Thousands hit by HD TV chaos

Thack wrote:
There will be enough bandwidth after analogue switch-off to provide
a few HD channels on Freeview - total DTT capacity is going from 120
Mbps to 192 Mbps, so some of that could be used for HD channels.

A few. But bandwidth costs the broadcasters money, which is why I
think all HD content will be subscription-only for the forseeable
future.

Thack

The BBC are already broadcasting HD free on satellite. Officially
experimental at the moment but I expect it will continue.
--
Adrian

Thack wrote:
There will be enough bandwidth after analogue switch-off to provide
a few HD channels on Freeview - total DTT capacity is going from 120
Mbps to 192 Mbps, so some of that could be used for HD channels.

A few. But bandwidth costs the broadcasters money, which is why I
think all HD content will be subscription-only for the forseeable
future.


The BBC HD channel on satellite is unencrypted, and the BBC has committed to
producing all its content in HD by 2010, so the amount of HD content on the
BBC HD channel will undoubtedly increase over time.

Anyway, define "foreseeable future".


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Thus spaketh Thack:
I'm waiting untill the main broadcasters have started terrestrial
transmissions of HD before I buy.....

I reckon you'll be waiting a long time, then. My understanding from
the experts hereabouts is that DTTV simply doesn't have enough
bandwidth to carry a significant number of HD channels, and won't,
even when the analogue switch-off has happened.

(If I'm wrong about this, I'll happily stand corrected).

My prediction is that HD will *only* be on subscription channels for
the forseeable future. Sky has the capacity to carry plenty of HD
content, but I'll bet none of it will be on the Freesat channels.

A terrestrial broadcaster will have to buy an unusual amount of
bandwidth to transmit HD, and so will surely have to charge a premium
for the service.
I watch both Freeview and Freesat, and the choice is such that I have
no intention of buying any subscription services. I don't expect to
need an HD-ready TV for many years to come. Anyway, even the
so-called high contrast ratio LCD TVs still have blacks that glow
grey (at least when I look at them in a darkened room) - nothing like
as good as a top-class CRT TV. My money stays in my pocket.

Thack

Does Sky have the capacity, it's Astra and Eutelsat who own the
satellites, what if another broadcaster comes along and decides to lease
all the available capacity and Sky has no more they can have.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:23:11 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
wrote:

|Thus spaketh Thack:
| I'm waiting untill the main broadcasters have started terrestrial
| transmissions of HD before I buy.....
|
| I reckon you'll be waiting a long time, then. My understanding from
| the experts hereabouts is that DTTV simply doesn't have enough
| bandwidth to carry a significant number of HD channels, and won't,
| even when the analogue switch-off has happened.
|
| (If I'm wrong about this, I'll happily stand corrected).
|
| My prediction is that HD will *only* be on subscription channels for
| the forseeable future. Sky has the capacity to carry plenty of HD
| content, but I'll bet none of it will be on the Freesat channels.
|
| A terrestrial broadcaster will have to buy an unusual amount of
| bandwidth to transmit HD, and so will surely have to charge a premium
| for the service.
| I watch both Freeview and Freesat, and the choice is such that I have
| no intention of buying any subscription services. I don't expect to
| need an HD-ready TV for many years to come. Anyway, even the
| so-called high contrast ratio LCD TVs still have blacks that glow
| grey (at least when I look at them in a darkened room) - nothing like
| as good as a top-class CRT TV. My money stays in my pocket.
|
| Thack
|
|Does Sky have the capacity, it's Astra and Eutelsat who own the
|satellites, what if another broadcaster comes along and decides to lease
|all the available capacity and Sky has no more they can have.

Astra is a "constellation" of satellites flying in ?close? formation so
they can just send another one up if they need more channels. AFAIK they
already do this when one runs out of fuel, and has to be taken out of use.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" wrote in message
news:zyR5h.51818

Does Sky have the capacity, it's Astra and Eutelsat who own the
satellites, what if another broadcaster comes along and decides to lease
all the available capacity and Sky has no more they can have.
In that case one of the 2 satellite opperators would propably move/put
another satellite into the 28.2/28.5E posstions.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

In article ,
David wrote:

"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" wrote in message
news:zyR5h.51818

Does Sky have the capacity, it's Astra and Eutelsat who own the
satellites, what if another broadcaster comes along and decides to
lease all the available capacity and Sky has no more they can have.
In that case one of the 2 satellite opperators would propably move/put
another satellite into the 28.2/28.5E posstions.

Ah, but there might be no frequencies left.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Adrian A wrote:
Dave Farrance wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote:

As I understand it , the main purpose of using HDMI as the
"standard" input was for copy protection through HDCP , and that was
something imposed by film and tv studios
HDCP can be used with DVI, and that will probably be the standard
combination for PC graphics cards that can play protected content. As
for TVs, an HDMI socket almost invariably implies HDCP as well, so
it's true that HDMI does help to cut down the confusion, but note
that the original spec for HD-Ready required HDCP while allowing
either HDMI or
DVI sockets.

Some graphics cards are already available with HDMI, I think it's more
likely that DVI will gradually disappear.

Why use HDMI when DVI with HDCP does the job? Are graphics cards now
going to output the audio too?

D

David Hearn wrote:
Adrian A wrote:
Dave Farrance wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote:

As I understand it , the main purpose of using HDMI as the
"standard" input was for copy protection through HDCP , and that
was something imposed by film and tv studios
HDCP can be used with DVI, and that will probably be the standard
combination for PC graphics cards that can play protected content.
As for TVs, an HDMI socket almost invariably implies HDCP as well,
so it's true that HDMI does help to cut down the confusion, but note
that the original spec for HD-Ready required HDCP while allowing
either HDMI or
DVI sockets.

Some graphics cards are already available with HDMI, I think it's
more likely that DVI will gradually disappear.

Why use HDMI when DVI with HDCP does the job? Are graphics cards now
going to output the audio too?

D

Some already do.

NO One wrote:

[snip Sunday Times article]

It's not too difficult, though the most important acronym didn't even
appear in the report!

HDCP protected content can only be displayed on HDCP enabled TVs.

HDCP protected content can be sent down DVI or HDMI.

You can connect DVIHDMI or HDMIDVI with a suitable cable.

Some TVs don't seem to work properly, even when connected properly.
These are faulty, and should be returned.

Even quite recent HDTVs don't have HDCP. Old HDTVs don't have HDMI.
Very old HDTVs (plenty of them in the USA) don't even have DVI - just
analogue component inputs and VGA!


SkyHD STBs include analogue component (YPrPb) HD outputs. Whether
pictures from these look worse (or better!) than digital (HDMI, DVI)
connections depends on your TV. If they look _significantly_ worse then
they're probably set to output 576p (i.e. SD!) and should be
reconfigured for 720p, 1080i or auto.

SkyHD allow content flagged with HDCP protection to be output via
analogue component in HD.

There is almost certainly a separate flag available which allows the
analogue HD outputs to be disabled (or forced to output SD only) on a
content-specific basis. This flag is not being used by Sky.


It amazes me that people spend thousands of pounds without knowing what
they're buying. It does not surprise me that the people with the money
to spend on these things are those least likely to understand them.
They can hire me for £50 an hour and I'll advise them.

Cheers,
David.

In article . com,
wrote:

They can hire me for £50 an hour and I'll advise them.

You aren't valuing yourself enouh for these people to look at you. £500 an
hour, a decent consultant's fee, would appeal more.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11