Talk:DVB-T2

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Year 2017 and 128QAM

"It is expected that by 2017 there will enough DVB-T2 equipment to switch all transmissions to DVB-T2 128QAM mode"

The 128QAM mode is speculations. What is known, is that new modulation and new FEC will be used to increase the net bitrate by 'at least 30%' under equivalent conditions. 128QAM will not be in the standard. Reslfj (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 date may come from a consulting report written for the BBC - called secret Ofcom report. However this report only describes what they think will be possible within the next 10 years, and it is not an Ofcom report

I agree that when 'enough DVB-T2 equipment' is sold, all transmissions will be switched. For some COM-MUXes this may well be (much) earlier than 2017. Ofcom writes - about the 2 PSB MUXes and DVB-T2: 'not in the foreseeable future' and that is not unlikely to be after 2017. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reslfj (talk • contribs) 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be after 2017 may well be much before 2017 in many places. Reslfj (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I have removed this date - it was pure speculation.[reply]

Can we expect all Freeview transmissions to change to DVB-T eventually, in other words is it compatible so far as existing receivers are concerned (or are they software upgradable)? If it is not, then presumably bandwidth will continue to be wasted long into the future and only new 'HD capable' boxes will receive the improved standard. --Lindosland (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 development plan, RAI and Ofcom

DVB-T2 cannot be received with present DVB-T receivers - DVB-T2 is hardware more than software - there will never be a software/firmware update. DVB-T will not be used in the future, only the timeing is unsure and country dependant. Reslfj (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added info based on a RAI presentation in Rome April 2. Reslfj (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added info about the current status of the DVB-T2 standrad taken from RAI(above). The current text on the DVB.ORG T2 web page is a little 'strange' and sounds somewhat 'politically motivated'. If you quote it, then 'Count your fingers' afterwards.

Added a link to the final Ofcom statement about HD via DTT (using DVB-T2 and MPEG-4). Reslfj (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ofcom plan is not a development plan, it is the final decision statement and this should be reflected in text. I have again added the comment about the draft waiting for approval . At this stage everything will be very technical, but a less technical prolog text may be written now . Reslfj (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reslfj, ok for the Ofcom plan. I have removed the sentence with "currently", since this is not a wikinews article, but a wikipedia one and should be written in an atemporal way. Moreover, the bold emphasized numerical figures look like some sort of POVvity, thus I think it is better to put them on a lower level of attention. --Cantalamessa (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVB-T1 and T2 Article split

What about moving the section "DVB-T2" in the relevant page DVB-T2? I think we have enough information to do that? --Cantalamessa (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think making a DVB-T2 page should be done when the standard is published late April - early June AFAIK. The functional blocks should be described - hope for some whitepaper to be published by DVB.ORG at draft publication time. The guard interval 19/128 as listed in the RAI article is listed as 5/32 (=20/128) in other Internet notes. Small diff. I will change it when/if I get more info. Code rates below 1/2 is not in the RAI article, but I have seen it elsewhere. I will change if needed. Need to write about 'Interleaving'. 10 dB better impulse robustness, but not enough info. Reslfj (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Cantalamessa (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to specifications/standard

I have posted a link to the first DVB.ORG DVB-T2 Fact Sheet - a new DVb-T2 page is getting closer. Reslfj (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) The DVB-T2 standard has a standard kode 'EN 302 755' and DVB-T2 standard has moved from dvb-org to ETSI. Reslfj (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the DVB-T2 standard BlueBook and the dvb.org DVB-t2 press-release are now included. The standard itself is 158 pages - not that easy to read and understand. Reslfj (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the applications from C3/ITV and C4 to Ofcom for the 2 HD slots and information on a possible early start of the HD mux in London and elsewhere from 2010. Reslfj (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its time to make the DVB-T2 page now ? Reslfj (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link to DVB-T2 fact sheet from absent June version to August version. Reslfj (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added text about ETSI process vs. (no more) changes to the DVB-T2 standard. Reslfj (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref. to A133 and A136 and updated the 'fact sheet' link. Reslfj (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of commercial link

I think the Enensys link that was in the section has to be removed, since it does not explain anything more than what is explained and can be found in the links given in the Notes section. If we begin inserting links of companies developping DVB-T HW, that would be out of scope of this article, in my op. --Cantalamessa (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2 ?

