TVNZ and TV3 HD channels on sky TV network

Forums › Sky, Neon › TVNZ and TV3 HD channels on sky TV network

24grape

18 posts

Geek

Topic # 87321 25-Jul-2011 21:47

Hi there,

Am I right in understanding that TVNZ 1 & 2 and TV3 channels are broadcast in HD on sky TV network?

I just googled for satellite FTA channels and came across this satellite channel chart:

http://www.satbeams.com/charts

click on 160 degree east to get Optus D1 satellite.

Further down on the chart the satellite freeview TVNZ 1 & 2 and TV3 channels are only in SD.

So poor folk like myself outside the terrestrial UHF freeview|HD area can only pick-up SD broadcast UNLESS we pay sky to get the HD channels. This seems grossly unfair when 75% of NZ population don't have to pay to get HD TV1, 2 and TV3 on terrestrial UHF freeview|HD.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick??

thanks

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1677 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

Reply # 497942 26-Jul-2011 11:28

Sky pay for the bandwidth and came to an arrangement with TVNZ and Mediaworks, I don't see how that is unfair.

grant_k

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 497973 26-Jul-2011 12:30

24grape: So poor folk like myself outside the terrestrial UHF freeview|HD area can only pick-up SD broadcast UNLESS we pay sky to get the HD channels. This seems grossly unfair when 75% of NZ population don't have to pay to get HD TV1, 2 and TV3 on terrestrial UHF freeview|HD.

It's just another cost of living in a rural area. I'm in the same position regarding TV service, and also find myself having to pay $110 per month for a 10GB internet plan via wireless, whereas my city cousins get it for $70 with much faster speeds. Fuel prices are also dearer, and we have to drive 100km return trip to get to the nearest decent supermarket. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Having said all that, I would enourage you to pay the $45 per month for Sky's Basic package, and enjoy TV1/2/3 in HD over satellite. It is definitely worth the extra IMO, compared to the FreeView services which look very "soft" by comparison. I have a friend in the TV industry who told me that only 700-800 kbits/sec is allocated to many of the SD channels, which is why they have so little detail compared to the HD channels. I don't know what bitrate the HD channels are running at, but they are all 1920x1080i, and TV3 has full-time Dolby Digital sound.

Talkiet

3701 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2240

Trusted

Spark NZ

Reply # 497985 26-Jul-2011 12:53

24grape: [snip]
So poor folk like myself outside the terrestrial UHF freeview|HD area can only pick-up SD broadcast UNLESS we pay sky to get the HD channels. This seems grossly unfair when 75% of NZ population don't have to pay to get HD TV1, 2 and TV3 on terrestrial UHF freeview|HD.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick??

thanks

What resolutions would you propose?

1) Sky stop broadcasting 1,2 and 3 in HD?

2) Sky allow you to get their basic service free of charge?

3) Freeview spend vast amounts of money and put HD across satellite?

I don't think any of these are commercially sensible or viable choices - what other options would you propose?

Cheers - N

sbiddle

27050 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6503

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 498026 26-Jul-2011 14:03

87% of the country will very shortly have Freeview|HD coverage. The $ simply don't stack up to deliver HD via satellite or extending Freeview|HD significantly beyond this.

24grape

18 posts

Geek

Reply # 498247 26-Jul-2011 21:27

Yes i know 87% of the pop will get freeview|HD shortly, but alas i still slip into the 13% who miss out, yet i live in a town with population of approx 30,000 and only 70km from wellington!

Think from the tax payers perspective which helps pay for those 3 channels. I pay the same taxes as a city person yet the govt think the can get away with offering a double standard in broadcast TV quality purely basis of where you live and whether it is "economically viable". Why didn't govt work freeview the otherway and secure Freeview|HD solely on satelitte for everyone in this country and not bother with terresital UHF rollout?

grant_k

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

Reply # 498251 26-Jul-2011 21:35

24grape: Think from the tax payers perspective which helps pay for those 3 channels.

