Here is my collection of watermarks from Australian and New Zealand FTA TV.

They are the standard watermarks and not the brighter ones you sometimes see on sports and some other shows (exception being Prime NZ, which has relocated its logo in the cricket shot).

The TV3 and C4 (music channel) ones are by far the worst offenders, although NZers are unhappy that TV One and TV2 have only recently jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Check out

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1175

Cheers

Good link toasted, it certainly makes the standard international practice arguement look stupid. I think they meant that they do it in the U.S. so therefore it must be good. As for no watermarks on the premium movie channels in the UK, I have never been able to understand why the Movie Network here has such huge watermarks and people still subscribe to them. Is the Australian viewer less discerning, or is the fact that most of the population watch movies on dvd and so it is only a small minority which actually watch these channels.

I nearly spat my food everywhere when I flipped over to ABC2 and saw this.

http://img95.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img95&image...shot00013fu.jpg

ABC has enough watermarks for the rest of the channels put together!

I love that in your argument you paint yourself as the "discerning" viewer. You can't help but portray your opponents and even the rest of the Australian public as Television cretins.

May be the distinction should be Realists vs. Idiots (oops I mean Idealists).

If you succeed I'd be the first to congratulate you but don’t expect to see me waving the placard or firebombing Gore Hill. There are more importatnt things in the world I'll devote my time to.

Who would like to live in a world where the "discerning" are ignored?

Imagine if all quality standards were set only at the level where "most people don't notice anything wrong".

CD audio quality, DVD picture quality, the arts (film, stage, written word, painting, etc), food (both in shops and restaurants), all products.

Companies selling mass product would love this world - more profit for less effort.

Australia is one of the few countries where "Intellectual" is an insult. It seems that "discerning" can be added to the list.

It also amazes me the stupid short term focus of so many Australians. They think "Today I have a small 4:3 TV, so DVDs and broadcasts that look OK on my TV are all that is needed". Who is to blame if they later find poor quality when they upgrade to a large widescreen?

And look further into the future. With falling prices and new technologies, full HD resolution large screens will eventually become very common.

It is the discerning viewer that is pressuring the DVD companies to have top quality DVDs. So the DVD that looks OK on a small 4:3 will look absolutely fantastic on a large widescreen.

Broadcast TV needs similar quality control.

Michael (proud to call himself a discerning viewer).

Mate, you're probably wasting your breath!

BTW:
Dont get me started on the State of the Nation!
The only way to get people interested in anything is if "everyone else is doing it" or "the Jones' have one" or "Nine told me®" or "xxxx - Just do it®™©" {ie- if it will make an offshore corporate buck}...
PS: Shhh! Soon you'll be locked up if you appear to exhibit a "tendency to intelligence" or - heaven-forbid - "free thought", in Rupe-GWB-Howard Land.

Thats my point- you're proud to call yourself a discerning viewer. Maybe a little too proud?

You exclude everone who holds a different opinion than you as some sort of philistine. Sure... those on the bleeding edge often drive innovation but maybe you shouldn't pat yourself over the back so much for it.

I think it is reasonable on this forum to be proud of having some good equipment and enjoying digital broadcasting.

By seeking good quality I am being INCLUSIVE. A high quality signal can be enjoyed by everyone.

What drives me mad is the people who think no-one should have or want something better than they think is OK.

Seems that there are lots of "I don't mind watermarks, so anyone who does mind them is a fool" people around.

Anyone who is against excellence is, in my opinion, a philistine.

But not everyone needs to appreciate excellence. Low or mid-end equipment is very appropriate for many people. For many people more expensive equipment would be a waste. These people are NOT philistines, they are just spending their money wisely.

I hope you don't think I'm a calling you a fool for caring about a watermark- it's great that you care so much. I just think that this militia like response is a bit over the top and that your self-image as an uber-viewer insults those that don’t conform to your narrow view of the TV world.


I don't think MichaelCPE actually breaths- he is more like some cybernetic crusader sent from the future to stop the ABC watermark before it becomes self-aware and launches a nuclear strike against the viewing public. Just wait for the sequel- Terminator 2: The Broadcast Flag.

Arrrggghhh!! Another Santa-acolyte ... can't come up with any cogent arguments, so go for personal insults and villification ... then follow it with a smirk and knowing wink to get others to laugh [nervously] with you!

