649 replies to this topic

[alanh]

Go for moe,
CRA are suggesting the addtion of 7, 9 & 10 because they have analog transmissions on them in the locations they have in mainland state capitals The ACMA also has to beware of the use of the other band 3 DTV transmitters in regional areas. CRA wishes to extend DAB+ coverage to regional areas.

In Victoria the following Digital TV channels are already in use.
Melbourne HSV 6 GTV 8 ATV 11 ABV 12 Horizontal, DAB+ 9A vertical
Upper Murray SBS 7, GLV 8, ABAV 9A VTV 10 AMV 12 Horizontal
Goulburn Valley VTV 9 Vertical
Mildura/Sunraysia STV 7 ABMV11 Horizontal
Western Victoria ABWV6, SBS 7, BCY 9A VTV 10 AMV12 Horizontal.

The Goulburn Valley transmitter will stop the use of channel 9 in Melbourne and North East.  What DAB+ channels would you use in these and other regional areas such as Ballarat, Geelong, Murray Valley, Latrobe Valley and Western Vic?

Western Victoria and Mildura also affect allocations in SE SA, Riverland.

There are similar problems in other states particularly with Manning River using ABTN 7, NEN 9, SBS 9A and NBN 12. Sydney's DAB+ antennas have been tilted downwards to prevent interference, however there is a big demand for DAB+ channels for Newcastle and the Central Coast which are closer than Sydney.
Bathurst ABCN 7 SBS 9 CTC 9A CBN 10, WIN 12. Vertically polarised.
Canberra uses CTC 6, ABC 9A, WIN 11 and CBN 12 which will not only affect DAB+ allocations in Canberra and Illawarra but with the South Coast where Batemans Bay has Band 3 transmissions.

Wide Bay STQ7, TNQ 9 ABWQ 9A RTQ 10 and Sunshine Coast and Brisbane have a similar problem to Manning River.

To make planning easier they may wish to restack band 3 channels in to a continuous series. As an example it could be channels 6, 7, 8, 9, 9A, leaving channels 10, 11 & 12 for DAB+. The advantage of a restack is that DAB+ transmissions are only 1.5 MHz wide per DAB+ channel versus 7 MHz for DTV. So with all band 3 and DAB+ transmitters are all 50 kW each,  the power density is higer for DAB+ transmissions. So for minimising interference it would be better to match DTV station to DTV station interference or DAB+ to DAB+ rather than DTV to DAB+ on the same channel. A pair of transmitters on different polarisations can be closer together in distance than a pair of transmitters on the same polarisation

My point is that simply suggesting a analog channels which will be vacated does not guarantee their availablility until an interference assessment is made.

So it is upto the ACMA to come up with a national plan for restacking, then we will know what will happen. Anything else is guesswork.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

A long post that again ignores the point, and then restates the point slightly differently as if it is a brand new concept.

Let's play spot the difference...

Quote

To make planning easier they may wish to restack band 3 channels in to a continuous series. As an example it could be channels 6, 7, 8, 9, 9A, leaving channels 10, 11 & 12 for DAB+.

Quote

the restacking will take account of those channels and result in a much more manageable set up than having TV and DAB+ all competing for the same spectrum with plenty of re-use. [...] The main point would be that both digital channels below UHF 52 (or wherever they set the cut off), and DAB+ channels allocated prior to TV switchoff, shouldn't be presumed as the final ones, it won't just be the >52 channels being moved.

5 points if you guessed the only difference was that instead of 10-12, my post mentioned 9-10.

And as I've said many times previously, it would have been much smarter to a) choose a digital radio format that didn't waste space and deliver no digital dividend and have had the foresight to do digital radio planning *before* we launched digital TV, especially as both were in tests before 2001.

To again restate - my argument is not that 8A-10D is possible in the current transmitting arrangement, my argument is not that only the capital city allocations matter, my argument is not that the CRA is right, MY ARGUMENT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT! I was simply trying to state that the CRA preferred the use of 10 rather than 7 as part of their submission over the digital dividend.

