's 40 channel digital TV service for €20 per month, outside of Cork this also comes with 17 channel analogue TV service that you can then wire into other rooms in the house. This is why UPC is so popular in Dublin, cheap and easy to get multiroom to every room in the house, very very popular in student accommodation.

The 13 extra channels on analogue cable will soon be gone, UPC will want to have all customers on Digital as this reduces the number of people picking up the signal illegal, why do you think they only have 4 channel on analogue cable in cork?

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

If Europe had set about creating a proper set of standards under Sweden and the UK then we would now have a set of standards that don't need to be tested by manufactures and broadcasters. Neither Sweden nor the UK had great success with their initial role outs of DTT. ITV Digital failed and Boxer just about failed in Sweden only the government stepped in and turned off Analogue, like us Sweden had a high take up of pay TV in certain areas, and it was an attempt by the Swedish government to force others into Pay TV.

If Europe i.e. the EU Member States and their broadcasters had wanted a fixed specification (like PAL/SECAM) we would have it but they want the flexibility to add new technologies/services as they are required.
The failure of onDigital/ITV Digital and Spains Quiero TV was due to their business model rather than the underlying technology which is the same today.

Sam Russell

The Cush wrote: »

If Europe i.e. the EU Member States and their broadcasters had wanted a fixed specification (like PAL/SECAM) we would have it but they want the flexibility to add new technologies/services as they are required.

It is a bit more that the EU involved. The EU are pushing ASO, but the EBU is the body that should have pushed standards. The problem is that the technology is advancing very raidly at the moment. The EU could help by following Frances initiative in banning the sale of below spec TV sets by particulr dates. This would mean that the population of obsolete TVss would be limited to only old sets. The UK continued to broacast on 405 for decades after the sets had been scrapped. Another advantage now is that the STB allows cheap upgrades of old sets.

RTE should be setting the scene in Ireland instead of hiding behind the figleaf of 'tests'

RTNL have gone on with the installation and look as if 80% of the population can receive the broadcasts, and so is ready to launch. At least they are delivering as they should.

I can see another episode we saw with kilometre changeover, where it was announced with no notice for immediate implementation, and cars were still being sold with MPH speedos some 6 months after the changeover. Why can I go into a retailer today and buy an obsolete set with no obligation on the retailer to tell me that it is obsolete?

It all smacks of everyone involved not wanting to be involved. RTE say they are just running tests, ask the dept. The Dept. says ask the BAI. The BAI say we are awaiting a conclusion of negotiations. Boxer say 'We are gone' One Vision say ' Give us a break, it is tricky to make money at this.' Sky and NTL say 'Free boxes if you sign up now for loads of euros per month.'

Who wins, who loses?

Elmo

The Cush wrote: »

If Europe i.e. the EU Member States and their broadcasters had wanted a fixed specification (like PAL/SECAM) we would have it but they want the flexibility to add new technologies/services as they are required.
The failure of onDigital/ITV Digital and Spains Quiero TV was due to their business model rather than the underlying technology which is the same today.

Did On Digital, Boxer and Quiero spend money on their technology or did there governments?

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

Did On Digital, Boxer and Quiero spend money on their technology or did there governments?

The companies would have borne the cost of rolling out their sevices, Boxer Sweden at launch were 70% state owned.
ITV Digital and Quiero TV ultimately failed because the expected revenue from DTT pay-tv did not materialise due to the high churn rate. In UK and Spain DTT was successfully relaunched as FTA services using the same technology. Pay tv is just now making a reappearence in Spain.

UK, Sweden and Spain were the first three countries to roll out DTT networks and all three had their problems, those that rolled out pay-tv networks later -Finland, Holland and France for example didn't appear to have the same problems. Lessons learned I guess.

Whoever launches a commercial sevice here will be very aware of the pitfalls, Boxer withdrew after nine months of negotations, we are now seven months into OneVision's negotiations with the BAI/BCI & RTE, will the contracts be signed by the New Year, one wonders?

