Fox 8 widescreen on satellite

[Bob Starkey]

As from today, Fox 8 on satellite is wide screen as is W 23 still. Animal
Planet is not.

At the moment, Roswell is screening in wide screen on Fox 8.

[Kubalister]

Oh great.

Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only has
3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of 720
horizontal pixels.

I'm guessing that the video resolution for each channel will get even worse
when 120 channels are being sent via sat.
Oh well, they assume most people are too stupid to notice the difference.
They're probably right.

"Bob Starkey" <ch5s4@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:%8Ayb.34398$aT.32512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> As from today, Fox 8 on satellite is wide screen as is W 23 still. Animal
> Planet is not.
>
> At the moment, Roswell is screening in wide screen on Fox 8.
>
>

[an]

Roswell thats screening now seems to be in full D1 resolution.


"Kubalister" <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3fcae871$0$31746$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> Oh great.
>
> Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only has
> 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of 720
> horizontal pixels.
>
> I'm guessing that the video resolution for each channel will get even
worse
> when 120 channels are being sent via sat.
> Oh well, they assume most people are too stupid to notice the difference.
> They're probably right.
>
> "Bob Starkey" <ch5s4@getlost.com> wrote in message
> news:%8Ayb.34398$aT.32512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > As from today, Fox 8 on satellite is wide screen as is W 23 still.
Animal
> > Planet is not.
> >
> > At the moment, Roswell is screening in wide screen on Fox 8.
> >
> >
>
>

[Kubalister]

nope!

The program stream is still being sent at 544 x 576 resolution. Just like W.
Roswell currently has an average bit rate of a pathetic 2.6 Mbps.

"an" <an@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bqeuk5$20ic80$1@ID-195401.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Roswell thats screening now seems to be in full D1 resolution.
>
>
> "Kubalister" <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcae871$0$31746$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> > Oh great.
> >
> > Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only
has
> > 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> > Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> > At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of
720
> > horizontal pixels.
> >
> > I'm guessing that the video resolution for each channel will get even
> worse
> > when 120 channels are being sent via sat.
> > Oh well, they assume most people are too stupid to notice the
difference.
> > They're probably right.
> >
> > "Bob Starkey" <ch5s4@getlost.com> wrote in message
> > news:%8Ayb.34398$aT.32512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > As from today, Fox 8 on satellite is wide screen as is W 23 still.
> Animal
> > > Planet is not.
> > >
> > > At the moment, Roswell is screening in wide screen on Fox 8.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[an]

"Kubalister" <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3fcb020d$0$31745$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> nope!
>
> The program stream is still being sent at 544 x 576 resolution. Just like
W.
> Roswell currently has an average bit rate of a pathetic 2.6 Mbps.


Pretty sad,
Roswell seems to have a full horizontal picture on the nokia, as do some of
the commercials.
Most of the rest has the left and right sides chopped off, like W.

>
> "an" <an@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:bqeuk5$20ic80$1@ID-195401.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Roswell thats screening now seems to be in full D1 resolution.
> >
> >
> > "Kubalister" <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
> > news:3fcae871$0$31746$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> > > Oh great.
> > >
> > > Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only
> has
> > > 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> > > Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> > > At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of
> 720
> > > horizontal pixels.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that the video resolution for each channel will get even
> > worse
> > > when 120 channels are being sent via sat.
> > > Oh well, they assume most people are too stupid to notice the
> difference.
> > > They're probably right.
> > >
> > > "Bob Starkey" <ch5s4@getlost.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%8Ayb.34398$aT.32512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > As from today, Fox 8 on satellite is wide screen as is W 23 still.
> > Animal
> > > > Planet is not.
> > > >
> > > > At the moment, Roswell is screening in wide screen on Fox 8.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Trevor Daley]

On 01-Dec-03 16:05:46 *Kubalister* wrote about Re: Fox 8 widescreen on
satellite, so I though I would say...

> Oh great.

> Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only has
> 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of 720
> horizontal pixels.

Actually, if you set your box up correctly, it is in 16:9.

Trev.

