Analogue Spectrum auction

Mitch epitag

Will it really raise hundreds of millions and improve broadband or is Pat rabbitte talking shìte again ?

FREETV

Mitch epitag wrote: »

Will it really raise hundreds of millions and improve broadband or is Pat rabbitte talking shìte again ?

4G as Watty will tell you will never be true broadband so I'd say he is a tad in the dark about the technical aspects of the Digital Dividend. All Politicians are full of it and cannot be trusted. :rolleyes: We will need at least another Multiplex for TV and Radio in the next ten to fifteen years so at least three multiplexes for TV at the main transmitters with more channels and HD or 3D etc surely.

reslfj

FREETV wrote: »

... We will need at least another Multiplex for TV and Radio in the next ten to fifteen years so at least three multiplexes for TV at the main transmitters with more channels and HD or 3D etc surely.

Maybe the ROI will need another mux for TV - maybe not.
Radio is another matter.

But the ROI already has access to UHF spectrum for 6 muxes (below 790 MHz).

In addition the ROI has VHF spectrum for one DVB-T/T2 mux and at three DAB muxes.

Now some of the UHF spectrum may currently be used in the border area in order to allow max Saorview overspill into NI and maybe to enable the NIMux.

Note that DVB-T2 will provide 67% more capacity, almost by the flip of a switch. With the new HEVC video compression standard from 2015/16, the capacity - in terms of program channels - will be 2-2.5 times the present capacity for each mux. The extra cost for the broadcasters will be next to nothing - except for buying/producing the needed extra TV programs.

Lars

watty

But then the next generation of HD needs x4 existing HD. Properly done Stereoscopic TV needs 2x HD. Real 3D will need more.

ALL current channels in HD will be 4 Mux or more. We can't change to DVB-T2 for years. Also 67% is a "best case" scenario. Real world total network for Island is more like 30% extra capacity using DVB-T2 vs DVB-T with best practice and MHEG4.

The Digital Dividend was planned in an era when only SD TV was envisaged. Also unless the spectrum is used for Fixed Wireless Broadband, it provides nothing better than existing 3G. It just saves the operator a few masts in Rural areas. It will not bring better coverage or real broadband. The so called "Digital Dividend" limits development of TV, will jam cable TV and Broadband (handsets and modems) and interfere with TV

Maybe 200,000 in UK will need to switch to Cable or Satellite and 40,000 may not be able to have TV at all. The UK is setting up a company to help mitigate effects and a budget of €180M

Meanwhile here Comreg has secret talks and is determined to make all problems the responsibility of RTENL. This is contrary to best Spectrum Regulation practice and "Natural Justice". Also the terms of Comreg's auction are stupid.

Comreg isn't competent to manage the so called Digital Dividend, the only real Dividend is the revenue of Licence auction.

reslfj

watty wrote: »

But then the next generation of HD needs x4 existing HD. Properly done Stereoscopic TV needs 2x HD. Real 3D will need more.

No - 1080p50 can be MPEG-4 compressed to about the same bitrate as presently 1080i. HEVC should half the bitrate needed, but maybe it is better to use the more conservative value 2/3.
720p50 is expected to HEVC compress to about the same bitrate as currently used by SD / MPEG-2.

watty wrote: »

...We can't change to DVB-T2 for years. Also 67% is a "best case" scenario. Real world total network for Island is more like 30% extra capacity using DVB-T2 vs DVB-T with best practice and MHEG4.

This is WRONG and you should keep away from writing such false information. Very :mad: :mad: :mad:

It is nothing like a best case - it is the difference between the bitrates of the BBCA DVB-T mux (or the ROI mux) and the BBCB HD mux at this very moment.

When the UK HD mux - while this is written - transmits 40.21 Mbit/s and a UK/ROI DVB-T PSB mux transmits 24.13 Mbit/s - it is a simple calculation to get:

(40.21 - 24.13) / 24.13 *100% = + 66.6%

The UK PSB muxes are very much 'real world networks' - I should think!

With statistical multiplexing the 66.6% larger DVB-T2 muxes will enable a more efficient use of the bitrate available . So the DVB-T2 capacity will look as rather more than a 66.6% improvement.

Whether the ROI can change to DVB-T2 or not, is of no relevance to the technical capacity of a T vs a T2 mux.



Lars (or more like :mad:)

watty

DVB-T uses Statistical muxs, or can do. You have always over hyped the DVB-T2. For the same data content, guard times and QAM your claims would break the Shannon Limit.

