RBTF to leave Hotbird
Roger R
nationally via some form of terrestrial distribution. The satellite channel
is still operational and termination date has yet to be decided.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/10/15/belgian-rtbf-plans-closure-of-international-channel
The reason given is neccessary economies.
A pity to see this broadcaster go as there are often quality programmes.
It seems many FTA sat tv stations are falling by the wayside in an
environment where broadcast television is a declining medium with viewers
sourcing their entertainment on-line or in other ways.
An item on Digital Spy refers to a report by UK tv regulator body Ofcom that
a third of UK viewers who have internet access now watch programmes via
download or Video On Demand. [authentication required]
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/news/a182296/ofcom-a-third-of-online-adults-use-vod.html
Roger R
Jan Panteltje
<d-e-c-o...@clara.co.uk> wrote in <hbev1t$83r$1...@aioe.org>:
>An item on Digital Spy refers to a report by UK tv regulator body Ofcom that
>a third of UK viewers who have internet access now watch programmes via
>download or Video On Demand. [authentication required]
I think that is not correct, in the sense that they watch movies.
Even with fast DSL as I have, watching movies online does not work.
And forget about HDTV online.
What they perhaps count is youtube video, sure I have mine there, and I
watch others quite often.
And NASA TV online too.
But the quality of that stuff is orders of magnitude worse then satellite.
And news, I *never* watch news (well once a year perhaps) on satellite,
always on internet news sites.
I want to be able to select what I am exposed to :-)
There is a move by Astra to get all HDTV into a pay sort of thing, they are just trying again
with special decoders, for 2 reasons:
1) Astra wants more money for the distribution, even for so called FTA programs.
2) The hardware manufacturers want more money selling yet new boxes.
For example RTL, VOX, Prosieben too perhaps, plan to use the Astra pay service for HDTV transmissions.
They will spam the media with so called objective reports that everybody is paying already
and blah blah blah, pays for movie on demand, you pay for your internet connection too blah blah.
Man, that HD pay service on Astra could flip in a bad way, as the way they transmit
normal resolution is good enough (unless they screw up deliberately with low bit rates, wrong interlace,
and underscanned format) for movie viewing.
I most certainly will not buy a box for Astra and pay for FTA programs.
720x576 progressive is good enough for me, and I will suffer the interlace too if I really want to see something.
Else, if I really want some movie, I will buy the DVD, just bought one (Starwars, the directors comments was worth it),
would be nice if the German FTA stations also had an original sound PID, sometimes the voice over is better, but
sometimes also worse then the original sound.
Belgium is only a small country, never watch that stuff, never have.
Won't miss it, bad for some locals there....
In the end the market will decide what goes.
Roger R
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hbf23m$66s$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On a sunny day (Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:54 +0100) it happened "Roger R"
> <d-e-c-o...@clara.co.uk> wrote in <hbev1t$83r$1...@aioe.org>:
>
>>An item on Digital Spy refers to a report by UK tv regulator body Ofcom
>>that
>>a third of UK viewers who have internet access now watch programmes via
>>download or Video On Demand. [authentication required]
>
> I think that is not correct, in the sense that they watch movies.
> Even with fast DSL as I have, watching movies online does not work.
> And forget about HDTV online.
> What they perhaps count is youtube video, sure I have mine there, and I
> watch others quite often.
> And NASA TV online too.
> But the quality of that stuff is orders of magnitude worse then satellite.
It is, but quality does not appear to be important to todays video users.
As the TV industry has moved to HD the audience has changed to accept
significantly lower quality than VHS as satisfactory, because it is what
they want when they want it and its free. (e.g You Tube)
> There is a move by Astra to get all HDTV into a pay sort of thing, they
> are just trying again
> with special decoders, for 2 reasons:
> 1) Astra wants more money for the distribution, even for so called FTA
> programs.
> 2) The hardware manufacturers want more money selling yet new boxes.
>
> For example RTL, VOX, Prosieben too perhaps, plan to use the Astra pay
> service for HDTV transmissions.
It will be interesting to see what ARTE and the BBC do, if anything, in
regard to payment for HD. BBC licence payers will not expect to pay a
premium for HD, but if somehow they have to, they will quite possibly decide
like you, that free SD is good enough.
I expect you have read elsewhere that BBC HD on sat has already been reduced
in quality from 16 Mb/s to 9 Mb/s. This to ensure it is no better quality
than the limited bandwidth HD terrestrial viewers can receive. If HD is to
be compromised in quality at the outset, why pay more for it ?
