Posts by Nigel Whitfield. 1049 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
It's the ECHR, which is the highest court for those who are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights - something that, in more enlightened times, Britain played a major part in drawing up.
The ECHR is not part of the EU, though having the E word in there often confuses Daily Mail types and makes them froth just that little bit more.
There is not necessarily a difference in quality between DVB-T and DVB-T2 broadcasts, because the technology isn't relevant at that level. It's the underlying capacity of the multiplex that's affected.
Think of it more as the difference between two broadband connection speeds, say 4 megabit and 6 megabit. All it means is that you can send more information down the pipe.
In the configurations used in the UK, the difference between DVB-T and DVB-T2 is about 60% additional capacity, taking a mux up from 24 to a over 38 megabits.
It's then up to the operators to decide if they use the extra capacity to boost the allocation of an individual stream, or to squeeze in extra streams.
BBC Four is carried on Mux B in the pre-DOS configuration.
Post DSO, that's known instead as PSB3, which is the High Definition mux. BBC Four moves to PSB1, which is the new designation for the current BBC Mux A.
So, along with all the other SD services, it will still be available with a standard DVB-T receiver.
... a Big Fat Poof (tm)*, frankly I can't summon the energy to worry about things like this.
I'm much more concerned about the malignant influence of religious folk on laws that are supposed to promote equality.
Can we have a pink triangle icon, please?
* I prefer to think of it as 'fun size'
We're at the forefront not in terms of the number of channels (lots of people have more, of course), but in terms of the technology deployed.
We are the first country to deploy DVB-T2, which is much more efficient in terms of spectrum, and the general spec means that every box that people buy for the service will be IPTV capable; it's pretty much a dead cert that iPlayer will be available, and likely ITV player too, as that's going on Freesat and will probably follow on FreeviewHD.
So, in terms of the technology that you'll be able to wander into a supermarket and buy, without any need for subscriptions, I'd say that will be a pretty advanced proposition.
Of course, it's somewhat marred by the lack of spectrum available; the Ofcom guys at the launch presentation suggested that if someone were to bid for spectrum, then there'd be the capacity to do another two muxes nationwide, and the existing ones, longer term may convert to DVB-T2 too. Of course, that's all a long way off, and I doubt we'll ever have quite as many FTA HD channels as elsewhere.
But technically (at least until the Finns build out their network, starting end of this year), it is at the forefront (or cutting edge, if you prefer to put it that way).
Did a great sketch, back in the 90s, where Fry was maitre'd in a restaurant, and apologised profusely to a broadcasting minister, taking away his silver cutlery.
He return, upending a bag of plastic cutlery all over the table, and when the minister asked what the junk was for, told him that was surely what he wanted - lots and lots of choice.
Sadly, I've never been able to track that clip down, but it was fairly prescient.
Unfortunately, it's no longer fashionable to be patrician.
The BBC's Flickr photostream contains this shot, showing the network architecture for Freeview HD, which was one of the more interesting slides, I thought.
Thankfully, this saves you all from having to suffer the version I jotted down in my notebook!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbccouk/4153216652/
CEA-608 is an analogue standard, isn't it? As far as I know, it's transmitted in one of the VBI lines.
Freeview and other DVB services transmit the subs as a stream of bitmaps, rather than just the text, and so you do tend to need a higher rate. The broadcaster gets to choose the font (Tiresias in the UK), rather than the equipment manufacturer.
A BBC R&D paper from 1999 looked at subtitling for DVB, and the tables in that give example bitrates for two programmes - an episode of Neighbours with pre-prepared subs, and the news, with live captioning.
In those, the peak rate is around 65kbits/sec for pre-prepared and abut 70kbits/sec for live. The paper suggests up to 192kbits could be necessary.
Presumably, for an HD service, the bitmaps will be of better quality than for SD, so given those peak figures, 200kbits/sec for the titling does seem about right, I'd have thought.