Elmo

My problem with your point is that RTÉ NL are likely to take on much of the brunt of the role out with One Vision (if they get of the ground) really just an in between person.

And in terms of EU flexibility it has lead to problems with role out in several countries including Ireland. Does anyone have a map of the different DTTs being used around Europe and a link to TV sets that work in all areas.

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

My problem with your point is that RTÉ NL are likely to take on much of the brunt of the role out with One Vision (if they get of the ground) really just an in between person.

RTÉ has already invested €31.5m approx. on DTT to 30th September upgrading thirteen transmitter sites for four muxes. They said earlier this year they will be unable to invest much more without a commercial partner.

Elmo wrote: »

And in terms of EU flexibility it has lead to problems with role out in several countries including Ireland.

How has it led to problems in Ireland?
Failure to roll out DTT in Ireland is due to the lack of investment not standards, from Peter Brannigan and It'sTV in 2001 thru to Denis O'Brien's Boxer and now possibly OneVision, its all about cash.

RTÉ has invested a substantial amount of cash and as a result we have an operational DTT network with over 80% coverage thats stuck in neutral awaiting a partner to share the financial burden.

What other countries?
We are the only country in Western Europe thats failed to launch a DTT service, many East European countries have launched or have been awarded mux licences. Non EU countries Norway and Switzerland launched their services some years ago using the same EU standards without a problem.

Elmo wrote: »

Does anyone have a map of the different DTTs being used around Europe and a link to TV sets that work in all areas.

What do you mean by "different DTTs being used around Europe", networks or standards?
There isn't a list of TVs that work in all areas that I know of. Any MPEG-4 TV should give you audio and video from FTA channels througout Europe on UHF, interactive features such as text/EPG and pay-tv services will depend on the TV and the network.

It wasn't cash that derailed "it's tv" in 2001-It was governmental ignorance and incompetence.
If they had have been able to roll out,we'd have had take up of their internet country wide and be on the same technology track as the uk-meaning telly's in currys could be sold worry free.

The Cush

Deleted User wrote: »

It wasn't cash that derailed "it's tv" in 2001-It was governmental ignorance and incompetence.
If they had have been able to roll out,we'd have had take up of their internet country wide and be on the same technology track as the uk-meaning telly's in currys could be sold worry free.

The standard they planned to use was DVB-RCT, various posters here over the years have discussed problems with launching this service from a relatively small number of transmitters, distance from transmitter, contention issues etc (up to 20,000 users per mast at any one time). The technology was not rolled out on any other DTT network in Europe.

The Government refused to award the company the licence on the grounds that its financing was insecure. Venture capital company Delta Partners provided the seed funding but It's TV could not secure a major financial backer so the bid collapsed.

From an Irish Times report at the time, it could have been written today

More than a year later, the Government has not yet awarded a licence to operate a service in the Republic despite running a 12-month tender. The sole bidder for the licence, a consortium known as "It's TV", has not been able to satisfy the Government that it has the necessary financial muscle to fund a network.

Media analysts believe that it would cost up to €100 million to fund the construction of a digital terrestrial network, subsidise set-top boxes for consumers and market the digital television service. It would also prove extremely difficult for the new service to compete against existing operators such as Chorus, NTL and Sky.

The current cash crisis afflicting the technology, telecoms and pay TV sectors would also make it extremely difficult to attract financing for the service. The demise of several European digital terrestrial television services over the past 12 months - most notably ITV Digital in the UK - suggests that setting up a network would prove challenging.

Bearing in mind the current economic difficulties facing the Government, it would prove politically difficult for the public sector to shoulder the costs of the network.

Sam Russell

If I remember correctly, OnDigital suffered from having low power transmitters co located with high power analogue transmitters. This resulted in very low reach for the service, and so low take up. They were competitive with Sky but could not get the critical mass. They ran out of cash.

Elmo

The Cush wrote: »

RTÉ has already invested €31.5m approx. on DTT to 30th September upgrading thirteen transmitter sites for four muxes. They said earlier this year they will be unable to invest much more without a commercial partner.

