Talk:Freeview (Australia)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Television Mid‑importance Freeview (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

TVS is listed on the Freeview website and indeed Freeview's media release of 2 March 2010 "welcomes" TVS to the digital TV spectrum. However it does not specifically state that TVS is part of Freeview's lineup and does not list TVS as being one of the owners of the Freeview consortium. http://freeview.com.au/news/view.aspx?newsId=33 So is TVS part of Freeview? Debatable. TVS is probably all too happy for Freeview to give them a plug tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.50.65 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will the network channels be allowed to broadcast as many channels as they like, is it from 1st Jan, 2010?

This will happen once analogue shutdown is completed. i.e. second half of 2013 (most likely mid December 2013).

When will the AM & FM radio stations start broadcasting on Freeview, like they do in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the FAQ page on the Freeview site, they say that a digital television receiver will be required, but then state that equipment designed for Freeview will be badged. So which is it, will existing receivers work or not?

And also, mention is made of an

Apparently it's a new EPG.... so you have to have a Freeview box. But the channels will work on regular boxes (HD will only work on HD boxes) Greg (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be confirmed Seven and Nine's new channels will use LCN's 77 and 99? 203.59.182.43 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Freeview badged receiver or box simply guarantees it will pick up all Freeview listed channels (SD and HD), since not all existing digital receivers will. It's basically just a sticker that gets put on after this is verified.

Any HD box or TV with an inbuilt HD tuner can pick up all the Freeview channels both HD and SD, whereas an SD-only unit will obviously only pick up the SD ones. Some lower cost Plasma TVs are not true HD sets but the still have a tuner that receives HD so you can watch the extra HD channels in standard definition, which qualifies them as Freeview compatible.

The extra freeview channels will simply replace some of the duplicated ones you can receive already. There are no extra channels as such.

All Freeview really is, is a combined effort by all the broadcasters to publicise the benefits of Digital TV, and the extra channels they are now allowed to use. There's no catch, it's basically the existing system re-packaged.

AS a rule-of-thumb, any HD box is automatically Freeview compatible, since all HD boxes also pick up SD channels.

Ultramince (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - the list of channels is confusing because it blends City and Regional systems. Does anyone else agree that separating an 'average' city and 'average' regional station list might be useful? Greg (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the channels to separate them - as per the Freeview website.

Now wonder whether it's worth listing the "historical" setup of the channels (such as resolution, widescreen, content) rather than the future plans. Greg (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You source the site yet however it shows Ten HD and One not One and One HD. Although this makes no sense, it is what technically should be put in. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 02:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yeah there are some conflicting statements. Ten says different things to Freeview about Ten's plans. I'll go with Ten's announcements :) Greg (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2008/10/one-hd-bumps-ten-hd-into-limbo.html

WNC is going with SBS World. 203.206.32.94 (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The channel table should show users what's coming. It should tell users what the 15 channels are going to be (to the extent that we know... which isn't much).

As such, perhaps a table which shows what we know, and what those channels are currently used for (if anything).

eg:

What do you think? How would you do this? Should colour be used to help?

ps. I've removed SBS Sport +. Does anyone know if this still exists? Greg (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that SBS 2 was the sport channel. It is shown on this SBS website : http://www20.sbs.com.au/transmissions/ 121.219.244.228 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Cam[reply]

Any thoughts on whether the table above better represents the plans of Freeview than what we currently show? Greg (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, although currently Channel 33 only shows world news at the moment.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Channel 13 does not exist and Ten HD will no longer broadcast once One HD starts on Channel 1 in March. anton (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I see LH1034 says that OneHD is definitely 1080i. Is it??? Greg (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we make it pretty clear in the main text that we're omitting duplicate channels. Should we actually have a paragraph somewhere on duplicate channels which aren't just a simulcast but actually are just a second/third/fourth number (LCN) pointing to the same stream? Greg (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned. There is a little too much educated guessing - since there's so little information.

I mean... we know that each network is ALLOWED to have 3 channels, 2 SD + 1 HD. We know that Freeview has said the 5 networks will have 3 channels each. Same goes for regional areas with local affiliates.

We don't know if those channels will be simulcasts like OneSD and OneHD. We don't know if Southern Cross will retransmit OneHD - indications are it will not (at present) though I suspect it will eventually. The HD data rate could be anything. And the HD channels are already considered 'different channels'... is that as far as it goes or will they become distinct?

