Future of Saorview now that Virgin owns TV3 & UTV Ireland

Mickey Mike

Let's hop the ball, Can they give the HD channels out to TV3 and TG4 for the same price? just to kick start it. I think UTVi is as good as gone at this point. And of course as Sam says 720 by 576i for the others, surely its not that difficult.

Gerry Wicklow

What sickens me is the way we are forced to watch low res fuzzy vision while 2RN burn electricity and our money on useless test cards.

Sam Russell

Mickie Mike wrote: »

Let's hop the ball, Can they give the HD channels out to TV3 and TG4 for the same price? just to kick start it. I think UTVi is as good as gone at this point. And of course as Sam says 720 by 576i for the others, surely its not that difficult.

All it would take is a change in specification.

Because TV3 threw their toys out of the pram, Saorview are saddled with a bandwidth basis of charge. If all SD channels were forced to go 720 by 576 i, then all would pay more os less (more) the same proportion of the €12m cost of Saorview, with the exception of RTE who, because they are on HD, would see a slight decrease in their proportion. However, this change would not be huge, but the improvement in PQ would be huge.

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

What sickens me is the way we are forced to watch low res fuzzy vision while 2RN burn electricity and our money on useless test cards.

2RN are not burning any extra electricity, just wasting bandwidth - nor are they wasting any of our money since the full cost of Saorview is recovered from the broadcasters.

If you do not like fuzzy vision, then get onto TV3 and UTVi and complain and complain again. Then get onto Comreg and complain - then complain to BAI and then get onto The Department of Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources (they have changed their name again).

You will then find out what wasting bandwidth is all about.

former total

icdg wrote: »

There's one other thing that needs to be mentioned here.

From the outset, DTT was viewed by the Govenrment as an opportunity to earn some cash. Initially that was through a sale of part or all of the transmission network, when that didn't fly (or wasn't politically palpable), it was through the sale of the multiplex licences.

Saorview was a last resort when all of that failed (including a competition where, in an extraordinary set of circumstances, all three entrants were offered the licence and all three turned it down), and the Government was faced with an EU deadline for DSO. It was the product of circumstances rather than planning, and was never meant to be anything more than a quick and dirty replacement for analogue terrestrial. Even now I'm sure there are some in Govenrment who harbour hopes that they might sell that commercial DTT licence at some point, though it will almost certainly never happen now.

The Government would have been obliged to offer it by tender; the fact that no-one wanted it sort of underlines the point that the commercial viability of DTT in Ireland is extremely low.

Add in the fact that, since that process, Eir and Vodafone are now offering pretty sophisticated TV services, the outlook is even more bleak.

Cliff Walker

No need to worry about the future of saorview, sure isn't irish tv coming to it soon :-)

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

All it would take is a change in specification.

Because TV3 threw their toys out of the pram, Saorview are saddled with a bandwidth basis of charge. If all SD channels were forced to go 720 by 576 i, then all would pay more os less (more) the same proportion of the €12m cost of Saorview, with the exception of RTE who, because they are on HD, would see a slight decrease in their proportion. However, this change would not be huge, but the improvement in PQ would be huge.



2RN are not burning any extra electricity, just wasting bandwidth - nor are they wasting any of our money since the full cost of Saorview is recovered from the broadcasters.

If you do not like fuzzy vision, then get onto TV3 and UTVi and complain and complain again. Then get onto Comreg and complain - then complain to BAI and then get onto The Department of Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources (they have changed their name again).

You will then find out what wasting bandwidth is all about.

I disagree with your point about no electricity being burned. If it costs x to transmit a 24Mbps multiplex, and only 18Mbps is being used to actual services, then x/4 of the total cost is being spent on transmitting test cards, seeing as that is how the TV companies are actually charged.

If they are transmitting a 24Mbps multiplex, all 24Mbps should be used, no question. Don't forget that RTE One was 544x576 when it was in SD, RTE Two was 704x576 (before November 2010 when it went 1080i, although pre-launch there was a 2nd RTE Two stream with a resolution of 480x576 @ 1.5Mbps CBR. During sport it was quite a mess of blocks).