You are definitely not comparing exactly the same scenario.

I agree that DVB-T2 is best for new Roll outs. But for Ireland it was nearly 2 years two late. Decisions have to be made before actual roll outs start. We can't be obsoleting TVs and Setboxes bought this year for at least 10 years. Realistically the only way there can be a DVB-T2 rollout in Ireland inside the next 10 years is for a Pay TV network (it would have to supply new boxes anyway), and no Irish Pay TV is going to be viable against Sky or UPC.

reslfj

watty wrote: »

DVB-T uses Statistical muxs, or can do. You have always over hyped the DVB-T2. For the same data content, guard times and QAM your claims would break the Shannon Limit.

You are definitely not comparing exactly the same scenario.

Comparing the bitrate for the UK BBCA(T1) and BBCB(T2) muxes is as close as anyone can come to "exactly the same scenario"

The Shannon limit knows nothing about QAM og guard intervals nor any other practical parameters.

It simply states the absolute maximum capacity possible - with any protocol and any set of parameters - in one channel with a given signal to (gaussian)noise ratio.

For a C/N = 17.5 dB (DVB-T2 UK HD mux without implementation losses) the Shannon limit at this C/N level and for a full 8MHz channel is 46.7 Mbps.

The HD mux actual 40.21 Mbps is just 14% below the limit. These 14% includes the actual bandwidth of 7.77 MHz, the guard interval 1/128, the pilot carriers and the P1, P2 headers....

DVB-T2 can't of course be in conflict with Shannons law nor is it.

watty wrote: »

I agree that DVB-T2 is best for new Roll outs. But for Ireland it was nearly 2 years two late. Decisions have to be made before actual roll outs start. We can't be obsoleting TVs and Setboxes bought this year for at least 10 years. Realistically the only way there can be a DVB-T2 rollout in Ireland inside the next 10 years is for a Pay TV network (it would have to supply new boxes anyway), and no Irish Pay TV is going to be viable against Sky or UPC.

I can not nor will I accept mixing political and consumer arguments with purely technical arguments and the laws of nature. It may not be politically possible and likely isn't, but it is perfectly physical possible to dump all Saorview boxes and IDTV's and replace everything with new and better equipment.

Yes, DVB-T is a done deal for Ireland and it will not change in the next years. But 5 years from now, with all newer TV sets having a DVB-T2 'tuner' and with the Irish economy in a much better shape - you will see

I am sure, it will be much more important to figure out how to match the use of DVB-T2 and the new HEVC (new MPEG-2/4) with the use of the 1080p50 HD format. HEVC should be available in the 2015/16 timeframe.


Lars

ardmacha

But 5 years from now, with all newer TV sets having a DVB-T2 'tuner' and with the Irish economy in a much better shape - you will see

The problem is that a disproportionate number of sets will have been bought this year and early next year without DVB-T2 (except some border folks).

reslfj

ardmacha wrote: »

The problem is that a disproportionate number of sets will have been bought this year and early next year without DVB-T2 (except some border folks).

First - I responded to FREETVs remarks about the need for another mux - and explained that the needed spectrum had already been granted for 6 UHF muxes and 1 VHF mux in Ireland. In addition I pointed out that using DVB-T2 would add +66% more bitrate capacity to each mux.

The argument about 4G using all DTT spectrum is false - as the limiting factor for more DTT is money - and nothing but money.

Second - Try to remember TV sets 5 years back - November 2007 - and compare with the present models. MPEG-2 most 1080x768, only high end sets had a kind of OK picture, standby power was high and electricity was and is expensive etc, etc....

How many pre 2008 sets are still the main 'living room TV' ?

Going back to the 2008-2009 timeframe on this forum - a large number of posts were about MPEG-4 not being much better than MPEG-2, MPEG-4 being very expensive, about saving old MPEG-2 TV sets in a MPEG-4 world using Neotion cards - that in the end did not save anything, impatient first movers wanting the standard to be fixed - any standard - so they could buy the much wanted 'gadget TV'....

It is the very same story - "There are SOOOO many TV sets and we must save all of them".
Environmental arguments were presented as little other than a cover for personal greed.

But most people did not get a new (after all not so) fancy TV set - they waited and are buying now - your "disproportionate number of sets". They would have been much better advised being (gently) forced to get a FreeviewHD model last year or now - IMHO - and in all parts of the Republic.

Lars