Why are we still bothering with SD?
11-08-2013, 12:32
|
#1
|
1 of a 1000!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kent
Age: 63
Services: Ultimate Oomph.
Posts: 209
|
Why are we still bothering with SD?
Well, the title says it all really, what's the point? Surely at some time in the future, SD will disappear altogether leaving us just with the HD channels. As far as I am concerned it might as well happen sooner rather than later! It would presumably free up a load of bandwidth and reduce costs, also it would end the rediculous channel numbering system we have at present where the HD variant of a channel may be hundreds of channels away from its SD version.
I appreciate that some people would have to upgrade their TVs, but have you seen the prices of basic HD TVs these days, they're dirt cheap!
I honestly can't see a downside to this suggestion, but appreciate that others may have a different point of view and if so would be interested to hear it.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 12:35
|
#2
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,601
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgun
Well, the title says it all really, what's the point? Surely at some time in the future, SD will disappear altogether leaving us just with the HD channels. As far as I am concerned it might as well happen sooner rather than later! It would presumably free up a load of bandwidth and reduce costs, also it would end the rediculous channel numbering system we have at present where the HD variant of a channel may be hundreds of channels away from its SD version.
I appreciate that some people would have to upgrade their TVs, but have you seen the prices of basic HD TVs these days, they're dirt cheap!
I honestly can't see a downside to this suggestion, but appreciate that others may have a different point of view and if so would be interested to hear it.
|
Topgun, you just have to understand that not everyone is in your privileged position. There are still a lot of SD TVs out there and unlike you, there are also a lot of hard pressed families trying to make ends meet. A new TV will not be on their list of priorities.
As for channel numbering, why is this such an issue. Just select 'HD' on your channel guide and all the HD channels come up, excluding the SD channels. I really don't see the problem!
In any case, what do you expect VM to do with all that vacant bandwidth? To be realistic, we have most of the channels we need now anyway. There's sufficient space for those we don't have that are worth having.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 12:38
|
#3
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 52
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Agreed I think all new channels should be in HD.Ok there are certain channels that would not benefit from HD (gold).But there should be an HD version of all channels available to customers
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 12:39
|
#4
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,601
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis
Agreed I think all new channels should be in HD.Ok there are certain channels that would not benefit from HD (gold).But there should be an HD version of all channels available to customers
|
I agree with your last sentence.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 12:40
|
#5
|
1 of a 1000!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kent
Age: 63
Services: Ultimate Oomph.
Posts: 209
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Topgun, you just have to understand that not everyone is in your privileged position. There are still a lot of SD TVs out there and unlike you, there are also a lot of hard pressed families trying to make ends meet. A new TV will not be on their list of priorities.
In any case, what do you expect VM to do with all that vacant bandwidth? To be realistic, we have most of the channels we need now anyway. There's sufficient space for those we don't have that are worth having.
|
Fair point. But the point I was trying to make is, that like black and white TVs and the analogue signal, technology moves on and makes previous hardware redundant. I think what I suggested will happen at some point, I was just saying I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 12:45
|
#6
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,601
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgun
Fair point. But the point I was trying to make is, that like black and white TVs and the analogue signal, technology moves on and makes previous hardware redundant. I think what I suggested will happen at some point, I was just saying I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.
|
I expect you are right that it will happen, but customers will be alienated if VM or Sky try to push this too far too soon.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 14:00
|
#7
|
Inactive
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 52
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I expect you are right that it will happen, but customers will be alienated if VM or Sky try to push this too far too soon.
|
Easy solution get shot of the + 1 channels replace with HD
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 14:17
|
#8
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,907
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Ok, here goes...
1) A HD channel takes typically 4 to 6 times the bandwidth of a SD channel. So changing all channels to HD would require far more bandwidth, even if the SD versions were dropped. That either means losing a load of channels, or introducing new expensive technologies (e.g. switched video; motorised dishes and more satellites)
2) The fact that many TVs are SD-only isn't a problem if they have an HD STB that can downscale. However, LOTS of people still have SD-only STBs. Are you willing to pay for new STBs for them?