Roger R
ziikell101
programmes from Belgium. This would leave us with TB5 FBS, which does
not have everything we want. The other option is to pay for la une or
la 2, via the Belgian satellite operater, http://telesat.be
Damn.
David WE Roberts
"Roger R" <d-e-c-o...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hbev1t$83r$1...@aioe.org...
Hmmm.....lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Plus confusion all round.
I can certainly beleive that over 30% of Internet users have at some time
viewed at least one TV program on line.
I have viewed first and second practice for some of the Grand Prix online,
and when I have missed the race I have downloaded the program or watched
online using iPlayer.
However this is a minority of my TV viewing and is not significant in my
expected viewing of digital media.
I much prefer watching programs on a 42" plasma TV with the home cinema
providing the audio.
[Or on the 32" LCD in the bedroom if it is late in the evening or someone
else is using the TV in the lounge.
Or even on the 20" in the camper if I can't get the channel on the in-house
TV. Long story. Aerial.]
The quote above is therefore very misleading.
'Now watch' and 'now watch most or all' programs paints two very different
pictures.
Unless or until BT get their broadband based service to offer the equivalent
packages to Virgin cable I don't think that the majority of viewers will go
to Internet only viewing of broadcast content.
If they do, then I can't quite see the diffference between that service and
Virgin cable.
However, if broadcast content (including free to view') is available to 100%
of UK subscribers via next generation Broadband (as the government and BT
seem to be promising high speed broadband to every home in the country once
a few minor funding issues have been resolved) then this will call into
question the future of satellite broadcasting.
If you have a cable or DSL feed do you really need satelite as well?
Especially if it is raining?
AFAIK this is one reason that BT has been kept away from carrying broadcast
content in the past, because they could effectively wipe out the competition
if they so desired.
Certainly they could go head to head with Virgin in supplying TV, phone and
broadband as one package.
The only battle then would be with Sky for content.
With shared access to exchanges and local loop unbundling there seems no
reason for Sky not to enter the cable/DSL market to sell content. If they
have this access available do they really need to maintain the satellite
infrastructure?
Sell your shares in satellite technology now.
Woe, woe etc.
Cheers
Dave R
Jan Panteltje
Roberts" <nos...@talk21.com> wrote in <7k6akkF...@mid.individual.net>:
>With shared access to exchanges and local loop unbundling there seems no
>reason for Sky not to enter the cable/DSL market to sell content. If they
>have this access available do they really need to maintain the satellite
>infrastructure?
>
>Sell your shares in satellite technology now.
>Woe, woe etc.
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave R
There are very large areas of Europe where there is no cable and no very fast DSL.
And sat is free, for cable you have to fork out here every month, for faster
then normal internet you pay extra too here.
Maybe when each house has a glass-fiber...
But even then, many have a dish to just watch TV from other countries.
A whole immigrant population for example.
You have no choice what is on cable, and even internet is getting filtered in some places.
6000 kbp/s is a minimum required, for normal 720x576 on some stations,
like ARD, to view without hickups...
But if you load your internet connection with something like that,
then you cannot record TV in the background and surf at the same time.
Downloading from my country I get 770.4 KByte/sec (=6163 kbps)
And from the US 3404 kbps (tested here http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ ).
And then some internet connections have a maximum number of giga Bytes that
you can download per month, before they charge you even more.
Maybe enough for 3 movies a month :-)
A DVD is cheaper!!!!!
I would think there will be more satellite.
ziikell101
David WE Roberts wrote:
>
>
I never watch tele over broadband.
>
> If you have a cable or DSL feed do you really need satelite as well?
> Especially if it is raining?
I have rather good reception from 28.2 19.2 13 or 5w during torrential
rain and thunderstorms so I don't understand the comment otehr than
think that you are saying that most satellite installations were poorly
set-up.
Personally, I would rather receive programming choices from satellite
than being locked into a local source; If I dislike what is shown
(especially politically) from the satellite then I can change to another
one. If the reception source is tied to a country then I have little
choice.
The company I work for offers holistic bundling of VoIP Internet and
television programming down the same ADSL line. However, some have
mentioned that a large d/l from the Net will cause pauses in the TV
picture when watched at the same time. I have 18Mbs down and 1.5Mbs up.
Strange.
FTA is free and is usually supported by advertising revenue. The DSL
options costs money. Advertising budgets have been reduced, but
recessions, like all the ones that came afore, do not last for long, and
neither will this one, otherwise we might as well sell everything.
>
> AFAIK this is one reason that BT has been kept away from carrying
> broadcast content in the past, because they could effectively wipe out
> the competition if they so desired.
