Talk:List of digital television channels in Australia

LCN
What's a LCN? The term doesn't appear to be explained and there doesn't seem to be links to any other article. 14.200.208.126 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - link provided Nbound (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

7mate HD on channel 79 Dbateson 05:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

dubious
Datacasting?

Why are the infomercial channels marked as [datacasting]? As far as I know the channels do not transmit IP or any other data than the MPEG Audio, Video and EPG. With the exception of 7 which does transmit Teletext. But that only applies to the whole transponder not its Infomercial/Home shopping channel! We should remove it unless anybody can provide a cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.192 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Datacasting is different than IPDC.. for a bit of a reader see the following. The Shopping Channels really only get in because the datacasting regs are very lax (to allow the old Digital 44 trial to take place). I will edit them to say Shopping/Datacasting. As its probably more accurate. Let me know if you still want them cited. Nbound (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datacasting
 * http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1268
 * http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90043
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_44

Constant changes to channel genres
Every couple of days a different IP editor seems to decide to randomly throw more words into the channel genre descriptions. I'd firstly suggest that format details should be noted mostly in the main articles - and secondly that the ones used are extremely subjective. I'm sure the networks have stated aims and descriptions of their channels - TV tonight has done a few articles that might be guidance for how to describe them, but constantly chopping and changing them, especially without any references has gone on enough I'd say. Only the News, Children's, Home Shopping and Indigenous channels have any strict genres in the traditional sense - General entertainment and a cited reference to the main target audience should be sufficient for the majority of channels for the reasons the chart exists. --GoForMoe (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, editing as such shortly Nbound (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can any further changes please be discussed here. Please keep in mind GoForMoe's initial complaint, and that we are listing the channels and providing basic generalised information, not providing a detailed synopsis of content.

Somehow along the line the "Datacasting/Home Shopping" description was reverted by me, back to "Datacasting". If anyone does want it changed, feel free, I dont own the article (despite the number of random IP reverts that I have done in the past). -- Nbound (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Channel Genre ideas
As there has been many changes in the past to these genres (usually distilling down to some subjective subgenres or age groups). Can any proposals be outlined below; essentially, to remedy GoForMoe's complaint above. As the current state of the page may not sit well with everyone (or it might), this is essentially trying to give editors a chance for change, and hopefully remove the negative/ownership connotations of the in-article comments.
 * 
 * 
 * 

Any objections/changes/etc. to the in-article comments would be appreciated (I did add these a while back, but they certainly arent what I'd prefer - Im usually against them when I see them -- Nbound (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC) )
 * Hare are my suggestions for the content field.Helmboy (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Primary Channel
 * News Bulletins
 * Foreign Produced
 * Nationally Produced
 * Locally Produced
 * Indigenous Produced
 * Simulcasted
 * Timeshifted
 * Informercal
 * Community
 * Music Radio
 * Talkback Radio
 * News Radio


 * I don't really have a problem with the proposed genres/contents above. They're a good mix. Datacasting was put in and not really debated so I have no issues with it going as outlined below in the other talk section. I do think we need to put the commented bits back in if/when changes are made as the column does attract edits. -- Smacca | Talk 06:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * one addition would be Youth to replace Children's programming.Helmboy (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Satellite TV integration
I'm planning to integrate Viewer Access Satellite Television channels in this list as part of a clean-up of the main VAST article. I don't want to mess anything up but I'm trying to work out a way to include them without deviating too much from the current table layouts. I'm not a fan of providing a paragraph of text in the 'Notes' column because there's quite a bit of detail. I really like the way List of free-to-air channels in New Zealand is laid out as it includes all possible platforms/technologies each channel is on. This Australian list completely ignores the existence of free-to-air and free-to-view satellite channels altogether, including "free-to-view via Foxtel" and Optus D1. Understandably Wikipedia is not a technical manifest, but I don't see any harm in using Lists to their full potential and including as much cited data as we possibly can.

Sample table:

What do you guys think? Should I just make a separate 'List of satellite television channels in Australia' and rename this one to 'List of terrestrial television channels in Australia'? Is integrating them too drastic a change? -- Smacca | Talk 08:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of LCNs/virtual channels
I still don't understand why LCNs are being removed. They are not links to program guides, they are numbers which are assigned to channels, regardless of the existence of a program guide. They don't do what Wikipedia doesn't want with EPG information by blatantly advertising schedules or content. The LCN is no more harmful to Wikipedia than a channel name and forms an integral part of identifying digital TV services. So much so, List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) and List of television stations in Canada by call sign show LCNs. In fact, the UK article is very nice and I think we should grab some ideas from there. -- Smacca | Talk 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me explain, by adding the channel numbers you are making an informational data table a look-up reference which is basically a directory. More over those numbers are inconsistent across provider platforms ie, Pay TV versus FreeTV versus VAST versus generic DVB receivers. So your table just needs columns for Channel name. Owner, Launch date, Description (includes notes, content and less than 24 hours broadcast hours), Terrestrial (format if not 576i), Satellite FTA (format if not 576i), Satellite FTV (format if not 576i), IPTV ( delivery method either ondemand or unicast or multicast).  Cable is completely subscriber only and can never be classed as FTA.Helmboy (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that explanation. Let's form a consensus before removing them. The LCN's only differ on Foxtel, otherwise they are largely the same on VAST and terrestrial. It will be easy to work in Foxtel's LCNs in this case. I'll change the cable header to read 'free-to-view' if that's the case, but would like to see proof of this as there are various accounts in tech forums where people have accessed cable FTA's without an active Foxtel subscription. Foxtel satellite subscribers must have an active, paid-for subscription to view the free-to-views, but cable subscribers don't, which means they are actually FTA. Also I don't think there's a need to add IPTV as it is virtually non-existent, and the way notes, broadcast hours and content are separated seems perfectly adequate, otherwise it will get pretty messy. -- Smacca | Talk 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cable is pay TV, if you don't pay for a connection (out right or over a fixed term) and a smaller in-active fee (which is restricted to a certain time frame) you will eventually get disconnected, they will not just let you free load on their network. And LCNs are inconsistent across commercial channels 5 versus 10, 7 versus 6, 8 versus 9, etc.  Finally, as first stated the numbering creates a look-up directory listing rather than just a informational table, which makes the list not encyclopedic per WP:NOTTVGUIDE.  Also my table removed no information from the original and unlike your examples, actually added use details to it.  You don't like it just for the reason that you need to have a table that reflects a Freeview or VAST EPG.  Broadcast hours and notes are barely used, so what's messy.  IPTV is heavily promoted by all networks and with nationwide broadband roll-outs it is becoming more used by a lot of the population.Helmboy (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume that I am making these reverts based on personal choice or opinion. I am reverting because I believe you are misinterpreting Wikipedia policy surrounding this. As I stated in the edit summary, please gain consensus before culling any data from this List or making drastic changes to the layout until you can gain consensus from other users. It's the best way forward and ensures that everyone is on the same level. -- Smacca | Talk 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I think the LCN data should stay in the article. Equivalent data is provided for US channels so why not Australian? The only amendment I might suggest is to clarify some of the regional LCN, e.g. Southern Cross Television uses LCN 6/6x in Tasmania and Regional SA but LCN 7/7x in Darwin and Remote Central/Eastern. Also reference to Nine stations in Adelaide and Perth being owned by WIN needs to be removed. Andjb (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I am misinterpreting policy then explain why a lot of List of ... channel pages were completely removed from WP. Such as List of TimeWarnerCable channels (United States), List of Comcast channels (United States), List of Austar channels.  See: Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups.   And if WP is truly a encyclopedia, please show me any other one either in digital form or print that would have such commercially motivated listings.Helmboy (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to argue - the removal of LCNs or lists in general? Either way, it doesn't matter. Those List of ... pages were completely removed because they were lists of channels from specific (mostly subscription) providers and companies, not lists by country like this one. I think you'll find most country based lists are still in existence, and rightly so thanks to their encyclopedic value. Again, it would be appreciated if any more edits of this nature are discussed here first. -- Smacca | Talk 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit: More examples of LCNs being used in Lists: Lists of television stations in North America. Makes you wonder who is reading Wikipedia policy correctly and who isn't. -- Smacca | Talk 06:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

