Now Is The Time To Press For Mpeg 4

[alanh]

All,

IFC 8/2007: ACMA seeks comment on the definition of domestic digital television receiver for Channels A and B

Channel B is for mobile reception eg Mobile phones, and will have to use DVB-H

As for channel A it could use the MPEG4 compression standard being used for HD TV in Europe and New Zealand. It is a much more efficient compression system than the current transmission system used in Australia and on SD DVDS; MPEG2. This can mean more than one HD program on a single TV channel or more SD channels. All MPEG4 decoders will decode MPEG2.

This would give the community TV stations the opportunity to go to HD which will not be likely under MPEG2.

The submissions close on 11 April 2007

AlanH :

[Timmy Downawell]

I don't agree, it negates all the progress we've made so far (and only serves to marginalise the community channels). I'd rather we wait until analogue switch off and then shift the HD channels to the newly freed up muxes and use MPEG4 for those.

[yabbal]

IF the government wants to go MPEG4, they should 1st mandate it as part of the australian digital tv standard to allow the number of MPEG4 boxes to grow for a bit before allowing it to be broadcast. Once MPEG4 is broadcast, it should only be used for HD initially - so all the MPEG2 boxes on the maket will continue to operate (though the HD MPEG2 boxes would basically become SD then). SD MPEG4 transmissions should not be allowed for at least 8 years from the date that it becomes part of our digital standard to protect the investment into digital TV already made by current viewers.

Basically I dont feel that using MPEG4 for new services is a good idea at this time.

[matturn]

IF the government wants to go MPEG4, they should 1st mandate it as part of the australian digital tv standard to allow the number of MPEG4 boxes to grow for a bit before allowing it to be broadcast. Once MPEG4 is broadcast, it should only be used for HD initially - so all the MPEG2 boxes on the maket will continue to operate (though the HD MPEG2 boxes would basically become SD then). SD MPEG4 transmissions should not be allowed for at least 8 years from the date that it becomes part of our digital standard to protect the investment into digital TV already made by current viewers.

Basically I dont feel that using MPEG4 for new services is a good idea at this time.

In eight years MPEG4 will be a ridiculous anachronism. Making *new* channels MPEG4 only doesn't destroy any investment. People bought a box to watch the current channels, and they won't lose that. It's almost like saying, "I bought my DTV STB, it doesn't have a built in Foxtel, therefore I was ripped off." There's no functional reason why new DTV STBs can't come with a DVB-C or DVB-S tuner with a CAM for a Newscrypt card. But people accept that they have to put in money for a new box to see the extra channels. Why shouldn't it be the same with free extra channels?

Sure, some people will feel ripped off, but they'll still pay the $100 or so dollars to get the extra channels. Unless they have a PVR, then they'll be more peeved. But they would be similarly so if they took up Foxtel and heard about how much iQ costs.

[Timmy Downawell]

Making *new* channels MPEG4 only doesn't destroy any investment.

Of course it does. Our government made a decision on a standard for digital TV and hundreds of thousands of people bought into it on the promise of multichannels, muticasts and HD. Now you want to change the standard for the second time in six years? How do you think people wouldn't feel ripped off? It's bad enough that people believed that SD multichannelling would be forthcoming, and people who paid the extra for HD boxes would get HD. Now it turns out people with HD can get (potentially) entirely new HD programming via the most recent legislation while those who bought SD are left behind. Now those people, whether they bought HD or SD could be left out by yet another change? That's crazy.

No, let the status quo remain until analogue switchoff and then make a choice.

[matturn]

Of course it does. Our government made a decision on a standard for digital TV and hundreds of thousands of people bought into it on the promise of multichannels, muticasts and HD. Now you want to change the standard for the second time in six years? How do you think people wouldn't feel ripped off? It's bad enough that people believed that SD multichannelling would be forthcoming, and people who paid the extra for HD boxes would get HD. Now it turns out people with HD can get (potentially) entirely new HD programming via the most recent legislation while those who bought SD are left behind. Now those people, whether they bought HD or SD could be left out by yet another change? That's crazy.