Don't worry Michael, I'm not ashamed of being [occasionally] labelled as "intelligent" ... just because I know how to spell ... or "rich" ... just because I chose to spend my meagre funds on something that others wouldn't. Been putting up with it since kindergarten (along with "lanky" and other epithets, which those with sub-zero self-esteem like to drag us down with).

For the record [and to bring Satan up to date], I was not at all fussed with the early watermarks - because for my first 18 months of DTV my Dodgytec Footy only had a red pilot light on the front panel, so the watermark helped me to decide whether to "up channel" or "down channel" when I needed to quickly change stations at the ad breaks.

However, since acquiring a Toppy and a 'proper' HD-STB, the channel number is displayed on the front of the respective STBs, so I no longer have a need for watermarks. Indeed, only the last remaining Footy users still need them.

But now that the ABC has decided to not only emblazon their own watermark corporate logo over every frame of other peoples' works, but also to downgrade their showpiece HD swirly logo to Low-Def (there were never any HD programs shown on 20 anyway, even though their reason for dropping Fly and Kids a few years back was that they couldn't afford to do both HD *and* the extra channel) ... and then to introduce a Pay-TV-like repeat channel ... I have decided to belatedly join the watermark debate in an effort to, hopefully, stem their accelerating slide into mediocrity.

Aleph, the people calling me a fool (and worse) were on the newsgroups. This forum is very civilised (even when we disagree with each other).

Quick check - yep I breath.

Well, I see nothing wrong in trying for the best. Even tho most may not see any difference at the moment, it doesn't mean that they won't in the future.
Now given the state of Digital TV in Austalia, is little more then better picture and sound at the moment, then one would think that everyone here is here becuase they wanted something better. How sad would it be if we moved into the next century of TV, etc only to provide nothing more then what we have now (ie, 4:3, stereo sound, etc) but using digital transmission.
They could have done just that, since hay, "most ppl don't have any problem with current TV, so why try to make it better?"

Of course what gets really annoying, is when you do have something better, which they then try their best to present it worse (watermarks, banner ads, etc, etc). And when you ask why, all one gets is some BS reason that doesn't amount to squat.

So yes, there maybe some more important things, but at the end of the day, I think having all media accountable for their actions should be pretty important. Otherwise how do you have any idea what they are getting away with and what "facts" are true or not.

Satan? is this a bit of a Freudian slip? If he really frequents these forums then I better get out while I still can. I don't expect to see him for another 50 years yet...

MichaelCPE,
Yeah... I saw those posts on the newsgroups. I have to admit that for a moment there I had a bit of a chuckle.

Touchy, touchy! Things must be getting close to the truth!
Not sure how you characterise anyone you think is stooping to your level (aka "can't come up with any cogent arguments, so go for personal insults and villification ... then follow it with a smirk and knowing wink to get others to laugh [nervously] with you") as a Santa-acolyte!?

Dont tell your masters! (BTW Personally, I've never taken "lanky" as an insult... I dread to think how low one would have to be (literally) to use it as one!)

Satan, eh? You've taken to referring to me as one of your masters now, have you??? I'm not sure whether to be gratified or insulted!

So, to cut a long story short, you are belatedly switching from the Dark Side ... on this issue at least!

Has anyone noticed a subtle change on some programs, of the small watermark, not the larger News watermark? This version has darker edges and a brighter centre and does not fade out with some backgrounds. It was using in the story of the "Neighbours" actor (Harold), who found his real mother.

Actually I don't think all television viewers are cretins or idiots, if people don't care about watermarks so be it. It doesn't mean that those of us who don't like them though have to sit in the corner and shut up. On the contrary I think you are actually referring to us as idiots for being upset about them.

The point that I was trying to make was that in the UK viewers would not accept a watermark on the premium movie channels yet the Movie Network here has a massive watermark. Also it can not be disputed that a much larger proportion of the Australian public have dvd players than pay television, therefore many more people would watch movies on dvd than on the Movie Network, make of that what you will.

In the end I would give dvd's and their successors a much higher chance of long term survival than pay television as it exists today in Australia.

I guess till everyone gets a 40" plus HD screen these watermarks are probably not going to be much of an issue to the Great Unwashed. On a smaller TV the watermark is rather tiny and partially lost off some 4:3 screens. Once there's a significant number of nice clear digital widescreen TVs out there however, then more people may start complaining about the blob in the corner. I can see the commercial channels eventually taking notice of complaints and reducing or ridding us of their watermark, but marketing its departure as a selling point as if it was some sort of clever technical achievement.