If I were to make an argument, I would be arguing that should DAB+ be chosen as the regional roll out option for digital radio (and I also argue it shouldn't*), that the VHF usage from all stations would be restacked to leave 12 frequency blocks. I would add that I would suggest that the preference would be towards keeping the state metropolitan capital allocations the same - as there would be the most number of people impacted by any moves, so should stay where they are despite the restacking - thus resulting in using 8A-10D, as it also creates a contiguous block of DAB, something practised in overseas implementations as well.

*As I have stated before, the simple math means digital radio creates no digital dividend (the extra stations, should that be a justification, is cancelled out because of spectrum inefficiencies in smaller markets, a whole frequency block is needed no matter what, so in a regional area with two commercial stations and a community station, there is half a multiplex unused at least) - The 12 frequency blocks floated is bigger than the FM band, and just smaller than the FM+AM band by a matter of a few hundred kilohertz, not to mention it is moving radio from otherwise undesirable spectrum to the absolute prime spectrum.

The other fact is that for smaller stations within a market (eg community stations for part of the licence area, HPONs, LPONs, event broadcasts), there is just no path to digital with DAB+, aggregating those into large sub-markets was floated in the initial planning, but as the CRA's proposal clearly identifies, the 12 blocks would be used up just covering the main stations from Sydney and surrounding areas, which would mean more spectrum would be needed to do that plan, and even then you have prohibitive costs compared to FM.

Now I'm fully expecting an absolutely obtuse reply, singling out the mentions of CRA and saying how wrong they are, without addressing the issues. I also expect you to reply saying things I already know, things that are half truths, or just going off on another tangent. Then I will need to clarify the confusion you create, and then the cycle will repeat. Another 5 points if you predicted that too.

[M'bozo]

GoForMoe, on Jun 30 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

DAB+ is pencilled in for 12B/C in Hobart currently.

Thank you.

I didn't know that.

(although, personally, I think DAB will go the way of the dinosaurs, unless forced upon us by legislation)

[alanh]

Go For Moe,

It is CRA who want to use DAB+ for regional areas. In particular large population areas such as Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Newcastle, Wollongong, Central Coast NSW, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Townsville, Northern Tasmania, Bunbury. I have promoted the use of DRM and DRM+ for regional areas. Neither of these use band 3. There will be an enquiry into this within around a year as the ACMA realise the range limitations of using Band 3 over large areas. DRM 30 uses the HF and the MF band which is also used by AM. DAB+ could easily use the vacated channels 0, 1, 2, and part of channel 3. Both the DRM 30 on the 26 MHz band is unused and DRM+ are ideal for community broadcasters and small commercial stations.

Planning of digital radio prior to 2001 would have been for DAB and not DAB+. The increased program carrying capacity of DAB+ reduces the number of RF channels required for radio for that number of programs.

My main point is that the ACMA has to actually allocate the licences to all broadcasters without mutual interference.

I have not gone off at a tangent, I am just trying to point out that the there are many factors controlling channel allocation.

AlanH

[digitalj]

I don't want DRM/+ in regional areas unless bitrates of at least 128Kbps can be obtained with it. I'd rather see DAB+ setup and each broadcaster given 192Kbps.

[GoForMoe]

digitalj, on Jul 1 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

I don't want DRM/+ in regional areas unless bitrates of at least 128Kbps can be obtained with it. I'd rather see DAB+ setup and each broadcaster given 192Kbps.

Depends on the channel width, which is where DRM+ comes in to it. Even on its most stable profile a 100kHz wide DRM+ channel (which is the width of an FM station) will deliver over 200kbps, with 300kbps possible using different modulation. DRM is about as spectrally efficient, but the channels aren't as wide, with ~20kHz channels delivering around 50kbps. Considering there would be plenty of bandwidth made free by the analogue switch off in VHF Band 1, there's no real reason why DRM+ couldn't be used, perhaps with DRM used for things like ABC Local Radio where signal stability and long range reception is the main ideal.

Essentially, an FM station could be given a same sized DRM+ frequency, and then get the ability to broadcast two stations at high quality, or knowing the commercial radio business, three at lower quality. In regional areas allocating 5 DRM+ blocks rather than a whole DAB+ multiplex is going to use much less spectrum and deliver more bandwidth - 1200kbps from 500kHz rather than 1150kbps from 1500kHz. You know it makes sense.

