Freeview HD

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › Freeview HD

Rikkitic

4885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2202

Subscriber

Topic # 80675 2-Apr-2011 17:16

I'm thinking about getting a Freeview decoder but don't understand why HD is only available via UHF, which may or may not be available at my location (the maps don't help, they just say maybe or maybe not).

Can anyone explain more about this to me? Why is HD available on Sky but not on satellite Freeview, and why are there no apparent plans to change this? Is it a matter of money, or available bandwidth, or something else?

I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage

mentalinc

1420 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 122

Trusted

Reply # 454555 2-Apr-2011 17:31

Costs to much.

Can you get prime via UHF? If so then you SHOULD get HD via UHF.

CPU: Intel 3770k| RAM: F3-2400C10D-16GTX G.Skill Trident X |MB: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H-WB | GFX: GV-N660OC-2GD gv-n660oc-2gd GeForce GTX 660 | Monitor: Qnix 27" 2560x1440

Want to be with an awesome ISP? Want $20 credit too? Use this link to sign up to BigPipe.

sbiddle

25062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4943

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 454560 2-Apr-2011 17:45

Freeview|HD via UHF is the primary broadcast platform to replace the VHF & UHF broadcasts with expansion to 87% of the population by August.

Cost and lack of capacity are the two main factors behind no HD on DVB-S - there is probably no sustainable business case to deploy multiple MUX's on DVB-S to deliver HD programming to 13% of the population. There was never any intention to deliver HD programming over DVB-S, and it would also mean newer STB's to support the DVB-S2 format.

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Reply # 454563 2-Apr-2011 18:11

The capacity argument doesn't fly. Much of the material is already being broadcast in HD from Optus D1. The problem is, it is encrypted by Sky. All that is required is for Freeview to do a deal with Sky to remove the encryption on the streams that are also available FTA.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen though. Freeview is essentially a hollow brand; the "face" of the digital changeover. It has no real backing, no substance, and no control over content or transmission.

bfginger

917 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38

Reply # 454573 2-Apr-2011 18:50

They've committed themselves to MPEG-2 SD broadcasting on Freeview Satellite and it isn't commercially viable for them to supplement that now. Most of the 14% of the population without Freeview|HD coverage are going to be Sky subscribers and TVNZ now wants you to subscribe to Sky. I expect Freeview|HD may be expanded further after the analogue switchoff, and HDTV across DSL should arrive eventually to some of those without UHF reception.

I think they could have just managed 720p HD on Freeview Satellite if they had gone with MPEG-4 broadcasting and ditched the regional-advertising broadcasts. They made a short-termitus decision to go with MPEG-2 because low-tech satellite receivers are cheaper. None of the Freeview approved satellite receivers have HDMI and there're still no MyFreeview Satellite recorders which doesn't reflect well on Freeview.

sbiddle

25062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4943

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Subscriber

Reply # 454577 2-Apr-2011 18:57

xarqi: The capacity argument doesn't fly. Much of the material is already being broadcast in HD from Optus D1. The problem is, it is encrypted by Sky. All that is required is for Freeview to do a deal with Sky to remove the encryption on the streams that are also available FTA.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen though. Freeview is essentially a hollow brand; the "face" of the digital changeover. It has no real backing, no substance, and no control over content or transmission.

You're assuming that Freeview is a competitior for Sky, something it most certainly is not.

You're entirely correct that Freeview has no control over content - and that's exactly how it should be. Freeview is not a broadcaster, it's a broadcast flatform.

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Reply # 454580 2-Apr-2011 19:11

Sigh - I'll just have to make do with the excellent programming from SBS (1 SD channel; 1 HD) and my excellent non-Freeview approved satellite recorder.

I just hope SBS don't pull the plug any time soon.

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Reply # 454582 2-Apr-2011 19:20

sbiddle:

You're assuming that Freeview is a competitior for Sky, something it most certainly is not.

No, I've not made that assumption at all. What I've assumed is that if the Freeview consortium members wished to provide their content in HD FTA, by satellite, they may be able to do so by reaching an accommodation with Sky.

Freeview: "OK Sky, it's like this - we'll let you continue to broadcast our content on your platform, but you can't encrypt it. Otherwise - forget it."

Possibility 1:
Sky: "Meanies - OK then - if you insist."

Possibility 2:
Sky: "You're joking right? We're broadcasting your content as a service to you, and you want us to get nothing at all for it? We're in business here; what is it you do again?"

marmel

1463 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 454603 2-Apr-2011 20:27

It would have to be one hell of a deal for Sky to allow non-subscribers to access the free to air HD feeds.

One of the main reasons I pay for Sky is the HD.

It's a bit like cordless phones and TV remotes without wires (sorry unless you are about 38 or older you probably won't remember wired remotes).

Once you have had them it's hard to go back, same with HD vs SD, especially as the SD sat feed doesn't seem to be that great anyway.

It would be really nice to think a deal could be done but Sky would be shooting themselves in the foot.