You can see some of the numbers at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/pdffiles/ibc99net.pdf
Admittedly I live in London, and have a robust aerial, and don't watch some of the crappier channels, but I don't think it's fair to criticise Freeview as blocky. The main channels provide pretty robust signals these days - a far cry from the days of OnDigital when I could never get a decent signal on the ITV mux for around half the year, with plenty of break-up.
As for regions like Sussex, I'm afraid the delay for those is a necessary part of the international co-ordination involved in DSO. Transmitters in the bottom right corner of the UK can potentially cause interference with the French, Belgian and Dutch services, so there's a fair bit of planning necessary to make it all work smoothly.
There is a degree of logic in the way the BBC does things. Firstly, there's not the capacity right now for them to have two HD channels; I can imagine the fuss from some quarters if half the channels available in HD were from the BBC, and the accusations of them squeezing out other players.
Secondly, they'd of necessity be broadcasting a lot of upscaled material, as does ITV. And that raises other issues - why should people who watch BBC3 or BBC4, for example, miss out on seeing some of the shows on those channels in HD, just so that a quiz show or (pick any show you don't personally like) can be upscaled on BBC1HD or BBC2HD?
Given the bandwidth constraints, and the number of channels they have, I can understand entirely why the BBC decided to go with a 'best of' channel that just shows HD, from all the channels in their portfolio.
I think sometimes, when you try to work out what the BBC is doing and why, you need to imagine "What would the Daily Express say?" And in the case of a simulcast of the two main channels, perhaps it would be something along the lines of "Auntie wastes millions of YOUR money broadcasting HD channels to a handful of viewers - and most of the programmes aren't in HD"
The situation may change in time, but right now, I think there would be plenty of people howling in outrage if the BBC were gifted two channel slots for HD.
No; Play TV is not compatible with the UK service, because it uses a DVB-T tuner, rather than a DVB-T2 one. A software update is not possible for that.
The 'HD' software tweaks for PlayTV are to allow reception of HD services in other countries where they use DVB-T for HD. You can find out more about that at
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/23/freeview_hd_questions_answered/
I would imagine that, for the next few years at least, you will have a broadly comparable service whether you go for Freeview or Freesat. The PSBs, once they have an HD channel up and running, will most likely take them to Freesat as well, when they can find suitable transponder space.
In theory Freesat has more capacity, and there are certainly more minority channels (Weddings, Asian music, and so on), but in terms of the main channels that get the bulk of viewing, there won't be much between them.
I honestly don't think you'll see much in the way of Freesat-exclusive HD channels; launching an ad-funded TV station is pretty tricky at best of times, let alone in an economic downturn.
So, for the time being, yes, I think you'll ultimately have pretty similar services from the two main platforms, with a few exceptions (eg Dave and Virgin 1 not on Freesat, lots of minority stuff not on Freeview).
Some sets include Guide+, which does indeed have advertising. But that's dependent upon the particular manufacturer, and nothing to do with the BBC.
Whether or not the licensing agreement for the FreeviewHD badge will preclude any advertising appearing on the EPG screen where the Freeview logo is show, I don't know. But I will try to find out.
I don't think there's necessarily any cause or effect here, actually.
It's quite possible that at many times, the bitrate for BBC HD on Freeview may be exceeding that for Freesat, due to the stat muxing.
The coding for Freeview will be set to maintain a specific quality, not a specific rate, and if a higher rate is needed, then that's what it'll get.
On Freesat, it's a fixed rate. The streams for each platform are distributed separately - it's not as if they take the pre-compressed satellite feed and stick that out on Freeview.
I'm not extremely biased against the PS3. If you want something on which you can also play games, then it's a perfectly sound choice.
However, if it's a BluRay player that you're in the market for, then I do believe that you would be better off spending less money, and choosing one of the other options - like the LG at under £140 - which offers a lot of the same functionality, and with a better interface than XMB. Spend the other 80-100 quid on things to watch.
Now, not everyone's priorities are the same, I'll readily admit. And if you do want a something that will do iPlayer, or play games too, go buy a PS3 by all means, like we said in the review. But that doesn't mean that it's the best solution for everyone.