[Kubalister]

"Trevor Daley" <tldaley@GOSPAM.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:486.465T1061T12243360tldaley@GOSPAM.ihug.com. au...
> On 01-Dec-03 16:05:46 *Kubalister* wrote about Re: Fox 8 widescreen on
> satellite, so I though I would say...
>
> > Oh great.
>
> > Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only
has
> > 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> > Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> > At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of
720
> > horizontal pixels.
>
> Actually, if you set your box up correctly, it is in 16:9.
>
> Trev.

Yes, the aspect ratio for the mpeg2 stream is now set to 16:9 for Fox8, BUT
now any 4:3 content that appears on that channel only uses 394 pixels
horizontally (75 pixels either side is now black), whereas before today 4:3
content used the full 544 horizontal pixels of the mpeg2 stream.
In case you don't understand, I'm not referring to what a set top box
displays using whatever setting, but rather the actual DVB mpeg2 resolution.

To maintain the same resolution for native 4:3 content in widescreen 16:9
mode, the mpeg2 resolution should be set to 720 horizontal pixels, so that
the centre placed 4:3 content occupies about 540 pixels which is the same as
before the change to 16:9 aspect ratio.

What this means is that from today any 4:3 content on Fox8 will be
noticeably inferior in visual quality. I guess you can call it SSDTV - Sub
Standard Digital Television!

[Danny Rohr]

> Yes, the aspect ratio for the mpeg2 stream is now set to 16:9 for Fox8,
BUT
> now any 4:3 content that appears on that channel only uses 394 pixels
> horizontally (75 pixels either side is now black), whereas before today
4:3
> content used the full 544 horizontal pixels of the mpeg2 stream.
> In case you don't understand, I'm not referring to what a set top box
> displays using whatever setting, but rather the actual DVB mpeg2
resolution.
>
> To maintain the same resolution for native 4:3 content in widescreen 16:9
> mode, the mpeg2 resolution should be set to 720 horizontal pixels, so that
> the centre placed 4:3 content occupies about 540 pixels which is the same
as
> before the change to 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
> What this means is that from today any 4:3 content on Fox8 will be
> noticeably inferior in visual quality. I guess you can call it SSDTV - Sub
> Standard Digital Television!

So what you are saying is that even the 4:3 channels are using a lower
resolution than they could be? And because the 16:9 channels are pillar
boxed, you are seeing even less resoluion that before when watching
pillarboxed 4:3 content.

I doubt the new 120 channels will maek anything worse. There is enough
transponder space to offer the channels at their current quality, but yeah,
you would expect more. Everyone whinges about Sky being the same in the UK.

Danny.

[Steve and Rach]

I think it depends on whether the source material is 4:3 or 16:9. I think
there was a new australian show on fox 8 at 20:30 which was full 16:9 (as
opposed to skinny 16:9 from 4:3 source material).
Cheers
Steve
"Kubalister" <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3fcb1cc4$0$31745$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Trevor Daley" <tldaley@GOSPAM.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:486.465T1061T12243360tldaley@GOSPAM.ihug.com. au...
> > On 01-Dec-03 16:05:46 *Kubalister* wrote about Re: Fox 8 widescreen on
> > satellite, so I though I would say...
> >
> > > Oh great.
> >
> > > Yet another channel that is now set to widescreen mode but still only
> has
> > > 3/4 D1 horizontal resolution (544 horizontal pixels).
> > > Now 4:3 content is displayed with only 400 pixels horizontally.
> > > At least the ABC & SBS widescreen streams are in Full D1 resolution of
> 720
> > > horizontal pixels.
> >
> > Actually, if you set your box up correctly, it is in 16:9.
> >
> > Trev.
>
> Yes, the aspect ratio for the mpeg2 stream is now set to 16:9 for Fox8,
BUT
> now any 4:3 content that appears on that channel only uses 394 pixels
> horizontally (75 pixels either side is now black), whereas before today
4:3
> content used the full 544 horizontal pixels of the mpeg2 stream.
> In case you don't understand, I'm not referring to what a set top box
> displays using whatever setting, but rather the actual DVB mpeg2
resolution.
>
> To maintain the same resolution for native 4:3 content in widescreen 16:9
> mode, the mpeg2 resolution should be set to 720 horizontal pixels, so that
> the centre placed 4:3 content occupies about 540 pixels which is the same
as
> before the change to 16:9 aspect ratio.
>
> What this means is that from today any 4:3 content on Fox8 will be
> noticeably inferior in visual quality. I guess you can call it SSDTV - Sub
> Standard Digital Television!
>
>

