Digital TV offers a whole range of reasons why it’s superior to traditional analogue broadcasts, with the biggest reason being the ability to broadcast high definition. But according to Lauren Wilson at the Australian, 30 per cent of set top boxes in Australian homes are only capable of receiving SD channels. That sucks!
There are five HD channels on free to air TV, including ABC News 24, which about a million homes won’t be able to receive on their current equipment. But while the Oz paints a doom and gloom picture, it’s important to remember that there are still a couple of years before the analogue signal is switched off completely around the country, which is plenty of time for those households to head out and get themselves a new HD TV or a better set-top box.
Stewart Walker
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 10:56 AMThe even sadder part is that the government has screwed the HD Digital market anyway. There are no true HD channels any more.
On Digital each TV Broadcaster only provided 2 channels, a full 1080 HD channel and a standard def copy of what was on analoge.
The government decided to force them all to have 3 channels without giving them extra bandwidth to deliver. So say they had 100% for two channels, 75% would be for HD and 25% for standard. They now have to broadcast a new standard channel, thus HD is reduced to 50% (or less) to make room for the extra channel.
This is why some of you may have noticed a reduction in the quality of the HD channels on ditigal. The most notible is One HD where lots of movement now causes a shimmering effect around the players/cars on your TV. This is from where they TV broadcasters compression struggles to compress and deliver a clear picture.
Thanks for Nothing AU Government
DansDans
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:11 PMFactually incorrect rant that I am suprised no one else has picked up on
The Government hasnt forced anyone to have a third channel – they have provided a framework and create legislation to allow a third channel – much different. The networks took up the option of broadcasting a third network to increase revenue/market share – nothing to do with the Government forcing anything.
In fact, the Government only forces them to have a HD channel (which they must have, regardless of how much content is HD, not sure if the 1080 rule still applies)
glennc
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:58 PMi think his rant is the governmen’s tight hold on the bandwidth. just look at the UK for how it should be. i know the government is protecting the advertising revenue of the current channels but at what expense.
there is currently no reason to buy a HDTV for our terrestrial TV with the limited HD programming. An HD STB downscaled to SDTV will give all the channels. the state of actual HD in Aust is embarrassing considering how long HD has been available. all these people told they need a HD TV have been screwed. we seem to be going backwards, i.e. it was in a better state 2 years ago
Sean
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 10:59 AMoutrageous!
Alex
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:22 AMWhy aren’t we running our digital channels on H.264? We would get higher quality transmissions (or more channels).
If the government wants to switch over to Digital, can’t they at least do it right?
The government should have only Freeview certified HD set top boxes only. Having standard definition only boxes has just confused people into buying something that they thought would cover everything.
Greg
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 4:09 PMPerhaps because DVB-T w/ MPEG2 predates MPEG4 H.264 by several years?
Don’t get me wrong, it would be fantastic, but it would be an absolute nightmare. Every single DVB-T box/tuner would need to be replaced.
Of course if you’re with Foxtel then there’s no problem – it already uses H.264 for HD channels (and they actually understand the bitrate required for such channels to look decent).
Shane Kerr
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:26 AMI’ve had a standard def set top box (PVR actually) for ages. And I have yet to see a compelling reason to get a HD one. The HD channels all show mostly Standard Def stuff upscaled. (Or are you gonna tell me McHales navy was shot in HD?)
Show some HD and I might get a HD box. Simple.
Damo
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:14 PMInterestingly quite a few of those old shows were actually shot on 16mm film. If re telecined today it would look somewhat better than standard resolution – but still leave you watching McHale’s Navy and I Dream of Genie – but still… interesting aside.
Marcus
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:51 AMYeah I bought a SD box when they first started coming out as it was half the price of the HD boxes and most of the HD channels were just simulcasts anyway. And my TV is only SD so I didn’t see the point. Now I’m missing all the new channels. I’m probably just going to sell the SD box (if anyone will buy it) and stop watching TV altogether.
matt
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:53 PMreally???
this brings up a good point…
this is Gizmodo! not the local RSL Bingo night! how many of us are really still using our old CRT with an SD set top box!!
hardly seems like the same group of people who wait with bated breath to line up and by the next expensive iDevice! :D
Unicron
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 3:30 PMYou can love new technology and unfortunately not have the money to purchase said technology.