This is why RTÉ NL will need a vested interest in One Vision. Would One Vision be willing to buy RTÉ NL at a significant value that would provide RTÉ a profit? Would RTÉ sell?

No "testing" or "suggested TVs" would need to be provided by One Vision or RTÉ NL if the EU had decided from the beginning what the digital dividend was going to be the same across Europe.

What DTT is used in the US and are their different standards across each of the states, did the FCC allow New York to role out MPEG 2 while the Massachusetts roles out MPEG 4?

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

If I remember correctly, OnDigital suffered from having low power transmitters co located with high power analogue transmitters. This resulted in very low reach for the service, and so low take up. They were competitive with Sky but could not get the critical mass. They ran out of cash.

Same situation exists today, low power digital until the analogue channels are are switched off at each transmitter. The Football League deal was the hammer blow for ITV Digital.

Elmo wrote: »

This is why RTÉ NL will need a vested interest in One Vision. Would One Vision be willing to buy RTÉ NL at a significant value that would provide RTÉ a profit? Would RTÉ sell?

RTÉ NL isn't for sale, the Government attempted to sell the then RTÉ transmission network (pre NL) in 2000 with RTÉ retaining 28%, the sale was finally cancelled two years later (about the time It'sTV withdrew their DTT bid) with bids in the region of €30m, down from the expected €70m two years before. Add to that OneVision is in no position financially to purchace the transmision network.
From a legislation point of view no such option exists in the current Broadcasting Act.

Neither will RTÉ NL invest in OneVision primarily because RTÉ is part of EasyTV's bid to operate the commercial multiplexes and may get their chance to negotiate if OneVision withdraws. Although RTÉ is not in a good position financially at the moment and will find it difficult fund the network rollout and launch the commercial multiplexes with UPC.

Right now RTÉ need OneVision to sign the contracts so they can begin paying the €10m per year charge for the three commercial muxes at the thirteen sites, allowing RTÉ to recoup some of their investment in equipment for the three commercial muxes and continue the rollout to the other transmitters. Also a security bond of up to €20m may also be required from OneVision, rumoured to be one of the reasons for Boxer's withdrawal last April.

Elmo wrote: »

No "testing" or "suggested TVs" would need to be provided by One Vision or RTÉ NL if the EU had decided from the beginning what the digital dividend was going to be the same across Europe.

The testing/approval of receivers has nothing to do with the Digital Dividend.
The Digital Dividend is about reallocating UHF spectrum to other uses. The approval of DTT receivers is about ensuring that they will work with a particular DTT network.
How do you think there is a link? Planning for digital television began in the early 90's, planning for the digital dividend started in the early 2000's and is ongoing.

Elmo wrote: »

What DTT is used in the US and are their different standards across each of the states, did the FCC allow New York to role out MPEG 2 while the Massachusetts roles out MPEG 4?

The whole of N. America uses the U.S. developed ATSC standard with MPEG-2 video encoding. MPEG-4 was added to the standard in Jul 2008.
(For clarification, all of Europe and other countries worldwide use the European developed DVB standard also with MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 video encoding)
Have a look at this Wikipedia page.

Apogee

Elmo wrote: »

Would One Vision be willing to buy RTÉ NL at a significant value that would provide RTÉ a profit?

Yes, let's sell off another key piece of national telecommunications infrastructure. Just like the unparalleled success that the privatisation of Eircom has turned out to be.

Elmo

Apogee wrote: »

Yes, let's sell off another key piece of national telecommunications infrastructure. Just like the unparalleled success that the privatisation of Eircom has turned out to be.

My question was retorical :rolleyes:

The whole of N. America uses the U.S. developed ATSC standard with MPEG-2 video encoding. MPEG-4 was added to the standard in Jul 2008.

So the US and Canada have the same standards, and are in agreement on new ones.

