Sky's HDTV

Andrew Norman wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:51:41 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Heracles Pollux wrote:

Sky's genius, if you can call it that, is the excellence of their
marketing, "customer-ownership" (yes they think they own customers),
their call-centre and accounts regime, and of course their software
security, which no-one beats (except the BBC regime of farting old
men spying on people through gaps in their curtains under duress of
criminal prosecution).

It's a great image, but could you tell me what the following means:
"BBC regime of farting old men spying on people through gaps in their
curtains under duress of criminal prosecution"?

He is referring to the TV Licencing Agency I believe.


Ah, that makes sense now. And long may the farting men continue spying,
AFAIAC.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

Sky's genius, if you can call it that, is the excellence of their
marketing, "customer-ownership" (yes they think they own customers),
their call-centre and accounts regime, and of course their software
security, which no-one beats (except the BBC regime of farting old men
spying on people through gaps in their curtains under duress of
criminal prosecution).


It's a great image, but could you tell me what the following means: "BBC
regime of farting old men spying on people through gaps in their
curtains under duress of criminal prosecution"?


Which part needs explanation or clarification?

See:
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/
http://www.tvlicensing.biz/telegraph...1949/index.htm




Investment view: HOLD BSKYB. It is a commodity and aside from the 1999
dotcom bubble, it will make utility type profits, not 20x multiples,
and eventually competitors will break into the market.

This time, Murdoch does not need to shaft his shareholders by freezing
dividends, but the move to HDTV is not a market innovation, rather a
defensive play to maintain BSKYB's lead, and retain existing
customers, not extract new ones.


What about if the BBC, ITV and C4 (and maybe five) cooperate to launch a
Freesat platform, with one of the features being that they'll have
free-to-air HDTV?


The above will probably offer HDTV on Digital Satellite anyway as a
"me-too" strategy (like how Stuart Prebble at ITV joined digital
satellite as late as November 2001).

The reason is Digital Satellite bandwidth is cheap and depreciating.
There is competition in the satellite transmission market and more
capacity becoming available following the next Astra 2 deployment.

HDTV will occur initially on the Pay-TV market because MPEG4 (the
carrier and compresion protocol) requires a per user software licence.
Just like Windows XP requires a licence to be paid, the software can
only be deployed to people who are willing to pay for it, which is why
MPEG2 is popular, and MPEG4 has a barrier to widespread use.

Secondly, DTT has finite bandwidth due to the laws of physics and the
reduction in signal penetration as the frequency increases.

Given that it will be a struggle to attain DTT switch-over by 2010-2012
using existing DTT technology and MPEG2 (DVB-T), and the concerns about
the free-to-air channels surviability (eg, ITV, Channel 4, and FIVE's
recent statements and changes), simply adding more lines to the same TV
programmes isn't going to net them one penny more in revenue nor one
ad-sale more, for some time to come.

Also look how Digital Radio is inferior in quality to FM radio, how most
DTT channels are still on QAM64 rather than the more robust QAM16, and
how there is commercial demand for more channels rather than higher
quality of channels (the people who pay Crown Castle for spectrum not
the viewers).



And lastly the BBC who admit to 20% of people being opposed to the
licence fee: Could they realistcally deploy an HDTV system - a luxury
version of television for the few - using licence fee cash? I doubt even
New Labour would swallow that. They would be more likely to want to do
so using their pseudo commercial channels such as UK TV or by wheezing
some kind of "top-up licence fee".




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

It's a great image, but could you tell me what the following means: "BBC
regime of farting old men spying on people through gaps in their
curtains under duress of criminal prosecution"?

He is referring to the TV Licencing Agency I believe.



The TVLA no longer exists.

TVL is the body controlled by the BBC responsible for collection of
licence fee cash.

It is not a tax. The cash is exclusively used to fund the BBC. The
Director responsible at the BBC is Zarin Patel. It is not possible to
diconnect the relationship between the TVL, the BBC, and the DCMS.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Ah, that makes sense now. And long may the farting men continue spying,
AFAIAC.


They may spy, but it does not necessarily make people pay.

£150M cost of collection.
£150M cost of evasion.
10% of the business of the UK's criminal justice system.