3) HD production and broacasting is more expensive, and requires new equipment. Are you willing to pay for all the minor broadcasters to upgrade?
4) Interest in HD simply isn't that great. Although 73% of the UK population have a HD-ready TV, only 49% actually have a HD source ( source).
And many of those who could watch HD, don't. As an example only 5.7% of ITV viewing last week was HD.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 14:56
|
#9
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 821
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgun
Well, the title says it all really, what's the point? Surely at some time in the future, SD will disappear altogether leaving us just with the HD channels. As far as I am concerned it might as well happen sooner rather than later! It would presumably free up a load of bandwidth and reduce costs, also it would end the rediculous channel numbering system we have at present where the HD variant of a channel may be hundreds of channels away from its SD version.
I appreciate that some people would have to upgrade their TVs, but have you seen the prices of basic HD TVs these days, they're dirt cheap!
I honestly can't see a downside to this suggestion, but appreciate that others may have a different point of view and if so would be interested to hear it.
|
I think all channels should be in SD and HD I watch a lot in HD Virgin should split there packages into SD and HD so you have a choice
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 15:38
|
#10
|
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,964
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgun
Fair point. But the point I was trying to make is, that like black and white TVs and the analogue signal, technology moves on and makes previous hardware redundant. I think what I suggested will happen at some point, I was just saying I would like to see it happen sooner rather than later.
|
It will happen at some point. However, it was 17 years after the introduction of 625-line PAL colour TV on UHF that 405-line mono on VHF was switched off in the UK - officialdom likes to avoid making changes that force large numbers of people to upgrade their equipment, because officialdom dislikes having to compensate people for it.
As it runs a closed, subscriber-based system, VM could of course do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, but remember it didn't complete its own analogue switch-off until relatively recently, and right through the process we had people on this forum complaining that analogue suited their needs, why should they be forced to change, etc etc etc.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 16:11
|
#11
|
[CENSORED]
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wolverhampton
Age: 45
Services: Virginmedia - BB:250 TV:Mix TiVo v6 Phone:Talk Weekends w/anon reject
Posts: 4,217
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
I'm not going to get rid of a perfectly fine television just because it's not HD.
I'll 'upgrade' when it breaks and becomes too expensive to repair compared to the cost of a new one
__________________
Help save the world from loosers
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 16:22
|
#12
|
Haggis Hunting
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Over there
Posts: 1,096
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
I honestly don't think i know a single person who doesn't at least have a 720p capable TV in the living room, most have 1080p. TV's elsewhere in their houses is another matter though.
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 16:38
|
#13
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: North-West Kent
Services: VIP
Posts: 2,887
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
Likewise we have a perfectly good 100Hz 28" Philips Matchline tube TV that so far has only needed a slight tweak to the focus over the years. Anyway my eyes at least aren't good enough to really see any difference on a smaller screen for HD. We do have an HD ready TV in the kitchen (720p) and when it's getting HD on Freeview I'd be pushed to really see any real difference. It's more the LCD screen that makes the difference over a CRT.
|
And (I assume, based on its location) the fact that it's too small for it to be noticeable.
__________________
Who gives a @*#$ about an Oxford comma?
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 17:22
|
#14
|
cf.geek
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Beyond The Sun
Posts: 707
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
In addition, I remember reading an article a few months back stating tv licensing announced there were still around 20k black and white tv licenses being purchased!
Even those tv sets haven't died yet!
|
|
|
11-08-2013, 18:14
|
#15
|
Rise above the players
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wokingham
Services: 2 V6 boxes with 360 software, Now, ITVX, Amazon, Netflix, Lionsgate+, Apple+, Disney+, Paramount +,
Posts: 14,601
|
Re: Why are we still bothering with SD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabaal
I honestly don't think i know a single person who doesn't at least have a 720p capable TV in the living room, most have 1080p. TV's elsewhere in their houses is another matter though.
|
I presume you mix amongst upwardly mobile people rather than pensioners and low paid workers, then...
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21.
|