[Kubalister]

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:bqgdi2$22bmf6$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Yes, the aspect ratio for the mpeg2 stream is now set to 16:9 for Fox8,
> BUT
> > now any 4:3 content that appears on that channel only uses 394 pixels
> > horizontally (75 pixels either side is now black), whereas before today
> 4:3
> > content used the full 544 horizontal pixels of the mpeg2 stream.
> > In case you don't understand, I'm not referring to what a set top box
> > displays using whatever setting, but rather the actual DVB mpeg2
> resolution.
> >
> > To maintain the same resolution for native 4:3 content in widescreen
16:9
> > mode, the mpeg2 resolution should be set to 720 horizontal pixels, so
that
> > the centre placed 4:3 content occupies about 540 pixels which is the
same
> as
> > before the change to 16:9 aspect ratio.
> >
> > What this means is that from today any 4:3 content on Fox8 will be
> > noticeably inferior in visual quality. I guess you can call it SSDTV -
Sub
> > Standard Digital Television!
>
> So what you are saying is that even the 4:3 channels are using a lower
> resolution than they could be? And because the 16:9 channels are pillar
> boxed, you are seeing even less resoluion that before when watching
> pillarboxed 4:3 content.

Yep. Every channel on the Foxtel/Austar sat bouquet (except for ABC - only
available to Austar customers) is transmitted with a 544 x 576 pixel
resolution. (ABC is transmitted with 720 x 576 resolution - the same as all
terrestrial standard definition digital television channels. The quality of
the ABC channel is still inferior to the terrestrial version (and the feeds
on B1 sat) since it's recompressed to an average bit rate of 4.5 Mbps,
whereas the terrestrial transmissions have an average bit rate of 6 Mbps)

I don't have any complaints about the use of 3/4 D1 resolution for 4:3
content as it is quite acceptable, but if the channel is set to 16:9 mode
your decoder must anamorphically enlarge the horizontal width by almost
DOUBLE compared to the vertical. The result of this is that if you look
closely at the channel you'll see that pixel elements are more rectangular
than square - with roughly twice the height compared to their width. If you
therefore want to maintain the same relative horizontal resolution when
showing a wider view then you need to increase the resolution or quality
will suffer.


> I doubt the new 120 channels will maek anything worse. There is enough
> transponder space to offer the channels at their current quality, but
yeah,
> you would expect more. Everyone whinges about Sky being the same in the
UK.
>
> Danny.
>

Since most channels will progress to widescreen eventually, you WILL see a
degradation in quality of those channels. I'm sure that even the satellite
and cable retransmission of terrestrial channels will be reduced to 544 x
576 pixels and have a reduction in bit rate to make them noticeably inferior
to the terrestrial transmissions of SDTV. If you even remotely care about
image quality then you shouldn't bother to wait for Foxtel to retransmit the
FTA signals via sat as they'll be inferior to the terrestrial version. You'd
be better off with a DVB-T receiver.

[mddawson]

Hi everyone, this is my first post here.

Firstly I find it a bit odd that Foxtel has started transmitting Fox8 & W in 16:9 before some of the other channels as the majority of their programming would be 4:3. Showtime & World Movies would have been more appropriate IMO. I set my decoder back to 4:3 to record some programs but there is an obvious reduction in picture quality on Fox8.

Secondly isn't there someway Foxtel could make use of the 'Auto' selection in the TV Aspect options of the decoder so each program could be transmitted at maximum resolution? Too bad if the adds look a little odd, as long as the main program looks good.