Still beats me why the ABC have to have one at all?

following my email to here yesterday

http://abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_how.htm

this is the response I got today...yeeesh !



.......and added another two watermarks to the screen just incase you missed our original one ! what a croc !

this is an insult to the audience's intelligence.

Michael's previous "Great Satan" was Alex Encel, the evils of multicasting and the ditching of "HD Only".

and what is your point John ?

If only all watermarks were in the corner. The ones sitting in the middle of my screen in the 4:3 area are rather annoying.

I complained to the ABC anc got the usual corporate reply. Obviously they were ready for a lot of complaints!

Dear Mr Reast

Thank you for your email.

The ABC regrets that you do not like the introduction of watermarking
on ABC Television programs. While noting your comments, we believe that
this change is both important and necessary. Watermarking is a
practice that has been well established in Australia by other networks for
many years and is in fact fairly standard practice internationally. In a
multichannel environment there is a need to subtly identify the channel
for viewers and this identification will become even more necessary as
the number of digital stations increase in the coming years.

Secondly, and importantly, the ABC believes it has a duty to copyright
owners. Watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording)
and for this reason it was adopted in most countries a number of years
ago.

As a result of feedback from our audiences we have reduced the
watermark's translucence or strength by half, we have reduced the size of the
watermark, and we have moved it to the bottom right hand corner of the
screen.

Nonetheless, we do appreciate your views and I have passed them on to
ABC TV Management for their information.

Kind Regards,

Cathy Brown
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs

Memories!

The Australian distributor of Loewe TVs, who believed (incorrectly) that under the "HD only" system that a HD STB would (in practice) not be able to output a SD signal, and thus digital TV would not connect to his Loewe TVs.

he ran an extensive campaign against HD. He pretended to represent the consumer.

In my opinion, he and the Australian Consumers Association, were the sticks that broke the camels back and resulted in the Government changing the system from "HD only" to "always SD, with some HD".

The result is that Australia has never had any full bit rate HD broadcast, and we now stuck with a second rate system. (When BlueRay/HD-DVD arrives we will see what we have been missing).

So I think Alex Encel is a worthy of the title "Great Satan" to Australian digital TV.

The person(s) in the ABC who got rid of ABC HD and introduced the watermarks are, of course, also worthy of the title.

Nobody can read AE’s mind and he denied these accusations many times (apart from suggesting that although technically possible, he did not think a SD down convert would be included in a HD box)

The Australian Consumers Association were not fools in campaigning for SD, they had a difference of opinion to the HD Only people. The handful of people that I know that have made the plunge into SD widescreen digital are more than pleased with the results. As we are a COFDM country, SD Only system would have made far greater sense with us moving to a SD/HD hybrid as the Europe and the UK moved as they will have a more advanced system than us.

While not giving a stuff about watermarks, the only mistake Auntie made was dropping Kids/Fly and not introducing 576p in the first place.

AE denied which accusation?

He was the distributor of Loewe. He did campaign against HD. As you say, he did at the time of the his campaign believe that the "HD only" STBs would not be able to connect to his SD Loewe TVs. From memory he did explicitly say that he represented consumers at the Senate hearing.

All the above are facts.

That he was one of two straws that broke the HD camels back is my opinion.

John and I have written thousands of words in the dba forums on the topics of HD and multi-channelling, so I will not repeat that.

The new things are that the predictions on falling prices have come true, we can now see that HD in the USA is becoming successful, and real HD in Australian homes is now only about a year away.

A comparision of real HD and 576p will be very apparent on large good equipment.

I believe that it will not be to long before some Average Joes have HD from disc displayed on good equipment, and start to wonder why we do not have equivalent quality on TV.

A difference of opinion or a difference of facts? If they believed that HD decoders couldn't connect to SD and analogue TVs, they're not entitled to promote that. You are entitled to opinions but if you have the wrong facts you can keep them to yourself. FWIW my opinion is that we should have a lot more interactive and multiview programming, as well as the HD quota. (Quota is better than "HD only").


