Talk:Digital Video Broadcasting
Should be renamed
The article should be renamed from DVB to Digital Video Broadcasting. This follows the naming conventions, and is easier to mouse-over when reading an article about digital transmission. Besides, it's in the logo. —Wikibarista 08:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Wikibarista and I made the move to Digital Video Broadcasting. I think that this change is appropriate based on the WP's naming conventions. To anyone who disagrees, I direct your attention to the Digital Audio Broadcasting article, which also opts to use full name rather than the acronym. Jeysaba (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What about MATV and MMDS (Microwave) systems?
How do master-antenna television (MATV) systems and those pay-TV networks that rely on MMDS techonology? Which DVB standards would cover those two? -Daniel Blanchette 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, found them. -Daniel Blanchette 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"See also" should include MPEG-2
Granted MPEG-2 already links here, but having read that entry it feels like we should return the courtesy. I am unfortunately not a good enough editor yet to try adding this myself. Will someone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannock9 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Don't forget MPEG-4
The DVB article should be updated to include the fact that some of the countries that are adopting DVB are doing so using the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard, and some broadcasters who are doing HD are also doing so using the MPEG-4, not MPEG-2, format. -Daniel Blanchette 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to send 3D-programs via DVB?
Paragraph about adoption in North America
It mentions correctly that DVB-S is used on various satellites, mostly Ku-band, some C-band, but it's not used in cable systems. Cable is either still analog NTSC or it's SCTE-65 which is like ATSC with PSIP transmitted in an out of band channel for encrypted channels or it's in the clear which is like ATSC but with QAM modulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
A critical note
This article implicitly suggests that DVB standardization has been a great success. This view is not shared by everyone, however. Take, for instance, Nolan, D. Bottlenecks in pay television: Impact on market development in Europe Telecommunications Policy, 1997, 21, p. 606:
- Although the European DVB standardization process was supposed to create a standard environment for the development of broadcast digital delivery systems, it was a tool kit specification which allowed designers a menu of choices in their implementations. In the European digital satellite environment this enabled those who understood these specifications to erect convenient technology barriers to entry, external to the debate raging about conditional access and electronic programme guides at the time. The simple expedient of choosing different parameter sets or choosing to support only a limited range of DVB symbol rates automatically creates the potential to control which services the receiver can access.
To present an unbiased account of DVB standardization the article should therefore include such views. Any thoughts on this? Niclas 08:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niclas M. (talk • contribs)
- Please feel free to include those views in the article. --Cantalamessa (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Russian MPEG-4 Link
Most MP4 links in this article are to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC article. But the "Russia" section links to the main MPEG-4 article which is much broader. Does anyone know whether Russian DVB-T uses H.264 (i.e. MPEG-4 part 10) or does it use some other part of MPEG-4, justifying the different linking? Shannock9 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)