Mark

[Danny Rohr]

Kubalister <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3fcc41a9$0$31749$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> Yep. Every channel on the Foxtel/Austar sat bouquet (except for ABC - only
> available to Austar customers) is transmitted with a 544 x 576 pixel
> resolution. (ABC is transmitted with 720 x 576 resolution - the same as
all
> terrestrial standard definition digital television channels. The quality
of
> the ABC channel is still inferior to the terrestrial version (and the
feeds
> on B1 sat) since it's recompressed to an average bit rate of 4.5 Mbps,
> whereas the terrestrial transmissions have an average bit rate of 6 Mbps)

I wonder if they will re-compress the digital FTA channels on the new cable
service? One would think that cable would have more than enough bandwidth
for 6Mbps channels. But who knows. Of coarse the Pay channels will still
be over compressed because they will be fed straight off the Sat.

Its pretty bad. I would prefer less channels and better quality.

> I don't have any complaints about the use of 3/4 D1 resolution for 4:3
> content as it is quite acceptable, but if the channel is set to 16:9 mode
> your decoder must anamorphically enlarge the horizontal width by almost
> DOUBLE compared to the vertical. The result of this is that if you look
> closely at the channel you'll see that pixel elements are more rectangular
> than square - with roughly twice the height compared to their width. If
you
> therefore want to maintain the same relative horizontal resolution when
> showing a wider view then you need to increase the resolution or quality
> will suffer.

How are you checking the resolution of each channel? With satellite tuner
card?

> Since most channels will progress to widescreen eventually, you WILL see a
> degradation in quality of those channels. I'm sure that even the satellite
> and cable retransmission of terrestrial channels will be reduced to 544 x
> 576 pixels and have a reduction in bit rate to make them noticeably
inferior
> to the terrestrial transmissions of SDTV. If you even remotely care about
> image quality then you shouldn't bother to wait for Foxtel to retransmit
the
> FTA signals via sat as they'll be inferior to the terrestrial version.
You'd
> be better off with a DVB-T receiver.

How shit yeah. I really hope they don't downconvert the digital FTA
channels on cable. Its going to be interesting to see just how many local
FTA channels they will carry on C1 also. Just why they aren't using a duel
DVB-T/DVB-S receiver is beyond me.

Danny.

[Kubalister]

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:bqjjje$230df5$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Kubalister <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcc41a9$0$31749$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> > Yep. Every channel on the Foxtel/Austar sat bouquet (except for ABC -
only
> > available to Austar customers) is transmitted with a 544 x 576 pixel
> > resolution. (ABC is transmitted with 720 x 576 resolution - the same as
> all
> > terrestrial standard definition digital television channels. The quality
> of
> > the ABC channel is still inferior to the terrestrial version (and the
> feeds
> > on B1 sat) since it's recompressed to an average bit rate of 4.5 Mbps,
> > whereas the terrestrial transmissions have an average bit rate of 6
Mbps)
>
> I wonder if they will re-compress the digital FTA channels on the new
cable
> service? One would think that cable would have more than enough bandwidth
> for 6Mbps channels. But who knows. Of coarse the Pay channels will
still
> be over compressed because they will be fed straight off the Sat.

It's too soon to know what will happen with the digital cable service, but
on sat it will be most likely that FTA stations WILL be recompressed at
lower bitrates and possibly even lower resolution. Otherwise the FTA
stations will use twice the bitrate of one of the pay channels.

> Its pretty bad. I would prefer less channels and better quality.

Yep, and so would most people that have a clue.

> > I don't have any complaints about the use of 3/4 D1 resolution for 4:3
> > content as it is quite acceptable, but if the channel is set to 16:9
mode
> > your decoder must anamorphically enlarge the horizontal width by almost
> > DOUBLE compared to the vertical. The result of this is that if you look
> > closely at the channel you'll see that pixel elements are more
rectangular
> > than square - with roughly twice the height compared to their width. If
> you
> > therefore want to maintain the same relative horizontal resolution when
> > showing a wider view then you need to increase the resolution or quality
> > will suffer.
>
> How are you checking the resolution of each channel? With satellite tuner
> card?