Anyway ... I'm just writing to very gingerly inform people that the ABC watermark has been absent (not counting news programming and ABC Kids) for almost 24 hours. <crosses fingers>

CK.

sorry to be bearer of bad news but looks like theyre back - in melb anyway. Same two watermarks on abc2- ch21, standard abc symbol on ch2 and only channel missing a watermark is their SD lite channel - ch20 (abcHD - yeah right !)

guys forget about alex encel - all old news now

Hang on a minute, I can only believe what I have read. From my reading of the Senate Submissions, it was suggested that using HD Only with 576i connectivity would add cost. It was suggested in the submission that using an off the shelf SD STBs would be far less costly to the consumer than HD boxes manufactured for a small market.

I can only believe my eyes; SD boxes are now available for less than $100 and I would expect them to hit the $60 mark. People can now go out and buy a wide screen/ STB combo for $700 (Teac TV and Box).

More than a few of you posts directed at this fellow were IMHO character assassination- calling a man slime leaves nothing to the imagination. It is a great tactic to question a man’s character thus destroying his argument.

Why am I not surprised that you would call for reduction of Aunties funding, boycotting their shops and refusing to watch the channel all because of a bl**dy watermark.

Yup; unfortunately a lot of the misinformation floating around, wasn't talking about the difference in set-top-box prices, but instead was flying around 5-figure sums ... too many people were talking about the cost of HD sets even though this was, to everyone here at least, patently irrelevant.


While this is true; to be scientific about it you have to bring a hypothetical situation which you can never accurately know: Consider if the only decoders available were MP@HL compatible and could receive HD signals. It stands to reason they would be cheaper than the ones we see here, now. The ones on sale now are a tiered, higher-class product. If they were all set at minimum expectations then there'd be lower prices for the single category. Of course, the cheapest of those would be higher than the lowest of the low SD prices now ... but by how much? Nobody can say. It's hypothetical, unfortunately.

If your response is: "Well any price reduction is good", that's a valid point, but consider the permanent bandwidth cost happening to our precious spectrum right now, and for decades into the future. With the bandwidth being used by the standard definition channel, we could fit another channel for every network. ABC2 could co-exist with a true high definition ABC TV on a 24/7 basis. Oh well. Stupid people made this impossible.

It's not all bad news, considering that future HD developments in MPEG-4 can give us a chance to do it properly in the future. I can't speak for other HD decoder owners, but I for one would not mind if the MPEG-2 HD system was replaced with an MPEG-4 system in the future, and the bandwidth would allow it to be switched on alongside SDTV and multiview or multichannel.

In the meantime, we're getting loads more HD content (even with just Nine and Ten) than people in the UK and Europe have been getting for the last five years. You can probably make the analogy to America getting colour TV a decade or more before Australia did. Who was better off for it? It's a double-edged sword. Although, it's not impossible to shelve the old system and plug in a replacement. We can even add 3D vision without too much effort. If we replace the HD system, you can also rightfully say the replacement has better picture quality than the old one, so people are getting something for it. On top of that, I would recommend a mandate of 720p or 1080i.

There's one other thing, which sometimes gets mentioned in this forum, and that's the leftover channels if/when analogue gets turned off. A single one would be feasible to use for every FTA primary SDTV channel, which would also allow for a proper cross-network EPG. If this is implemented, the leftover bandwidth could be used for MPEG-2 HDTV. Or MPEG-4 HDTV by then. You could even bite the bullet and convert all the other SDTV services to MPEG-4 and save even more bandwidth. I'm all for giving the networks 23Mbps to play with, if they want to use it fruitfully and MPEG-4 SDTV and HDTV will make things more interesting. Throw in some small quotas for multiview and interactivity, take away the multichannel restrictions for free-to-view, and you would have a healthy regime here.


Oh yes -- I spoke too soon on the ABC's watermark. Sigh.

I wonder who missed it not being there? Did someone ring up and say "Is this the ABC? What channel am I watching? I can't see it!" Did the makers of Second Opinion get in touch and complain that people were pirating their show? I'm sure somebody was watching the new 6:30pm shows ... wasn't there??

And while I'm here, how did the word 'pirate' get linked to stealing things by copying? It's got loads of connotations of swords and murdering ... sheesh.

CK.

I would have preferred to get SD running to its full potential and added a few MPEG-4 HD channels further down the track. Its all too late now as both consumers and the networks have invested in HD MPEG-2 equipment.