Lots of people will, I think, prefer to have that extra cash in their pocket. That doesn't mean they're irrational, or have a dislike of the PS3. It's a great games console; it's just not necessarily the right choice for everyone who wants to watch BluRay films.
Play back quality - yes, much of a muchness. Certainly nothing that we could distinguish between the different players.
XMB - clearly some people like it. I think it's a dog's breakfast; while tolerable on the PS3, on the standalone Sony it really is awful, especially with the background menu showing clearly through various dialogues.
PS/3 - in terms of list price, it's perhaps not that much more, but most of the standalone players can be bought for quite a bit less than the Playstation - up to around £100 less in most cases. And so for those who aren't gamers, I feel they present a better all round choice - features, ease of use and value for money.
Philips player - the 7300 was released in June of this year, and is a current model. The 7500 is brand new, and wasn't available in the time-frame for the testing.
The quickest player to load took 1 minute 4 seconds.
We used X-Men Origins: Wolverine to time load time for each player, and the timing was done from pressing the close button on the tray (or the mechanism grabbing the disc) until the Fox logo appears on screen, which is just before the disc's main menu.
So, add a few seconds of whirling searchlights to get to the main menu itself.
And if it's the first time a player has seen a BD-Live disc, you may have to work through dialogues asking if you want to download extra material, as well.
Conversely, you may see quicker loads on discs without BD-Live.
I was astonished too; even my old Laserdisc player will be quicker.
I've not had the phone refuse to ring when in my pocket; it doesn't go into silent mode just because it's face down.
What happens is that it rings when a call comes in, whichever way it's facing. And then it stops when you turn it face down. So, if it's face down already, it rings, you can turn it over, see who it is calling and it will silence if you put it face down again.
Given that, I would imagine you've have to be performing some pretty energetic gyration for the sensors to imaging you've turned it over when it's in your back pocket.
As for the centre-button hold, I've tried pressing lots of buttons when they keypad is locked, and then the centre of the navpad, and yes, the display still lights up with the time, so you don't need to get it right first time when you're fumbling in the dark.
Mail for Exchange is built in to the Messaging client on the E72, so you don't need to install it separately. Just choose the 'Setup email' option on the main menu, or add a new account in Messaging, and it's one of the options for the account type, alongside Lotus Notes Traveller.
The video will be unencrypted; non-compliant receivers will still be able to tune into it. Yes, they'll have no broadcast EPG - but then, plenty of PVRs and PVR software manage to work without one anyway, retrieving information from various online sources.
Personally, I would have imagined that most of the people capable of making something like Myth work would find it simple enough to set up an online EPG feed. With programmes in the clear, and only the EPG data encrypted, you'll be able to tune in, add net-sourced EPG and you'll have everything you need to record - just as Windows Media Centre and many other programs (and even the sacred Tivo) have managed for year, without an OTA EPG.
And as it's the OTA EPG that will contain the meta-data, rather than some artefact of the video streams themselves, what exactly is the problem? Other than the fact that you won't pick up last minute schedule changes or over-runs, you'll have a functioning PVR.
It seems to me that the merest whiff of the word "encryption" has made a lot of people panic and assume they won't be able to do this - but it should be perfectly possible.
Yes, only approved PVRs, get the EPG, and there may be content restrictions (just as there already are on Freesat - one copy of an HD show to Bluray, for example, unlimited copies in SD), but those don't seem to be causing major hassles for Freesat, frankly.
There is no encryption planned or proposed on Freeview HD. And nothing that's been proposed will stop users of non-approved equipment with an alternatively sourced EPG from recording what they want, when they want.
For the full technical details of the change, since I don't have them in my notes, I shall have to go back to one of my BBC engineering sources again - I'd rather be completely right than attempt to paraphrase from memory and make a hash of it, if we're going to get into real technical nitty gritty, but my recollection is that it's something to do with PAFF/MBAFF that caused issues with some PC codecs.