Quote

I have not gone off at a tangent, I am just trying to point out that the there are many factors controlling channel allocation.

Which I and everyone else posting in discussions like this are well aware of.

[ChaosMaster]

IMO if you just look at all the spetrum allocation problems that have been pointed out for an Australia-wide roll out of DAB+, it really does show as others have previously asserted, that we picked the wrong standard for our requirements. Sadly, I can't see the barrow-pushers giving up now (probably partly out of pride IMO).

GoForMoe, on Jul 1 2010, 04:48 PM, said:

Even on its most stable profile a 100kHz wide DRM+ channel (which is the width of an FM station) will deliver over 200kbps, with 300kbps possible using different modulation.

Those bitrates seem a little generous from my understanding. According to drm.org:

Quote

DRM+ has a narrow bandwidth and is designed to fit in the FM broadcast band plan and a frequency grid of 100 kHz. Its small spectrum needs supports its use in crowded bands. The high commonality with the existing DRM standard allows easy and fast equipment implementation. DRM+ provides bit rates from 35 kbps to 185 kbps and, like DRM, permits up to four services.

Happy to be corrected, as always.  

Cheers,
ChaosMaster.

BTW: How has this thread become a digital radio discussion?

Edited by ChaosMaster, 01 July 2010 - 07:12 PM.

[DrP]

ChaosMaster, on Jul 1 2010, 07:09 PM, said:

BTW: How has this thread become a digital radio discussion?

Well this chap, what's his name?   Ah yes, alanh.   Well this chap called alanh and.... well you know how it goes.  

[viewer]

From the UEC VAST manual....
From the manual...
Decoder is designed,manufactured and sold to receive the selected network services only.It will therefor not be fully functional unless it is used with the network operators enabled Smartcard supplied with the DSD 421 decoder deployed within the Australian broadcast footprint, and installed so as to receive the network specific signal. The network operator is entiled to amend the software incorporated in the DSD 421 decoder from time to time by means of software downloads for a number of reasons, including preventing the DSD 421 decoder from being used to receive other than the network operators services

So that's it folks...can't use it for anything other than VAST, and they say it won't work without it's card.

Monopolistic...I think so...wonder why this applies when terrestrial receivers aren't locked?

Oh...also Macrovision onboard as well

Link to manual...DSD 4121
http://www.uec.com.au/

[beeblebrox]

viewer, on Jul 3 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

From the UEC VAST manual....
From the manual...
Decoder is designed,manufactured and sold to receive the selected network services only.It will therefor not be fully functional unless it is used with the network operators enabled Smartcard supplied with the DSD 421 decoder deployed within the Australian broadcast footprint, and installed so as to receive the network specific signal. The network operator is entiled to amend the software incorporated in the DSD 421 decoder from time to time by means of software downloads for a number of reasons, including preventing the DSD 421 decoder from being used to receive other than the network operators services

So that's it folks...can't use it for anything other than VAST, and they say it won't work without it's card.

Monopolistic...I think so...wonder why this applies when terrestrial receivers aren't locked?

Oh...also Macrovision onboard as well

Link to manual...DSD 4121
http://www.uec.com.au/

coz it's a whole lot harder to get out of license area coverage with terrestrial (not impossible but in most cases doesn't achieve a great lot...  the satellite box of course could be used anywhere in the country to give non authorised (ie per license area coverage)

I'm sure we'll see other VAST authorised boxes... it's a matter for the manufacturers and distributors to want to go through the process...  of course UES was a shoe in and they'll be the preferred and probably only subsidised box

[viewer]

beeblebrox, on Jul 3 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

coz it's a whole lot harder to get out of license area coverage with terrestrial (not impossible but in most cases doesn't achieve a great lot...  the satellite box of course could be used anywhere in the country to give non authorised (ie per license area coverage)

I'm sure we'll see other VAST authorised boxes... it's a matter for the manufacturers and distributors to want to go through the process...  of course UES was a shoe in and they'll be the preferred and probably only subsidised box

My point is that at 269 + installation, you should also be allowed to use this to access other fta satellite services on other dishes you own too. So much for being a "green environment", we have to unecessarilly have two receivers working at the same time, if you want to watch other services.