Some of your taxes might go to pay for TV1/2, but not for TV3 which is privately owned.

24grape: Why didn't govt work freeview the otherway and secure Freeview|HD solely on satelitte for everyone in this country and not bother with terresital UHF rollout?

Because the cost of satellite bandwidth is extremely high, and FreeView do not have sufficient funding to cover the large amount of additional bandwidth required by HD.

nickb800

2017 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 336

Trusted

Reply # 498265 26-Jul-2011 22:12

24grape: I pay the same taxes as a city person

But the cost per person to deliver HD to smaller centres such as your town is much higher than that of a city. Hence if they did bring HD to your town, it may in fact be that the city people are subsidizing you

Talkiet

3701 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2240

Trusted

Spark NZ

Reply # 498284 26-Jul-2011 23:14

24grape:[snip] I pay the same taxes as a city person yet the govt think the can get away with offering a double standard in broadcast TV quality purely basis of where you live and whether it is "economically viable". [snip]

Yes. The government does think like that and they are right to think like that.

Just for a second, imagine you are living on the south side of a steep hill in Fiordland and you can't see the satellite from your house...

Now, let's apply your same logic step by step.

- You pay the same taxes as a city person - Agreed (there will be differences, but I'll agree for the sake of argument)

- The 'govt' can't deliver you either Freeview HD terrestrial, or in this case Freeview Satellite, based on where you have chosen to live, in an economically viable fashion.

Presumably at this point, you're outraged and expect the government to either build a new terrestrial site for you and the other 4 households in this fictional Fiordland valley, or send up a new satellite in a suitable location to cover you?

Assuming however that this in fact sounds stupid to you - bear in mind it's just the same argument you made earlier, but the costs are a bit higher to illustrate the point.

Cheers - N

CYaBro

2970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 288

Reply # 498285 26-Jul-2011 23:30

grant_k:
24grape: So poor folk like myself outside the terrestrial UHF freeview|HD area? can only pick-up SD broadcast UNLESS we pay sky to get the HD channels.? This seems?grossly unfair when 75% of NZ population don't have to pay to get HD TV1, 2 and TV3 on terrestrial UHF freeview|HD.

It's just another cost of living in a rural area.? I'm in the same position regarding TV service, and also find myself having to pay $110 per month for a 10GB internet plan via wireless, whereas my city cousins get it for $70 with much faster speeds.? Fuel prices are also dearer, and we have to drive 100km return trip to get to the nearest decent supermarket.? You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Having said all that, I would enourage you to pay the $45 per month for Sky's Basic package, and enjoy TV1/2/3 in HD over satellite.? It is definitely worth the extra IMO, compared to the FreeView services which look very "soft" by comparison.? I have a friend in the TV industry who told me that only 700-800 kbits/sec is allocated to many of the SD channels, which is why they have so little detail compared to the HD channels.? I don't know what bitrate the HD channels are running at, but they are all 1920x1080i, and TV3 has full-time Dolby Digital sound.

Is $45 really all you have to pay to get those channels in HD from Sky?

Computer Repairs Whangarei
Apple Authorised Reseller
Apple Authorised Service Provider

Talkiet

3701 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2240

Trusted

Spark NZ

Reply # 498287 26-Jul-2011 23:34

CYaBro:
Is $45 really all you have to pay to get those channels in HD from Sky?

Well, it's $47.xx/month now, but yes. The basic package (assuming you get the MySkyHDi decoder) includes 1,2 and 3 in HD, and you do not need the HD ticket.

Cheers - N

CYaBro

2970 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 288

Reply # 498290 26-Jul-2011 23:39

Talkiet:
CYaBro:
Is $45 really all you have to pay to get those channels in HD from Sky?

Well, it's $47.xx/month now, but yes. The basic package (assuming you get the MySkyHDi decoder) includes 1,2 and 3 in HD, and you do not need the HD ticket.