It's not, of course, the first time that software developers have skimped: look at the split NIT problem, which, in essence, could have been avoided by coding to the specs, which always allowed for multi-part tables. It crashed quite a few boxes because they were coded instead on the assumption that the single part NIT in use at the time was how it would remain.
B1G: "BBC have (I'm told) changed their HD format on sat' so now the picture just breaks up all the time."
They didn't change the format; they tweaked the encoders and it's now using some of the advanced features of H.264 that it didn't beforehand. Still within the spec - just a part of the spec that some software writers chose to ignore, because no one was using it at the time. Strikes me as a slightly odd way to code software, personally.
The copy protection that was proposed was functionally the same as on Freesat, nothing more, nothing less. No encrypted video streams, just a compressed EPG, with meta-data specifying content control. Ofcom has rejected even that; we'll see what the next move is.
As for changing channel, what's so difficult about pressing buttons on the remote? Note that in the case of BBC HD, it's a separate channel; would you want your TV to automatically switch to BBC HD when they announce Strictly Come Dancing, even though you were planning to switch to, say, ITV instead?
One reason ITV uses the red button is because on satellite, they don't have regionalisation, and they have potential rights issues, due to the transponder they're on.
The EPG data will be capable of flagging up HD broadcasts; whether or not someone creates a box that selects it automatically will presumably be up to the manufacturers. In the case of the simulcast channels, though, why not press 53 for ITV HD or 54 for Channel 4 HD, instead of just 3 or 4?
Yes, HD should be available from relay transmitters. The multiplex that carries the HD services is one of the three PSB services, which are due to be carried everywhere (it was previously known as BBC Mux B, before the shuffling that enabled HD to launch).
As far as planning the switch to T2 before switchover commenced, sadly not that easy. T2 wasn't even a standard in the planning stages back then, when switchover plans were first made; the need to coordinate frequency use internationally means much of the plan was already drawn up several years ago. DVB-T2 was first demonstrated in 2008; it's a very new technology.
When OnDigital launched, ten years earlier, H.264 wasn't even a standard - the team to finalise it wasn't put together until late 2001. Work on DVB-T2 didn't begin until 2007 - two years after the DSO timescale for the UK was finally announced.
Just like buying kit, you could wait to announce a plan in case something better comes along, but then you'd never announce one.
With regard to backwards compatibility, it was certainly an element that was mentioned at various stages in drawing up the DVB-T2 spec; I don't have all my notes to hand, but it's expected (and may be mandatory, but without my notes...) that T2 tuners will be able to receive T signals as well. You won't need a separate box to watch SD material.
As for swapping out tuner boards, sadly not every set is modular; if you have a typical tuner can soldered onto a main board, like you'll see in lots of PVRs, for example, doing a swap is not straightforward. Even when you can, you'll also need the firmware (and in some cases loaders) updated in a receiver, to drive a new tuner module.
I honestly can't see many manufacturers going down that route.
@Mage, Regarding the Neotion CAMs, there were actually some (I've played with one) that don't rely on the existing tuner, such an ethernet equipped one, and even a prototype that had an HDMI output. But by then you're getting into requiring sets to do things that they really didn't have in mind when they added the CI slot; as you say, a lot of them just won't work with these things anyway. But people ask...
In reply to RotaCyclic's "The statement that the Freeview cards on the market for PCs can not receive Freeview HD is simply false," sorry. You're incorrect.
The original test transmissions a couple of years ago were using DVB-T, not T2, because the T2 standard wasn't even finalised.
In the most recent round of tests, which included comparative tests of different modes in both T and T2, there were transmissions using both standards; those using DVB-T could be picked up on existing equipment, those using it without could not.
And, its partly as a result of those tests that the performance of DVB-T2 has been assessed; talking to engineers who have been involved in that, they seem confident with the 60% figure. One of the original design criteria for T2 was that it should give *at least* a 30% increase.
