19 replies to this topic

[alanh]

http://www.acma.gov....ouseholds.pdfle

Look at the proportion of HD capable TVs

Note from the survey of brands purchased and the age these TVs the proportion MPEG-4 capable TVs

Look at the the perception of how long a TV will last.

AlanH

[Malich]

alanh, on 26 June 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Note from the survey of brands purchased and the age these TVs the proportion MPEG-4 capable TVs

The report doesn't give the proportion, and I don't know that you can necessarily conclude one from the other.

For a start, it doesn't mention the actual brands - just that "Mainstream brands were most commonly purchased", with a list of expected brands in the questionnaire [the list wasn't read out to respondents]. For another, the survey was conducted in May 2011, with the questions relating to why & what brand only asked if the respondent had made a purchase in the previous 12 months (i.e. between May 2010 & May 2011).

There were still plenty of MPEG-2 only sets being sold then (I know this, because I was looking hard at TVs in the first week of May 2010 - ended up buying a C-series Samsung; still fairly new at the time, quite popular, and no MPEG-4 tuner). While there were several available sets with MPEG-4 tuners (family members bought LGs around the same time), they were still relatively rare. My feeling is that MPEG-4 tuners weren't available on the majority of sets until later in 2011 2010.

Anyone want to do a quick online search to dig up what was actually available in that time, and what % was MPEG-4 capable? Or find something with an actual methodology for estimating the number / % of MPEG-4 capabable tuners out there?

(edit as noted with strikethrough above.)

Edited by Malich, 26 June 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[nbound]

Even some MPEG4 capable units, arent real world MPEG4 capable. Ive seen a few receive MPEG4 (modulated), decode a few frames, and then do weird things like get stuck trying to rescan the channel for soem reason. ACMA has all but announced they'll go to MPEG4 and eventually DVB-T2 (or better) at some point anyway. Its going to always be upto the broadcasters as to what they broadcast in anyway for at least the short-medium term. Unless ACMA do something with the 6th multiplex and stipulate it there.


Malich, all HD Freeview badged equipment is supposed to be MPEG4 capable. And depending on the manufacturer, even a proportion of the non-freeview badged stuff is. (My Homecast HT8000 PVR I purchased in early 08 is MPEG4 capable - confirmed during the previous 3d trials)

Edited by nbound, 26 June 2012 - 09:57 PM.

[Malich]

Yeah, but when did the Freevew badging really come into play? From memory, while it was launched in 2009 and trundled along for a while, it wasn't really a "thing" until late in 2010 / early 2011. Certainly, as I said, there were a heck of a lot of sets - new models, even - on sale though 2010 that weren't MPEG-4 capable. Even now it's a bit of a joke, and there's a lot of TVs / STBs that aren't officially certified (though certainly more than are listed on the Freeview website!). MPEG-4 support in devices is more of a by-product of the rest of the world moving that way than anything to do with Freeview or presumed government intentions.

Not to mention the fact that Freeview badging is actually seen as something of an anti-feature (particularly on PVRs), and even by relatively non-technical folks. Everyone who's asked me about what sort of PVR or TV to get has pretty much come to that conclusion beforehand, thanks to Google telling them about the restrictions on skipping / ffwd / rwd / getting stuff off them.

My point though is that there is no way that any sort of conclusion about the number / % of MPEG-4 capable sets can be drawn from the report, unless it's guessing or wishful thinking. About the only conclusion you could draw would be that it'd take 5~6 years after making MPEG-4 support mandatory before the gov't / broadcasters could even consider wholesale conversion to MPEG-4.

Edited by Malich, 26 June 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[alanh]

If you read the full text you will find it says that the brands and the date of purchase where used to determine which models are MPEG-4 capable. They also know how many sets are sold. The breakdown is commercial in confidence.

Not included in the report is that all Sony sets from 2008 are all MPEG-4 capable. Sony has been a major selling brand during this time.
All PVRs have been MPEG-4 capable when they became available.