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I disagree with your point about no electricity being burned. If it costs x to transmit a 24Mbps multiplex, and only 18Mbps is being used to actual services, then x/4 of the total cost is being spent on transmitting test cards, seeing as that is how the TV companies are actually charged.

If they are transmitting a 24Mbps multiplex, all 24Mbps should be used, no question. Don't forget that RTE One was 544x576 when it was in SD, RTE Two was 704x576 (before November 2010 when it went 1080i, although pre-launch there was a 2nd RTE Two stream with a resolution of 480x576 @ 1.5Mbps CBR. During sport it was quite a mess of blocks).

You are not correct.

All 24 mb/s have to be transmitted, whether they are programme, test cards or zeros. You cannot do anything but broadcast the full mux - that is the way it works. We either have one mux or two, not one point five.

It is like running a bus service - if all the seats are taken, then you get all the fares, but if only 60% of the seats are taken, then you only get 60% of the fares. But if the passengers must buy a season ticket and the cost is divided equally between those paying passengers (irrespective of the number of passengers) - if only 60% of seats are sold, then each season ticket costs 1.66 times the amount if all the seats were filled by paying passengers.

But here is the trick - if the bus costs €100 to run, the amount collected by the driver is €100 anyway however many tickets are sold.

So if Saorview (which is guaranteed €12 m/y for two muxes) allowed only HD services for 8 channels, then each HD channel would cost €1.5 m per channel and not the oft quoted €2.5 m per HD channel.

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are not correct.

All 24 mb/s have to be transmitted, whether they are programme, test cards or zeros. You cannot do anything but broadcast the full mux - that is the way it works. We either have one mux or two, not one point five.

It is like running a bus service - if all the seats are taken, then you get all the fares, but if only 60% of the seats are taken, then you only get 60% of the fares. But if the passengers must buy a season ticket and the cost is divided equally between those paying passengers (irrespective of the number of passengers) - if only 60% of seats are sold, then each season ticket costs 1.66 times the amount if all the seats were filled by paying passengers.

But here is the trick - if the bus costs €100 to run, the amount collected by the driver is €100 anyway however many tickets are sold.

So if Saorview (which is guaranteed €12 m/y for two muxes) allowed only HD services for 8 channels, then each HD channel would cost €1.5 m per channel and not the oft quoted €2.5 m per HD channel.

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

I don't think we are operating on the same lines here. I understand how the multiplex operates.

Re your bus analogy. If the bus driver had 60% of the bus occupied and the patrons were squashed into their seats, and the driver knew there would be no one boarding the bus for quite some time, would it not make more sense for the driver to let the existing passengers utilise the other 40% of the seats and spread around rather than being squashed into the previous 60%?

Also, myself and the other poster are just expressing disappointment at the fact that there are 24Mbps available and go out no matter what, yet the quality of TV3, TG4 and UTV Ireland is severely restricted in favour of these test cards. Would the stat muxer not fill the mux with the existing channels if the testcard streams were killed?

STB.

icdg wrote: »

There's one other thing that needs to be mentioned here.

From the outset, DTT was viewed by the Govenrment as an opportunity to earn some cash. Initially that was through a sale of part or all of the transmission network, when that didn't fly (or wasn't politically palpable), it was through the sale of the multiplex licences.

Saorview was a last resort when all of that failed (including a competition where, in an extraordinary set of circumstances, all three entrants were offered the licence and all three turned it down), and the Government was faced with an EU deadline for DSO. It was the product of circumstances rather than planning, and was never meant to be anything more than a quick and dirty replacement for analogue terrestrial. Even now I'm sure there are some in Govenrment who harbour hopes that they might sell that commercial DTT licence at some point, though it will almost certainly never happen now.

I don't think the government ever thought it was going to be a money spinner. Even in 2007 the attractability and viability of commercial muxes was well known. Yet they went through the motions and wasted a lot of time.

The viability of commercial TV on terrestrial was killed by cable TV a long time ago. The costs were too much with little hope of convincing people to adopt it.

Yes ASO forced the hand as regards the PSBs finding a new terrestrial home.

Yet the government contributed in no way to the €60million it cost to replace the analogue network, an EU requirement. RTE had to do it with their existing commercial and licence fee income.

