236 replies to this topic

[deangelj]

diesel, on Oct 7 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

Interesting PVR story in The Age.

I've read a few Adam Turner review/stories over the last few months and he seems to be trying to widen people's eye to the whole Freeview shannanigans

I've read from many on this forum, as well as writers such as this, about skipping limitations, and file copying limitations for Freeview branded PVRs. However, I've haven't seen anything yet in writing, or announcements, from Freeview, or any industry body. Where are people getting this info from? Is there some secret Freeview compliance document that PVR manufacturers are working with?

cheers,
John

[prl]

deangelj, on Oct 8 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

I've read from many on this forum, as well as writers such as this, about skipping limitations, and file copying limitations for Freeview branded PVRs. However, I've haven't seen anything yet in writing, or announcements, from Freeview, or any industry body. Where are people getting this info from? Is there some secret Freeview compliance document that PVR manufacturers are working with?

cheers,
John

In short, yes.

The longer version: there is widely speculated to be a Non-Disclosure Agreement on the Freeview technical specifications.

Freeview public statements have, in the past, been very sketchy about just what the Freeview requirements are on Freeview-badged products. Sometimes they've been confusing and contradictory. But don't take my word for it. Here's Robin Parkes, Freeview CEO, on the subject:

Quote

Parkes said the enigmatic campaign designed to promote Freeview wasn't well-received by the general public.

"It has caused some confusion and concern. ..."

All this means that a fairly large proportion of statements about exactly what Freeview requirements are, are speculation and/or deduction.

And this is all from the communications industry

Edited by prl, 08 October 2009 - 10:36 AM.

[Timmy Downawell]

Paul55, on Oct 8 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

Stop defending these maggots. Freeview isn't needed to establish MPEG4. It was a government decision to go with MPEG2 and it'll be a government decision to change to MPEG4 - eventually!

How do you draw the conclusion I am "defending" Freeview?

I have posted many times in the past that I do not agree with Freeview's "tail wagging the dog" approach with regard to mandating MPEG4 in their approved boxes when no such undertaking has been made by the government in policy terms.

However, having said that, some good will come of it. No-one is being forced to buy Freeview-approved boxes and there are many non-Freeview boxes which are now on sale with MPEG4 capability. The end result will be that people will be ready for the advantages of MPEG4 should that be introduced (and I am sure it will) some time in the future.

Face it, lots of people are whinging about reduced vision quality thanks to the second SD services (Go!/One SD) and MPEG4 will solve this problem.

...but I still won't buy a Freeview box.*


*unless iinet introduces its IPTV service and their box is Freeview, in which case I might just have to bite the bullet

[prl]

Timmy Downawell, on Oct 8 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

...
However, having said that, some good will come of it. No-one is being forced to buy Freeview-approved boxes and there are many non-Freeview boxes which are now on sale with MPEG4 capability. The end result will be that people will be ready for the advantages of MPEG4 should that be introduced (and I am sure it will) some time in the future.
...

Furthermore, it is a Freeview initiative to encourage the uptake of MPEG4-capable devices; this is recognised explicitly on the ACMA Web site:

ACMA said:

Note - Recently, FREEVIEW Australia, a not for profit organisation comprising Australia’s free to air television broadcasters, published a media statementin about future proofing Freeview labelled digital television equipment to enable the decoding of MPEG 4 transmissions.

The main useful thing that Freeview is doing is to encourage people to switch to digital. This may even be a major driver of Freeview. I'd be surprised if the broadcasters don't have some worries that there might be a significant number of people in Sydney and Melbourne who'll be very, very cross when their TVs stop getting anything sometime after July 2013. There is also a Federal Government program that's trying to do the same thing, but Freeview seems to be much more active.

[diesel]

Are there any Freeview '"Phase 2" approved PVRs out - ones that take advantage of the MHEG5 Freeview EPG?

[DrP]

The Magic PVR (with the right firmware loaded) springs to mind.  Be warned, depending on the accuracy of the timing of the information in your area you might find some recordings are chopped.

[pgdownload]

I think the Magic Freeview EPG had some issues and it was recommended to someone who rang to install the non-Freeview firmware to 'fix'

Regards

Peter Gillespie

[diesel]

So is that a bug on the Magic PVR or more Freeview excellence?

[DrP]

Freeview excellence.  Someone posted a letter sent from Magic elsewhere on the forum that more or less said Magic released the non-freeview firmware due to the issues with the Freeview service itself.

[diesel]

That's certainly something I can't imagine Foxtel doing. The whole idea behind Freeview is to cmpete with Foxtel/internet downloads yet some of the only 'benefits' aren't even properly implemented...

[diesel]

Hands on: Freeview EPG and Bush BVR501FV

[DrP]

Quote

Some people believe the Freeview EPG actually relies on the standard Now and Next data to know when to stop recording, but Freeview's engineers assure me the CRID data is calling the shots.

..... which is carried in the N&N.


.... and for those who doubt it, ask yourself why the networks scrambled around to deliver the CRIDs in the N&N EIT sections just prior to the freeview EPG launching.

Edited by DrP, 24 March 2012 - 09:14 AM.