I'm trying to understand the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2. I've looked at both of the articles here on WP, but I am confused by specifications for TV equipment which say, e.g: "HDTV H.264/MPEG-2 Live TV Ready (DVB-T2 is not supported)"

But I thought DVB-T2 was an HDTV standard ? Please can someone add information to the article(s) to clear this up ? Darkman101 (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (BTW, I'm in Britain.)[reply]

'Deployment' term too technical?

Title Deployment and usage is too technical for a general audience, the section should be called plain and simple for what it is, current broadcasts.--Sum (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit weird to take issue with one particular word being too technical, when the three paragraphs preceeding it are nothing but technical details that most people don't understand.

Anyway, I disagree about the term "deployment" being too technical. It is a regular word in the English language and is used in many fields. However, it could be changed to another word like "introduction".

We should avoid headlines with the word "current" in them. This is partly because Wikipedia should strive to be timeless, but mostly because it doesn't cover the full scope of the section. It is not only a simple rundown of what countries use DVB-T2 at the moment, it also deals with political, technical and commercial hurdles of introducing the technology, and will eventually also include some historical information that isn't current.

As for the few paragraphs I deleted, they didn't have anything to do with DVB-T2. They dealt with the amount of native HD content particular channels had, what their broadcast hours were and what EPG numbers they were on. That is more about content and HDTV in general and belongs in articles relating to those subjects and the particular platforms. It doesn't help the readers in their understanding of the subject.

Väsk (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate section for countries that are already broadcasting

I think there should be a dedicated section for the countries that are already broadcasting in DVB-T2, as this is the most interesting information, instead of mixing it with "work in progress." The info about the current broadcasts is also getting large enough to have its own article.--Sum (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please add one more section for explaining to user/consumer/recipient side of what's the main difference between DVB-T1 (Ver 1) vs DVB-T2 (Ver 2), since they are the main victim if the two standards seemed cannot coexist together (why DVB-T1 receivers cannot receive DVB-T2 signals?) while almost similar on the paper for spec. Interesting facts that DVB-T1 supports MPEG4 codec for HD contents, while the receiver spec only state MPEG-2 decoding - this has caused most DVB-T1 receivers/STBs only support MPEG-2 decoding - by which the consumer is again on the victim side when they realized they have bought the wrong DTV set which don't support DVB-T2 standard, and to victimized more, these victimized consumers are re-victimized again by having to force them to buy DVB-T2 STBs in order to successfully receive their nationwide DVB-T2 broadcast signals.

Actually as consumer, we don't even care about the carrier signaling mode or coding style defined in DVB-T2 (that may be 'so' different to DVB-T1's that a separate DVB-T2 receiver is needed), what we really care is (as reminiscence of PAL vs NTSC standards war around the world, thus each TV set is being forced to support both radio coding/signaling system if the vendor want to survive in the TV set biz) what kind of media content codings the standard is being enforced to all DVB-T2 receivers (TV sets and STBs). Must the receivers support all variants of MPEG-4 decoding (H.264/AVC, ASP, ISO, etc) or let it decided by the vendors? Since I've found a DVB-T2 STB that support only MPEG-2 decoding, WTF ??? If the HD contentis encoded in H.264 then the STB is generally cannot 'receive' the DVB-T2 signal (technically incorrect but that's what the average joes would think about the STB performance) or specifically will deny viewing HD content encoded in H.264 coding scheme by giving the annoying 'heart-breaking' error message.

Consumers should be informed what kind of TV sets/STBs they have to notice to its spec (let alone those makeshift 1-sheet ones called 'quick-guide' which mostly gave nothing more than 2-5 line of spec) before buying one or otherwise may regret his/her decision in the future - this info is even more important on countries in transistion state to DVB-T2 spec/standard, since most of stores want to clear their stock by intentionally hiding the truth about the DTV2/DVB-T2 support of TV set/STB they sell. Observe this 'clever' consumer conversation below (OK, that's me - someone can figure it out later anyway :), taking place in a country that have short time transition/change from DVB-T1 to DVB-T2 standard while not many DTV/DVB-T1 receivers on the market sold or still not widespreading or get noticed by most unaware consumers at all):

B: "Does it support DTV/DVB-T?" S: "Yes!" B: "Does it support DVB-T2?" S: "I don't know, what the hell is that? All DTV we sell can receive DVB-T/DTV signals.." B: "Can we see them, the DTV broadcasts?" S: "Of course, but now we have lost all of the signals. Lately we can receive them all, may be they got system problems, I don't know.." B: "How many days since the DTV broadcasts went down all?" S: "Ummm... May be about 2-3 months ago.." B: "Yikes! 3 MONTHS ago ???"

(This is the obvious sign of transition to DVB-T2 is in progress in the country, thus all DVB-T1 receivers will receive nothing at all - downed all broadcasts cannot go more than 1 month w/o public notice/attention and questions if they have all the compatible/supporting standard receivers).

The TV set settings/config or even website specs may also 'hide' the truth about what DTV standard the TV set can receive (mostly never state "DVB-T2" on the spec text and/or TV set DTV tuner settings, either just "DTV" or "DVB-T" text, which gives unclear info to critical consumers - may be later when the standard starting to widespreading in the country). This is important since you can't just flashing the DVB-T1 TV set/STB's BIOS/Firmware to update the standard to support DVB-T2, since it's mainly a hardware matter (i.e: MPEG2 decoder can't decode MPEG4 AVC/H.264 encoded contents, which all knew that's a hardware matter when comes to CE stuffs - user 'must' buy new MPEG4 AVC/H.264 decoder instead as a 'recommended' solution or have a 'legal' software solution as alternative - either one will drain your penny anyway). Even for some vendors it's unintentional to 'hide' the truth (but there's nothing to hide anyway, so why 'hide' them if they're the best key info for selling out your products, Mr. Vendor?), but critical consumers may go away from that vendor and seek the others, until he/she found reliable info that verifies the product supports DVB-T2 (e.g: more than 3 people have used, tested or still using the product and informing this on public). So, Mr. Vendor (including you SONY boy, you got DVB-T2 avail-on-market products as confessed by their users but failed to inform clearly to consumer on supported standards of products stated on your official website - Why?, it's a pity move you know), please state clearly all standards your product support, "DTV" or "DVB-T" is unclear for those consumer seeking for "DVB-T2", but "DTV2/DVB-T2" or "DTV1/DVB-T1" is much better/clearer and firmer.

The 'trapped'/victimized consumers should go out and buy DVB-T2 receivers if they want to continue receiving their favorite DTV stations in the country - and should pay attention on what content coding the receivers can decode (i.e: MPEG4/H.264 is a must if they want to watch HD contents encoded in H.264/AVC, which is clearly the main choice of HD video coding today - and MPEG4 supports MPEG2/MPEG1 decoding too, since most media codecs are designed to be backward compatible between its own versions).

This information for consumer-side is what Wikipedia lacking about now ... They swarm Wikipedia for DVB-T2 info and get nothing but too technical vendor/ruler-side info... which is not quite help their 'sorrow' in more practical & understandable ways. ---[Ois1974 @ 2014-02-25 Tue]---

Indonesia

The following code removed from its respective section because it is almost entirely poorly-written POV editorialising, gives no valid citations and includes many WP:MOS violations:

However, during the DVB-T (T1) test period phase, the government of Indonesia
(via its Information & Communication Technology [ICT] Ministry) wanted to switch
to DVB-T2 (T2) technology that provides better signal capacity and corrections
(than T1) and HD content (which latter is arguable, since T1 can do the same and
T2 spec still dealing with signal carrier transmission stuffs, and not its
carried content encodings formats). The TV stations/broadcasters that still
testing their T1 broadcasts all agreed to join the T2 bandwagon offered by the
government since they saw the significant benefits by switching to T2 (such as
allowing for higher data rate for HD contents or more densely packed group of
services/hosts in a multiplex carrier band and better carrier signal errors &
noises [C/N ratio] management) even this would cost more for those who have
bought T1 equipments (but may be, there were some nice incentives or price cut
deals to upgrade to T2 from the same OEM, thus seems making far less rejections
to the T2 switch). The 'official' switch to T2 from T1 was started on 2012-02
based on ICT Minister 'decree' (about 5 years from T1 introduction and
adopting/nurturing period in Indonesia).