The testing/approval of receivers has nothing to do with the Digital Dividend.
The Digital Dividend is about reallocating UHF spectrum to other uses. The approval of DTT receivers is about ensuring that they will work with a particular DTT network.
How do you think there is a link? Planning for digital television began in the early 90's, planning for the digital dividend started in the early 2000's and is ongoing.

My point was that the Digital Dividend (opening up of UHF) should be the same across Europe and should have been agreed upon. Which would also mean that the EU would have a EU wide agreement in terms of standards, which to me even though you are quite clear isn't happening. All EU Networks should be the same, just like in North America.

Apogee

Elmo wrote: »

My question was retorical :rolleyes:

A lot of your questions are "retorical".

Antenna

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK continued to broacast on 405 for decades after the sets had been scrapped.

that was mostly to do with coverage. the defunct 405-line system in the UK was transmitted at VHF Band 1 and Band 3, whilst 625 line at UHF only. big differences in coverage with only the 405 line system receiveable in many isolated rural areas for many years after introduction of 625 at UHF (until the building of many 100s of UHF relays over many years)
If 625 and 405 coverage were similar from the start of 625, the 405 system would have been decommissioned a lot sooner

Sam Russell

Antenna wrote: »

that was mostly to do with coverage. the defunct 405-line system in the UK was transmitted at VHF Band 1 and Band 3, whilst 625 line at UHF only. big differences in coverage with only the 405 line system receiveable in many isolated rural areas for many years after introduction of 625 at UHF (until the building of many 100s of UHF relays over many years)
If 625 and 405 coverage were similar from the start of 625, the 405 system would have been decommissioned a lot sooner

You may be right, but I thought the reason was to keep the band for TV, otherwise it would have been reassigned. It would have been better if they changed over to VHF 625 line service because at the end of the time they broacast, there could not have been many 405 line sets still working.

It was simply crazy to keep broacasting a service for no-one. Mind you, they are begining DVB2/MPEG4 services next month with no hardware to receive it.:D

The Cush

From the Sunday Business Post, the €20 million RTE guarantee is again proving to be a problem together with the failure of the Dept to commit money to the project.
Easy TV must be at this stage starting to dust down their bid although RTE are not in a good financial position at the moment.

OneVision urged to press on with plans

15 November 2009 By Samantha McCaughren

The consortium chosen to develop digital terrestrial television (DTT) in Ireland has been told by the broadcasting watchdog to make progress with its plans as a matter of urgency.

The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) has written to the OneVision consortium, requesting that contracts for DTT be signed within the next couple of weeks, according to sources.

It was originally expected that contracts would be signed in September.

OneVision is backed by Eircom, transmission specialist Arqiva, TV3 and Setanta. It was chosen to develop DTT - which will take over from traditional free-to-air TV in the coming years - after another consortium walked away from the process.

Sources close to the DTT project said that the process was now at a ‘‘critical’’ stage, similar to the stage when the first consortium quit the process.

One of the sticking points for OneVision appears to be a €20 million guarantee being sought by RTE.

The broadcaster is to build the DTT network at a cost of more than €100 million and wants to ensure that the commercial backers will stick with the project.

It is understood that RTE wants guarantees from the parent companies behind OneVision.

In its correspondence with OneVision, the BAI wrote that it was aware of the outstanding issues, but said that there was a need to move quickly with the project at this stage. RTE is understood to have also written to the consortium in recent weeks, in a bid to move along the process.

It outlined a range of financing methods for the guarantee. While OneVision’s correspondence has been positive, there has been no agreement with RTE as yet.

Sources also said there was growing concern about the fact that the Department of Communications was not committing to any investment in DTT.

OneVision wants assurances that the switch-off of the analogue signal will be well-publicised, but as yet the exchequer has not agreed to put money into a marketing plan.

Elmo

OneVision is backed by Eircom, transmission specialist Arqiva, TV3 and Setanta. It was chosen to develop DTT - which will take over from traditional free-to-air TV in the coming years - after another consortium walked away from the process.