We need more facts... don't we? Greg (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• your not the only person concerned!!! freeview don't even seem to know what is going on as they say we will have 15 channels, well on my beyonwiz DP-P2 i have 24 (4 are radio) and i have the same on all of my HDTV's, also why has nothing been said about the channel ABC 1, ABC2, ABC3, SBS1, SBS2, SBS3, SBS4...plus seven 1, 2 and 3? everyone just seems to be adding more and more rubbish to this page and making it even harder for poeple to work out what is going on.
• See this page http://www.sbs.com.au/article/109044/Australia-wide-Digital-Upgrade

Thuringowacityrep (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing. The issue you raise is a common one though - and perhaps should be addressed in the main article. Essentially, the networks can now do up to 3 different channels on their transmission. ONLY THREE. However, they can have hundreds of "Logical Channel Numbers" (LCNs) pointing to those 3. But there are only 3 actual channels (7 & 9 only have 2 in use at the moment).

I can't think of a good reason to have more LCNs. I GUESS ABC could make an ABC4 which points to ABC1's kids programs until 10am, and then points to ABC2's kids programs from 10am... so that you could just put your TV on ABC4 and it would basically automatically change the channel for you when the kids programming moves channels. But it doesn't seem incredibly useful. Greg (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smarthouse article

Drworm removed my reference to the smarthouse article, saying " This is not a rumour site, keep this type of thing to other forums". Yes, thank you, I know this is not a rumour site no need to be condescending. I was quoting an article, one of VERY FEW articles there are on our Freeview system, but it had some issues with it and lacked sources so I thought the clearest thing was to call it a rumour. I have since looked up the author more and while his ancient history is respectable, his recent history is one of "write whatever will get people reading". He's been called out on the Media Watch program for plagiarism in the past too. This in addition to the factual errors I saw in his article lead me to believe it is a very bad source of information.

• David W. Richards wikipedia article
• One of the Media Watch transcripts about him. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2178689.htm
• Commentary on his headlining story about Vista. http://squash.wordpress.com/2006/03/25/who-the-heck-is-david-richards/
• The Smarthouse article on Freeview: http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/Industry/B3N9P8E6?page=3
• My comments on other issues with the article: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1093259&r=18220363#r18220363

What I wrote that was removed:

In mid-February 2009, the device manufacturers received a draft of the Freeview specifications. This was under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and comments were anonymous. It broke the specifications into 2 stages.

• Stage 1 involves little change to existing specifications. There is no enhanced EPG in stage 1. Minimum HD requirements remain unknown.
• Stage 2 involves a new transmission standard named MPEG4 (h264) transmissions. This will allow higher quality or more channels in the same transmission space. It also adds new features "such as (extended) VRML support for 3D rendering, object-oriented composite files (including audio, video and VRML objects), support for externally-specified Digital Rights Management and various types of interactivity."

So I agree with DrWorm's judgement. Greg (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my removal of this caused you any distress. As you have found your source is little more than a rumour monger(and not a good one) The mention of MPEG4 was quite misleading as this is not a standard for Free To Air television in Australia, and it would most likely harm the FTA networks if they said "OK, now you have all gone out and bought Freeview Compliant TV's we are changing the rules and you have to buy this new equipment to watch our new TV channel"

But I am glad you do agree that I made the correct decision to remove the bits I removed. Dr Worm (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the MPEG4 as a stage 2 made a LOT of sense. Not that the FTAs would change over, just that Freeview or the government might push a better standard for the HD content to be used in a few years time, in preference to keeping the current MPEG2 system and having compression artifacts and other issues.

The things that surprised me in the article were little things - like the complaints made by manufacturers over Stage 1, saying it was too hard, yet Stage 1 seems to have no changes to hardware AT ALL. That should be rather simple to do. Commenting that the EPG wasn't possible with the current MPEG2 was also rather odd. Anyway crap source, that's all that matters. And I wanted to document it here in case someone tries to quote it later.

