|
|
" wrote:
I didn't know that. That you could merge and split, I mean - not that the Sky boxes didn't do it well. For example, the PIDs displayed on the receiver for the WDR services on 19e 12422 H 22000 not during their regional news are all Video 101 and Audio 102 and not what Lyngsat lists. So BBC One (all regions) is at ~4Mbps (per region) because they don't implement merging for national output? Apparently the BBC have other complexities which also add the short (1 second, if that) delay of regions compared to London. If you search archives of uk.tech.digital-tv, you might find a sage explaining them to me in detail a few months ago. Heck - they've got the "hidden" capacity there to provide four HD streams, just by merging BBC One during national output. Or even just increasing the bitrate of the SD version (and other channels). It sounds like this would crash some dodgy digiboxes and the BBC isn't going to do that (yet), even if it would amuse some of us! |
Zero Tolerance wrote:
Surely the majority of the FTA boxes will be lowest-possible-cost no-CAM-slot units that can't be upgraded anyway, though? (Especially if the BBC have their way.) Just as with Freeview there will be boxes for all tastes and budgets. If the demand is there then some manufacturer will fill the gap. There are already several good FTA dual-tuner PVRs with hard drive etc. and I would be delighted to use one of those if it could get me all the main channels. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/7rm2m UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
Charles Ellson wrote:
Five _were_ FTA on Astra 19.2 analogue before Sky switched entirely to digital. For the pedants they were actually soft encrypted in that you needed a videocrypt decoder but did not require a card. So for those pedants who appreciate those minor things like accuracy and truthfulness, actually they weren't FTA at all, were they? They were, in the general sense that the viewer didn't have to obtain any hardware from or have any intervention made by the broadcaster before the programme material could be viewed. Actually one did have to obtain a specific VideoCrypt receiver in order to view C5, which was soft-encrypted. It was indeed FTV and not FTA. FTA: no specific decoder or card required. FTV: decoder and/or card required but no subscription required. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/7rm2m UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:53:32 +0200, Jomtien wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote: Five _were_ FTA on Astra 19.2 analogue before Sky switched entirely to digital. For the pedants they were actually soft encrypted in that you needed a videocrypt decoder but did not require a card. So for those pedants who appreciate those minor things like accuracy and truthfulness, actually they weren't FTA at all, were they? They were, in the general sense that the viewer didn't have to obtain any hardware from or have any intervention made by the broadcaster before the programme material could be viewed. Actually one did have to obtain a specific VideoCrypt receiver in order to view C5, which was soft-encrypted. It was indeed FTV and not FTA. FTA: no specific decoder or card required. FTV: decoder and/or card required but no subscription required. It rather depends on what you are relating the "free" to; all digital services require a form of "decoder". In the case of Ch5 the ability to see it was effectively free of the broadcaster's applied controls. The Ch5 case was an oddity WRT other channels, but I would suggest was no more FTV than was e.g. a digital service in the days that most receivers were analogue. -- _______ +---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //| | Charles Ellson: | | \\ // | +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | // \\ | Alba gu brath |//___\\| |
Charles Ellson wrote:
It rather depends on what you are relating the "free" to; all digital services require a form of "decoder". Only if you use the word very freely indeed. Both digital and analogue broadcasts require a receiver (unless you have a suitable metal plate in your skull) but not necessarily a decoder. A decoder is only needed if there is some sort of encryption, such as that used by the analogue C5. In the case of Ch5 the ability to see it was effectively free of the broadcaster's applied controls. The Ch5 case was an oddity WRT other channels, but I would suggest was no more FTV than was e.g. a digital service in the days that most receivers were analogue. Not at all. C5 was most certainly a soft-encrypted FTV channel, by simple definition. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/7rm2m UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/ Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:14:14 +0100, graham wrote: So technically how will this work? The ITV and BBC channels will be FTA so you'll be able to use a receiver without a card slot. And what about interactive text. Will it use the Sky system or the standard European system built into all non-Sky boxes ? They will still be broadcast from the same satellites and will still be available on Sky receivers. ITV/BBC are merely seeking publicity by saying that they are launching a new "service". And what about the cost of the equipment? will I be forking out for the receiver+ the bloody TV licence? A rather pointless comment since you'd need to have the license before you bought the TV. Or do you expect them to give you a free TV to watch it on as well? Lee. What I meant to say is: will the viewer have to pay for the equipment as well as fork out for the licence? or will the equipment to view these channels be supplied FOC? I mean, if it's going to cost extra, as well as the high cost of the licence, I can't see this being an attractive option especially to the older folks, who really need their tellys! Graham |
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:07:10 +0100, graham
wrote: | What I meant to say is: will the viewer have to pay for the equipment as | well as fork out for the licence? or will the equipment to view these | channels be supplied FOC? I mean, if it's going to cost extra, as well | as the high cost of the licence, I can't see this being an attractive | option especially to the older folks, who really need their tellys! IIRC one always had to buy TVs and Radios before them. BTW I am an OAP who would like something worth watching on the TV. -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk |
Dave Fawthrop wrote: BTW I am an OAP who would like something worth watching on the TV. I thought you were a hyphenologist. What is one anyway? It's time we were told. Bill |
In article , Jomtien
writes Only if you use the word very freely indeed. Both digital and analogue broadcasts require a receiver (unless you have a suitable metal plate in your skull) but not necessarily a decoder. A decoder is only needed if there is some sort of encryption, such as that used by the analogue C5. That's a decrypter not a decoder. In digital terms the decoder decodes MPEG2, the decrypter decrypts videoguard. Maybe you want to rephrase this for analogue. -- Peter Pratten Please reply in group only |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com