The channels available at launch should be BBC HD (which already exists), Channel 4 HD and ITV HD, which will be a peak time simulcast of ITV1.
When technology allows, Channel 5 will be added to the mux.
As for why not remove the other channels so that we can use DVB-T instead, the problem is which channels? Some may not like the slapper on a sofa channels, or the plus 1s, or the shopping channels, but they've all paid for their space, in contracts with privately owned mux operators.
Ofcom can't just go round closing down commercial stations, so that the largest operators can have the space back for an HD service; attempting to do so would drag things through the courts, and even further delay any launch.
If we had a centrally planned TV system, perhaps that would be possible. But we don't - so about the only organisation that could be bullied into giving up space was the BBC. Even losing a couple of their channels (as opposed to the interactive streams that have gone), so that other broadcasters could simulcast HD would be unacceptable to many.
The only other option would be to allocate more spectrum - but with any government we get in the next few years needing cash, that's unlikely to happen.
@RedBren's "What about everyone who already upgraded to a "HD Ready" TV for their Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players and XBOX/PS3 consoles?"
Many of those sets, of course, wouldn't receive HD transmissions even if DVB-T were used, because they don't have HD decoders, or lack H.264 support at all. A few sets made in the last couple of years, from some manufacturers, support H.264 and HD via DVB-T, but the majority do not.
As I said in the article, many of those sets would need an upgrade anyway, regardless of whether or not they have the 'HD Ready' logo.
Are there any Philips DVB-T2 sets to have your eye on, RichyS? I don't think so, right now.
If you were able to find such a beast, it would receive and display the channels because they are broadcast in the clear, using DVB-T2. Just as you can buy (almost) any DVB-T receiver, and pick up existing Freeview SD signals, even if it doesn't have the digital tick or Freeview logo.
However, to be sure you'll get the interactive features and the EPG, you'll need the FreeviewHD logo. (In particular, if the BBC is allowed to use the content protection they want, you'll definitely need a compatible box for the EPG, but the programmes have always been going to be transmitted without encryption).
Given that the UK will be the first deployment, and therefore the market where people will most likely pay a premium for DVB-T2, I would think it very unlikely that Philips or any other major manufacturer will be launching DVB-T2 sets without also getting them certified for FreeviewHD.
Aerials: Existing aerials will work perfectly well; all aerials are analogue, there's no such thing as an SD, HD or Digital aerial.
Some installers will tell you you need a "Digital aerial" when what they tend to be offering is a wideband one, rather than the 'grouped' ones that are optimised for a specific chunk of the spectrum.
Resolution: Perhaps I'll persuade El Reg to do a whole separate piece on this, but the launch config of Freeview HD will be 1080lines, interlaced, initial horizontal resolution 1440 pixels; if you want the technical description, that's 1080i25, as the EBU would say.
Timing: With a new technology, and a need to update the transmitters, one or the other had to come first, transmissions or receivers. Getting both to happen on the same day would have been a pretty nifty logistical feat.
I'm not so worried about the readers; obviously I'd like them to be cheaper, but you only buy one once.
The real problem, and what makes me reluctant to buy too many titles for my own Reader, is that the books cost more than the printed editions. Pop along to the websites for publishers like Random House or Penguin and you'll find plenty of eBooks for sale at the same price as the hardback edition, let alone the paperbacks.
People might stomach the DRM and inability to lend, in favour of the space saving, if they knew they'd actually save money in the long run. But not when going electronic costs you more.
It's as if they went to a meeting of music industry executives and said "Can you give us hints on how to really shaft our customers as we transition to electronic distribution?"
@Simbooth, no, you can't do it using the CI slot, because that appears in the wrong place in the chain - DVB-T2 replaces the very first link in the chain of processes inside the receiver.
Without a DVB-T2 tuner, you're not going to get any signal to tune into, let alone pass on to the CI slot.