Hope you liked the other additions I made earlier. Greg (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added another link to smarthouse before I read this discussion. Their article does seem to have some support in this though, which is on news.com.au cojoco (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBS2 & ABC4 etc

Should there be a mention on this page about ABC's and SBS's plans for multi-channels? In the Green Guide recently and on their corporate sites there are plans for ABC3 Kids, ABC4 News, ABC5 Education plus upto 12 digital radio channels and SBS2 will begin on June 1st they are going to show The Ashes Cricket and Tour de France live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should make SBS2 clearer. Freeview hasn't said anything about ABC4 etc... so I'd leave them for now. They're HOPES for future ABC channels. Digital44 might be more relevant but again it's not mentioned by Freeview. 124.171.250.224 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops that was me Greg (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an official term for ABC1? It sounds like what SBS used to do late at night. Andjam (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected [1] the error introduced here [2]. Do note there's a big difference between patents and copyrights. While the error is partly because of the daft source which uses both, it's clearly referring to patents. However I suggest the ref be replaced with one that doesn't make such a basic mistake in terminology if possible (I looked but couldn't find any) Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "genre/type" for ABC2 be changed because it has preschool programming during the day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.192.164 (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this article using Freeview's definition of what a channel is, just because we consider the HD simulcasts to have no real point, it is much more accurate and clearer to list anything that is actually a channel - so of course you can leave out things like the duplicate channel numbers (71, 34, etc.), but the HD simulcasts are branded differently, listed separately and counted in Freeview's claims of ~15 channels.
http://freeview.com.au/channels/ should be the definitive source for the lists, save for when there is known obvious inaccuracy (like not listing One HD for Darwin), removing HD channels for space makes no sense - wikipedia isn't print - removing them and replacing them with 'available in HD on channel 90' makes the table more confusing at best. --GoForMoe (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the list of channels is duplicated on both the Freeview and Digital terrestrial television articles. I think the channel list should be included on one page only, because having it duplicated in two articles means that edits made to it on on of the pages don't get transferred to the other page. Replacing one of them with a link to the other page solves the problem. None of the information technically gets removed, just merged into one single article, so I don't see the problem with it.

What do other people here think of replacing one of the cloned sections with a link? I've already done this but it has been reverted, saying to discuss the change first (which is probably a good idea now that I think about it). 124.168.229.83 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for your blanking and the essays you point to are not policies or guidelines. Please stop blanking before there is a consensus to remove. Bidgee (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there's no consensus, but since when was it a rule to check for consensus before making an edit? And there isn't really any proof that there is consensus for your point of view either. If no one says anything about the issue, no one knows if there is consensus or not and the dispute doesn't get resolved. 124.168.229.213 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current table/list doesn't have to have consensus for it to be in this article (since it has been in place since the article was created) but you must get a consensus to remove it. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The channel table in this article and Digital terrestrial television in Australia has been changed to a template. The main reason is that the channel tables in both articles are for the exact same purpose and should display the exact same information. Obviously whenever an edit is made to the table in one article, it means having to update the table in the other article, so it makes sense to have a template to act as the channel table in both articles to avoid having to do that. I don't see any reason why anyone should object to it, since the tables in each article are virtually identical.

Any edits made to the channel table should now be directed at the template here. Thanks Fruit.bmp (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cleaned up the channels section, because the old revision had a tone verging on more 'general' digital TV than the actual Freeview brand. 'General' digital TV information should be left to Digital terrestrial television in Australia, while this article should cover the Freeview brand only. The new table of channels better reflects Freeview, but there is a link to the channels section in Digital terrestrial television in Australia as well. Fruit.bmp (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is wrong, it has more issues then how it currently is. Also Southern Cross, Prime and WIN are not owned by the networks and are their own identity. It is best to keep the current format and discuss the changes before we start making large changes to the article. Bidgee (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, we can leave the current table, but I think the information preceding it should be removed. It's not relevant to the subject matter, which is the brand Freeview. As I've said, there is a difference between digital free-to-air TV and Freeview. That's why we have separate articles for them. Fruit.bmp (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that the sections on the government labeling scheme and multichanneling restrictions are not to do with Freeview. Freeview is a private company, not associated with the government, and hasn't been involved in the making of those laws. This is why we have two separate articles for the digital TV platform and the brand. The sections could however be more suited to Television in Australia, rather than Digital terrestrial television in Australia, I'm not 100% certain on that matter. What's certain is that they do not belong in the Freeview article. Fruit.bmp (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090727151605/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25196536-662,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25196536-662,00.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.businessday.com.au/business/freeview-beats-off-us-rivals-20090225-8i1y.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—