Talk:DVB-H

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ads

The TI site link, isn't it a sort of quite explicit advertisement? Cantalamessa 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More links have been added, and they are ads. I am thinking to remove them. Please discuss. Cantalamessa 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think listing the companies that have DVB-H products is an ad in any real way. This is useful information for anyone who wants additional information beyond the theory, and has many precedents in other pages (see e.g. the listing of H.264 hardware implementations in H264). Nolaviz 07:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there are ads even on other wiki articles. In my opinion, that is wrong. Especially when the ad-like statement glorifies some quality of that product (not in this case, anyway). Cantalamessa 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H+

I read the sources provided at the DVB-H+ entry and came to these conclusions:

There is nothing called DVB-H+. Nobody calls it like that. If it is to be reffered to than always only as DVB-H in S-Band.
The described system is being promoted by Alcatel and its aim is to expand DVB-H to S-Band (more specifically 2170-2200MHz) for both terrestrial and satellite mobile TV broadcasting.
It's not an official DVB standard although at the moment there is a Study Mission (basically a group asked to look into a technical feasibility of such a system) called DVB-SSP (Satellite Services to Portable Devices) headed by someone from Alcatel
the first satellite is planned to be launched around Christmas 2009 (and not in year 2008 as stated) i.e. 2 years after availability of terrestrial transmitters which are expected around Christmas 2007
planned satellite will cover only Western Europe with spot beams aimed at UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy

Please change the entry accordingly to reflect provided comments or I'll do it in about 2 weeks. Thank you. 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.38.70 (talk • contribs)

I see you have found better infos and are more expert than me. So I think it's better that you edit the article and not me. If you haven't time to do, please tell me your sources and I'll try to do this following your suggestions.

About the name DVB-H+: I found it in a document from Italian Communication Authority (http://www.agcom.it/provv/c_p_DVB-H/Sintesi_c_p_DVB-H.pdf), I think they found this name in somewhere technical document but I can't be sure. Armando82 10:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have more information than the one from the links at the entry. I just read all of them (well, I guess I must have missed the one with "DVB-H+" name in it :-). In a couple of days I'll try fix the wording, find more sources and expand the entry a little. 24.80.38.70 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone pictures

I think it would be a good idea to upload pictures of some DVB-h phones. I have two DVB-h phones because I am a trialist, I could upload some amateur pictures also. Please let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle-slayor (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H failure

From some observers [1][2][3] it has been recently pointed out that, in the countries where DVB-H was first launched, it has not gained momentum at all. Maybe due to the lack of interest of mobile users in watching a low-def TV over a few inches screen, or whatever. Any comments on this? Should we discuss about that in the main article? --Cantalamessa 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that 1 milion users on a costumer base of 7 is a failure?

OFDM system comparison table

Feel free to add a DVB-H column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-explicit dates

There are various places where trials etc are referred to as "this year" or "will happen next year".

What year are we talking about?

These should really be concrete dates. GreenAsJade 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)GreenAsJade[reply]

Moving back to DVB-H

I'll move back this article to DVB-H and make a redirect from DVB-SH. You could have discussed in this page before doing such a move: DVB-H exists, whereas the "future enhancements" may be well a redirect. --Cantalamessa (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Cantalamessa (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here about the need to move this page to such a composite title: I see that DVB-SH is a different thing from DVB-H, and there may well be a redirect. --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, even DVB-T and DVB-H are very, very similar, but they have different articles with tiles that are not composite. --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the official DVB website [[4]], DVB-H and DVB-SH are different standards, the same difference that exists between DVB-T and DVB-H. --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an uninvolved observer