Most importers do not know any technical characteristics of their products but now have had a rude awakening that all imports now have to be MPEG-4 capable.  So with HD STBs in the $30 - $40 range why do we need to wait for 7 years?

A golden opportunity to see what receivers are MPEG-4 capable will occur when the 3D trials occur in mainland state capitals + Gold Coast. If receivers are rescanned and produce a pair of near identical pictures will prove the receivers which can decompress MPEG-4.

It does not matter what the posters here think about the number of households which can receive MPEG-4. It matters what the ACMA, broadcasters, importers and the Minister think.

It does prove however that there is nothing to stop the main channels of 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to all be HD and carry the main program for maximum viewers. It would take MPEG-4 conversion to make the OneHD, 24, SBS HD, 7Mate and GEM to stay HD

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 27 June 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[DrP]

It has been demonstrated in other threads that Sony receivers sold past 2008 are not necessarily capable of putting a picture on the screen when fed with MPEG-4 AVC.  As per usual when the document presented does not provide the information that alanh desires, he simply makes it up vis MPEG-4 AVC.  Why alanh feels the need to restate proven false information and/or outright make it up is anyone's guess.

Fortunately there is no need to make up information.  The information regarding MPEG-4 AVC and MPEG-2 receivers has already appeared on this very forum.  The information was a collected effort of ACMA, the retailers, the broadcasters and a few others.  It quite clearly showed that in 2010/2011 approx 15% of receivers sold were MPEG-2 only.¹  Expect that figure to reduce this year, but that MPEG-2 only sets are still on the market today is a point that is no doubt quite prominent in the minds of the broadcasters.

A golden opportunity to see what set are really MPEG-4 AVC capable has been and passed.  In fact a few of them have been and gone.  The most recent being 7's TV4ME experiment where alanh learned, no doubt much to his surprise, that contrary to his claims; there were indeed MPEG-2 only capable receivers still on the shelves; there were indeed MPEG-2 only HD TVs for sale; existing sets that contained MPEG-4 AVC hardware were not necessarily capable of producing a picture; <insert contradictions to just about all of alanh's continual bleating here>.

What happened to TV4ME?  It was quickly switched to MPEG-2, the same format as PRIME's edition of same.  Did WIN put GOLD to air as MPEG-4 AVC?  How about NINE's and NBN's EXTRA?  No it's all MPEG-2 too.  The lesson here is simple.  Even when permitted to broadcast content using MPEG-4 AVC the broadcasters, at this stage, prefer to use MPEG-2 to maximise the potential number of viewers.  If the FTAs won't put low value channels such as these to air as MPEG-4 AVC it's pretty astoundingly clear that they will not put their main stream channels to air as MPEG-4 AVC until; the government permits it and; they perceive that it will not cause a drop in viewer numbers.


^{1. these figures indicate that there are not only MPEG-2 only HD TVs but that there are MPEG-2 only HD PVRs on sale too.  Note that this data, once again, directly contradicts alanh where he says that all PVRs are MPEG-4 AVC capable.  In fact the data shows that the sales percentage of MPEG-2 only HD PVRs is greater than the sales percentage of MPEG-2 only HD TVs,}

Edited by DrP, 27 June 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Malich]

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

If you read the full text you will find it says that the brands and the date of purchase where used to determine which models are MPEG-4 capable. They also know how many sets are sold. The breakdown is commercial in confidence.

But that's rather my point, Alan - the post asks us to look at the report (I actually read it end to end; please start assuming that I always do unless I state otherwise), and draw conclusions about "the proportion [of] MPEG-4 capable TVs". I'm saying there's nowhere near enough information in the report to be able to do draw conclusions about that. Any conclusions that may be drawn are simply guesswork, and unless someone has knowledge of that "commercial in confidence" breakdown (which would have to come from elsewhere, not this survey), that's all it can be.