:mad:

johnneyboy

reading some the posts people have lost the plot by 2012 all analogue has to go both satelllite and terrestrial , meg2 was the starting ground as more more programs are in HD the need to upgrade to meg4 as for RTE leaving sky and going fta thats not a problem they would have sit down and hammer out a deal with freesat bbc the question of program rights to keep irish copyright irish viewers could be on freesat card and cam for freesat boxs a one off payment like in spain germany poland ,ddt pay tv in ireland the population isnt there to support freeview pay tv, uk population in the last count 68, 000,000 i think that speaks for its self 4,000,000 FREE HD FOR EVERYONE

Elmo

ddt pay tv in ireland the population isnt there to support freeview pay tv, uk population in the last count 68, 000,000 i think that speaks for its self 4,000,000 FREE HD FOR EVERYONE

The problem that I have with this argument is that RTÉ currently run an analogue service for the country and it seems to me the would continue to provide this Free service if they were not required by law to change over to Digital and the fact that RTÉ will continue to run FTA services over the air on Digital.

IMO The BAI should have: -

1. Provided a licence for a mux for Premium Pay TV. A kind of TOP UP TV.
2. Provided a licence to a company to rent space for FTA channels licenced by the BAI. (and to include BBC1, 2, UTV and C4 based on the idea that RTE 1, 2, TV3 and TG4 would be available in NI).
3. Provided a licence to a company for pay TV such as Sky One, Living, MTV and other rubbish.
4. Plus the FTA mux given to RTÉ.

mrdtv

Elmo wrote: »

The problem that I have with this argument is that RTÉ currently run an analogue service for the country and it seems to me the would continue to provide this Free service if they were not required by law to change over to Digital and the fact that RTÉ will continue to run FTA services over the air on Digital.

IMO The BAI should have: -

1. Provided a licence for a mux for Premium Pay TV. A kind of TOP UP TV.
2. Provided a licence to a company to rent space for FTA channels licenced by the BAI. (and to include BBC1, 2, UTV and C4 based on the idea that RTE 1, 2, TV3 and TG4 would be available in NI).
3. Provided a licence to a company for pay TV such as Sky One, Living, MTV and other rubbish.
4. Plus the FTA mux given to RTÉ.

Events are moving quickly now. The announcement of the aggressive Freeview HD schedule including the whole of Wales (and the overspill in Ireland) by the summer of 2010 mean that RTE/BCI's technology choices are looking very very shaky now. Investors will stall in this technology interrregnum until then and Freesat/Sky will fill the vacuum. I forecast more decision making delays: but what's new in Ireland?

Elmo

I assumed that MPEG 4 was HD and that MPEG 2 didn't have HD ability?

mrdtv

Elmo wrote: »

I assumed that MPEG 4 was HD and that MPEG 2 didn't have HD ability?

MPEG2 did: used in US And Australia. Not very efficient.

MPEG4: 50% more efficient than MPEG2. used in France etc

DVB-T2: 40 Mb/s in 8Mhz UHF channel vs 24 MB/s for DVB-T1 (irrespective of MPEG encoding).

Therefore total gain of nearly 120% over DVB-T1 MPEG2. Reason for change in UK.

Sam Russell

mrdtv wrote: »

MPEG2 did: used in US And Australia. Not very efficient.

MPEG4: 50% more efficient than MPEG2. used in France etc

DVB-T2: 40 Mb/s in 8Mhz UHF channel vs 24 MB/s for DVB-T1 (irrespective of MPEG encoding).

Therefore total gain of nearly 120% over DVB-T1 MPEG2. Reason for change in UK.

This makes it so much more sensible that RTE go with recomending only DVB T2/ Mpeg4 hardware so they can upgrade freely in the future. Also they could say 'Look for the Freeview HD sign on the box!'

If they at least announced what they were doing, we could at least plan our own way forward.

Personally I will wait for a combined DVBT2-Mpeg4/Freesat offering from the likes of Sony. I am sure they will have one soon, because they already have DVDT1-Mpeg4/Freesat available. They would only need to change the digital tuner, probably just a change of chipset.

I currently have 4 different zappers and it does my head in.:mad: