If C36 (the radar frequency) was reallocated to a national DVB-T multiplex, it could be done soon. A UHF 8Mhz block can do up to 23.5Mb/s.
If you are talking about MPEG-4, quarter-screen resolution (360x288) I am sure you could stuff 30 or-so TV channels on there. http://www.mobiletv.nokia.com/resources/files/white_paper_DVB-H.pdf On 23/03/2008, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > DVB-H is fine, as long as you don't mind waiting ten seconds to change > channels (!!!) or waiting until 2011 for the frequencies to be freed up in > the UK. > > > I doubt that'd remain as-is forever... Remember the first Sky digiboxes, This is a function of allowing the receiver to go into low power mode. As it is multiplexing function, it only has to be fixed once for the whole country. The time slots need to be made smaller, so it takes less time to find a useful "start" frame. Should be able to start the audio first and put up a picture when a suitable frame is found. Freeview and DAB receivers? How sluggish they were? As device power > increased, and cacheing was improved, that time decreased. I doubt it'd > stay > at 10 seconds for long. Not if it is to be usable. That bloody Lobster TV used to buffer for that long .. all the time. > Given that DAB is not dying (don't confuse one radio group's short-sighted > business problems with a death of the medium), it would make rather more > sense to continue investing in its infrastructure. They were too greedy in trying to fill a whole national multiplex with only their content. Would be a good idea in the long run to ban such vertical integration. Still, in retrospect the BBC should have been encouraged to build a three-multiplex DAB national network, with two being on short-term call-off capacity contracts to the highest bidder. You know, a free market not a duopoly. Of course (cycnic mode firmly turned to on), that would be the BBC R&D's > official standpoint on this, given the (estimated) amount they're > investing > / planning to invest in Olinda ;) Buying a radio with a useless core > function would be very embarassing! That said, DAB services, given > adequate > bandwidth, are quite sufficient - unfortunately, there's too much quantity > and not enough focus on quality (I still feel like the multiplexes are > being > treated like shelves in a budget supermarket). At least you aren't saying "oh, everyone will be using Wifi broadband radio" in the future. James C - can you get someone from the BBC to get onto the Media Guardian people stop them rating on about it. It's never going to work in a car or train, is it? Why can't the industry move towards OTA-upgradeable on-chip decoders? The > day that format is standardised and Pure / Roberts comes out with a good > standalone player, I'll buy into that immediately. Olinda is a step in the > right direction with regards to that but add-on modules only work for so > long... When the hardware exists to support this, why not start working > with > it? Even if you initially work with upgrade-via-USB or somesuch similar, > you > can start with DAB, upgrade the on-chip decoder to DAB & DAB+, then add > AAC > support, etc etc... No add-on modules required, and it moves away from the > throwaway sensibilities many people have with technology these days. Back > to > the days of a CD player that would last 10 years! The answer to this is simple: cost. To make millions of copies of a standardized chip set is very cheap compared to the price of making manageable-programmable-upgradable devices! </digress> > > > - > 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 http://www.ukfree.tv