That's £300M a year just in financial overhead before even one minute of
Natasha Kaplunksky's salary is paid for.

The cost of the licence fee's collection will rise.

Also as the licence fee rises, so the incentive to evade rises, making
the use of 1930s authoritarian regime collective-socialst style tactics
even less cost effective.

Conversely, the cost of technology, such as Sky's CAM systems generally
depreciates through competition, innovation, and automation which is why
we have Pay TV, mobile phones, DVD on demand, the inter-web, medical
scanners, instand messaging, online banking, home delivery shopping,
porn on demand, etc.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Ah, that makes sense now. And long may the farting men continue
spying, AFAIAC.


They may spy, but it does not necessarily make people pay.

£150M cost of collection.
£150M cost of evasion.
10% of the business of the UK's criminal justice system.


I couldn't really care less about the money; it's the fact that if the
BBC went subscription then they would have to become more populist to
attract the subscribers in the first place, and the best stuff that the
BBC produces (such as stuff on BBC4) would be at risk, and IMO we'd end
up with the BBC descending towards ITV. Nightmare scenario, IMO.

Also, if the BBC went subscription then as a paying subscriber I would
want all their radio stations to go subscription only as well, because I
would totally resent people refusing to pay their subscription getting
access to the radio stations that I pay towards.

Alternatively, the radio stations could have adverts on them. I don't
want their radio stations to have adverts on them simply because I don't
like adverts on the radio (don't mind them on TV, cos it allows you to
make a drink or whatever) and, again, they would make the radio stations
more populist, because they need more listeners to pay for the stations.

I'm (mostly) happy with how they are, thanks.


That's £300M a year just in financial overhead before even one minute
of Natasha Kaplunksky's salary is paid for.

The cost of the licence fee's collection will rise.

Also as the licence fee rises, so the incentive to evade rises, making
the use of 1930s authoritarian regime collective-socialst style
tactics even less cost effective.

Conversely, the cost of technology, such as Sky's CAM systems
generally depreciates through competition, innovation, and automation
which is why we have Pay TV, mobile phones, DVD on demand, the
inter-web, medical scanners, instand messaging, online banking, home
delivery shopping, porn on demand, etc.


Don't patronise me. I am just against the BBC going subscription for the
reasons I've given, and I can't be arsed getting into an argument over
it. I do think that the forthcoming Charter renewal will probably be the
last. In fact, all it needs is the Tory party to get into power between
now and the end of the forthcoming Charter for them to change the rules.
So, I believe you'll get your way in the end, but I'm just happy that
there's 10 years or so before you do.

And for the record, I don't disagree that there is a strong argument for
the abolishment of the licence fee, especially given that there is a
small percentage of people that never watch BBC TV, apparently, and it
is hard to justify that they should pay. But culturally, Britain would
be far worse off without the licence fee, and that is not something that
you can quantify, although I wouldn't be surprised if some bean counters
(who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing) try to.... No
doubt one of the Murdochs has his main bean counter on this job at this
very second....


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .mailgate.org...

Of course the cost of hardware, software, and spectrum is cheap and
constantly depreciating (look at Pace's withdrawal from non Sky STBs).
The technology - like the first generation analogue Sky service, like
the second generation Sky Digital service - are all off the shelf
industry standard components.

Silicon falls in price, but there's always the baseline cost of royalties that
is fixed, the royalties associated with a DVD player is now more than cost of
the silicon, and in the case of DVB-S2 they're still bickering about AVC
licensing.

Software development isn't cheap. Nor is spectrum given the speculation and
options being placed on 28e, but cheap compared to Freeview of course.

None of this is cheap, Sky could quite easily sit milking the existing platform
and Sky+ for a long time, but they don't want to be in a game of catch up when
HD-DVD hits the market.

The fact of the matter is BSkyB are moving ahead and actually doing something
whilst the self-entitled vanguard of innovation and originality that is the Beeb
(and the rest of the PSB's) are doing sweet FA apart from publishing a few
technical papers on the lowest possible resolution they can get away with... and
even if other broadcasters decide to launch a HD service it will be on the back
of Sky's platform.

I can't see the BBC doing anything soon, they're so entrenched in the promotion
of their beloved (standard definition) Freeview service for political reasons
they won't do anything that might undermine its success, like providing stunning
HD content on satellite.