I have a 42 inch plasma for the main family TV and my videogames, a big old bastard widescreen in the other family room with a hd stb attached and another old tv in the bedroom with hd stb.
I’m loving that tv’s, pvr’s and bluerays are getting heaps cheaper now but will just have to wait till mr wallet gives me the go ahead.
matt
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:58 AMI think its important to point out that even with SD only, you still get everything you got with analogue, and more… so this isn’t a big deal at all…
however, something should be done to clarify the fact that HD doesn’t just mean higher definition, but also more content. it is extremely easy to imagine someone walking into a store and going:
“hmm, SD, and HD… well, I’m only going to be plugging it into my old, very SD CRT tv… so why would I need HD?”
Peter Worthington
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 12:55 PMI guess the main reason for this is simple. People who need to buy a set to box are people that own old TV sets. These old TV’s are not capable of displaying HD images anyway so why spend the money on something you don’t need?
Nobody buys a set top box these days because all new TV’s come standard with an HD tuner inside.
hugh
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:09 PMhow many hours of sd are broadcast on the hd channels? GEM has 3 hours of HD a day. PISS POOR EFFORT BOYS. we had more hd content 2 years ago when we had hd simulcasts of the main stations lets go back to that
Virus__
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:10 PMWhere I currently live (Tweed Heads South) the reception for digital isn’t the best, most nights reception will be okayish with only a few drop outs, but it’ll be totally rooted for a minute or more when a plane passes over or if there’s a storm lurking some channels will be offline.
Just last night I lost, 7two, 7Mate, GEM, GO! & I think One HD due to the weather, which are otherwise very strong signals.
I wish the gov’t would pull their finger out & address this issue, because I am still not sold on digital tv.
Bigmac
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 2:55 PMThe main issue I think is the lack of communication for non-technology minded people.
I was in Harvey Norman (or Domayne… one of the two) and overheard the salesman telling a woman that if she bought an HD set top box and had an old TV “you would not be able to get the HD channels”. Not that they wouldn’t be in HD, that she couldn’t get them at all.
Stefan
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 3:46 PMStandard TV’s only need standard def set top boxes, therefore I dont need a high def set top box :)
Ben
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 4:19 PMMy biggest gripe with SD and HD TV is that if you are in a low or poor reception area there is no point in trying to watch TV. The image stops and starts all the time or gets pixelated.
The beauty of analogue was that even in a poor reception area, you could still see a ‘moving’ picture even if it was a bit fuzzy. Same goes with analogue vs digital radio. Although I’ve not had any issues getting digital radio.
/end rant.
simon@syd
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 10:45 AMI’m still not over Richard Alston forcing HD onto us in the first place. The biggest advantage of digital TV is not HD, it’s the potential for more channels!
budgie
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 7:23 PMIT ALL should be HD… anything less is like watching tv through a dirty TV screen,. go to the US… 90% is HD… and 300 plus channels, what the hell is wrong with us… it is true, we are so far behind the world its a joke
Sean
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 9:32 PMDigital tv in the major cities should be on the UHF band from the start like in every other country at least everyone would get digital radio and the acma should have only let the tv stations only broadcast on the uhf band 4 for digital tv in the major cities and that was a very big mistake using vhf for digital tv broadcasting and reagenal areas have a lot sense using the uhf band and they can get a lot of digital radio stations and because they have all of band 3 for digital radio. but i have herd that band 4 in the major cities can use dvb-t2 h264 on the uhf band with try hdtv and lets see what happens and all new 3d tv’s have dvb-t2 h264 ready like samsung and the user manual will tell you what standeds the tv has like austar and foxtel in hd is mpeg-4 and 5.1 surround sound.