Me too. The stupid SD vs HD argument is very tired. We can - and should - have both.. but not the way the commercial networks intended. Their only intention was self-preservationand profit, and that's not best for the end consumers who they ultimately depend on, is it? We can have our cake and eat it too, but not this way. We should have several muxes with SD multichannel content and several HD channels, just as I suggested in my recent thread "If you were the ABA..."

The current scenario has only ended up with a compromise with which no-one is happy. Except the interests of certain billionaires.

Some comments on some posts above.

To CK - As far as I know, it was only Alex Encel who believed that in practice an HD STB would not be able to connect to an ordinary TV. At the time of AEs lobbying, he never made it clear that he held this wrong belief. Instead it was just that "HD is too expensive".

The Australian Consumer Assoication just got caught up in the "HD is too expensive" discussion.

For those new to the debate, I shall clarify the issue of SD vs HD at the Senate hearings.

No one has ever suggested that "HD only" would be the cheaper option for the consumer. What was argued was that if only HD STBs were sold, the extra cost would be something like $50 to $100 per box extra at first, falling to an extra few dollars over time.

The current STB prices cannot be used to show that this argument was wrong, because HD STBs are now sold in very low volumes as a premium product. That this would occur was predicted right from the start. In fact it was predicted that it would be one of the things that would kill HD.

Readers of this thread will see that all I have done in regard to Alex Encel is say some facts. It is John who is attacking the person (me) rather than the arguement.

What is saddest about the current HD situation is that it was always doomed to failure, with no winner.

And given the poor understanding of technology by our leaders, and the huge distortions to any public debate by all the involved industries, I think it unlikely we will see a good solution in the future. An MPEG4 HD solution is the most likely to succeed, but I will not hold my breath.

The reader back and take a good look at past threads.

BTW Encel was accused of being a lair because he suggested a display capable of displaying 1920x1080i woulld cost $20000. Displays capable displaying HD in its full glory are still big bucks. My HD $3200 display cannot resolve 1920x1080i

As for HD SD boxes, we are still waiting for a HD PVR

The main distortion given by the anti-HD side was the huge cost of HD. As pointed out repeatedly by the other side, the only extra cost of "HD only" was the cost of the HD chip in the STB.

A full 1920x1080i display was no more needed for HD than a $200,000 sports car is needed for the road. Both are great if you can afford them, but are not needed to use the TV / road.

The anti-HD side also ignored the rapidly falling costs of HD equipment. What has happened was pretty much what was expected.

Encel's great misrepresentation was that a $20,000 TV was needed for HD.

If we had gone "HD only", I am sure that there would be at least one HD PVR on sale now. Of course this cannot be proved (or disproved).

Under the "HD only" system the market for a HD PVR would be the whole PVR market. And as the ABC and SBS would probably be doing a full 1080i upconversion under the "HD only" system, there would be a quality improvement with their content.

Under the current system the HD PVR market will only be a very small part of the PVR market. And at the moment a HD PVR is not much benefit for 2, 7, and SBS. Not a great business case for a HD PVR.

How would you suggest displeasure be expressed to the ABC about the watermark then? Writing or talking to them is about as productive as slamming your head against a brick wall. Vocally boycotting their stores at least sends a message to any management reading this forum.

Yup, well like I said, I for one would not mind reinvesting in MPEG-4 at my end since the cost is likely to be in the hundreds of dollars and be 5-10 after the launch of MPEG-2 HD. As for the networks, the MPEG-4 equipment would be only at the head-end. In fact the proportion of MPEG-2 equipment in the networks is small, if you measure by volume or dollars.


Sentence there exist where?


$2772 LCD capable of resolving 1920x1080p. If you pay more or wait a few years, you can get it even larger than 23 inches. It took a few years for colour TVs to get up to 26 inches and below that price point in today's dollars


The point has been made, that this would likely be (but unprovably, necessarily) available by now if all of Australia's boxes had to be HD.

CK.

Oh yes, and before I forget, the ABC watermark seems to have gone on leave outside of prime time. This seems to be a reverse of the boiling-the-frog approach, and I can't decide whether it bodes ill or well.

CK.

I have no problem accepting that a computer monitor does a great job at displaying a HD picture, but its size and brightness makes it unsuitable for family viewing.

As for HD boxes being cheaper if they did not have to compete with SD boxes, one could also argue that without competition from SD boxes, HD boxes might carry a higher cost

While accepting that the cost of HD displays will continue to fall, MPEG-2/MPEG-4 boxes may also be readily available in the UK and Europe in 5 years. Could it not argued that SD Only would have been a legitimate option with MPEG-4 HD services being added in 5 years? On would have thought that practical EPGs and multi view at the push of a button (SD developed to its full potential) would have been of greater appeal ATM.

