General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2018)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

He has not spoilt anything a forum is about debate.

Absolutely as one has to accept others have differing opinions and if they don't like it then that is their problem IMO.

[SonicMaster]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There will come a point when HD is the norm and UHD only commands the premium pricing. That day can't be too far away now.

Maybe in a few years, but certainly not next week!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

He has not spoilt anything a forum is about debate.

He's peed off the people who supplied the information that let this forum know what was going on behind the scenes and it will be all the poorer for it.

Debate is fine, but making rude and antagonistic posts (as he was a few days ago) about the the work of the people who take the time and trouble to collate and analyse this information isn't debating, it's simply stirring up trouble for the sake of it.

Over the years various people have either left the forum or stopped posting information because of similar behaviour, which spoils it for everyone else.

Upon checking as to why BBC1 HD has not been converted to 256-QAM. TSID 104 is still 64-QAM because it also carries VM services, such as The PVR EPG, VOD logos etc:

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...ng=en&mux=C069

For some reason VM didn't convert any TSID that carries VM services.

There is now only one spare slot for an HD channel left at this point in time; on TSID 30 and this is where I assume GOLD HD will be going when it's added.

VM has TSID 23 to 35 currently configured for HD, with a current maximum of six HD channels per transport stream. Unless something changes, GOLD HD is the last HD channel that can be fitted onto the VM system.

Maybe they want to do some additional work on the system before maxing it out and adding GOLD HD and this is why it's taking a bit longer than the other channels??

If anyone wants to verify this information it is freely available on the digitalbitrate site linked to above.

[jfman]

There’s clearly room on TSID 101 for more channels - it only has 5 SD channels on it. You are ignoring that HD and SD channels could sit alongside each other (ITV PPV HD for example). This stream is also used for Sky Box Office HD events.

I’m not being antagonistic, I’m just pointing out that much of the analysis thus far is unhelpful. You keep stating opinions as absolute facts.

There’s room for one HD channel on a single frequency you identified.

Not considered:
Unused frequencies
Moving remaining 64 QAM multiplexes to 256 QAM
More efficient use of the space that is in use
Lowering the bitrate of some channels.

If people cease posting because they do not like people challenging the accuracy of information provided then maybe the internet isn’t for them. Nobody has a right to publish information and have it go unchallenged.

People are entitled to their opinions, but often confuse them with facts.

Opinions not based on verifiable facts should be challenged.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s clearly room on TSID 101 for more channels - it only has 5 SD channels on it. You are ignoring that HD and SD channels could sit alongside each other (ITV PPV HD for example). This stream is also used for Sky Box Office HD.

I’m not being antagonistic, I’m just pointing out that much of the analysis thus far is unhelpful. You keep stating opinions as absolute facts.

There’s room for one HD channel on a single frequency you identified.

Not considered:
Unused frequencies
Moving remaining 64 QAM multiplexes to 256 QAM
More efficient use of the space that is in use
Lowering the bitrate of some channels.

If people cease posting because they do not like people challenging the accuracy of information provided then maybe the internet isn’t for them. Nobody has a right to publish information and have it go unchallenged.

I am talking about current configuration as it stands today. As has already been pointed out, VM could do several things to increase capacity e.g. change the remaining 64-QAM multiplexes to 256-QAM. VM didn't change certain ones over, I don't know why, maybe there's some technical reason?? If SP sees this maybe he could explain why these haven't yet been changed over.

They could indeed go the same way as Freeview & Sky and lower the bit rate of existing channels if they wanted to but, as I said earlier, this will have an impact on picture quality.

TSID 101 has a different number of channels in each region, some having more regional variations than others. Northern Ireland also carries RTE and TG4. Again, if SP sees this, maybe he may be able to explain why VM has different transport streams for regional and national channels.

They could certainly use unused frequencies, but VM already had such frequencies available and is actually taking these frequencies and reallocating them to DOCSIS. If there was a pool of unused frequencies, i'm sure VM would be using those for the extra DOCSIS frequencies instead of using these.

What other more efficient use of frequencies do you think that VM could deploy?