> Certainly they could go head to head with Virgin in supplying TV, phone
> and broadband as one package.
> The only battle then would be with Sky for content.
>
> With shared access to exchanges and local loop unbundling there seems no
> reason for Sky not to enter the cable/DSL market to sell content. If
> they have this access available do they really need to maintain the
> satellite infrastructure?
>
> Sell your shares in satellite technology now.
And while we are at it, take those satellites out of orbit because these
will all be replaced by the Internet! :)
ziikell101
>
> http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/10/15/belgian-rtbf-plans-closure-of-international-channel
>
>
This report only refers to the Ku-band transmission on Hotbird, but does
not mention the C-band transmission on 5w (AB3).
Satellite Atlantic Bird 3 (AB3)
Fr�quence : 3727 MHz
Position orbitale: 5� Ouest, bande C
Polaristion : RHCP (circulaire droite)
Modulation : QPSK
D�bit symbole : 29.95 Mbaud
FEC : 7/8
SID : 109
PID Audio : 159
Roger R
"ziikell101" <joek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hbpoq1$utp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Roger R wrote:
>>
>> http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/10/15/belgian-rtbf-plans-closure-of-international-channel
>>
>>
> This report only refers to the Ku-band transmission on Hotbird, but does
> not mention the C-band transmission on 5w (AB3).
>
> Satellite Atlantic Bird 3 (AB3)
> Position orbitale: 50 Ouest, bande C
> Polaristion : RHCP (circulaire droite)
> Modulation : QPSK
> FEC : 7/8
> SID : 109
> PID Audio : 159
Sorry but I know almost nothing about C band.
Does it require an different type of dish and special receiver ?
I can't find the RBTF TV above in either the Lyngsat or Satcodx lists.
Lyngsat AB3 has RBTF listed at 3727, but is not that a radio channel ?
Roger R
Charles Ellson
<d-e-c-o...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"ziikell101" <joek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hbpoq1$utp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Roger R wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2009/10/15/belgian-rtbf-plans-closure-of-international-channel
>>>
>>>
>> This report only refers to the Ku-band transmission on Hotbird, but does
>> not mention the C-band transmission on 5w (AB3).
>>
>> Satellite Atlantic Bird 3 (AB3)
>> Friquence : 3727 MHz
>> Position orbitale: 50 Ouest, bande C
>> Polaristion : RHCP (circulaire droite)
>> Modulation : QPSK
>> Dibit symbole : 29.95 Mbaud
>> FEC : 7/8
>> SID : 109
>> PID Audio : 159
>
>Sorry but I know almost nothing about C band.
>Does it require an different type of dish
>
Traditionally you need something from 2m upwards but with modern LNBs
you might get down to 1.5 or maybe a bit less if you are located in
the right place relative to signal strength; your choice of strong
channels will still be reduced.
>and special receiver ?
>
AFAIAA most normal receivers still cope with C-band. ITYF the
difference is effectively software settings rather than hardware WRT
receivers. The awkward/expensive bit tends to be the dish (usually
centre focus) and LNB (different mounting method).
>I can't find the RBTF TV above in either the Lyngsat or Satcodx lists.
>Lyngsat AB3 has RBTF listed at 3727, but is not that a radio channel ?
>
Yes.
Roger R
"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fkh1e513502n0n0pf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:31:55 +0100, "Roger R"
> <d-e-c-o...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry but I know almost nothing about C band.
>>Does it require an different type of dish
>>
> Traditionally you need something from 2m upwards but with modern LNBs
> you might get down to 1.5 or maybe a bit less if you are located in
> the right place relative to signal strength; your choice of strong
> channels will still be reduced.
>
>>and special receiver ?
>>
> AFAIAA most normal receivers still cope with C-band. ITYF the
> difference is effectively software settings rather than hardware WRT
> receivers. The awkward/expensive bit tends to be the dish (usually
> centre focus) and LNB (different mounting method).
>
Thanks for the info.
ISTM that for most viewers of french language TV the TeleSat package, or
possibly the Fransat box are the only realistic options.
Roger R
ziikell101
>
> ISTM that for most viewers of french language TV the TeleSat package, or
> possibly the Fransat box are the only realistic options.
>
> Roger R
Yep, Telesat.be is 10 euros monthly. There is film option for and extra
5.50 euros monthly for 5 film channels. Fransat is expected to cost a
one of change of 99euros that includes a receiver, which I suspect won't
be friendly with FTA or Diseq = Sky without a subscription.