Ok... I'm now getting annoyed with this bloody watermark too.

Its not that there is a watermark per se, but they seem to at random intervals remove it, reduce it's translucency, increase it's translucency, decide that- 'Yes ABC HD is such bad quality that the viewer would not be able to make it out' and so strip it from the HD broadcast, or implement whatever other wacky change their dog spat out in the morning.

How about some consistency here guys? (and I’m sure most people are itching to pitch in with the 'how about consistently gone' comment)

While I do like the idea that we'll eventually get HD transmitted and displayed at full resolution we do have to consider the point John made.

Because our "small" market went with COFDM transmission and HD capability, we have had, up until recently, a unique combination required in STBs for Australia.
The Europeans had COFDM but no HD (until recently - and that's satellite delivery now) the Americans had 8VSB and HD. So regardless of whether we had HD only (with SD output) or HD/SD mix, we had this uncommon combination.
I really think this is the reason for the relatively high price differential between HD and SD STBs. I doubt if we had changed the specifications of the HD requirements that there would have been any significant drop in HD STB prices.
The other thing is the MPEG decoder chips. The Main Level (SD) chips would be common to many different devices (like DVD players), the HD decoder chips have a much smaller market and lower sales volume so the economies of scale aren't there regardless of the Australian market.

With the benefit of hindsight there are many changes we could have made to the mix (leaving aside the broadcasting regulations and competition policy considerations) but I doubt if these would have helped STB prices.
The only thing which would have increased uptake is more channels.
It is as simple as that. When DTV was introduced there were NO HD native displays, and we still do not have native 1080 displays at a mass market price.
HD is unfortunately not the driver of uptake of DTV for all but a small segment of the market.

Cheers

JB

brings the age green guide article to mind around when I was getting into DTV. It was along the lines off "DVD wags the digital dog" - if I remember. point of the article was dvd was driving the widescreen tv market- everyones either got a dvd or getting a dvd. More and more People buying widescreen tvs as they were sick of the black bars top and bottom on their 4:3 TVs when watching widescreen DVDs. The sales of widescreen tvs drive sales of stb. Salesman throwing in stb and bringing it to the notice of widescreen tv buyers that to get widescreen tv pictures they need stb. Perhaps the article is right and this is whats driving the uptake of DTV.

Well you can get 30" LCDs for around $3,000 now. That's big enough for most families. And it's just 2005.

I've heard other people talk about the brightness issue ... I have no idea if they have a point. Most TV rooms are darker than outdoors


Good point.


Again, good point. It's an open argument and I can see this kind of view is the reason we got PAL colour. A lot of people, though, were complaining about how long it took for Australia to get colour. This case is slightly distinguished, however, by the fact that a digital system lets you chop and change your technology more easily; and we essentially get the same result if you do what Nine and Ten do.

Frankly there are a lot of people in Australia who wish things to be like England, and there are a lot of people in England who'd like to see the HDTV shows that Nine and Ten show now. So ... it cuts both ways.

The door is still open to do HD the way the Europeans choose to do. And we could mandate a quota of features like the English already have, too. Luckily, the disadvantages we have are still fixable.

CK.

What's with the ABC watermark?
Sometimes it's on a program. Sometimes it's not.

Tuned into "Glass House" last night to find no watermark.
Previous weeks there its been in the 14:9 spot.

Then it's on the "Movie Show". At which point I tuned out.

If it's now smaller and more transparent, why bother to have it at all?
Dear ABC, turn it off, and leave it off.

Some further comments on the HD side issue:

The main problem of moving from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 for HD broadcasting is that this makes all existing (MPEG 2) HD STBs only MPEG2 SD. This would, of course, make all those who purchased this STBs rather upset.

It also requires the Govenment to admit it made a big mistake.

Hence I am not holding my breath for MPEG 4 HD over the air.

John Barber talks about the unique Australian solution. The main thing to consider is that Australia has chosen international standard solutions, and this is what is implemented in chips. The very expensive is when we choose something which needs a unique Australian chip.

Because of much cheaper SD STBs being available, and HD being treated as a premium (ie high mark-up) product, the sales of HD STBs have been very low. Yet despite the low sales figures, HD STBs are made by many companies. This is proof that our HD system is not that difficult to implement at reasonable cost.

