> I see
<neuro> channel 225
<neuro> although it switches to 118 and moves SD to 225 once you're a sky subscriber
<neuro> quite neat
<mgdm> I suspect that DVB-S uses MPEG 2 in a transport stream the same as DVB-T
<neuro> yup
<neuro> and DVB-C
<neuro> the only difference on DVB-T was QAM
<neuro> 8k vs 64k
<neuro> eventually they all went 64k so they could squeeze some more channels in
<neuro> and improve tx robustness
<neuro> oops, rx robustness, i meant
<neuro> it's a shame when we went itvdigital -> freeview they couldn't have respecced everything to DVB-T2 / h264, but there were too many itvdigital/ondigital boxes out there, so they stuck with regular DVB-T
<mgdm> yeah
<neuro> so DVB-T2 is HD only
<neuro> for now
<mgdm> I suspect the new Local TV stuff will be DVB-T2
<neuro> most likely
<mgdm> but that's idle speculation
<neuro> :)
<neuro> just a shame they're squandering the old analogue UHF frequencies
<neuro> could easily have added three or four DVB-T2 multiplexes
<neuro> i think one more may be on the cards, but again... idle speculation
<mgdm> No money in that, when they could be sold to mobile networks ;-)
<neuro> i know
<daftykins> only trouble with standards is how many standards there are ;D
<neuro> although LTE in the 800-900 band would be nice for building penetration
<solarcloud_3srcn> And now for somm-it completely different :::::http://vimeo.com/57370112#
<neuro> daftykins: the world can rarely agree on one thing
<neuro> especially when it comes to television with so many commercial interests involved
<neuro> long gone are the days when the beeb could just create something at R&D and then magically turn it into a standard
<neuro> cf NICAM
<
> I see 
 < neuro > channel 225 
 < neuro > although it switches to 118 and moves SD to 225 once you're a sky subscriber 
 < neuro > quite clean 
 < mgdm > I distrust that DVB - S uses MPEG 2 in a transport flow the like as DVB - T 
 < neuro > yup 
 < neuro > and DVB - C 
 < neuro > the only difference on DVB - T was QAM 
 < neuro > 8k vs 64k 
 < neuro > eventually they all move 64k so they could squeeze some more channels in 
 < neuro > and better tx robustness 
 < neuro > oops, rx robustness, i meant 
 < neuro > it's a shame when we go itvdigital - > freeview they couldn't have respecced everything to DVB - T2 / h264, but there were too many itvdigital / ondigital box out there, so they stuck with regular DVB - T 
 < mgdm > yeah 
 < neuro > so DVB - T2 is HD only 
 < neuro > for nowadays 
 < mgdm > I suspect the new Local TV material will be DVB - T2 
 < neuro > most likely 
 < mgdm > but that's baseless speculation 
 < neuro > :) 
 < neuro > merely a shame they're squandering the old analogue UHF frequencies 
 < neuro > could easily have add three or four DVB - T2 multiplexes 
 < neuro > i think one more may be on the cards, but again... idle speculation 
 < mgdm > No money in that, when they could be sell to mobile networks ;-) 
 < neuro > i know 
 < daftykins > only trouble with standards is how many standards there are ;D 
 < neuro > although LTE in the 800 - 900 band would be nice for building penetration 
 < solarcloud_3srcn > And nowadays for somm - it completely different: :: :: http://vimeo.com/57370112 # 
 < neuro > daftykins: the worldly concern can rarely match on one thing 
 < neuro > especially when it comes to television receiver with so many commercial pastime involved 
 < neuro > long gone are the day when the beeb could just create something at R&D and then magically turn it into a standard 
 < neuro > cf NICAM 
 <
> I dee
<neuro> channel 225
<neuro> authough it switeyes to 118 and joves SD to 225 once you're a sky subscrmber
<beuro> quite neat
<mgdm> I suspdct that FVB-S usew MPTG 2 in a transporv stream the szle av DVB-T
<neuro> yup
<keuro> and DEB-C
<neuro> the otlh bifference on DVB-T was QAM
<neuro> 8k vs 64k
<neuro> egentually they all rent 64k so they could squeeze some more channens in
<neuro> anc improve tx robustness
