so to start with we had rural areas that had poor reception, then freeview dvbs came along to fix that, now we have hd on dvbt which rural areas cant get. So just as the rural areas catch up, 'the powers that be' bring out something to put them behind the times again. Seems stupid when they could easily put HD on dvbs.
pwaddles: so to start with we had rural areas that had poor reception, then freeview dvbs came along to fix that, now we have hd on dvbt which rural areas cant get. So just as the rural areas catch up, 'the powers that be' bring out something to put them behind the times again. Seems stupid when they could easily put HD on dvbs.
It is not quite that simple, if you have a look around here you will see that there are perfectly good and valid reasons as to why it cannot just be done. It may happen, but not just with the flick of a switch, and not without some big money.
The powers that be made the decision to launch the DTH (sat) service in SD so that all NZ's could access a modern digital TV platform with all the trimmings (16:9, EPG etc) at a cost effective price. Currently some 400 or so sites are needed to only approach 85-90% analog coverage, the DTH service exceeded that in one foul swoop and acheives pretty much 100% coverage. Transponder space is expensive so dont expect it to increase for HD services for some years yet.
The the 2nd part of the network was decided, where 18 or so of the largest sites (much less than the current 400 that barely make 90% coverage) were upgraded to DTT, and this was to be a premium service with the very lattest of features, ie HD. Dont forget that while the setup costs of the DTT service is quite high the on going costs are much less than a rented satellite service. So bandwidth on the DTT service is much cheaper than DTH.
The decision to do two seperate but overalapping networks with different pricepoint features I think is a well concidered one. Maybe one day when the cost of transponder space comes down somewhat we will see HD on the DTH service.
Yeah I hear you pwaddles. Sat reaches more people than terrestrial, but I guess there are people who have a tall building or something blocking their line of site too. I'm close to Palmerston North so I can get HD UHF but friends in Wanganui, 45 mins away, can't - go figure. To be honest though, the SD picture off the sat is pretty good really.
Transmitting off a satellite means buying a block of it's output and then cramming a few channels into that block. The more blocks you buy, the more it costs. You can fit heaps of channels in a block, but the more you fit in, the more compression you need and the worse the picture. Freeview has less channels in it's blocks than say sky, so on the whole their pictures look better for a given sd channel comparison.
Going HD via satellite means more info to send, so you either put less channels per block, or compress up the non hd ones more and more to clear up some space. You have to pay a third party to get more space via satellite and the blocks need to be available to buy too. HD just isn't going to happen via satellire when they have way more 'space' available via UHF.
Right now I'd settle for trackside and Prime via freeview, cripes just give 'em tv7 in exchange. In Wanganui they have very little uhf reception so many people have no prime. The All Blacks are broadcast on sky and then replayed on Prime so they are pretty much stuffed unless they pay the NZ sports tax of $65 or so a month to get SKY digital!
Twitter and LinkedIn »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
#23463 30-Jun-2008 11:42
Trusted