In theory, you could put a tuner on a CI module, and feed a signal in that way - but that's essentially putting a whole receiver in a CI module, and though it's possible to control such a module from the menus on some TVs, it's not easy (and often impossible) and not elegant at all. The CI spec is rather limited when it comes to controlling such things.
DVB-T2 will be being used elsewhere in Europe; a number of other countries are planning to roll it out in future.
There aren't any. Not the PS/3, not the BT Vision box, or Elgato sticks, or anything else.
Some of those will receive HD in other countries using DVB-T, but they will NOT do so in the UK; the DVB-T2 hardware is pretty clever stuff, and you can't just change the software on your PC to magically transform a DVB-T tuner into a DVB-T2 one.
However, there are prototypes out there, and there are certainly manufacturers working on equipment for the UK market. The testing is apparently a little more rigorous than has sometimes been the case in the past, so at least in that regard I think lessons have been learned.
As to why we're doing this - it's a new technology, and it's much more efficient (50% extra capacity per mux). Sooner or later it would be adopted anyway, whether for HD or SD.
There's at least one new(ish) technology involved in HD for most people - H.264. By linking that and DVB-T2 in one jump, it's hoped to avoid the problem of starting an HD service and then changing transmission technology a few years down the line. A bit more pain (and wait) now, but far less likelihood of another upgrade very soon.
AC, @13:13 on the 17th isn't quite correct.
The previous transmissions were using AVC/H.264 as well - there have been no HD MPEG2 transmissions in the UK (though MPEG2 in HD has been used on some cable services).
The first round of tests from Crystal Palace used DVB-T and H.264, so there's nothing new in the use of that codec from next month.
What is new is DVB-T2, which increases the carrying capacity of a mux by around 50%, and will be used by some other countries in Europe as they move to HD as well - we'll simply be the first, regaining the lead we had when we launched digital terrestrial.
Yes, some existing HD Ready sets would be able to receive HD is DVB-T2 weren't used, but not all of them - it's only in the last year or two that they've routinely had decoders capable of receiving H.264; even if MPEG2 were used (which would be hopelessly inefficient and mean switching off other channels to fit in just one HD service), plenty of sets wouldn't be able to receive the service anyway - if they're designed with an SD decoder (which many have been, in the absence of broadcast HD) - then you're still stuck with an MPEG decoder that can't create a picture bigger than its 720x576 frame buffer.
So, whatever was done, lots of old equipment, regardless of the resolution of the screen, would not cope with HD.
Long term, as people want to screw more money out of the spectrum, there'll be a move to H.264, to fit more channels in. So that makes sense - especially for HD. And for the same reason, there'll be eventual pressure to move to DVB-T2.
The UK plan recognised that telling people to buy a set now with H.264 for HD, and then upgrading again in a few years for more capacity, with DVB-T2 wouldn't be popular. So the decision was taken to link together the move to both technologies.
At the cost of a later start to HD than some other countries, and an initial scarcity of equipment, it at least means that for this change you'll get both technologies in one go, instead of buying an HDTV receiver now, and finding that they decide to change the modulation system in a few years, necessitating another purchase.
The "HD Ready" label has a very specific meaning - it means that the display is widescreen, with at least 720 lines of resolution, and has an HDMI or DVI input, with HDCP, plus a few extra bits about the picture formats that can be displayed.
That's all. The "HD Ready" standard, as defined by EICTA (www.digitaleurope.org), and licensed for use on equipment, has only ever meant that the display is of sufficient resolution, and with appropriate connections, to be connected to an HD source. It has never been defined in any official way to mean "will receive HD broadcasts"
There's another logo for that, again licensed by EICTA, which is the "HD TV" logo. That tells you that something can "receive and decode HD signals", such as a satellite box or a Freeview HD box. When it appears on something with a display it additionally indicates that the display meets the "HD Ready" spec.
Of course, plenty of people misconstrue the term "HD Ready" to mean that something will do what the "HD TV" logo is for, but the official definition, at least as far as the label on the front of equipment goes, has been clear since 2005.
What the spotty youths in your favourite retailer may tell you is, of course, not necessarily the same.