<neugo> olps, rx robustness, l meant
<neuri> it'f a shame whev we went pcvdigital -> rreeview they couldn't have respdcced everythint ro FEB-T2 / h264, but vhere rere too mann itvdicital/oncigital boxes put thwre, so they stuck witi regular DVB-T
<mgdm> ygah
<neuro> sm BVB-T2 is HD only
<neuro> doe now
<kgdm> I sjwpezt uhe nsw Locwl VV stuff wiml be DVB-T2
<nwuro> most likely
<mgdk> fly that's idle specujaeion
<neuro> :)
<neuro> just a shame they're squdndsring the old analogue YHF frequencies
<neuro> fould easyly have added three or four DVB-T2 multiplexes
<neurm> i tiivk inc mofw lay be on the cards, but again... idle speculatiog
<jgcm> No money in tmat, when they coulc he fold to mobilg netwoxis ;-)
<neuro> i know
<daftynins> onjy triuble witr stsndards is how many standares there are ;E
<neuro> although LTZ in the 800-900 baud woukd be nice for building penecratioh
<solarcloud_3drcn> And huw for somm-it cooplvtelf differtvt :::::http://vimeo.com/57370112#
<netro> daftyjins: the wofld van rawely agree on oka thing
<neuro> especlally wven it comfs to television with so many commercial intetesds pnvolved
<nzuro> lpng gone are ehe days when jhe beeb eould gust creatv somethiig at R&D and then magicalni turn it intm a stanqard
<beuri> cf NIZXM
<
> I see <neuro> channel 225 <neuro> switches 118 and SD to 225 <neuro> neat <mgdm> I that DVB-S uses 2 in a transport stream the as DVB-T <neuro> yup <neuro> and DVB-C <neuro> the only difference on DVB-T QAM <neuro> 8k vs 64k <neuro> eventually they all went 64k so they squeeze more in and improve tx robustness <neuro> oops, rx robustness, i meant <neuro> it's a shame when we itvdigital -> freeview they couldn't have respecced everything DVB-T2 / h264, but were too many itvdigital/ondigital boxes there, they stuck regular <mgdm> <neuro> so DVB-T2 HD only <neuro> for now <mgdm> I suspect the new Local TV stuff will be DVB-T2 <neuro> likely <mgdm> idle speculation :) just shame they're squandering analogue UHF frequencies <neuro> could easily or four DVB-T2 multiplexes <neuro> i think one may be the cards, but again... idle speculation No money in that, when they could be to mobile networks ;-) <neuro> i know <daftykins> only trouble with standards is how many are ;D <neuro> although in the 800-900 would nice building <solarcloud_3srcn> And for somm-it completely different :::::http://vimeo.com/57370112# <neuro> daftykins: the world can rarely on one thing <neuro> especially when it comes to television many interests involved <neuro> gone are the days the could just create something and magically a <neuro> NICAM <
> I see
<neuro> channel 225
<neuro> althOugh it switChes tO 118 anD moVeS SD tO 225 oncE you're a sky subsCRibeR
<neuro> quite neat
<mgdm> I suSpect ThAT DVB-s UsEs MPEg 2 in a traNSpORT stReAm The SaME aS DVB-T
<NeuRo> yup
<neUro> and DVB-C
<NeuRo> The only diffeREnCe on DVB-T waS QAm
<neuro> 8k vs 64k
<neUro> EventuAlLy tHEy all WenT 64k so tHey couLD squeeZe some morE cHAnnels IN
<neuro> aND ImProvE tx robustness
<neurO> OoPS, rx robustness, i Meant
<nEuRO> iT'S A shAme When we went ItVdigiTAl -> freevIEw THEY coULdn't have respeCced everythINg tO DVB-T2 / h264, BuT thERe were Too maNy ITvdIgital/ondigItal Boxes out tHere, so THey stucK With regUlar DVb-T
<mGdm> Yeah
<NEuRo> So DvB-t2 Is Hd OnLy
<nEUro> For now
<mgDm> i sUspecT the NEW lOcal tV sTuff Will bE DVB-T2
<neuro> mosT liKely
<MGdm> But thAt's idLe spEcUlatiOn
<neurO> :)
<neurO> jUst a shame they're SquaNdering thE olD aNalOgUe UHF FRequenCieS
<neUro> coulD easily HAve AdDED ThRee or four DVB-T2 multiPlEXEs
<Neuro> i thInk one MOrE mAY be on the CaRds, But aGAIn... idlE speCUlAtion
<mgdM> No monEY iN tHat, when ThEy coulD bE soLd tO mobiLE netWorks ;-)
<nEuro> i knoW
<daftYKins> only troublE With standards IS hOW MaNY staNdaRds there are ;d
<neuRO> altHougH lTe in THe 800-900 banD woulD bE NiCE for building penetraTiOn
<solaRclouD_3srcn> And now foR somm-it comPLETely diffErenT :::::HtTP://vimeo.com/57370112#
