You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Anthony,
Firstly, there has been no push to switch off AM/FM for DAB+, which has been going for 12 years. In Perth, the only station who is advocating listing on a DAB+ radio is 6IX. It has the lowest power AM transmitter and the dry sandy soil reduces its coverage area. It was eventually allocated a pair of FM translators on the Northern and Southern edges of its coverage area. AM stations in particular are pushing listening on line.
Secondly, there is currently an ACMA allocated high power experimental licence for DRM+ in Wodonga Victoria.
Thirdly, I don't know where the SMH has got it's information. The telcos have just paid $647,642,100 for 2,500 MHz in the 26 GHz band. They are pushing 5G phones as hard as they can go so I cannot see than an extra 100 MHz will make much difference. The existing 5G is at 3.6 GHz which was the old 2G band.
At the end of 2014 the telcos obtained TV channels 52 - 69 = 100 MHz from the restack of TV. This also occurred in the USA, which virtually cleared their channels 2 - 6 = Au channels 0 - 5A, which is unsuitable for digital TV as we did. The USA is now allocating the equivalent of TV channels 39 - 51 to the telcos, between TV coverage areas. Remember that in Australia the restack is much more orderly ie. DVB-T has allowed our TV to have 6 consecutive channels transmitted from the same transmitting antenna, which makes the coverage areas for that site identical. In the USA they use ATSC1.0 which cannot do that. They are now rolling out voluntary ATSC3.0 which also uses COFDM which DVB-T uses so they can put transmissions in consecutive channels on a site. There is no spare channels in the USA so the broadcasters have to share their main existing programs on to one transmitter for that licence area. I suspect this is what the SMH has latched on to. The created spare is then used to transmit ATSC3.0.
ATSC3.0 can transmit UHD, as can Netflix on a 25 Mbit/s line. DVB-T2 used in many parts of the world can transmit a single channel of UHD and all of our existing programs in HD provided HEVC video compression is used on all programs. If this hair brained scheme to remove channels 39 - 51 occurs we will not be able to have broadcast UHD in the future. Again broadcast is the most efficient way of sending the same program to millions of viewers. Optus found this out with the last world cup soccer and they had to give their coverage to SBS.
It is known that AM transmitters consume more energy than FM and digital transmitters, particularly the latter. The AM carrier is transmitted whether or not there is information present.
It appears that the ACMA is not considering the implementation of the DRM service as contributor to site Mr St. John has been constantly crusading for. So don't expect DRM to be policy any time soon.
Even if digital services use less power and can output more information via multi-channelling within a certain bandwidth, I am very much concerned that the Government is thinking of selling part of the spectrum of a digital TV broadcaster, reference, https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/broadcast-spectrum-buyback-threatens-popular-tv-channels-20210513-p57riu.html .
In the SMH article, it was proposed to sell part of the spectrum occupied by each of the television broadcasters. From the article, it appears that the ultimate goal is push all terrestrial television services online.
This raises an issue of equity on people on low incomes whose only entertainment is the FTA television broadcasters.
Pushing people towards online viewing of FTA broadcasts raises the equity issue because to consume video services online requires purchasing an expensive data plan from an IP provider.
A few hours per day of watching FTA online would certainly use the 200GB monthly quota before the month is up. A 200GB plan may well be around $70 per month. An plan for infinite monthly consumption of data may well be around over $110 per month.
Thus a person on a low income whose only entertainment is FTA may not be able to afford an additional over $70 per month for a data plan to view programs which NOW does not have any additional impost apart from time to watch the show and the power to run the TV.
The "push" to sell the FTA TV spectrum to telecommunications provider is something to be vigilant.
I have raised the issue to sell the FTA TV spectrum to my local Federal MP.
It is not good to sell a public good to the hands of a few.
Thank you,
Anthony of concerned Belfield
Dear Mr St. John,
Thank you for your response. It is really appreciated. You have clarified the issue of spectral allocation of digital tv. That is channels 0 to 5A and 52 to 69 are no longer used for TV broadcasting. At the same time, channels 52 to 69 could be allocated to broadcast standard ATSC 3.0 which includes the capability to transmit 4k pictures as well as the legacy SD and HD standards.
I fully concur with you that broadcasting a signal is the most efficient way of providing programs than IP-delivered methods. It is also more equitable such that many people on low incomes won't be able to afford expensive IP data plans.
In addition when it comes to 'policy', bureaucrats and Ministers need to be better informed as to the implications and consequences of their decision-making process. This was illustrated in your response that if channels in the upper UHF bands are allocated to telecommunications providers, it would mean that 4K broadcasting will be impossible.
In addition there is another issue on the reporting by the media of proposed policies which involve scientific and engineering aspects such as spectrum allocation of telephonic 5G and broadcasting spectrum as well as being up-to-date on the latest in broadcasting technology, particularly the ASTC 3.0 standard.
Thank you,
Anthony, I'm much better informed of Belfield
Anthony,
ATSC is only used in North America and South Korea and nowhere else.
In all countries except for Japan, some countries in South America, the Philippines, Botswana and Maldives. Everywhere else including Australia use either DVB-T or DVB-T2. DVB-T2 is the newest version which is capable of UHD primary program and HD versions of existing programs. All UHD systems must use HEVC video compression. The Americas, Japan and South Korea channels are 6 MHz wide compared to our 7 MHz and Europe 8 MHz. The wider the channel the more data it can carry. We have already trialed DVB-T2. DVB-T2 receivers can receive DVB-T but not the other way around. Our TV standards have always been modelled on the European TV standards because we both use 50 Hz power mains and also the old Department of Communications in the late 1990's did a side by side comparisons of DVB-T and ATSC1.0. As a result ATSC is only in the countries above.
Keep your eye on www.dvb.org