RTE now have a situation where their own services are HD in the main, but the other broadcasters don't want to know about anything that is not a basic requirement that fulfills their FTA status. If that involves them broadcasting on the platform in the second lowest resolution possible, they will and they will challenge any move to make them use anymore of the Stat Mux than they need to. It will cost them more.

The platform is therefore doomed to being stagnant until technology moves on again and SD is phased out, which will be a long time coming.

Meanwhile the subscription companies are laughing.

marno21

Funny thing is back in 2006 I could receive 9 channels here through my aerial. Now everything is digital and I receive the same amount of channels.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I don't think we are operating on the same lines here. I understand how the multiplex operates.

Re your bus analogy. If the bus driver had 60% of the bus occupied and the patrons were squashed into their seats, and the driver knew there would be no one boarding the bus for quite some time, would it not make more sense for the driver to let the existing passengers utilise the other 40% of the seats and spread around rather than being squashed into the previous 60%?

The driver is restricted by his inspector (Mr Comreg) who makes sure anyone not sitting squashed up must bay extra for using the empty seats. It is Mr Comreg who is responsible for this method of charging - not the bus driver.

Also, myself and the other poster are just expressing disappointment at the fact that there are 24Mbps available and go out no matter what, yet the quality of TV3, TG4 and UTV Ireland is severely restricted in favour of these test cards. Would the stat muxer not fill the mux with the existing channels if the testcard streams were killed?

Do you think I am not frustrated by the continuous bungling, incompetence, and downright stupidity being shown by the actors in this farce. RTE, 2RN, Comreg, BAI, and the DCENR. I have tried getting answers and all I get is a reference to one or other of the clowns named above - all on safe state funded lifestyles, waiting to receive golden handshakes and then index linked pensions.

Why have they 'fixed' the Saorview signal to make 'non-approved' sets near impossible to use?
Why have Saorview killed series link on non-approved sets?
Why are there 38 blank channel headers in the Saorview signal that do nothing but confuse non-approved sets
Why do they place data channels in the first position on both muxes, just to confuse non-approved sets?

They are not stupid - just malicious. It cannot be for commercial reasons because they have no commercial interest in the approval service.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

Saorview platform utilises stat muxes. This is where you are getting confused.

If the government redefined the basic SD resolution acceptable on the platform, the first to kick up would be the commercial broadcasters as usage of the mux defines the cost. The resolution used directly effects the bit rate and therefore usage.

There also would be no incentive to move to HD, not that the commercial companies want one.

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

Saorview platform utilises stat muxes. This is where you are getting confused.

If the government redefined the basic SD resolution acceptable on the platform, the first to kick up would be the commercial broadcasters as usage of the mux defines the cost. The resolution used directly effects the bit rate and therefore usage.

There also would be no incentive to move to HD, not that the commercial companies want one.

Assuming that there is sufficient capacity, going from 544 to 720 horizontal resolution would increase bandwidth by 32% (well not exactly) but if everyone did this, then the share of bandwidth used remains the same for everyone. Since costs are shared, then charges remain more or less the same.

It has nothing to do with stat muxes. There is about 40% spare capacity on the two muxes which is why 2RN fill it with HD and SD test cards. Stat muxes allow more efficient use of bandwidth but where capacity is so underused, it is irrelevant.

When we run out of capacity on two muxes, we go to three muxes.

former total

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you think I am not frustrated by the continuous bungling, incompetence, and downright stupidity being shown by the actors in this farce. RTE, 2RN, Comreg, BAI, and the DCENR. I have tried getting answers and all I get is a reference to one or other of the clowns named above - all on safe state funded lifestyles, waiting to receive golden handshakes and then index linked pensions.

They are not stupid - just malicious. It cannot be for commercial reasons because they have no commercial interest in the approval service.

Jesus man, time for some perspective. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental problems with Saorview, and posting this sort of mental stuff just makes any legitimate concerns you have totally invalid.

As for your repeated suggestion about upping the picture quality. The commercial broadcasters won't want to do it as it involves higher cost. It has to. They don't want to commit another cent more than they have to.

And would it make any difference to uptake of Saorview? No. The problem with Saorview is limited (and rubbish) content. A clearer picture doesn't change that. There is no one out there saying, "jaysus, I wish I could watch Expose and Bondi rescue in 720p". Polishing a turd still leaves you with a turd.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

Jesus man, time for some perspective. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental problems with Saorview, and posting this sort of mental stuff just makes any legitimate concerns you have totally invalid.