As it stands, this is the only remaining space left for an HD channel using the current configuration of a maximum of six on each stream (TSID 23 does have seven, however, but this is due to a BBC timeshare):

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...ng=en&mux=C042

It's not a case of people ceasing to post, it's a case of future information now no longer being made available for the forum. This information was never intended for forum use and because of the way that you have conducted yourself, others will lose out on advance information e.g. new channels being added to the service.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

People are entitled to their opinions, but often confuse them with facts.

Opinions not based on verifiable facts should be challenged.

The facts that I have posted are verifiable on digitalbitrate and represent the system as it is at this moment in time. The only things which form opinion or speculation is what VM will do to overcome their capacity constraints. There are several things they could do, but only VM staff know what these will be.

There are both polite and rude/antagonistic ways to challenge and, unfortunately for the forum, jfman chose the latter a few days ago to everybody's detriment.

[jfman]

There’s two versions of ITV HD in MPEG 2 in that table for a start.

Two multiplexes with two HD channels and background data. By your own admission the capacity limit is six per multiplex in MPEG4, giving theoretically eight additional HD channels on top of your one.

“Based on the current configuration“ is nothing but a red herring on your part. It’s entirely unsurprising that the Virgin network is set up to deliver exactly the services it needs to.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's not a case of people ceasing to post, it's a case of future information now no longer being made available for the forum. This information was never intended for forum use
There are both polite and rude/antagonistic ways to challenge and, unfortunately for the forum, jfman chose the latter a few days ago to everybody's detriment.

On a point of order literally nobody has posted to agree my contributions are to the detriment of everyone.

Indeed, contributions have indicated the opposite. It is you seeking to end debate and reduce the information available to forum users.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s two versions of ITV HD in MPEG 2 in that table for a start.

Two multiplexes with two HD channels and background data. By your own admission the capacity limit is six per multiplex in MPEG4, giving theoretically eight additional HD channels on top of your one.

“Based on the current configuration“ is nothing but a red herring on your part. It’s entirely unsurprising that the Virgin network is set up to deliver exactly the services it needs to.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------



On a point of order literally nobody has posted to agree my contributions are to the detriment of everyone.

Indeed, contributions have indicated the opposite. It is you seeking to end debate and reduce the information available to forum users.

I have found your posts informative and helpful. Your posts have imo NOT been antagonistic or anything like , you have simply asked as many before have for proof of stated facts.

[dodgem22]

Its all a bit over my head, I am a layman in how VM run the network and how they work out capacity.

As long as they make it when they need it then thats fine.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

I have found your posts informative and helpful. Your posts have imo NOT been antagonistic or anything like , you have simply asked as many before have for proof of stated facts.

I agree. Richard does attempt on many occasions to try and shut down debate, often citing the present rather than the future, or his disabilities (whatever they are), even though they are not remotely what it is we are talking about. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo being put out there about QAMs and TSIDs that mean absolutely nothing to the majority on here, and who knows how the hell relevant all of this is. Spiderplant has scoffed at the insinuation that VM has capacity issues, and I know who am more comfortable to believe.

But it is also true that some people like to draw attention to the present without considering what may happen to change this. There will always be people who cannot see a vision of the future because they are stuck in the past, but I guess that this is good news for those who have vision and want to get on in this world and it separates the wealth creaters from the takers in this world.

People really do need to be more open to challenge and the probability (not possibility) that things will change in the future.

[jfman]

The quick explanation is that 256 QAM offers an extra 30% capacity over 64 QAM. Until recently Virgin only used 64.

Scaremongering on forums had no capacity for HD channels at all at one point in 2007. Closing analogue back in the day, moving to 256 QAM, MPEG 4 for HD all represent a constant evolution of the cable network. To the average user they will have been unaware for the most part.

There are under utilised frequencies in use, there are frequencies out of use that would be activated if required.

Beyond that in the far future there’s plenty of quick wins: reducing legacy boxes moves the on demand content into the “internet” bandwidth from TV, duplicate SD and HD channels (BT Sport and Sky Movies being obvious candidates), plus one channels (necessary in the 6 tuner and on demand world?).

I can’t imagine there’s much value in the porn channels or music channels as viewer behaviour changes (online).