And starting from 2014-01, all T1 broadcasters have been switched to T2, this
including government-owned TVRI stations or 'channels' (old ATV alternative term
for 'station' or 'host/service') that previously still airing T1 signal on Ch.42
prior to 2014-01 (may be done intentionally for T1 receivers compatibility
reason or else) and decided to turn T1 signal off and switch to T2 for all of
its services/hosts (or 'channel' in ATV alt. term) broadcasts. This last TVRI
Digital move makes a full switch to T2 for all DTV broadcasts in Indonesia can
be achieved finally in 2014-01 (2014-Jan).  No wonder many DTV bought (without
consumer-awareness of T2 switch, which movements started from 2012) prior to
2014-01, which has only T1 tuner (usually marked by "DTV" or "DVB-T" text on
specs and/or TV tuner setup) without T2 support, can no longer receive and
display any DTV services/hosts/stations from their DTV sets (DTV1 or T1 TV set,
more precisely) after 2014-01. Prior to this 'unofficial' All-T2 date, many
without-a-clue experienced of intermittently losing DTV1/T1 signals,
up-and-downs, one-by-one stations/hosts gone down without clues/notifications,
except TVRI one (which is the last one providing T1 signal broadcasts). Some of
real smart consumers that aware of this T2 switch have been looking for T2 TV
sets or STB (Set-Top-Box) receivers by their own wits and shared their
knowledges and experiences in searching on internet (to make people aware of the
T2 switch and the whole DTV-switch movement progress from ATV itself), so they
are the most unaffected by the T2 switch since they are better prepared than the
most average Indonesians. [Ois]

As for 2014-03, using good T2 receivers, there are currently 6 allocated/'alive'
multiplex carriers/channels (8 MHz wide per channel/band, for Ch. 21-69,
for both ATV/DTV use in Indonesia, but higher bands over Ch.60 seems
unused/empty, may be due to conflict/collision to the allocated commercial
800 MHz band for main CDMA signals) for T2 signals in Jakarta, the capital
city of Indonesia, noted by its first Service ID name in a channel/band (with
multiple services/content-providers/stations on each channel/band in DTV term; A
DTV service/station is similar to a 'channel' in ATV term which uses a channel
exclusively, thus an ATV station 'conquers' a channel for it own use only and
can't be shared to others, that's why TV "channel" has been long-associated with
TV "station (content/service-provider)" in ATV era; And with the DTV era now, 
one channel/band can be shared by many TV 'stations', DTV viewers should be
aware of this 'channel' meaning difference and apply it correctly, they have to
start to adopt the DTV 'station', 'service/provider', or 'host' term for
replacing the ATV 'channel' counterpart term) - They are channel 32 (metrOtv),
34 (tvOne), 36 (BSTV), 38 (empty/reserved/unoccupied), 40 (TransTV), 42 (TVRI),
44 (SCTV) - the missing odd-numbered channels/bands between and around them
(such as Ch 31/33/35/37/39/41/43/45 and so on) are still vastly occupied by ATV
broadcasts, planned to be phased-out all or ASO-ed (ATV signals Shut OFF) after
year 2018, so the inefficient too wide frequency/band width usage by ATV
broadcasters can be reduced significantly and can be reused for other more
beneficial digital data usages such as for broadband data transmissions that
have to contend also with other CSPs/Cellular Service Providers (that already
densely populated by broadband internet users, making quite a real bottleneck to
all of common CSP service types: Voice, SMS, Data) for free unallocated bands.
Some are testing their HD broadcasts (since mostly airing SD contents from their
past ATV-broadcast equipments and trancoded them to digital format for DTV
broadcast) on their spare service block(s), some encrypting their HD services
(like "PayTV" model), and mostly they are mirroring a content for both ATV and
DTV broadcasts.

They are mostly still broadcasting non-HDTV contents (SDTV content), some simply
put false "Wide/HDTV" AR/Aspect-Ratio value in header of the TS packet to force
auto-wide/stretch its SDTV content on receiver set to conform HDTV wide frame
(e.g. TVRI HD - Simple "Keep AR" Fix: Turn OFF the "Auto-Wide" mode), and some
broadcast a True HDTV content adjusted to SDTV frame (object looks
packed/compressed from lateral/L-R sides when you use "Normal" [Auto-Wide=OFF]
mode), possibly on cost benefit reason for their another parallel analog
broadcasts (e.g. BSTV, KompasTV), since they are still allowed to transmit ATV
broadcsts until year 2018 or more during the digital TV transition phase to full
DTV (DTV2/DVB-T2 precisely) broadcasts after year 2018. [19]