As for your repeated suggestion about upping the picture quality. The commercial broadcasters won't want to do it as it involves higher cost. It has to. They don't want to commit another cent more than they have to.

And would it make any difference to uptake of Saorview? No. The problem with Saorview is limited (and rubbish) content. A clearer picture doesn't change that. There is no one out there saying, "jaysus, I wish I could watch Expose and Bondi rescue in 720p". Polishing a turd still leaves you with a turd.

The content on Saorview is for another forum. If commercial station broadcast rubbish, then that is up to them and their prospective advertisers. The low number of channels on Saorview is simply because of the massive overspill of UK channels that are easily received FTA and by pay TV platforms.

This forum is about technical performance.

TG4 and TV3 both provide an HD version of their channels and therefore it would not cost them anything to use the HD feed to get the 720 by 576 i feed for encoding by RTE.

It would certainly help TV3 if their output was at a higher resolution when the same programme content is available FTA in HD on satellite or Freeview. Sport benefits more than any other content by being in HD.

Saorview is a state provided broadcasting platform and it is not going to be abandoned for many years to come - certainly not in the next 20 years. We are still broadcasting on Long wave (soon to be abandoned) but FM looks sound for the moment while DAB is still testing - and is not nationwide yet.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Assuming that there is sufficient capacity, going from 544 to 720 horizontal resolution would increase bandwidth by 32% (well not exactly) but if everyone did this, then the share of bandwidth used remains the same for everyone. Since costs are shared, then charges remain more or less the same.

It has nothing to do with stat muxes. There is about 40% spare capacity on the two muxes which is why 2RN fill it with HD and SD test cards. Stat muxes allow more efficient use of bandwidth but where capacity is so underused, it is irrelevant.

When we run out of capacity on two muxes, we go to three muxes.

Sam with all due respect, if the "spare" capacity is used by the broadcasters, then they must pay more.

You need to read the tarrif calculation principles in this document.

Particularly

RTE Tarrif Doc wrote:

TARIFF CALCULATION PRINCIPLES
2.1
Calculation Basis
The Tariff charged to each Client is calculated so that the full costs from the Service Provider are recovered (including a return) on a non -discriminatory basis from all users of the DTT Multiplexing, Distribution and Transmission Broadcast Service in accordance with the requirements of ComReg Decision D11/13. Tariffs are derived from the Tariff Model constructed on the basis of assumptions as regards, without limitation, the overall costs of the Service Provider and/or the number, types and total average bit rate consumption per year of the Content Transport Streams. Using the Tariff Model, the calculation of the Tariff charged to a Client is based on:

Wholesale Access Reference Offer Appendix B April 2015
(i)the relative consumption of the multiplexes’ bitrate by a Client's Content Transport Stream(s) (as compared to the Total Content Transport Stream(s));
(ii) a cost per kbps, derived from the actual and estimated number and type of Content Transport Streams using the multiplexes during the Term; and
(iii) The smoothing of the Tariff over a five year period from 1st April 2014 to 31 st March 2019

If you up the resolution you must up the bit rate as a result. The SD broadcasters have no interest as a result.

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

Sam with all due respect, if the "spare" capacity is used by the broadcasters, then they must pay more.

You need to read the tarrif calculation principles in this document.

Particularly



If you up the resolution you must up the bit rate as a result. The SD broadcasters have no interest as a result.

You are missing my point. I have read the tariff.

If ALL users up their bit rate by the same proportion, then the cost per user remains the same as the total to be paid to 2RN remains constant at €12m for two muxes. You are talking about a single user changing their profile - that does not apply if all the users change by the same amount.

In analogue days, channels paid the same for each channel - there was no resolution sharing. In digital times, a mux can carry 24 MB/s which can carry more than one channel and if channels can get by on 2 mb/s, then they will pay less than a channel using 6 mb/s.