Yep. I record the native mpeg2 stream from the sat to my hard drive.

> > Since most channels will progress to widescreen eventually, you WILL see
a
> > degradation in quality of those channels. I'm sure that even the
satellite
> > and cable retransmission of terrestrial channels will be reduced to 544
x
> > 576 pixels and have a reduction in bit rate to make them noticeably
> inferior
> > to the terrestrial transmissions of SDTV. If you even remotely care
about
> > image quality then you shouldn't bother to wait for Foxtel to retransmit
> the
> > FTA signals via sat as they'll be inferior to the terrestrial version.
> You'd
> > be better off with a DVB-T receiver.
>
> How shit yeah. I really hope they don't downconvert the digital FTA
> channels on cable. Its going to be interesting to see just how many local
> FTA channels they will carry on C1 also. Just why they aren't using a
duel
> DVB-T/DVB-S receiver is beyond me.

Some of the FTA stations DID attempt to persuade Foxtel to use a dual
receiver but it failed due to business and technical reasons. Foxtel wants
to retransmit all metropolitan FTA channels on sat, but so far ch 7 & 10
haven't finalised the agreement. Austar haven't issued any intention to
retransmit the FTA regional stations so it won't be likely that Austar
customers will view anything other than ABC & SBS. Commonwealth legislation
prevents metro FTA networks from transmitting (even via sat) into areas
licenced to the regional variants.

[Danny Rohr]

Kubalister <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3fcd8f22$0$31750$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> > How shit yeah. I really hope they don't downconvert the digital FTA
> > channels on cable. Its going to be interesting to see just how many
local
> > FTA channels they will carry on C1 also. Just why they aren't using a
> duel
> > DVB-T/DVB-S receiver is beyond me.
>
> Some of the FTA stations DID attempt to persuade Foxtel to use a dual
> receiver but it failed due to business and technical reasons. Foxtel wants

Bah, already duel tuner stb's avaiable, Wouldn't be hard,

> to retransmit all metropolitan FTA channels on sat, but so far ch 7 & 10
> haven't finalised the agreement. Austar haven't issued any intention to

So we can guess Syd, Mel, Bris, Adelaide and Perth. Thats 25 channels of
wasted sat space. Plus the 100+ Foxtel/Austar channels. Its going to be a
tight squeeze. We can expect rubbish. There is talk that the Optus Aurora
service is moving to B3 to free up some transponder space. Sky in the UK
has terrible picture quality too, and its service is spead accross sevreal
satellites!

Really, the government shouldn't be allowing down sampled DTV broadcasts of
FTA stations on PayTV. It degrades the advantages of digital TV and gives
it a bad name. Infact the goverment should have mandated that the PayTV
satellite boxes had duel tuners.

> retransmit the FTA regional stations so it won't be likely that Austar
> customers will view anything other than ABC & SBS. Commonwealth
legislation
> prevents metro FTA networks from transmitting (even via sat) into areas
> licenced to the regional variants.

That's for obvious reasons and I don't have a problem with it. Austar would
be good to introduce duel tuner STB's in the future once DTV gets off the
ground in regional areas.

Danny.

[a]

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in
news:bqlpr1$23ct32$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> Kubalister <go.away@spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:3fcd8f22$0$31750$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
>> Some of the FTA stations DID attempt to persuade Foxtel to use a dual
>> receiver but it failed due to business and technical reasons. Foxtel
>> wants
>
> Bah, already duel tuner stb's avaiable, Wouldn't be hard,

find one set top unit chipset that has both a QPSK+COFDM AND a QAM+COFDM
version.

you wont because they dont exist.

> Really, the government shouldn't be allowing down sampled DTV
> broadcasts of FTA stations on PayTV. It degrades the advantages of
> digital TV and gives it a bad name. Infact the goverment should have
> mandated that the PayTV satellite boxes had duel tuners.

its not two tuners, its two complete set top units bar the boxes.

itd take twice as much CPU, memory and storage space to make it all work.

even two tuner set top units cost a lot more than single tuner units.