The posts above about the page moves seem to be addressed to Steppu75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a recently registered single-purpose account. — Athaenara ✉ 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's title should be simply "DVB-H", since DVB-SH is a separate standard from DVB-H, as you can see here [5]. --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-SH is for DVB-H what 3G is for GPRS: an enhansement of the standard. Unless there is a separate article for DVB-SH or DVB-H2, I would recommend to keep it in the same page for the moment. DVB forum is not willing to make the standards competeting against each other but timprove them. DVB-SH and DVB-H2 soon are improvements of DVB-H, based on similar stacks and validated by ETSI. DVB-T is another story. Comment posted by 195.207.101.112. --Cantalamessa (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H per Cantalamessa. MilesAgain (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purely from a stylistic point of view, the title should simply be "DVB-H". Even if DVB-H and DVB-SH were the same thing (or were similar enough to warrant a single article), the title should simply be "DVB-H" or "DVB-SH", with redirects as appropriate. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H. Mange01 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article title is mis-leading

DVB-H and DVB-SH are separate technical standards. Whilst DVB-SH builds on DVB-H, it should be seen as a complement for DVB-H, rather than a replacement. DVB-H is designed to be used in UHF (and VHF) frequencies, whilst DVB-SH is targeted at S-band spectrum. Whilst the information in this article is largely accurate, the title is mis-leading. It should either be titled DVB-H and DVB-SH, or consideration should be given to breaking it into two separate articles. Eoghan1 14:55 CET 30/01/2008

This comment is not correct. DVB-SH supports all range of frequencies up to 3GHz. DVB-SH supports S-band but ALSO UHF. BMCO forum published results about DVB-SH in UHF with gain improvement of at least 5.5DBs to DVB-H. Comment posted by 195.207.101.112. --Cantalamessa (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after reading a number of opinions, I think that we can safely rename the article to "DVB-H", with redirects from DVB-SH. --Cantalamessa (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this comment and since i am not from Vaasa university, Finland (;-)), I would recommend to mention DVB-H and DVB-SH in the title. Comment posted by 195.207.101.112. --Cantalamessa (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this last comment. DVB-H and DVB-SH should be seen in the same title. DVB-SH is definitely an improvement of DVB-H in the UHF frequencies. I confirm BMCO endorsed it.andytv_2009 19:55 CET 30/01/2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in our opinion the two different names should not stay in the same title, since the majority of the standards reported in wikipedia are done in this way. You can well use a redirect from one term to another. If there is such improvement in using DVB-SH over DVB-H, this means that the two standards are quite different. Moreover, DVB-H exists and is operating in a number of countries, whereas DVB-SH is yet to come. Yet, I don't understand the Vaasa university matter: it is clear that a number of TLC industry insiders are trying to use this article to pump up one standard or another, but we cannot let do this. --Cantalamessa (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion should continue, but in the mean time I am boldly moving to DVB-H and DVB-SH because "evolution to DVB-SH" is a verb phrase. At present this article is very much about the standards and has hardly three sentences about the transitions between them. MilesAgain (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I disagreed with Cantalamessa. DVB-H is widely deployed in Italy but nowhere else. In Philippines, Smart indeed launched a DVB-H service with Nokia but in Manila only and with 7 transmitters. Same story for VTC, with 9 transmitters. Same story for U-Mobile, with 7 transmitters. For U-Mobile and Smart, the regulation even disallowed the operators at the end to commercialize the service since the licenses have not been issued yet. In the mean time, DVB-SH is launched with ICO in US and S2M is going to deploy it in 19 countries. I also read that a DVB-SH trial with more than 200 transmitters is under deployment in Torino, Italy.

So again, I disagree with the "DVB-SH is yet to come" and I fully agree with MilesAgain. We should continue this discussion and let appear both standard name in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.192.176 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can accept the fact that

a single-purpouse account has modified the title of this article, and he is not here to support its choice
Only one signed user has disagreed (with only one contribution to wikipedia, this one!)
Anonymous unverified users keep coming again to show their idea

So, if DVB-H is a failure, we should move this to DVB-SH. Else, if DVB-SH is still in testing phase, we should move this to DVB-H, since it is fully operational in Europe. --Cantalamessa (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H is not a failure and DVB-SH is no longer in testing phase as well. DVB forum has been working on 2 enhansements of DVB-H. One is DVB-H2 which is going to be fully approved probably this year (with DVB-T2). The other is DVB-SH which was approved last year and is no longer in testing phase. However DVB forum is not willing to make those standards competing each other. That is was they are based on same stacks and fully compliants. That means it would be possible to complete a DVB-H network with DVB-SH or DVB-H2 repeaters. That is the reason they have to appear in the same page for the moment. It is also important to inform the readers of improvements. If you are interested, I can provide you the ETSI references for DVB-H and DVB-SH. You would be surprised. I am happy to discuss longer with you and I hope the discussion will be handled with neutrality and objectivity. --steppu75 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be an oppositor against the merging of titles, but I notice that such a move should be discussed before, and after consensus is achieved, done. The opposite happened. Since wikipedia is not a primary source, we need to have clear references to ETSI or other technical pages from where it appears that DVB-H and DVB-SH are the same thing, otherwise I'm afraid we cannot keep them joined. --Cantalamessa (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-H (EN 302 304) and DVB-SH (EN 302 583) are separate standards, but it is clear that they are closely related. One of two options should be chosen: 1) separate articles about each standard, with appropriate inter-linking; or 2) cover both standards in one article, but with a different title, e.g. DVB-H and DVB-SH, or DVB Mobile TV Standards. Eoghan1 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I think DVB Mobile TV Standards is a very good title. If there is no extra comment on this, we will then modify the title based on your proposal.steppu75 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.199.97 (talk) [reply]

Yes, there is extra-comment. There are MilesAgain, Oli Filth, Mange01, and Cantalamessa that have found an agreement on separate titles, whereas there is only steppu75 (I don't think that the other anonymous users can be counted, clearly) that wants a composite or different title. So, what you want to do, is making also the articles DVB Terrestrial TV standards, DVB satellite TV standards, DVB cable TV standards, DVB IP TV standards, etc.? --Cantalamessa (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Eoghan1, steppu75 and 2 anonymous users agreed on the opposite. MilesAgain also proposed an alternative title you disagreed. I also realized that one user that was also in line with steppu75 was removed from this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.213.202 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry of what? Anonymous users cannot be counted in decisions and voting. There are precise guidelines saying that. --Cantalamessa (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not counting votes here, but attempting to gain a consensus. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're right, but all stems from the fact that the article name has been moved without consensus. Anonymous IP may not be taken into account, since you cannot know whether there is one or many minds behind. --Cantalamessa (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not split the article?

Please explain to me why the article can not be devided into two articles. The DVB-H article may have a short DVB-SH section, that is refering to "Main article: DVB-SH". Mange01 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that there is someone interested in using wikipedia as a promotional medium for his preferred standard. This whole thing is becoming ridiculous: there is a consensus in reverting to two different articles, but we all are afraid to set-up an edit-war against anonymi. --Cantalamessa (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, first you are wrong, secondly your article was full of technical misleading informations (even in DVB-H)before I corrected it and third I am sorry to say but the one that is defending DVB-H and promoting it is yourself. I even wondered whether you were working for Nokia or any telecom operator that already invested in a DVB-H network. For your information, I am not working for any Telco nor Network providers. So the only think I can promote, and i am proud of it, is the improvement of technologies.

I would then recommend you few things since you seem to spend most of your time in wikipedia:
1- you check with ETSI for DVB-H and DVB-SH
2- you make an alternative proposal that does not mislead the readers and provide them a true and fair information.
3- this is indeed not a democracy and this is ridiculus to count pros and cons. Either we all agree on something or it is going nowhere.Being aggressiv as you are does not solve any issue.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppu75 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steppu, I think you were addressing me, though not directly did my name. I'm not aggressive:

you have changed the page title without consensus
you have decided to give a non standard-title to this article
you have not discussed in the talk your change immediately after doing it, but only when you have seen that there is a number of people that does not exactly think the same thing as you.