Opposite to the quite smooth transition (with almost no rejection/objection) to
T2 on content provider (TV station) side, the T2 receivers (the TV set) are
still hard to obtain even in this year 2014, most are still T1 (marked as "DTV"
or "DVB-T" in their spec or in its TV tuner setting), and most of the sellers
(and buyers/consumers) are not aware about this T1 vs T2 incompatibilities (or
worse, may be intentionally play stupid to clear their still-expensive T1 TV
sets stock) - you can see from their official specs or slapped stickers on the
TV set that rarely post the distinct clear "DVB-T2" marking (even it has T2
tuner inside when found out later by consumer via online forums info searches).
So the easiest way in Indonesia to detect T1 TV sets (when number of big
'Smart-3D' sellers who can sincerely & correctly inform consumers are far
outnumbered by their big Smart-3D TVs sold altogether) are when the DTV set can
not receive any DTV signals, neither DTV1/T1 nor DTV2/T2 (since from 2014-01 all
Indonesia DTV stations are using T2 signals now), and the one that can receive a
DTV signal (and show it) has the T2/DTV2 tuner inside. Some sellers use
different approach by online-selling T2 STBs (Set-Top Box) imported from T2 STB
suppliers abroad (some using localized names or rebranded), but this is still a
niche in the offline markets (not everywhere you can found this T2 STBs on local
TV set markets, and only on special places or buy it online). [74]

The lack/partial-failure of government full drives/supports on the public CE
mass market (on both T2-receiver suppliers and consumers) in reality to make
consumers to aware of the real main benefits using DTV2/T2 receivers (rather
than using formal lingo with generic-plain info in ads/media to carry the "Join
the ATV-to-DTV switch" message as done until currently, it'll be more
effectively done in a more down-to-earth consumer's lingo to hit precisely what
they really want from their current TV set, such as: "Crisper details and higher
HD resolutions than your ATV can display/handle (provided it has the real
Full-HD resolution natively to display directly pixel-on-pixel all 1080p
contents. not just the capability of 1080p source-input handling and downscaled
to its lower-than-Full-HD native resolution (those "HD Ready" TVs, the falsely
advertised 720p-HDTVs leading to mass confusion/misinformation; It's better
stated as "HD-720p" or "HD.half/hR" (hR = half Resolution) than "HD Ready" [as
if the HD support can be "Not Ready" at anytime], and "HD-1080p" or simply "HD"
rather than excessively mentioned "Full HD" only to justify its
less-than-adequate "HD Ready" sibling) or even downscaled to the SD native
resolution one), even in low power and noisy signal condition, and no more the
annoying ghosting and rainy=dots static noises/effects on the TV because of poor
signal quality/strength received!", and less importants: "THe DTV signal can
auto-adjust TV clock, while ATV can't, since ATV signal carries no clock data",
"The digital format carries dynamic data in its header that can be used for
auto-adjusting TV display frame fully on receiver set/device, so there's no need
for re-adjusting frame geometry/position to see a full frame content as
experienced in overscanned ATV receiver/display" - some may feel losing some
informational contents in edges of screen because of overscanned/enlarged frame
as common in ATV are unacceptable, esp. those monitoring for running text
tickers or racing positions list that are usually posted on edges of screen,
this is where true digital TV/Monitor excels at over its analog counterpart that
need constant auto-adjustments of display frame from user, luckily most analogs
give one-press auto-adjust button feature, but you never have to do that with
true digitals, they don't need that by design nature, all contents in a display
frame are fully shown to the edges except user want the otherwise, cropping the
display frame edges) and switch immediately from their ATV sets into DTV2 sets
seems contributing to the slow growth, adoption, and acceptance of T2/DTV2
receivers in Indonesia (a "more DTV2/T2 content broadcasters than the viewers"
case - with the main resistance in Indonesia is on the namely 'branded' [and
non/re-branded] TV set makers/suppliers, which are still selling unusable T1
DTVs [w/o notifying the unaware consumers] or even ATV-only TV sets, and to make
it even worse they come in real-expensive very big-screen TV class with or w/o
3D and 'Smart' features [it's "iNet-TV" or "Interneted-TV", to be precise - it's
impossible the device being smarter than the programmer/operator itself, unless
the TV can auto-repair fully lost/error DTV packets on-the-fly with/without
request to resend errorneous packets to the sender, similar to video-buffering
model long-applied by online video content providers (YouTube, RealNetworks,
DivX VoD, etc.) that allows for pre-correcting video content prior to displaying
it, thus also allows for standard time-shifting (pause/rewind) mode common on
DTVs, which feature is missing on a bit cheaper big-branded DTV models for
unknown reason, even when the consumer can provide the needed external storage
as specified for the video-buffer and has far more capacity/space and speed than
enough - ironically, it's the real cheap small non-branded China-made T1/T2 STBs
that actually can provide this timeshifting feature using its internal or
user-provided external storage (which also used for external TV recording
feature) - most DTVs sold here (esp. big Japan/Korea-branded) don't support
timeshifting nor external TV recording feature since may be they're still
clearing their 'trash-class' stocks (unsold stuffs on abroad being sold here),
or thinking we can't buy it, or simply believe that we are only the ATV
low-class that never sought pricier DTVs - as DTV set is not quite commonly
sold/known here to most average 'non-smart' folks who're still thinking "ATV is
the TV" and "I just looking for the best-featured TV I can buy here - which
people say it's 3D/Smart TV" (OTH, 'smart' is NOT always linearly related to
'richness' level, recently a local rich guy unawarely bought a very big 3D-iNet
LED ATV+DTV1/T1 set on discount [clearance sale] and that's a very unsmart move,
realizing that ATV channels are the only watchable TV channels until the ATV
broadcasts die here in 2018 and ATV's SD resolution/quality gets even worse and
looks even more washed/noisier on bigger screen, and making it 3D wouldn't help
it either)]). There's almost no easy way (unless using "simple T2 signal
receiving test on the site" way as specified before) to get a 'real' T2 TV
receiver/set in Indonesia as for the Q1 of 2014 - Consumers here should be very
aware/cautios/careful with their T2-receiver searchings, and should be fully
armed with correct informations. [0]