>> retransmit the FTA regional stations so it won't be likely that
>> Austar customers will view anything other than ABC & SBS.
>> Commonwealth
> legislation
>> prevents metro FTA networks from transmitting (even via sat) into
>> areas licenced to the regional variants.
>
> That's for obvious reasons and I don't have a problem with it. Austar
> would be good to introduce duel tuner STB's in the future once DTV
> gets off the ground in regional areas.

the cost would drive austar into an early grave.

> Danny.

[Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:32:40 +0000 (UTC), a wrote:

> the cost would drive austar into an early grave.

Dual tuners will never take off either

[a]

Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter <gloryglory@manutd.com> wrote in
news:tsluyj95asep$.y5j4b6p6rfax$.dlg@40tude.net:

> Dual tuners will never take off either

foxtel's announced theyll be fielding a pvr.

pvrs typically use dual tuners.

[Danny Rohr]

a <a@a.com> wrote in message news:Xns9447E555CC2EEfubar@203.109.252.31...
> > Bah, already duel tuner stb's avaiable, Wouldn't be hard,
>
> find one set top unit chipset that has both a QPSK+COFDM AND a QAM+COFDM
> version.

Heres one I just pulled from my arse.

https://www.hotchip.com.au/OnlineStore/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=102

> you wont because they dont exist.

See above.

> > Really, the government shouldn't be allowing down sampled DTV
> > broadcasts of FTA stations on PayTV. It degrades the advantages of
> > digital TV and gives it a bad name. Infact the goverment should have
> > mandated that the PayTV satellite boxes had duel tuners.
>
> its not two tuners, its two complete set top units bar the boxes.

No, its just two tuners and 1 decoder, only needs enough power to decode one
MPEG stream because you are only watching one channel at a time!

> itd take twice as much CPU, memory and storage space to make it all work.

How you work that out I do not know.

> even two tuner set top units cost a lot more than single tuner units.

See above.

> the cost would drive austar into an early grave.

Should be cheap in couple of years, and besides, the government could
subsidise it. Think of Foxtel, someone is going to having to pay for FTA
retransmission on C1 for the capitals, the FTA stations. They might as well
of just given a bit of money towards duel tuner STB's for satellite
customers. 50% of Foxtel customers would be cable anyway.

Satellite retransmission is a silly joke.

Danny.

[Byron John Forbes]

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:bqoblu$24narh$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...

> No, its just two tuners and 1 decoder, only needs enough power to decode
one
> MPEG stream because you are only watching one channel at a time!
>

Ok, you got me curious here. If you only watch 1 channel at a time then
why have the thing in the first place? I would think the main benefit here
would be to watch one, record on the other? ie use both at the same time.

[Danny Rohr]

Byron John Forbes <hosh@spamdodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fcfd964@news.comindico.com.au...

> "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote in message
> news:bqoblu$24narh$1@ID-198608.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > No, its just two tuners and 1 decoder, only needs enough power to decode
> one
> > MPEG stream because you are only watching one channel at a time!
> >
>
> Ok, you got me curious here. If you only watch 1 channel at a time then
> why have the thing in the first place? I would think the main benefit here
> would be to watch one, record on the other? ie use both at the same time.

The reason is that your can watch FTA Digital and Pay channels using one box
and one remote! You could add the stuff needed to receive both at once, but
you are then just going to add cost to the device.

The re-transmission of FTA digital on thee new satellite will solve this
problem allow continous channel surfing (but only for capital cities).
However, you must waste 5 channels of transponder space for each capital
city, plus all the regionals don't even get a look in. Whats the simple
solution? Pay TV boxes that also have a FTA digital tuner! The point of
them is not to be able to watch FTA and record Pay or visa a versa, just to
be able to watch all TV with one box no matter which area you are in.

Perhaps staellite retransmission of FTA is okay in countries that don't have
many regioanl channels, Australia would have about 100.

Danny.