No, let the status quo remain until analogue switchoff and then make a choice.

What promises? Promises of salespeople? Vague government statements that didn't promise anything in media releases that few read or heard? Back when most of the buzz about those things was flying around about seven years ago now, no-one was buying boxes.

There is no widespread discontent with the current system. People get widescreen, ABC2 and SBS WNC, and watchable ABC in many metro areas. In Tassie, Mildura, and soon Darwin they get Ten as well. And a bit of HD and 5.1 sometimes. Plus the occasional bit of multi angle. Not as much as may have been whispered by some, but all that has ever been concrete.

If the analog switch off is soon, then, by all means make that the MPEG4 introduction date. But not in eight years. If we have to going to wait eight years for more than ten or so channels, use MPEG42 or whatever is most suitable at the time.

[yabbal]

If the analog switch off is soon, then, by all means make that the MPEG4 introduction date. But not in eight years. If we have to going to wait eight years for more than ten or so channels, use MPEG42 or whatever is most suitable at the time.

I think it would cause real problems to introduce MPEG4 too soon. I would love it introduced tommorow - potentially higher quality HD plus extra SD channels - sounds great.

But its hard enough getting everyone to upgrade to digital now - imagine the backlash if those people were then told they may need to upgrade again to receive the new channels? And those who havent yet gone digital would have further reason to avoid upgrading as long as possible - in case the standards are changed again.

It may not be too bad for those who bought sub $100 boxes (unless they are on low income) but for the many people who have bought expensive PVR's/HD STB's/Integrated DTV's this would be very annoying.

This is why I say 8 years for SD MPEG4, but sooner for HD MPEG(maybe 4 years?). Even then alot of people would be upset by this.

What I would be curious to see is a Poll on this -

"Would you like to see all NEW digital TV services broadcast in the new MPEG4 format, thus allowing more channels and better quality High-Definition picture even though it would require a brand new set top box?"

[] I would prefer more channels and better quality and am happy to upgrade to a new box.

[] I would prefer to receive new services on my current box at the expense of quality and content.

[Timmy Downawell]

[] I would prefer more channels and better quality and am happy to upgrade to a new box.

[] I would prefer to receive new services on my current box at the expense of quality and content.

You have totally loaded your two choices.

They would be better as:

[] I want more channels even if I have to replace my STB/PVR

[] I want more channels but I don't want to replace my STB/PVR

[yabbal]

I was trying to make sure my questions were unbiased, I didnt intend them to be loaded.

Basically I'm interested what the average joe wants - would he(she) prefer 4 to 5 new channels on his(her) current equipement, or 8 to 10 new channels that requires new equipment?

[Timmy Downawell]

But you get my point, tho?

The SMH runs a lot of very slanted polls, mainly ones that ask a yes/no question but they append sometimes dubious reasons to those answers.

e.g.

Should Australia use nuclear power to generate electricity?

Yes, it's cleaner than coal

No, it's too risky

One might have many reasons for voting either yes or no, not related to those given. In the same way, in your answers the first option is 'happy to upgrade' vs 'at the expense of quality'. One very positive vs one very negatively worded choice.

[Roderick]

I agree that now trying to change existing FTA to h.264/MPEG-4 would be a major headache, and is unlikely to occurr any time soon. It is more likely to happen with new services, such as internet TV, new satellite services, and perhaps new FTA broadcast channels.

However, new compression algorithms are not going to stop at h.264. Already we are well on our way to halving the bandwith required by even an h.264 HD TV channel. Give it 5 years and just such a new standard will almost certainlty begin to emerge.

It's a moving target, and eventually cheap mass-manufactured TV sets will begin to appear with h.264 tuners built in. The world is moving in this direction. Australia will eventually have to follow.

Pehaps for FTA we should aim at the next standard after h.264, with a quarter the bandwidth required by the current MPEG-2 channels. By that time (say 8 years on) it may be possible to introduce the new channels just by squeezing them in. After all, they won't take up much room!

Rod