Cheers - N

Ah so it is more than $45 per month as you need a myskyhdi box which is another $15 per month isn't it?
Or $599 one off fee.

Edit: sky should have a cheap package for those that can't get freeview|hd.
They used to offer a package for about $18 per month which got you all the fta channels.
So they could do they same but in HD for about $35 per month including the myskyhdi box.
I'd happily pay that to get some HD content withou having to pay for all the extra sky basic channels.

Computer Repairs Whangarei
Apple Authorised Reseller
Apple Authorised Service Provider

mcraenz

1088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 180

Reply # 498305 27-Jul-2011 00:11

I'd like to live in a small town or rural area surrounded by serene landscapes, peace, quite no traffic jams etc. etc. But of course I'd have to give up my 14Mbps broadband, Freeview HD, 3 large supermarkets within 5 mins drive. etc. etc. But of course you can't have it all. :)

I think Freeview satellite is great. Guaranteed reception for everyone. For free. Fantastic.
Freeview HD covering almost 90% of the population. That's a good effort too.

Visit My Blog!

allstarnz

1677 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Trusted

Reply # 498390 27-Jul-2011 10:24

Another thing too, if the broadcasters (it's not actually a Freeview decision) were to go HD, they would really have to roll out DVB-S2 FTA boxes, MPEG2 SD takes up considerable bandwidth and is very inefficient (which could be used with the current Freeview boxes). SBS HD on D1 is MPEG2

Do you really want to confuse people even more ? If this was to have happened, it would have had to be done a few years back.

24grape

18 posts

Geek

Reply # 498408 27-Jul-2011 11:04

CYaBro:
Talkiet:
CYaBro:
Is $45 really all you have to pay to get those channels in HD from Sky?

Well, it's $47.xx/month now, but yes. The basic package (assuming you get the MySkyHDi decoder) includes 1,2 and 3 in HD, and you do not need the HD ticket.

Cheers - N

Ah so it is more than $45 per month as you need a myskyhdi box which is another $15 per month isn't it?
Or $599 one off fee.

Edit: sky should have a cheap package for those that can't get freeview|hd.
They used to offer a package for about $18 per month which got you all the fta channels.
So they could do they same but in HD for about $35 per month including the myskyhdi box.
I'd happily pay that to get some HD content withou having to pay for all the extra sky basic channels.

Yes, this is the kinda of thing the govt should have worked out from the start. A single standard of broadcast quality (Freeview|HD) and made it available thru sky for a dollar a day. As it is freeview has different channels depending on whether its UHF or satellite.

Question: Do u actually need the MySkyHDi decoder to receive TV 1,2,3 in HD in skys basic package, of just the normal decoder?

This is not made at all clear on the Sky website, infact a lot is not made clear. Their website reminds me of Telcoms horrific website of ambiguity.

Talkiet

3701 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2240

Trusted

Spark NZ

Reply # 498415 27-Jul-2011 11:18

24grape:
Yes, this is the kinda of thing the govt should have worked out from the start. A single standard of broadcast quality (Freeview|HD) and made it available thru sky for a dollar a day. As it is freeview has different channels depending on whether its UHF or satellite.

Question: Do u actually need the MySkyHDi decoder to receive TV 1,2,3 in HD in skys basic package, of just the normal decoder?

This is not made at all clear on the Sky website, infact a lot is not made clear. Their website reminds me of Telcoms horrific website of ambiguity.

I'm sorry, why do you still believe that everyone in the country is entitled to get HD? There are always some places where for a variety of reasons it's impractical or too expensive to give the same service as is available in dense population areas.

You haven't addressed my previous post asking if you agree that someone in Fiordland should be able to get Freeview HD even if it means the govt putting up another satellite just for them.

Your other question - Yes, the MySky HDi decoder is required as far as I know for 1,2,3 in HD on the basic Sky package.

Cheers - N

1 | 2 | 3 | 4