[ChaosMaster]

Quote

...including preventing the DSD 421 decoder from being used to receive other than the network operators services [/i]

Utter stupidity. What the <bleep> does this achieve in relation to 'piracy prevention' or preventing out-of-area reception??? Please explain, someone?!  
Considering you are purchasing the box as your own, IMO you have every right to receive whatever other non-VAST FTA services you like with it.
IMO this cannot be justified, no matter which way you look at it.

Quote

Oh...also Macrovision onboard as well

The inclusion of macrovision in these boxes is outrageously unfair for those that rely on the service, as terrestrial viewers of the same channels do not suffer from this restriction.

So much for providing an 'equal viewing experience' to what terrestrial viewers get, or whatever the heck they market it as.

IMO the crazy power-hungry lunatics seem to want total control over each and every aspect of our viewing. The way they're going I wouldn't be suprised if they try to prevent viewers changing channels at certain times soon too (or something like that)... (maybe during ad breaks...)
DVD Prohibited User-Operations anyone?...
Nothing suprises me anymore with this stupid crippled service now.  
Way to go DBCDE, you really know how to make a great 'Free to Air' satellite service, don't you now?

Signing off...
ChaosMaster.

(End of rant)


EDIT: On a side note however, it is interesting to note that the Official published VAST Spec does not seem to mandate either Macrovision or HDCP, or that the boxes should not be able to receive anything else on the sat. Maybe there is still hope for better boxes to become available in the future after all...?

Edited by ChaosMaster, 05 July 2010 - 01:24 AM.

[DrP]

No doubt different vendors will eventually come to the table and apply for VAST certification, just as happened with Aurora.  Most of the STBs that are capable of Aurora operation have never seen the certification process simply because an Aurora card can be used freely in any Irdeto 2 capable STB / CAM / etc.

Given the size of the market, how many vendors will actually submit products for 'Aurora V2' (VAST) certification?  Remember, each and every variant would have to be certified and the rate that some manufacturers pump out models would make the process expensive and no doubt prohibitive.  Several of those manufacturers products barely support Irdeto let alone additional specifications.  I was once informed directly by the person that wrote the firmware for one particular brand of receiver that their Irdeto implementation was not official and was built by gleening information from web forums (which certainly explained the 'quirkiness' of it)!  The entire brand would (hopefully) fail VAST certification for this reason alone.

All these years down the track UEC is still the government preferred Aurora STB manufacturer.  Given the strictness of the specification I honestly doubt that CAMs etc will ever be allowed and any card will be paired with a specific STB meaning the receiver must be approved/certified.

[kozo_san]

viewer, on Jul 3 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

My point is that at 269 + installation, you should also be allowed to use this to access other fta satellite services on other dishes you own too. So much for being a "green environment", we have to unecessarilly have two receivers working at the same time, if you want to watch other services.

Conspiracy theories aside there is a very valid technical reason why they have implemented things this way. The new Irdeto 3 encryption system requires that the samrt card be presented to the service at all times. Indeed if you are to power off a box for a long time (say three weeks) the card can and will expire (try this on Austar if you want proof). This would typically require you to call the call centre and get your card reinstated. So allowing the box to be used on another network where it may be there for weeks or months can cause problems for the broadcaster. Thus it is simple to just make sure that the viewer cannot use the box on non VAST platforms.

[kozo_san]

ChaosMaster, on Jul 4 2010, 11:54 PM, said:

The inclusion of macrovision in these boxes is outrageously unfair for those that rely on the service, as terrestrial viewers of the same channels do not suffer from this restriction.

Dont rant before you know the real facts. I am sure if you try one you will find that macrovision is currently off. Further the macrovision is enabled by the Irdeto system on a per service basis. So it will only apply to the services that the operators decide need to be macrovision protected.

[alanh]

All,
Since this topic is more general, I have posted Macrovision and HDCP in the approriate strand.
Copy Protection Post

AlanH

[DrP]

kozo_san, on Aug 4 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

This would typically require you to call the call centre and get your card reinstated. So allowing the box to be used on another network where it may be there for weeks or months can cause problems for the broadcaster.