At best, assuming that the 5.3% replacement rate mentioned can be projected backward to 2008 and forwards to 2012, and that all sets sold since 2008 are MPEG-4 capable - which isn't the case, as I and others have stated above - then the proportion of MPEG-4 capable sets out there might be estimated at < 20%.

You'd have to add MPEG-4-capable STBs to that, of course, but again no figure is given for those. So any conclusion about MPEG-4 penetration that could possibly be drawn is simply a very very rough estimate, based on assumptions that are known to be wrong.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

All PVRs have been MPEG-4 capable when they became available.

I hope you meant "all Sony PVRs ...", because otherwise it's a pretty silly statement. As it is, I don't know whether even that's true or not - but I suspect that Sony PVRs sales are inconseqential compared to most those of most other brands. Particularly as they were late to the game, initially pretty terrible, and currently only have a single model available.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

Most importers do not know any technical characteristics of their products but now have had a rude awakening that all imports now have to be MPEG-4 capable.  So with HD STBs in the $30 - $40 range why do we need to wait for 7 years?

Since when do "all imports now have to be MPEG-4 capable"? That's rubbish...

Why do we have to wait 7 years? Well, we don't - but it would be sensible and prudent to wait at least until we've largely completed one changeover before starting another. And, in that case, I'm sure you and I agree that it'd be smart to go to DVB-T2 (or whatever is the available cutting-edge) at that time.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

A golden opportunity to see what receivers are MPEG-4 capable will occur when the 3D trials occur in mainland state capitals + Gold Coast. If receivers are rescanned and produce a pair of near identical pictures will prove the receivers which can decompress MPEG-4.

Why would this be any different to the previous 3D trials 2 years ago? Or the recent MPEG-4 shopping channel, which (as DrP. notes) pretty quickly reverted to MPEG2 due to lack of potential viewers?

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

It does not matter what the posters here think about the number of households which can receive MPEG-4. It matters what the ACMA, broadcasters, importers and the Minister think.

I agree, but what do they make their decisions based on? ACMA make theirs based on market penetration and what the broadcasters want, the broadcasters make theirs based on market penetration and what their advertisers want, importers make their decisions based on what's legally required and what's available, and the minister makes his based on what ACMA tells him about market penetration and uptake. (And, to be honest, how scared he is of the broadcasters at any particular moment...)

Notice how heavily market penetration features in that list, and again ponder the fact that no relevant conclusions on that can be drawn from the report presented.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

It does prove however that there is nothing to stop the main channels of 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 to all be HD and carry the main program for maximum viewers. It would take MPEG-4 conversion to make the OneHD, 24, SBS HD, 7Mate and GEM to stay HD

I'd agree with that - but, again, the report doesn't really give any figures about HD penetration, so you can't say whether that's feasible to do now or not. Sorry, brain-fart there. Of course it does...

Edited by Malich, 27 June 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[jsmith]

alanh, on 26 June 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

http://www.acma.gov....ouseholds.pdfle

Look at the proportion of HD capable TVs

Note from the survey of brands purchased and the age these TVs the proportion MPEG-4 capable TVs

Look at the the perception of how long a TV will last.

AlanH

Rightyo Alan, point taken...

Please, no more MPEG4 threads. Surely you could have posted this in any one of the other MPEG4 threads without starting another one?

JSmith

[DrP]

Malich, on 27 June 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

I hope you meant "all Sony PVRs ...", because otherwise it's a pretty silly statement.

I'm sure there'll be some insta-conditions and repeated refinement of the previous blanket statement issued, but if we examine alanh's other posts around the forum where he's made the PVR claim, they aren't limited nor linked to Sony in any way.  Not that it matters ultimately as there were MPEG-2 only capable Sony PVRs on the market in 2008, and IIRC, forum members have commented that they did not support MPEG-4 AVC.

Quote

Since when do "all imports now have to be MPEG-4 capable"? That's rubbish...