Even if you question BSkyB's way of doing business you must acknowledge they do
take risks on new technology and bare the cost of making it commoditised, no
wonder they're then able to enjoy first mover advantage.

If we waited for the BBC or ITV do something by their own volition... well, it's
going to be a long wait, and the market no longer waits for them.


Az.

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Investment view: HOLD BSKYB. It is a commodity and aside from the
1999 dotcom bubble, it will make utility type profits, not 20x
multiples, and eventually competitors will break into the market.

This time, Murdoch does not need to shaft his shareholders by
freezing dividends, but the move to HDTV is not a market
innovation, rather a defensive play to maintain BSKYB's lead, and
retain existing customers, not extract new ones.


What about if the BBC, ITV and C4 (and maybe five) cooperate to
launch a Freesat platform, with one of the features being that
they'll have free-to-air HDTV?


The above will probably offer HDTV on Digital Satellite anyway as a
"me-too" strategy (like how Stuart Prebble at ITV joined digital
satellite as late as November 2001).

The reason is Digital Satellite bandwidth is cheap and depreciating.
There is competition in the satellite transmission market and more
capacity becoming available following the next Astra 2 deployment.

HDTV will occur initially on the Pay-TV market because MPEG4 (the
carrier and compresion protocol) requires a per user software licence.


I think MPEG-2 also has such a licence, but it's just that MPEG-4
(H.264) is more expensive. See:

http://graphics.csail.mit.edu/~tbueh...decs/mpeg.html


Just like Windows XP requires a licence to be paid, the software can
only be deployed to people who are willing to pay for it, which is why
MPEG2 is popular, and MPEG4 has a barrier to widespread use.



By that logic then surely we would never get H.264/AVC? But H.264 will
replace MPEG-2 eventually.


Secondly, DTT has finite bandwidth due to the laws of physics and the
reduction in signal penetration as the frequency increases.


DTT frequency planning is carried out with the assumption that users
will have rooftop aerials, so the signal doesn't need to penetrate
anything.


Given that it will be a struggle to attain DTT switch-over by
2010-2012 using existing DTT technology and MPEG2 (DVB-T),


What is wrong with DVB-T or MPEG-2? In particular, what's wrong with
them that might hinder digital switch-over? DVB-T got a bad press early
on due to poor transmitter network planning, because insufficient
transmitter powers were used. Transmitter powers have subsequently been
increased on the 64-QAM muxes and the Freeview muxes use 16-QAM, which
is inherently more robust.

DTT does not have 100% population coverage, and people will always live
on the edge of coverage areas and have poor reception. That's just a
fact of life, but it's not a problem with the DVB-T system. There were
also problems with impuslive interference, but that was partly due to
insufficient signal strength in the first place, and newer DVB-T
receiver chips have significantly improved performance.


and the concerns about the free-to-air channels surviability (eg, ITV,
Channel 4, and FIVE's recent statements and changes), simply adding
more lines to the same TV programmes isn't going to net them one
penny more in revenue nor one ad-sale more, for some time to come.


The best thing ITV, C4 and five can do is to encourage as many people on
to free-to-air platforms, because rather than being little fishes in
large ponds on satellite or cable, they're bigger fish in smaller ponds
on FTA systems. And if they, along with the BBC, transmit HD on Freesat
then that would give people an incentive to get Freesat, and less of an
incentive to get Sky for HDTV.


Also look how Digital Radio is inferior in quality to FM radio,


When people talk about DAB being of inferior quality to FM radio,
they're usually talking about the audio quality, not the robustness of
the signal.


how most DTT channels are still on QAM64 rather than the more robust
QAM16,


As I said above, the 64-QAM DTT muxes have had their transmitter powers
increased, so robustness isn't really a problem any more.


and how there is commercial demand for more channels rather
than higher quality of channels (the people who pay Crown Castle for
spectrum not the viewers).


I actually don't think there's much of a problem with SDTV picture
quality on Freeview, but HDTV is a completely different ball game. When
people see it for the first time they're bowled over by it, and describe
it as "looking through a window". It's a step change in picture quality,
and increasing the bit rate a bit on SDTV cannot get close to it.