Say we have four channels on SD fuzzy vision @ 2 mb/s, and so using 8 mb/s of the 24 mb/s on the mux. All other bits are burnt off. They are liable for €6m /y between them. Upping the minimum resolution means that all the 2 mb/s fuzzy channels move up to 3 mb/s, but because they all move up their share of the cost remain the same, because they are now using 12 mb/s but it is still 100% of the used bit rate. So they still pay €6m between them.

It would be different if 2RN had to pay for unused capacity but they do not.

Now the actual way it works is a little more complex but the basics is the same. If everyone goes from 544 by 768 to 720 by 576 - then, as they do not move to three muxes - the total bill remains the same and the share of costs remains more or less the same.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are missing my point. I have read the tariff.

It would be different if 2RN had to pay for unused capacity but they do not.

Now the actual way it works is a little more complex but the basics is the same. If everyone goes from 544 by 768 to 720 by 576 - then, as they do not move to three muxes - the total bill remains the same and the share of costs remains more or less the same.

No Sam, that is not how it works.

If RTE uses 8-10 Megs on the mux then it is charged accordingly for its % mux usage.

the relative consumption of the multiplexes’ bitrate by a Client's Content Transport Stream(s) (as compared to the Total Content Transport Stream(s))

If TV3 use 2.5 megs for TV3's channel at a low bit rate they are charged for that. If they use 4 megs as a result of a higher bit rate required to output the resolution you are suggesting, then it will mean their percentage of mux usage increases.

You have said it in your own sentence 2rn does not have to pay for unused capacity.

You only pay for the bitrate you use, compared with all users of the mux. RTE's is not going to change its Bit rate for the HD channel they have on each Mux. So why would SD channels want to pay anymore ? Its that simple.

former total

His point seems to be that if everyone ups their bit rate by the same amount, the relative percentages of traffic stay the same so costs would not change.

Which is incorrect.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

His point seems to be that if everyone ups their bit rate by the same amount, the relative percentages of traffic stay the same so costs would not change.

Which is incorrect.

Would you explain why it is incorrect?

former total

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would you explain why it is incorrect?

If RTE are broadcasting in 1440 and TV3 go up to 720, then TV3's relative share of traffic increases and RTE's decreases.

Also, if costs are calculated on a per kbps basis, then that cost also goes up with increasing data rates.

So TV3 end up paying more.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

If RTE are broadcasting in 1440 and TV3 go up to 720, then TV3's relative share of traffic increases and RTE's decreases.

Also, if costs are calculated on a per kbps basis, then that cost also goes up with increasing data rates.

So TV3 end up paying more.

The two muxes have from RTE: RTE 1 HD, RTE 2 HD, RTE NN SD, RTE Jr SD.

They also have TV3 SD, TG4 SD, 3E SD. plus radio channels, and data channels.

Let us assume 1 HD = 2 SD channels at current resolutions, and ignore the radio etc. stuff.

So currently we have the equivalent of 9 SD channels.

Now if we up the resolution of the SD channels to 720 by 576 i, their bandwidth increases by about 30%. So we now have the eqivalent of 10.5 SD channels. So bandwidth usage has increased by 16.5% overall. So if the cost before for an SD channel was €12 million/9 or €1.33m. With the increased bandwidth, it will be calculated as follows: each SD channel will cost €12m/10.5 times 1.3 = €1.48 m. That is an increase of 15%.

Now I have made a number of assumptions to make the sums easier but the general point is correct. If all SD channels increase bandwidth by 30%, the overall charge for each SD channel only increases by 15%. That has to be a bargain.

If RTE also improved the HD resolution from 1440 by 1024 to 1920 by 1024, that would represent an increase of bandwidth of similar proportion (30%) and the bills would all remain much the same as now. Now as the resolution increases, band width does not increase in proportion, but I have assumed it does.

We would still not exceed the two muxes.

former total

Sam Russell wrote: »

The two muxes have from RTE: RTE 1 HD, RTE 2 HD, RTE NN SD, RTE Jr SD.

They also have TV3 SD, TG4 SD, 3E SD. plus radio channels, and data channels.

Let us assume 1 HD = 2 SD channels at current resolutions, and ignore the radio etc. stuff.

So currently we have the equivalent of 9 SD channels.