Whoops, he's back to making it up again.  This is no doubt in defence of his prior silly claim that all receivers (a statement progressively whittled back and back and back) were MPEG-4 AVC capable.  I'm sure people recall alanh's about face in the TV4ME thread where it went from all being MPEG-4 capable to 'encouraging importers ...'

Edited by DrP, 27 June 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[alanh]

Where did I say that Sony makes PVRs. I did not.

Sony is the company itself which is saying that all their products are MPEG-4 capable since 2008 this includes all TV sets.

I surveyed all PVRs available 2 years ago and every one from all available manufacturers were all MPEG-4 capable

All STBs supplied to those on full pensions in the Household Assistance Scheme are MPEG-4 capable. I asked this question of the DBCDE when the HAS system was at the time expressions of interest were asked for prior to the first analog switch off occured in Mildura Victoria. The Department emailed me to tell me that they are.

Compare this with the close down of analog phone (AMPs) network was announced and 2 years later it was completely dead http://www.accc.gov....amta.gov.au.pdf

So for those posting in this strand, can they decompress MPEG-4 signals with their own equipment?

What is the objection to paying under $40 once only to convert to MPEG-4 when all the full time pensioners are already catered for?

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 27 June 2012 - 06:29 PM.

[alanh]

To accelerate the uptake of MPEG-4 the easiest thing to do is;
1. Convert the main channel of each network to 1920 x 1080 (MPEG-4) and convert the existing HD channel to SD.

Convert all secondary channels to 720 x 540 SD standard. All flat screen TVs don't show the extra 36 lines anyway. (540 x 2 = 1080, 720 x 2 =1440) (1440 x 4/3 = 1920 which restretches the width SD image back to its correct dimentions.) All would be MPEG-4 compressed to make available enough space for a legacy channel

2. For 12 months transmit a legacy version of the main channel (720 X 540) SD using MPEG-2.

If this occurred nationally then the supermarkets would sell HD MPEG-4 STBs at the lowest possible price.

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 27 June 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

What is the objection to paying under $40 once only to convert to MPEG-4 when all the full time pensioners are already catered for?

The added complexity of using a set top box on an already digital TV. The issue is a loop - no one will add an MPEG-4 STB to an MPEG-2 only TV because there are no channels using the format, there are no channels because no one has MPEG-4 receivers (TV4ME proved this beyond any doubt).

[nbound]

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

All STBs supplied to those on full pensions in the Household Assistance Scheme are MPEG-4 capable. I asked this question of the DBCDE when the HAS system was at the time expressions of interest were asked for prior to the first analog switch off occured in Mildura Victoria. The Department emailed me to tell me that they are.

Yes because they are given digitalready badged devices of which MPEG4 is a requirement.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Compare this with the close down of analog phone (AMPs) network was announced and 2 years later it was completely dead http://www.accc.gov....amta.gov.au.pdf

When alternatives were already available, in operation, and widespread. Most people here would be in support of a phased MPEG4 introduction.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

So for those posting in this strand, can they decompress MPEG-4 signals with their own equipment?

Yes. On multiple devices. But not all my devices are capable.

alanh, on 27 June 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

What is the objection to paying under $40 once only to convert to MPEG-4 when all the full time pensioners are already catered for?

AlanH

The viewing public dont like having to buy things continusously just to make sure they can get TV.  Not to mention thats a basic STB, and someone may want one with other features. Those who have converted to digital by using digital recorders for example. Or with high-end setups. And so on and so forth. I dont know if Mystar boxes are MPEG4 DVB-T capable. Full time pensioners arent the only poor people.

If price were the only consideration we'd have converted to DVB-T a few years ago, would already be on MPEG-4, and would be switching to DVB-T2 shortly, if not already.

[Malich]

Alan,
If you read the full text, you'd understand that what I keep saying is this: your note about "the proportion MPEG-4 capable TVs" can't be answered from the report.