It was a skinhead, saving a businessman - you can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg amongst other places.
Just as interesting as the rest of this item was "Metropolitan Police figures showing that fewer than one crime is solved for every 1,000 CCTV cameras deployed in London."
Rather makes a mockery of things like their attempt to insist on CCTV as a licensing requirement.
And some of crimes solved by CCTV will probably be the police beating people up at G20. Do you suppose they included those in the figures? :)
My neighbour has a book in print at the moment; paperback price £6.99. Ebook price is £1.20 more than that - that's an increase of over 17%.
He does receive an additional royalty for the eBook version - 5% more than the usual royalty he gets on the print version, so he'll get a little more, which is fine - he wrote the book, after all, and deserves to make money from it.
But the bulk of the extra money for the eBook version is going to the publisher - and they no longer have printing, shipping and warehousing costs.
Look at the online catalogue for Penguin and you'll see that the pricing of most of their eBooks is set in line with the pricing of the hardback edition. I can't imagine that doing anything other than harming the business in the long run.
Most people do want the authors to be rewarded, I think. But it seems pretty clear to me that, though authors may benefit a little more from electronic sales, the biggest winner is the publishing company, by a country mile.
It ought to be possible, surely, to sell for the equivalent of the paperback price - or less - and still provide the author and publisher with a better return than for the print edition - unless somehow those involved in creating eBooks and licensing the DRM and fulfilment mechanisms have contrived to make all that more costly than printing and shipping actual physical products.
That perceived greed was at least a factor in the woes of the music industry; it's disheartening to see the major publishers (with some exceptions, like O'reilly) not learning from their mistakes.
Comparisons with broadband in other countries are always tricky - it's not just a case of "our blasted telcos won't invest." Housing density can have a significant effect too - simply put, if most of your residents live in high rise, high density units, it's a lot easier to stick a single fibre in to one building and serve hundreds than it is to put one into every house on a street to serve the same number.
In Seoul, in 1970 just 4% of housing was in apartments, rather than houses; by 2006 that had grown to 53%. That's a massive increase, and will make it much easier to provide high speed access to more residents.
I suspect that you'll find that in many countries where there's a high proportion of people with very fast access, there's also a much higher housing density than in the US and UK.
The Universal Flasher merges what's on the device with the new XML and image files, so if you put your changes in the appropriate folders (and you'll see there are ones for the US firmware versions), then you can hack it in exactly the same way.
You should also be able to put the UK firmware on the US model, to the best of my knowledge, but since it has a higher version number you won't be able to go back, using the standard Sony utility.
As for PDFs, if you try to look at, say, an A4 magazine page it'll not be brilliant, especially if you try to zoom, at which point the Reader will reflow. But the 1.2 firmware does improve PDF performance over the original.
If it's just dumping the transport stream to the drives, which is the most likely, then you'll almost certainly be able to open the files using MPEG StreamClip (www.squared5.com) which is one of the tools of choice for the owners of Topfields and other PVRs that let you offload the files.
Of course, they may have weird headers stuck on them, but that's not insurmountable - StreamClip handles some formats, and VLC skips over some too, allowing you too use it to create a plain TS.
VideoRedo can also handle some TS files.
The FD service, unless there's an option I've missed, doesn't send an immediate alert, but you can set what you want to know about, and when, then alerts go out around 7am the next day.
You can also set the thresholds for notifications, such as any transaction above 50 quid, every transaction if your balance is below £xx, or a mini-statement on a particular day of the week. So it's not quite instant, but definitely useful for knowing when something's happened in a reasonable time frame.
@AC, 15:42 no, you're right the editorial team weren't told it was the last issue - not until it was all safely sent off to the printers.
The team was told on Monday; and with the exception of some very early copy (the Hands On columns come in before just about everything else, and I'd already edited them), that's it. I think those last columns will end up on the web but there won't be a final issue. That's the August one, and that really is it.
Nigel
(Contributing Ed, PCW)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
