On 10/10/2007, Duncan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 09/10/2007, Martin Deutsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "AIUI, a large part of Sky's capacity problem is to do with their > receivers still being built to more or less the same spec as when they > launched in 1998. There are many things in them which could be done > better, but Sky are obviously keen to keep the user experience > identical to all their users, so haven't brought in features which > might only work on newer boxes. " > > There is provision in the system to allow software updates to > particular models so it should in theory be possible to release an EPG > update to the newer boxes only. I can however imagine that this would > become a real headache to keep track of as there are quite a few > different box variations now. Certainly for freeview there are more > devices appearing which can be software updateable via ethernet, I > know that Humax for one have a new PVR one coming out next year which > includes this so perhaps that opens up the possibility of box > manufacturers providing 'alternative' EPG's. > > On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Oh, boo hoo for BSkyB. It is they that made the commitment - if they > need to swap out old Digiboxes to keep to their commitment, fine. > Otherwise Ofcom should take away their licence to broadcast." > > 8.5 million subscribers at last look! That'll be a lot of replacement > boxes, it would be nice but its not economical.
Yeah, but only 8 million of them are in the UK, and very, very few have "first generation" boxes. If BSkyB wishes to trade it has to play by the rules. It made the EPG commitments back in 1998 - they are just as valid today. If the company cannot keep to regulatory agreements the licence to operate should be removed. It's the same for all broadcasters. On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "So many of them are not "real" channels, and there must be much data > compression that can be gained from most of them being +1s." > > +1's don't save an awful lot, as they're an hour apart it doesn't help > that much, I suppose it helps the statistical multiplexing > (http://tinyurl.com/39ur9j) a little, which is used on a lot of > channels to save bandwidth. Erm, I suspect you have got a few concepts conflated there. There is no statistical multiplexing involved with the EPG! Don't forget that BBC and ITV also have > regional sub-channels as well which are wasting quite a lot of > bandwidth when their not doing region specific content (although they > are heavily compressed). You mean like this this? http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=10 or this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_UK_regional_TV_on_satellite When you use the word "compressed" do you mean lossless data compression of the EPG data, or lossy MPEG-2 compression of the videostreams? Unfortunately nobody as yet has come up with > a way of doing a seamless (ie no macro blocking/breaks in > transmission) switch between a main feed (e.g ITV1) and a regional > feed (e.g. ITV Meridian) and back on the set-top box end and so it has > to be done before the content is compressed and sent out separately. Oh, yes they have... They did it years ago. It's easy with digital TV! You don't even need the "black frame to stop the roll" you needed with analogue - as per ITV. Auntie had the synchonised network back in the 1980s. - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