Add into the fact there’s very few “new channels” on the horizon anyway.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s two versions of ITV HD in MPEG 2 in that table for a start.

Two multiplexes with two HD channels and background data. By your own admission the capacity limit is six per multiplex in MPEG4, giving theoretically eight additional HD channels on top of your one.

“Based on the current configuration“ is nothing but a red herring on your part. It’s entirely unsurprising that the Virgin network is set up to deliver exactly the services it needs to.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------



On a point of order literally nobody has posted to agree my contributions are to the detriment of everyone.

Indeed, contributions have indicated the opposite. It is you seeking to end debate and reduce the information available to forum users.

Yes, it's correct that some ITV HD channels are still in MPEG2 and weren't converted to MPEG4 as were the rest of the HD channels. I've already dealt with your point about ITV HD as in VM have different transport streams for different regional and national channels.

Only VM staff will know the reason for this, which is why I said that I hoped that SP saw this as he might be able to shed some light on why this is the case. VM do intend to make the remaining ITV HD channels MPEG4, but when and why they didn't do them at the same time as the rest of the HD channels is unknown.

"Based on current configuration" is entirely the point that you don't seem to be able to grasp. It's a fact that at this moment in time there is only room for one more HD channel on the current set up. Nobody is suggesting that VM can't or won't do anything to free up more capacity on their network and that this is it and that there won't be anymore HD channels added ever again!

What is open to speculation is what they will actually do to achieve their goal of freeing up more capacity to add any more HD channels. I personally think that, technical constraints aside, they will do a mixture of what has been suggested to utilise their resources to the maximum as it makes economic sense to do this before using capital expenditure to increase and update their existing infrastructure.

The current configuration policy is that no more than six HD channels should go on one mux, but it is entirely possible that they will accept a reduction in picture policy to squeeze more in. I suspect that if this became the only option that they would do this as Sky and Freeview have done, even OFCOM have noted that the public seem to prefer greater channel choice over picture quality.

Re: Your point of order. I didn't refer to any postings made, I referred to the fact that the way you expressed yourself the other day has led to the permission to post findings meant for another purpose being made available to the forum now being witheld and the time spent to analyse the data and present it in a user friendly way now no longer being spent.

Links to digitalbitrate have been provided to back up the claims made. As previously stated, it was noted that when this involves new channels coming or subscription packs changing, people were happy to take this on board as true. However, when the news wasn't what some wanted to hear, the validity of the information that they provided was (in a rude fashion) called into question by a minority. It is the behaviour of this minority that has led to the loss of an important source of information for this thread.

It was not my decision to limit the information available to forum users, it was the people that were kindly allowing their information to be used for the benefit of others simply to be helpful, but it's no wonder that they've now put a stop to this as have other contributors in the past.

It is to the detriment of anyone who visits this thread interested in what's coming soon to VM.

I am not "seeking to end debate", I simply can't seem to get it to sink in that the position at this moment in time is simply that- it's pointless discussing a fact in anything other than an objective way. A debate on how how VM will move forward to free up capacity appears to be the only way that this conversation can progress.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

More nonsense from you, it's becoming clear that you simply like arguing for the sake of it.

The information about there being only four HD channels left will now be out of date, there will be even less now as a result of the new HD channels and the return of the UKTV HD channels and I imagine that will be gone when GOLD HD is added, so it will be interesting to see what VM do to free up more space as there won't even be room for an HD Red Button service.

For completeness, most VM channels were converted to 256-QAM from 64-QAM a long time ago, the only ones that haven't are for VM services, such as TiVo downloads.

You have spoilt it for the rest of the people on this forum, well done you.

I find this post fairly unreasonable Richard, you could have had a better tone. You'd take umbrage if someone else had referred to one of your posts as "Nonsense". Think about this in future please.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree. Richard does attempt on many occasions to try and shut down debate, often citing the present rather than the future, or his disabilities (whatever they are), even though they are not remotely what it is we are talking about. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo being put out there about QAMs and TSIDs that mean absolutely nothing to the majority on here, and who knows how the hell relevant all of this is. Spiderplant has scoffed at the insinuation that VM has capacity issues, and I know who am more comfortable to believe.