The following person is removed from its respective section because it is almost entirely poorly-written POV editor, gives no valid and just citations and includes many WP:MOS violations by disregarding other poorly-written POV-like subjects/nations but discriminating one:

[97.115.29.125|97.115.29.125] 17:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop acting like a pro editor if you can't even strip my POV in my edits! What a poorly-edited POV-stripped of you, just leaving T1 starting date and no clue of T2 starting date? and you want to judge me as a poor-writer??? shame on you, poor lame vandal!

Message for IP user/s 27.11x.x.y (a.k.a. "Ois1974")

Your edits (primarily to section "Indonesia") are continually being reverted because they present a non-neutral point of view, violate the manual-of-style rules and are merely editorial soapboxing.

I suggest, before you post any further, that you read and understand the following documents in their entirety: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
Wikipedia:Manual of Style

In addition to the above, I would also suggest you read this article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

The vulgar personal attacks you are making against people who revert your nonsense are completely uncalled-for. Stop it immediately.

If you still can not (or refuse to) make constructive edits following this advice, the article will be locked AND/OR you will be banned from editing.MXocrossIIB (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need DVB-T3 Specification if any

It's rumored that DVB-T3 standard has been in progress/discussions for some time, is there any leaked info about T3 spec and release date yet? Just want to know if anyone knew this stuff/info. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.90.193.19 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey + Ukraine Double-section entries

Check them out in the article (Market Adoption), both have double section entries. Why none ever clear/clean/fix them up for a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.118.252.9 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19/128, 19/256

What's the significance of these rather strange fractions, anyone know? They're a lot closer to 1/8 and 1/16 than to 1/4 and 1/8, so they're not very good "in-betweeners" if that was the intention (3/16 and 3/32 (24/128 and 24/256) would, of course, have been better...). Is there some particular magic to them, or does it just make the signal a tiny but cruical bit more reliable in areas where 1/8 or 1/16 have been found to be only-just insufficient? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on DVB-T2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

modulation and modulation scheme

Should explain the difference between 'modulation' and 'modulation scheme'. The article says 'modulation: OFDM', and 'modulation scheme: QPSK, QAM'. They're all modulation schemes, right? KorgBoy (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]