If anyone claims otherwise, they're guessing or making stuff up.

I can't be plainer than that.

Edited by Malich, 27 June 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[alanh]

Nbound,
The reason I suggested the 1 year legacy MPEG-2 version of the primary channel is to allow those who are used to only analog TV to be able to watch the most popular programs from each network. So for those who need a new STB it is 76 cents/week to save up.

This will allow the huge number of TVs already inservice to show 1920 x 1080 pictures instead of 1440 x1080 pictures. Even if the local broadcasters do not have all the studio equipment virtually all primetime USA imports are 1920 x 1080 images.

The ACMA can make Australian Standard 4933 Digital television -  Requirements for receivers - VHF UHF DVB-T television broadcasts compulsory. So they need to, as soon as possible to add DVB-T2 so that the number of capable receivers will increase ready for the next upgrade to the TV system. Remember that there will only ever be a maximum of 6 RF channels available to TV in Australia.

Similarly the ACMA can also make compulsory, Australian standards for transmission and receiving antennas as well.

Alanh

[nbound]

Yes, they can do whatever they want. But the government of the day needs to keep the population happy. You don't do that by forcing people to change their equipment every few years. I really cant say it any clearer. You can post your ideas up about phasing out MPEG2 and keep making your submissions to ACMA, but at the end of the day nothing too major (ie. partial/complete dropping of MPEG-2) will happen until people have become "comfortable" with the latest changes. Not to mention having an overwhelming majority of MPEG4 capable sets.

Edited by nbound, 27 June 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[alanh]

Nbound,
You can be negative if you wish, however I made similar submissions and predictions for the birth of VAST using DVB-S2/MPEG-4 and was pilloried then by similar posters as I get now. So what do we have now? VAST is using DVB-S2/MPEG-4 with 15 programs + a news channel.

AlanH

[DrP]

-------------
FACTS (actual, not alanh):

Paying $40 for a STB is no guarantee that the STB just purchased will successfully decode MPEG-4 AVC.  ACMA's research backs this.

MPEG-2 only HD PVRs are for sale and are being purchased.  ACMA's research backs this.

The government (past and present) prefers to let market forces work out what features are in a receiver and is loath to make features mandatory.  The only feature that is mandatory is parental control and that took considerable effort to occur.
-------------

The minister was advising that VAST would provide the same number of services as terrestrial did.  There is only one person on this forum that disputed this, even to the point of claiming that HD/SD simulcasts would not be carried and then determined that SBS HD was not carried by the east VAST service.  Any guesses as to who that was?

While alanh was gleefully telling everyone that VAST was 'all MPEG-4 AVC' ABC was being carried in MPEG-2 and, but for an internal policy change, would still be MPEG-2 today and being used for more than just VAST.  I'm sure you can ask your 'insiders' about this alanh... but I suspect one of those peksy NDAs will prevent you from talking about it.

If submissions and predictions are going to be invoked let's mention 'MPEG-4 AVC is all progressive' - recall that submission you made, alanh?; let's mention new terrestrial services in WA being MPEG-4 AVC - recall that prediction alanh?; let's mention New Zealand transmitting only HD - recall that prediction alanh?; let's mention WIN, PRIME and ABC all commencing MPEG-4 AVC terrestrial services once their new facility were completed - recall that prediction alanh?.  The list of silly submissions and failed predictions is extensive.  The 'fore is but a small sample.

Recall the scattershot effect.  Keep blasting away for long enough and sooner or later the target will be hit.  That hit, however, does not demonstrate skilled marksmanship.

Edited by DrP, 28 June 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[Smacca]

alanh, on 28 June 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

VAST is using DVB-S2/MPEG-4 with 15 programs + a news channel.

Really? So VAST is "15 programs + a news channel"? Where did you hear this? Is that what your VAST entitlement delivers to you? Proof, please.

[jsmith]

alanh, on 28 June 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

AlanH

JSmith