And lastly the BBC who admit to 20% of people being opposed to the
licence fee: Could they realistcally deploy an HDTV system


Yes.


- a luxury
version of television for the few - using licence fee cash?


This is an evolving situation though, because as more and more people
get large displays then it becomes more and more feasible until there's
a critical mass, and then questions will be asked why they're *not*
transmitting in HD.


I doubt
even New Labour would swallow that. They would be more likely to want
to do so using their pseudo commercial channels such as UK TV or by
wheezing some kind of "top-up licence fee".


It will definitely happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4065565.stm

"The BBC will start broadcasting in HDTV when the time is right, and it
would not be just a showcase, but a whole set of programming," says Andy
Quested, from the BBC's high-definition support group.

"We have made the commitment to produce all our output in
high-definition by 2010, which would put us on the leading edge."


My main concern is that the EBU (European Broadcasting Union), who
represent the public service broadcasters (e.g. BBC, ITV, C4) want to
use 720p instead of 1080i, primarily due to bandwidth limits on DTT.
720p requires a slightly lower bit rate than 1080i, but it has far lower
resolution.

It'll be interesting to see what Sky do with their own channels in this
respect. I would've thought they'd go for 1080i, because bandwidth isn't
a problem for them, and it'd give the public service broadcasters the
dilemna that if they used 720p on DTT then Sky's marketing department
could turn round and say that HD on DTT isn't really HD at all, or at
the very least they can legitimately say that the resolution is
significantly higher on Sky.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:50:28 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Ah, that makes sense now. And long may the farting men continue
spying, AFAIAC.


They may spy, but it does not necessarily make people pay.

£150M cost of collection.
£150M cost of evasion.
10% of the business of the UK's criminal justice system.

I couldn't really care less about the money; it's the fact that if the
BBC went subscription then they would have to become more populist to
attract the subscribers in the first place, and the best stuff that the
BBC produces (such as stuff on BBC4) would be at risk, and IMO we'd end
up with the BBC descending towards ITV. Nightmare scenario, IMO.

Also, if the BBC went subscription then as a paying subscriber I would
want all their radio stations to go subscription only as well, because I
would totally resent people refusing to pay their subscription getting
access to the radio stations that I pay towards.

Alternatively, the radio stations could have adverts on them. I don't
want their radio stations to have adverts on them simply because I don't
like adverts on the radio (don't mind them on TV, cos it allows you to
make a drink or whatever) and, again, they would make the radio stations
more populist, because they need more listeners to pay for the stations.

I'm (mostly) happy with how they are, thanks.

It has been a long time since I have said these words, I agree
completely Steve.
--
Andy Norman
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply

Aztech wrote:

The fact of the matter is BSkyB are moving ahead and actually doing
something whilst the self-entitled vanguard of innovation and
originality that is the Beeb


I thought they had an Imagineering department? Surely that proves that
they are the vanguard of innovation?


(and the rest of the PSB's) are doing
sweet FA apart from publishing a few technical papers on the lowest
possible resolution they can get away with...


I knew you'd come to your senses in the end...


I can't see the BBC doing anything soon, they're so entrenched in the
promotion of their beloved (standard definition) Freeview service for
political reasons they won't do anything that might undermine its
success, like providing stunning HD content on satellite.


They could use HD as a means of luring people onto Freesat, and let
Freeview fend for itself, cos it doesn't seem to be doing badly.


Even if you question BSkyB's way of doing business you must
acknowledge they do take risks on new technology


True. But I don't think the move into HD is anywhere like the kind of
risks they've taken in the past. I think this is far more likely to be a
sure-fire success.


If we waited for the BBC or ITV do something by their own volition...


And when the BBC do move of their own volition then they choose the
wrong technology; DAB being the perfect example.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:39:50 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

It'll be interesting to see what Sky do with their own channels in this
respect. I would've thought they'd go for 1080i, because bandwidth isn't
a problem for them, and it'd give the public service broadcasters the

I hope this turns out to be true, but it is not as if they have always
used the highest bit rates on their existing SD channels, so I'm not
sure that the argument that bandwidth isn't a problem for them holds
much water.
--
Andy Norman
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply