All posts by Briantist
Below are all of Briantist's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
mel/MikeB: There is talk (and there is always talk like this) of a "fully converged" system for 5G mobile.
The idea is that you can have one set of protocols and use it to deliver both IP-type services and also one-to-many broadcast services using the same transmitters.
The only problem with this wonderful idea is that people's TV aerials ALL point the wrong way!
Yesterday they said they might do this... from 2030.
| link to this comment |
mel: Here's a background article I wrote about the different types of network. From Baird to Persistent Peer-to-Peer networks | Watch TV online | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice
| link to this comment |
LindaB: Just looking at the situation from the 4G point-of-view, they might argue that you are never going to get fast rural broadband without the UHF frequency allocations. 4G can easily deliver high speeds: I've just tested it now and we got 26Mbps down and 13Mbps up, which is at least four times what the BT ADSL2 service is providing.
If you watch "linear" IPTV channels on boxes like BT YouView then just look just the same as Freeview ones.
If there ever was a move to moving channels to IP distribution then the equipment would make it as easy to use as a Freeview box.
I also suspect that any deal to take Freeview from the public would mean that everyone got access to the 4G network for free, at least for watching the TV.
| link to this comment |
Annie, to back up what jb38 says, I know it's a lot of money, but I have a Humax HDR1010 and it is the best bit of electronic equipment I have ever bought.
It's £249 from Humax FREESAT-HDR1010 White | freesat+ G2 Box 1TB Hard Drive PVR | Richer Sounds .
| link to this comment |
John purkis: A simple answer with a complex answer. Let me go and crab a coffee.
| link to this comment |
John purkis: Here goes.
Let me start with a tiny bit of pedantic: the word is codec (not codex) which is a contraction of coder-decoder.
The answer to your question about it being hardware or software is more complex.
Strictly speaking the codec is software. Any new codec development is always done first in software. This is how it is developed and tested, but the implementation is somewhat more complicated.
The name of "coder, decoder" is split into two parts because there are going to be two bits of software, when it comes into use., For broadcast TV the coder software will be running in 19 inch rack module, somewhere in a air-conditioned broadcasting play-out suite, and the "decoder" software will need to be somewhere between the aerial and the TV screen in millions of homes.
(if the same software is used online the "coder" software is going to be running on a server in the same room or an identical one "in the cloud" to use modern parlance) and the "decoder" running in the box of a PC, tablet or other mobile device).
What you tend to find is that most consumer electronics solutions (televisions, set-top boxes, PVRs) will have a dedicated "chip" in them to perform the conversion of the coded bitstream back into pictures and audio.
This might seem strange when a the cost general-purpose "CPU" chips is so low. However, the economics of the industry have, up to now, rendered the "hardware" solution to the decoding software the most viable. This parallels the use of GPU chips ("graphics processing unit") in desktop computers and mobile devices: these chips are designed to do very specific computing tasks very quickly and nothing else.
At the "coder" end the software is usually sold to the broadcasters with specific hardware, so rather than a box having a general-purpose operating system, it is configured to be part of a chain of hardware. In this case the "coder" is seen as "firmware".
Going back to your point about the steps: the answer is that this is down to Moore's Law, which states that the cost of a given amount of computing will half every 18 months.
This wonderful law means that (say) a "decoder" that is sitting on a £2,000 bit of development kit will be a £500 business item after 3 years and a £125 high end consumer item after another 3 years and be in the bargain basement for £30 after another 3.
Your final point about "losing picture quality" is also another function of Moore's Law and the use of firmware that I have highlighted above.
The option always stands to provide a trade-off between quality and number of services.
But you can keep the same quality, but reduce the bitrate if you can also:
a) have more "RAM" memory in the coder (easy, just one to change)
b) have more memory in the decoder (hard, fixed on a chip in millions of home);
c) have more raw processing power to look for patterns to match in the coder (easy, just one again);
d) change the raw processing power in the decoder (impossible without new kit in every home)
e) improve the software techniques in the coder (easy if it doesn't require software changes in the decoder)
f) improve the software techniques in the decoder (hard)
g) can increase the number of "difference" frames, reduce the number of "raw" frames (great, but it can take ages to change channel on a TV).
It's easy if you have general purpose hardware (PCs, tablets, phones) to change the decoder software, but actually impossible for domestic receivers.
Sorry if the reply is a bit complicated.
| link to this comment |
LindaB: Thanks for getting back.
You seem to be conflating IP services with "pay" and broadcast with "free". I'm not sure if that would be the case going forward. It certainly might be possible to set up a national free-IP service to replace Freeview at some point in the future: but it doesn't seem very likely to happen before 2025 - at the moment.
To play the 4G arguments again (rather than my own view) then there has to come a point where you can't just allow one "luddite" section of the population to require a disproportionate access to a public good (UHF frequencies).
If there are still people who want to watch linear television by 2025, then they should not be denied such a service, but what you call "inertia" and "modern' ideas" are not good arguments to those wishing progress. We don't allow sheep farmers on motorways: but we still have both lamb to eat and Eddie Stobart.
I would suspect that if you are in an area with poor copper then you're going to be perfect to switch to 4G.
| link to this comment |
Melanie: About UK Free TV | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice ?
| link to this comment |
Wednesday 21 May 2014 11:05PM
MikeB: It's 90% for 6 Multiplexes, 8.5% for 3 multiplexes and 1.5% for no service. Where are the public service (Freeview Light) transmitters? | Digital switchover | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice has the breakdown.