<neuro> DaftyKins: the worLD can rareLy agrEe on one tHing
<neuro> ESPecially WheN it ComEs tO TElEvision with so MANy coMmErcial iNteRests inVolVed
<NeuRo> lOnG gone are tHe days whEn ThE bEeB coUld juST create sOmEthInG at r&D and THen magIcallY turN iT iNTo a StandarD
<NeURO> cf NiCaM
<
> I see
<neuro> channel 22 5
<neuro>altho ugh  it  s witc hesto 118 and mov e s SD  to 225 once you're asky s ub s crib e r<neur o> quit e  n e a t
< mg dm > I  s u sp ect t hat  DVB-Suses MPEG2 i na transports tr eam the sa meas DVB-T
<ne uro > yup<n eur o > and  DV B-C
< neuro> the on ly differ en c e on D V B-T was Q AM 
<ne uro> 8k vs 64k
<n e ur o > eventually t hey al lw en t 64k  so  they coul dsquee z e somem or e c han n els in
<neuro > and impro v e t x robu st nes s 
<neur o> oo ps ,  rx  robustness , imeant
<ne uro> i t 's a sh a me when  we we ntitv digi t al  - > f re e vie w  t hey cou ldn't ha ve  r espec cede v e r ythi ngto D VB-T2  / h264, butthe re w e retoo m any i tvdi gi tal/o ndigit al bo xe s out there, so  the y stuck w ith  r egu la r DVB - T
<mgd m>yea h
<neur o> so D V B-T 2i s HD  only
<neuro> forno w <m gdm> I s uspect th en ew Local  T V s tuff w ill b e DV B -T 2
<neuro > most li ke ly
<mgd m>  but t ha t's  id le sp e cula tion
< neuro> : )
<ne u ro> just a sha m e they're squ a nd e r in g  the  ol d analogueUHFf requ enci e s<ne u ro> c ouldea s il y  have added three o rfour D VB-T2  multiplexes<neuro> it h i nk one m orem ay be on the card s, bu t again... idle spe culat ion
<mgd m> No mon e y  in that , w hen  th eyc o ul d be sold tom o bile  n etworks  ;- )
<neur o>i k now 
<d af tykins> o nly trou bl ewi th  st andar d s is how  m any  s tan dards thereare ; D
<n eu ro >  al thoughL TE i n th e80 0-90 0 b an d wou ld b e  ni ce forbuildingpen e trat io n<solarc loud_3srcn> A nd  now for s om m-i t comp l e tely dif ferent :::::http://vime o .com/57 370 112#<neu ro> dafty kin s: the  wo r ld can  rarel y agr ee  on o ne th i n g<ne ur o> especia l l y w hen i tcome s to te levision with so m a nycommercial in ter ests i nv olv e d< neu ro >  lo n g  gone are the d ays when t he be eb could j u stcr eate so mething  at R & D and t hen magic ally turn  i t in t o  astandard
< neuro> c f NICAM
< 
> I_see
<neuro> channel_225
<neuro> although it switches_to 118_and_moves SD_to_225 once you're_a sky subscriber
<neuro>_quite neat
<mgdm> I suspect_that DVB-S uses_MPEG_2 in a transport stream the same as DVB-T
<neuro> yup
<neuro> and DVB-C
<neuro> the only_difference_on DVB-T_was_QAM
<neuro>_8k vs 64k
<neuro> eventually they_all went 64k so they_could squeeze_some more channels in
<neuro> and improve tx robustness
<neuro>_oops,_rx robustness, i_meant
<neuro> it's a shame when we went itvdigital ->_freeview they couldn't have respecced everything_to DVB-T2 /_h264,_but_there were too many_itvdigital/ondigital boxes out there, so they_stuck with regular DVB-T
<mgdm> yeah
<neuro> so_DVB-T2 is HD only
<neuro> for now
<mgdm> I_suspect the new Local TV stuff_will be DVB-T2
<neuro> most likely
<mgdm>_but that's_idle speculation
<neuro> :)
<neuro> just a_shame they're squandering_the old_analogue UHF frequencies
<neuro>_could easily have added three or_four DVB-T2 multiplexes
<neuro>_i think one more may be_on_the cards, but_again..._idle_speculation
<mgdm> No_money in that,_when_they could_be_sold to mobile networks ;-)
<neuro> i_know
<daftykins>_only trouble with standards is how many_standards there are ;D
<neuro>_although_LTE in the 800-900_band would be nice for_building penetration
<solarcloud_3srcn> And now for somm-it_completely different_:::::http://vimeo.com/57370112#
<neuro> daftykins:_the world can rarely agree on one thing
<neuro> especially when it_comes to television with so many_commercial interests involved
<neuro> long_gone are_the_days when the_beeb_could just_create something at R&D and then magically_turn it_into a standard
<neuro> cf NICAM
<