Bandwidth restraints hindering New Zealand's Freeview HD expansion
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 21st 2008 11:13AM
posted Aug 21st 2008 11:13AM
Oh noes! Merely months after Freeview execs were celebrating the surprising uptick in Freeview HD users, in flies word that bandwidth is already becoming an issue. You see, Freeview was initially launched as a "satellite only service using MPEG-2 video compression software," while the HD terrestrial component uses MPEG-4. Transponder space on the Optus D1 satellite is "rapidly being used up, and any further expansion of data bandwidth would require Freeview broadcasters to purchase more space from Optus." If the old MPEG-2 system was suddenly canned and replaced with MPEG-4, every last satellite Freeview user would be forced to buy a new set-top-box. We shouldn't have to explain the glaringly obvious problem with that scenario. Thus, the only stop-gap solution is to simulcast the signals, which obviously requires oodles of bandwidth. Unfortunately, broadcasters are gun-shy about dropping even more cash to expand the available space without assurance of a good return on their original investment, so as of now, expansion plans wait while bigwigs figure out where to get more funding.
I don't know why it would be an issue. Just ease out of the Satellite service, and push the terrestrial. It seems silly to have two types of broadcast. If everyone only used Freeview|HD which is terrestrial, then there would be a bigger push for more HD content. Which is exactly what we want!!
And preferably in 1080p, the highest we are getting at the moment is 1080i and that is scattered across very few shoes, namely Boston Legal.
Actually they did consider whether to make it terrestrial only. But they found that it would be sub-optimal - the shorter wavelength UHF signal required for digital does not propagate as far as the VHF signals. There will always be areas of NZ that just can't be viably covered by terrestrial signals due to its hilliness. Satellite always works as long as you can see the right area of the sky. Believe me they wouldn't have spent all the money having two different broadcast systems if they didn't think it necessary.
It was decided also that they couldn't do just satellite as this would require everyone to get a satellite dish where as an aerial -> aerial upgrade path makes more sense and it is more likely that manufacturers would integrated DVB-T into their televisions.
And they didn't go MPEG-4 from the beginning for satellite because people had already bought DVB-S boxes because TVNZ had been broadcasting one and 2 for some time over MPEG-2.
Freeview/TVNZ were warned at the outset to have MPEG 4 on DVB-S, however, at the time the investment was thought to be too high and the receivers too expensive. They also had a remit to launch as soon as possible since they had an abortive attempt a number of years earlier. Since DVB-T occurred a year later, they were 'convinced' (eventually) that MPEG4 was the way to go thus allowing HD coding efficiencies.
Hindsight is always a good thing, but then so is educated foresight.