Now if we up the resolution of the SD channels to 720 by 576 i, their bandwidth increases by about 30%. So we now have the eqivalent of 10.5 SD channels. So bandwidth usage has increased by 16.5% overall. So if the cost before for an SD channel was €12 million/9 or €1.33m. With the increased bandwidth, it will be calculated as follows: each SD channel will cost €12m/10.5 times 1.3 = €1.48 m. That is an increase of 15%.

Now I have made a number of assumptions to make the sums easier but the general point is correct. If all SD channels increase bandwidth by 30%, the overall charge for each SD channel only increases by 15%. That has to be a bargain.

If RTE also improved the HD resolution from 1440 by 1024 to 1920 by 1024, that would represent an increase of bandwidth of similar proportion (30%) and the bills would all remain much the same as now. Now as the resolution increases, band width does not increase in proportion, but I have assumed it does.

We would still not exceed the two muxes.

Even if all your assumptions are correct (and I'm pretty skeptical), your conclusion is that costs to the private broadcasters rise by 15%. They won't pay that, not a hope in hell.

gordongekko

With the introduction of the new Saorview Connect box is it possible that there may be a option of a mux being reserved for pay tv?

The Cush

gordongekko wrote: »

With the introduction of the new Saorview Connect box is it possible that there may be a option of a mux being reserved for pay tv?

That would require Conditional Access to be incorporated in the new receivers, even though we haven't seen the receiver specs yet it seems unlikely to be included.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

Even if all your assumptions are correct (and I'm pretty skeptical), your conclusion is that costs to the private broadcasters rise by 15%. They won't pay that, not a hope in hell.

Do you know if they have been asked to pay 15% more for 30% more bandwidth? Did they refuse?

No, it is not so that they will have to pay more because if RTE also increase their resolution on HD to 1920 by 1024, there would be no increase. The point I am making is that the current charge regime is farcical as it causes unused bandwidth to be wasted. Let us all get the benefit with better PQ.

It is like the EU fisheries policy that required bycatch to be discarded (in other words dumped) but that is being revised such the the bycatch will not be dumped but the fisherman will not be rewarded for catching it.

Comreg and BAI need to sort this scandal out.

former total

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you know if they have been asked to pay 15% more for 30% more bandwidth? Did they refuse?

I don't know.

I do know that TV3 had to be brought to court over the existing fee structure.

And you think they'll voluntarily pay more?

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you know if they have been asked to pay 15% more for 30% more bandwidth? Did they refuse?

No, it is not so that they will have to pay more because if RTE also increase their resolution on HD to 1920 by 1024, there would be no increase. The point I am making is that the current charge regime is farcical as it causes unused bandwidth to be wasted. Let us all get the benefit with better PQ.

It is like the EU fisheries policy that required bycatch to be discarded (in other words dumped) but that is being revised such the the bycatch will not be dumped but the fisherman will not be rewarded for catching it.

Comreg and BAI need to sort this scandal out.

Why would RTE do that ? There is nothing wrong with their picture quality.

It was you who keeps bringing up this issue of the quality of the SD stations. The reason the SD stations don't want to up the quality is that it would cost them more. The other stations are not concerned with anything more than the hat tip to satisfy their licenced FTA status, otherwise they would be in HD like they are on the other platforms. They are not interested in paying more, even for the perceived bargain prices you have calculated. Those calculations are erroneous as you are bringing RTE's HD channels into the picture which is not an issue. The RTE HD channels only highlight the PQ difference.

You need to get this unused bandwidth out of your head. Its distorting your view as to what the real issues are. Yes the quality of the SD stations is deplorable. The only way to fix that is for the regulator to set minimum standards, but they are not going to do that, as it would be challenged by the licenced broadcasters who would quote the Saorview spec.

Mickey Mike

I wonder are Comreg and the BAI reading this thread and taking notes? Surely to God above they must. I only have a simple input here as I'm not educated enough, having that construed thing said. Lets see some changes as we enter the autumn and hopefully an improvement in picture quality on all channels. If its not to be, then its down right MEANNESS and SELFISHNESS on those people that can make it happen.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us assume 1 HD = 2 SD channels at current resolutions, and ignore the radio etc. stuff.

Lets not. The Bit Rates being used on the stat muxes. A picture paints a thousand words.

MUX 1



MUX 2


Source: http://en.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php