Unfortunately, I am not the author of this article, so I cannot defend it since I am not responsible of the technical details written in it. BTW, I don't think that there have ever been bad errors in it. What I see now, are a couple of figures [6][7] (actually, they seem to be screen captures from some sort of presentation), which I think are not appropriate for wikipedia, since they contain logos which are trademarked and report BER vs. C/N results of which we do not know the source: remember that wikipedia is not a primary source. Worst, I'm not from Nokia or other TLC operators, at least I could have been paid for this :-) I don't see Nokia cited in the standard description (only in service launches and HW), whereas Alcatel is presented directly in the DVB-SH section and in the service tests ongoing in Italy, also. I checked the ETSI link you provided [8]: well, it says that "...It (DVB-SH) complements the existing DVB-H physical layer standard and like its sister specification (DVB-H) uses the DVB IP Datacast (IPDC) set of content delivery, electronic service guide and service purchase and protection standards ....". DVB-SH has a joint satellite-terrestrial mode, whereas DVB-H is only terrestrial. --Cantalamessa (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, curious thing that the ETSI link [9] and the DVB-SH section report exactly the same words: I have put the proper template. --Cantalamessa (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

indeed DVB-SH is an evolution of DVB-H with possibility of satellite-terrestrial mode. That is not new and is indeed a huge advantage and it is in line with the fact DVB-SH supports up to 3GHz.

Note that the BER vs C/N results come from BMCO and are public. Actually SFR in France handled a field trial (6 months) and the results were better than the theory with a 7dbs gain on DVB-H. It is good anyway that the description of DVB-SH is in line with what is publicly published by the dvb entity. Note also there were referenced (5 & 6). By the way I disagree on your way to separate DVB-S from DVB-S2. It is not in line with what dvb forum is recommending.But this is another story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.11 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, and very probably we will also split DVB-T2 from DVB-T, as soon as the new standard will stand on its own. Clearly, you cannot remove the copyviol template in the main text: that text should be modified and differentiated from the DVB report or we are forced to delete it. --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the copypasted text from [10] and added the disputed title template. --Cantalamessa (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the result of the voting?

My conclosion is that a majority wanted to split the article into one DVB-H and one DVB-SH article. Am I right? Mange01 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree unless you also split DVB-T2 and DVB-H2 as well, even DVB-IPDC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.140.185 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no difficulty in splitting those articles, but remember that the main problem is the TITLE of this article. Moreover, you can't use text copypasted from DVB website, you cannot put again links that are not working, you cannot remove the disputed title template. --Cantalamessa (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then please do a DVB-H2 & DVB-T2 article, then I will do a DVB-SH one. the DVB-SH definitition is public and the text was a little bit modified. Besides it is public. How do you want to change this: "DVB-SH includes features such as turbo coding for forward error correction and a highly flexible interleaver" . This is purely ridiculus as anyway that text is referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppu75 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sufficient to say that a text is public, it must be either public domain (which is not, I guess) or GFDL-compatible. You cannot remove the disputed title template. Instead of reverting, verify that the external links are working. --Cantalamessa (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, please don't revert the article as anonymous. --Cantalamessa (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now splitted

I have renamed the article to Dvb-h, and moved some of the material to a new article on DVB-SH, according to the voting. I have also tried to remove formulations like "impressive improvements" - we should use as boring language as possible since this is a dictionary. :) I hope user Steppu75 is not too disappointed. We need your knowledge and contributions. The Dvb-h#DVB-SH section is empty but should include a couple of sentences as a summary of the most important issues in the DVB-SH article. Mange01 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "DVB-H"? Oli Filth^(talk) 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, only that the acronym shoud be capitalized. --Cantalamessa (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how. Mange01 (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List on Wikipedia:Requested_moves ... Oli Filth^(talk) 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Dvb-h → DVB-H — From User:Mange01, The article should be moved back to its original name, DVB-H, after someone tried to rename it to a number of other complicated names. This is in accordance with related article names such as DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-SH, etc. I am completing this request and have no opinion on the matter at this time. —JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support. The conventional name should be capitalized, as it is done for all similar telecommunication standard names. Cantalamessa (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mange01 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would have thought that moving to correctly capitalise an abbreviation would be an uncontroversial move. Oli Filth^(talk) 11:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There could be also the necessity to delete the other articles redirecting here, which were created with uncommon names. They are (in order of uncommonness):

But it is not a problem, for me, if they are kept. --Cantalamessa (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added DVB-(S)H should go away as well. --Cantalamessa (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]