Quote:
|
Originally Posted by McYorkie
It really is a shame that the new guy from ex-TW who's in charge of this now (as posted earlier in this thread), is so shortsighted about the speed of technological development with HD broadcasting - and that everyone else in the UK i.e. Sky and the BBC so far, will be using MPEG4 systems for their operations that he's sticking with a method of distribution that will take up more bandwith, not less, and will cost more to implement over the long term - and may potentially reduce the amount of HD content available to customers because of the very system chosen by them to use for networks than going with the MPEG4 unit ordered by ntl:.
As yet however there's no official information on HDTV for ntl: areas, apart from a contradictory press release on another website, quoting from two different people in the ntl: media centre, and the "unofficial" but very useful information gleaned by Neptune in this thread.
|
Whilst I'm not defending ntl with the use of MPEG-2 as opposed to 4, on a best case of a network which uses a 8mhz channel, 256QAM system will somewhat still have near to double the available bandwidth currently Sky employs if Sky is assumed to have 70 transponders operating to DVB-S. Sky using DVB-S2 for their HD will mean at a best case nearly 30% more efficient use of bandwidth on a transponder; still not enough to match the amount of bandwidh available on cable.
So maybe the benefits of using h.264 may not be negated by ntl and their decision considering how we are not likely to be bombarded by ****ty bidding and shopping channels going HD and there will be enough bandwidth to hold the few channels that will be HD compared to HD for a few years to come.