This is essentially the case with Aurora, today.  If the card misses updates the answer is to leave it in the box (since its Aurora the box typically has to be on unless its one of the UEC Aurora boxes) for a few hours and the card will usually spring back to life.  Its an unlikely position to be in if the VAST box is used for regular TV viewing anyway.  Let's face it.  If one has gone to the trouble of getting a VAST service more than likely its going to be watched at least once a week.

If there was likely to be a situation where a population of VAST receivers were going to sit idle / off / disconnected or otherwise unable to receive the CA PIDs to stay up to date the solution would be to push the information out at a high rate, ala Select.  The typical recovery time for a select card, in my experience, is 15 minutes.  An alternative would be an automatic re-activation facility, similar to what is available with Aurora.  Call the number, punch in your card ID.

Edited by DrP, 05 August 2010 - 07:54 AM.

[ChaosMaster]

kozo_san, on Aug 4 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Dont rant before you know the real facts. I am sure if you try one you will find that macrovision is currently off. Further the macrovision is enabled by the Irdeto system on a per service basis. So it will only apply to the services that the operators decide need to be macrovision protected.

Thank you very much, I am quite aware that Macrovision doesn't have to always be enabled, Foxtel boxes being an example.  
However, why would one pay royalties for a feature they have no intention of ever using...?
You are correct that I don't know for certain, but I really wouldn't think they would pass up this opportunity to apply DRM to (at least some of) the service. The UK has already attempted to DRM even its HD terrestrial services (though they weren't successful in achieving exactly what they originally wanted). From what I have read in other threads on this forum, Austar apparently has DRM enabled on pretty much everything for its new Mystar HD boxes. It is the way things are heading, and its a fact that the networks and production studios both desire the ability to control off-air recording of television content. Expect more of it in years to come.

Edited by ChaosMaster, 05 August 2010 - 05:55 PM.

[wahroonga farm]

wahroonga farm, on Jun 15 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Assessing the very limited detail to date; I'll embark on a few bold predictions.  

1. The new 'VAST area' maps will be a darn sight more meaningful and accurate than the current Remote Area License maps. They'll still be Census collection district based, but will very much err on the VAST side of things.

2. 99.99% of the old 'Aurora black spot area' subscribers will now be 'in the VAST area' and will not need to resort to an ACMA 58.

3. As a safety net, a new 'ACMA 58' procedure (much simplified) will provide a mechanism for the odd household that lucks out on a terrestrial signal. Perhaps simply on the 'say so' of one of those new fangled 'Government approved' Digital Installers.  

- - - - - - - -

In any case, I do wish the process is clarified ... sooner rather than later.

I feel like a mushroom...

Seems things are a lot clearer now and I was pretty well on target with the intent of the above predictions.

Check out the latest at:

http://www.mysattv.com.au/

But more importantly:

http://myswitch.digitalready.gov.au/ and have a play with the maps.

[M'bozo]

I've checked some of the really bad areas I service, and the mySwitch data seems to concur.

Downside of course, is people here will currently have a long wait before they can get VAST.


Edit: Interestingly, it does not indicate coverage from black spot translators that may be converted to digital.

Edited by M'bozo, 28 September 2010 - 02:51 PM.

[ChaosMaster]

wahroonga farm, on Sep 28 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

Check out the latest at:

http://www.mysattv.com.au/

I observe that references to ABC being 'automatically' available to everyone have been removed...

One must ask why...

[ChaosMaster]

Sorry to revive this old thread, but just thought I would update this...

ChaosMaster, on Sep 30 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

I observe that references to ABC being 'automatically' available to everyone have been removed...

One must ask why...

It appears that ABC will be automatically available after all...
http://www.abc.net.a...igital/vast.htm
Some commonsense, at last...

Also, the above article makes mention of a 'MyVAST' website (https://www.myvast.com.au/) to launch in mid December.

Cheers,
ChaosMaster.

[wahroonga farm]

Thanks,

'MyVast' will be operated by Singtel Optus.

Registrant:					  SingTel Optus Pty Ltd
Registrant ID:				   ABN 90052833208
Eligibility Type:				Company

[alanh]

Wahroonga Farm,
This is not suprising since an Optus satellite is used and Optus is owned by Singtel which is owned by the Singapore Government.

AlanH

[wahroonga farm]

Alan,

Please cease spamming.