🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote:
> Nobody Here <news.reader@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Michael <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apologies if this was posted earlier but it was on the news when I
>>>> was recently in Oz and probably has some relevance to UK
>>>> switchover plans. see
>>>> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds24794.html
>>>
>>> It has. Australia has legislation to prevent DTT broadcasts of
>>> channels that are not also available on analogue to prevent
>>> fragmentation of the advertising revenue. They've been trying to
>>> sell DTT to the Australian public on the basis of picture quality
>>> so it's been a bit of a flop, not surprisingly.

>> What are they transmitting digital on?

VHF and UHF, more VHF than UHF.

>> When I lived there 20 years ago most TV was on VHF,
>> although one Sydney station was on UHF as well I believe.

Yep, SBS.

>> VHF used to suffer quite badly from reflections,
>> maybe because of the long distances involved.

Nope, no long distances involved.

UHF has its own problems, particularly surprisingly deep holes.

>> When we moved here we were (UK) we were
>> astonished by the better picture quality, but it
>> was also a new  TV which might have helped :-).
>> Anyway, chances are that digital pictures
>> will be better than VHF analogue ones,

Corse they are.

>> especially in the bush.

Yep, some with basically unusable analog signals do fine with digital.

> Crosspost added: uk.tech.digital-tv,aus.tv.digital

> Dunno. Suggest somebody Down Under answers that.