I am sure that under the "HD only" system we would by now have a HD STB for less than $200. Of course I cannot prove this. But it can be shown to be feasible by looking at the cost of STB design and building. I am not going to repeat the research done years ago in these debates, but will just emphasise that there are real facts out there to back up the low costs involved. MPEG 2 HD chips are not that expensive!

I have always thought that the real push for digital TV is DVD to widescreen to digital TV. HD was mainly about future.

The problem now is that future is not so far away, and FTA HD is now in very bad shape - no real HD on 2, 7 or SBS!

If we had no digital TV today, then a HD MPEG4 solution would be viable. But when the decisions were made many years ago only MPEG 2 was viable. Back then we should either of done nothing about digital or gone HD only. The last minute change was no good for anyone.

Michael

My point, Michael, was that the combination of COFDM tuners and HD MPEG decoder chips in the same STB was unique to Australia, not the actual chips themselves.

I imagine that the HD MPEG chips are more expensive than the SD chips because the SD MPEG decoder chips would be common to a wide range of products such as DVD players as well as STBs, hence the economies of scale argument. If I am wrong on this point (that the same SD MPEG chip can be used in DVDs and STBs) then I would appreciate correction.

Yep, we have gone over this all before in another thread, but I don't think that an HD Only specification would have seen the savings on HD STB's that you estimate, Michael, much as I wish it were true.

Cheers

JB

PS. A quick search to compare prices on MPEG decoder chips.
This is the MPEG decoder chip only, with the HD version 2.5 times the price of an SD chip for the STB manufacturers.

Standard Definition:
http://www.st.com/stonline/press/news/year2005/p1560h.htm
<<The STM5105 is built using ST’s state-of-the-art 0.13 micron technology, and uses the 216-pins LQFP package. Samples are available now, with volume production expected early in Q2 2005. Pricing is $7 in 100k quantities.>>

High Definition
http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/stm/stm114.html
<<An innovative system for flexible routing of video streams from different sources simplifies transport stream management software and improves reliability.
Samples of the STi7710 are available now, and volume production is planned for Q1 2005 at an expected high-volume price of $18.>>

John,

I agree with you, and disagree.

The fact that a DVD player can be bought for $49 supports your side.

But I think the fact that we have so many HD STBs, with the all time cheapest being about $450, supports my side.

Given the low volumes of HD STBs sold, and the mark up for being a premium product which effect sales under the current system, I think it is very easy to guesstimate that under the "HD only" system we would now have a cheapest HD STB on sale for under $200.

$200 is well above $49 for a DVD player, and is also double the current low price for a STB of under $100. So I give the $200 as a fairly conservative figure.

My guess is that if we had the "HD only" system that the broadcasters would have done much better in providing more and better HD, and that even the ABC would have shown some real HD. But this is, of course, only a guess.

HD is looking very sick today. I would not be surprised if the HD PVR makers are looking at this and wondering how sensible it is to launch a HD PVR into the Australian market.

Maybe so but the makers would be silly not to make a multi-system unit like the Europeans usually do, so it can be used in Australia too. All they have to do is decide when to release it due to a possible consumer demand.

The AVS forum list American STBs at between $350 and $900 American (and yes we all know their system is 8VSB). There are 265 million people in America, they have chosen HD Only for FTA digital- their boxes have not fallen to $200.

It was mentioned that Australia has chosen a worldwide standard, but I have read that Australia requested our brand of HD be accommodated into the COFDM standard.

IMO the cost of the decoder chip is not the real issue but how many manufactures have designed their boards to accommodate the chip. Many manufactures are making SD boxes for several countries.

There are 48 SD boxes listed on the DBA site with several of those being PVRs or STB/DVD combos; it would appear that not all the SD boxes are listed (my father purchased an excellent box not listed, DSE has their brand on a box, a $79 box is being sold through Wollies or so I have read). 19 HD boxes are listed with one of these being a PVR.

Why would a tiny country such as Australia go it alone especially when countries such as the UK have working EPGs and multi-angles leave alone multichanneling- it would appear that both UK and Europe will adopt MPEG-4 to offer HD services in the future for those wishing for a premium service. Contrast that with Australia where the only two broadcasters permitted to offer extra content are severely limited in what they are permitted to broadcast.