But it is also true that some people like to draw attention to the present without considering what may happen to change this. There will always be people who cannot see a vision of the future because they are stuck in the past, but I guess that this is good news for those who have vision and want to get on in this world and it separates the wealth creaters from the takers in this world.

People really do need to be more open to challenge and the probability (not possibility) that things will change in the future.

But it is the present facts that are being discussed, the only way that the future can be discussed is by way of speculation. Only the relevant VM staff know the future, but it has already been acknowledged that the fact that there is now only room for one more HD channel doesn't mean that this is it forevermore.

If there is anything that you don't understand, do some research like others have done.

It is pointless discussing if a verifiable fact is correct or not and at no point has it been suggested that the current configuration won't change, quite the opposite.

I believe that both sources of information are correct. Firstly because proof is available for your inspection that there is only room for one more HD channel (zero once GOLD HD is added) and that there are things that VM can and almost definitely will do to alleviate the situation to add more channels as has been explained.

My disability and the affects thereof are not up for discussion.

What you say in your penultimate paragraph actually means is anybody's guess...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, it's correct that some ITV HD channels are still in MPEG2 and weren't converted to MPEG4 as were the rest of the HD channels. I've already dealt with your point about ITV HD as in VM have different transport streams for different regional and national channels.

Only VM staff will know the reason for this, which is why I said that I hoped that SP saw this as he might be able to shed some light on why this is the case. VM do intend to make the remaining ITV HD channels MPEG4, but when and why they didn't do them at the same time as the rest of the HD channels is unknown.

"Based on current configuration" is entirely the point that you don't seem to be able to grasp. It's a fact that at this moment in time there is only room for one more HD channel on the current set up. Nobody is suggesting that VM can't or won't do anything to free up more capacity on their network and that this is it and that there won't be anymore HD channels added ever again!

What is open to speculation is what they will actually do to achieve their goal of freeing up more capacity to add any more HD channels. I personally think that, technical constraints aside, they will do a mixture of what has been suggested to utilise their resources to the maximum as it makes economic sense to do this before using capital expenditure to increase and update their existing infrastructure.

The current configuration policy is that no more than six HD channels should go on one mux, but it is entirely possible that they will accept a reduction in picture policy to squeeze more in. I suspect that if this became the only option that they would do this as Sky and Freeview have done, even OFCOM have noted that the public seem to prefer greater channel choice over picture quality.

Re: Your point of order. I didn't refer to any postings made, I referred to the fact that the way you expressed yourself the other day has led to the permission to post findings meant for another purpose being made available to the forum now being witheld and the time spent to analyse the data and present it in a user friendly way now no longer being spent.

Links to digitalbitrate have been provided to back up the claims made. As previously stated, it was noted that when this involves new channels coming or subscription packs changing, people were happy to take this on board as true. However, when the news wasn't what some wanted to hear, the validity of the information that they provided was (in a rude fashion) called into question by a minority. It is the behaviour of this minority that has led to the loss of an important source of information for this thread.

It was not my decision to limit the information available to forum users, it was the people that were kindly allowing their information to be used for the benefit of others simply to be helpful, but it's no wonder that they've now put a stop to this as have other contributors in the past.

It is to the detriment of anyone who visits this thread interested in what's coming soon to VM.

I am not "seeking to end debate", I simply can't seem to get it to sink in that the position at this moment in time is simply that- it's pointless discussing a fact in anything other than an objective way. A debate on how how VM will move forward to free up capacity appears to be the only way that this conversation can progress.

You “can’t get it to sink in” because it’s simply false. You say on one hand the limit is six HD channels per frequency yet link to data indicating two frequencies have just two HD channels. You fail to explain why these two frequencies could be used in the same manner as the rest and hold six each. You don’t explain why unused frequencies could not be activated.

If someone enters this thread they could reasonably believe no, or limited, channels are likely to launch based on your false claims. It is entirely responsible that someone corrects you.

You admit you don’t know why ITV HD is in MPEG 2 or why those frequencies have less channels than others, yet we have to take the rest of your claims as gospel that for reasons unknown they are unavailable for use.