Do you have a source that has ruled it out?
3 Likes
@KevinPerry confirmed it in the Tokyo Olympics Coverage thread.
3 Likes
Reforms proposed by the government in November suggest removing spectrum licence fees in exchange for reducing the amount of radiofrequency spectrum used by TV broadcasters by compressing it. The spectrum made available - known as the 600mHZ band - would be sold at a higher price to companies like telcos that can use it to rollout fast mobile networks.
If compression technology - known as MPEG-4 - is implemented, it will risk fewer multi-channels and reduce coverage quality, they say, making free-to-air networks less competitive against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.
The commercial networks want the discussion about compression and selling spectrum to be delayed to avoid hindering their ability to compete with streaming giants.
4 Likes
No mention of DVB-T2?
4 Likes
âif compression technology ⌠is implementedâ
Love to watch uncompressed MPEG-2 video on my television.
6 Likes
I think NZ tv is in MPEG-4, my parents went there about 7 years ago and commented how good the picture quality was on the channels vs here.
4 Likes
It all comes down to how much bandwidth they allocate. MPEG-4 can look just as shit (or just as good) as MPEG-2.
7 Likes
I was under the impression that MPEG4 compression is already implemented on Australian DVB-T multiplexes and has been around for a long time now (it was used on 3DTV trials more than a decade ago!), but anywayâŚ
If weâre to eventually transition to DVB-T2, wouldnât it be best to go for HEVC compression rather than MPEG4 since everyone (or almost everyone) is gonna need to upgrade their equipment for DVB-T2 anyway?
Yep, I agree. Broadly MPEG4 can look better at lower bitrates than MPEG2, but once you get down to a certain level obvious compression artifacts are going to be visible no matter what codec you use.
5 Likes
Love Zoeâs photo choice, a 15-16 year old AFL game (one of those Grand Finals?) from the original Fox Footy channel, with a kid whoâd now be 20-25 years old and an outdated early 2000s analogue TV 
9 Likes
Leo Barry you star was 2005, so yep 16 years old. Although if shown on Fox Footy it would have been a replay (game was live on Ten) so maybe later. Of course I could well be overthinking things 
5 Likes
Good to hear from you too, Tamago 
(for those unaware a former long-time and original MS admin/mod)
2 Likes
Shut all the secondary channels down and concentrate on the main channels with first run contentâŚthis country isnât big enough for the number of channels we have âŚlike dab radio it was a great experiment/option before streaming but now it canât be ( isnât! ) an economical option to have 21 FTA channels
3 Likes
Realistically, weâre never going back to the days of only five main channels. However I can see a point in the future where some multichannels (particularly the newer ones and/or those heavily reliant on repeats) are merged.
4 Likes
But theyâre doing so well (Bold No. 1, Peach⌠NCIS and Friends/Big Bang/Seinfeld etc back-to-back night after night)
3 Likes
I think maybe your TV displays the SD picture in 16:9 and not screen fit so you donât seen any overscan. My TV locks itself to 16:9 for SD FTA channels so logos are sometimes cut off.
Itâs all good now. That was some time ago
1 Like
What are everyoneâs thoughts about the continuing prevalence of SD simulcasts across Australian FTA?
Given the bitrate level that seems to be getting allocated to the MPEG4 HD channel, and the SD simulcast, it seems like it would be perfectly reasonable to combine those together and just have one MPEG2 HD main channel.
There really shouldnât be a need for a double up in 2021, IMO.
3 Likes
A 5.9 Mb/s MPEG 4 HD picture would be a lot clearer than a 8.7 (5.9 + 2.8) MPEG 2 picture.
You would have to reduce the MPEG 2 picture to 1440 x 1080 like is used by 7QLD and the later versions of the HD channels for an acceptable picture.
6 Likes
I agree; it seems unnecessary now to have the same channel in both MPEG2 HD and SD streams.
Having the primary channel as MPEG2 HD would be extremely unlikely to lose any viewers now, and using MPEG4 HD for the less-popular channels should be safe.
The more popular secondary channels is tricker as they (i.e. 9GEM and 7mate) often show sport (such as the Wimbledon tennis). These really need to be available widely but also preferably in HD, so either MPEG2 HD or both MPEG4 HD and MPEG2 SD.
Broadcasters should be willing to sacrifice quality on the MPEG2 channels by reducing their bandwidth, especially any SD versions of HD channels.
I tend to agree. The only issue I have with it is quality can be slightly less crisper on MPEG-2. Well, I think I can spot the difference between the two, or maybe itâs because I know theyâre different technologies and my eyes deceive me. I feel MPEG-4 crispness and colours are better in comparison, and I think it can handle movement or changes in scenery a lot better.
My comparisons have been from local terrestrial, so there are probably a lot of other factors as @TV.Cynic has pointed out.
2 Likes