North America is different, the digital numbering is local station based and related to the old analog channel for the ease of transition. FreeTV and Freeview like Pay TV are commercial channel packaging systems of numbering and have no information value besides being a cheat sheet for your locked-down receiver's remote control. The only thing 2, 7, 9 and 10 relate to is the main transmitter's analog channel in populous markets. and the lists were removed because of the numbering, which is why List of free-to-air channels at 28°E was saved from deletion because the numbering was removed. Also the broadcast hours column is pointless as no channels have a off-air close down any more and the primary channels run infomercials during twilight hours so they technically do not have 24 hour programming. Format is pointless with only four channels not being 576i. As is the use of the uninformative "Primary Channel, General Entertainment", also Datacasting has to do with the type of license not the content's genre. Just as with ABC 4 Kids being on ABC2, but being shown as though it's a separate channel is rather silly. Also the Notes column is barely used.Helmboy (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious with the last comment what is opinion and what is fact. I think we can move on now. -- Smacca | Talk 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you have no come back from your circular statements? Commercial number packaging equals directory which means not allowed.  Local RF based numbering equals informative data.  The FreeTV LCN is NOT an nationwide RF based numbering system.  Stop the promotion channel packaging systems!Helmboy (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop taking this personally, Helmboy, and please stop assuming that I want to promote channel packaging systems as if I have some sort of commercial interest just because I disagree with you. It's clear that you have a lot of opinion about Australian TV (like Informercials aren't programming, stations don't close down any more, ABC2/4 split is silly, Primary Channel is uninformative) which isn't necessarily agreeable by everyone. All articles that contain lists by country remain intact with LCNs (see North America, UK or Canada's examples) because they're geographical, not commercial. It seems to me like we are never going to agree on anything - you have some sort of LCN agenda to follow and I don't like data being removed from Wikipedia when it doesn't need to be. I would remind you that reverting edits should never be taken personally and I understand that you contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. I think you need to accept that maybe sometimes other people disagree with you, which is why consensus is the best method of solving issues. Speaking of which, consensus is at 1 to 3 so far if you include the comments made by Mikebeckham in the page history. -- Smacca | Talk 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I already stated why North American local station numbering is exempt. And Wikipedia is a ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a database of trivial data.  If you want a TV database go to add your channel package numbering to sites like tv.com, tvrage.com, tviv.org, etc.  And by the way the numbering is already listed in the channels' infoboxes and summarized in virtual channel making the inclusion here and in the UK list even more irrelevant.Helmboy (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to dictate to me about Wikipedia. I at least cite everything I add, not just throw stuff in and wait for someone else to verify it like on the VAST article. You've got good faith, I'll give you that. Let's see what our third opinion says and we can finally put this discussion to rest. -- Smacca | Talk 15:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there's be no more input on this I would suggest to have the tables containing more useful info like these ones might be more use in terms of the differences between DVB-T and DVB-S2 services. Examples are Television New Zealand and TV3 (New Zealand).
 * These latest changes are good. Spotted some minor errors which can be fixed, but I like the organisation. -- Smacca | Talk 11:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think the term Datacasting for content over Infomercial or Shopping is weird. I know the ACMA continue to use it for licensing even though the trial service ended long ago.  Technically a datacast channel could only be the optionally used MHEG-5 Freeview EPG which unlike the BBC's Red Button service isn't even a channel but a forced DVB EIT replacement.  I would like to to start a poll on who wants to change Datacasting. Helmboy (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm from the viewpoint that terminologies are often mixed and confused, so it can be hard documenting the correct uses of it in an article. The channels are often referred to as 'datacast' within the industry and particularly when being reported, but are obviously Home Shopping channels to all the viewers. Seeing as it's a list, and the column is "programming content" and not licencing, it should change. Save the reference to the datacasting licence for the articles themselves. Also, is 'Stereoscopic' really necessary? I think we can safely use 'Stereo'... -- Smacca | Talk 14:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like to give your feedback on the list I've suggested in the programming content talk section? Also I prefer Infomercial as TVSN is the only one that's different in that it's Hosted Infomercial segments.  On a side note, one wonders that the only reason for the increase in Infomercial channels is to subsidize transmission costs which could be reduced by all primary channels on one frequency transport, all secondary SD on another and all HD channels on a third and fourth frequency.  It would help viewers with recorders that have a single tuner recording competing channels.  The UK does this by having one for BBC SD, one for BBC HD, one for other primary SD and one for other primary HD.  Both Aurora and VAST still generally put primary channels on different transponders.Helmboy (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That could very well be the case, but probably only for a future shared DVB-T2/MPEG-4 mux which has been mooted in the past. I'd like to see the same sort of sharing across the board, but something tells me that the Australian networks would not want to let their precious bandwidth be controlled like that. As it stands, most of them increase or decrease bandwidth on their channels (stat muxing) during specific programming to increase quality on the most watched program. That would probably end if they shared with other networks, which can't be a good thing. -- Smacca | Talk 06:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I think your talking about the bit rate fluctuations which occur due to the amount of changes between frames (ie, high motion scenes attract higher encoded bit rates). As for future movement to DVB-T2, that would be foolish as it would create another switch over period and even more blackspots due to the greater signal dropoff from the use of 256-QAM. And what would the networks do with the pipe increase? Impractical UltraHD? More infomercial channels? More re-runs spread of over channels? I really don't think the networks don't need any more and should focus on paying for less quality content instead of more fluff. And on a side note, the Ten Central service does come from a Southern Cross Ten feed.Helmboy (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am talking about statistical multiplexing. If 7, 9 and Ten shared the same frequency for, let say, 7HD, 9HD and Ten HD, and 7 decided to show full HD rugby league, the need for more bandwidth to cope with typical high movement in a sports telecast would leave 9 and Ten with less bandwidth, making their channels look worse to the viewer. In an ideal world, they wouldn't be starved of bandwidth for anyone to really notice the difference in quality, but I think we can safely assume the networks would want to squeeze as many services as they can onto each multiplex regardless of sharing arrangements. Another issue would be the EIT table. As it stands, MHEG-5 take-up is extremely low and the networks don't share EIT tables. For the networks to start sharing multiplexes, they would need to relax Freeview 2 specifications and make MHEG-5 available on more devices than it is currently, OR start sharing EIT tables so EPG's don't end up being blank after 6 days. Anyway, we're elaborating too much on hypotheticals here. Regarding CDT, we all know it comes from SCA's control centre in Canberra and that it is based on a SC Ten feed, but nowhere is it marketed as Southern Cross Ten on air, in print or even from the company itself through press releases and information pages. It's like saying WDT is WIN Ten, which it isn't, despite WIN controlling it. They're "Ten" services which are jointly owned and no single network claims 'ownership' over another. In any case, the opening paragraph of the VAST article certainly shouldn't be a place where these sorts of details are mentioned. -- Smacca | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The ideal setup IMHO would be to transition the UHF band to 8 MHz and standardize on system G allocations (most receivers could either update their frequency maps or for non-inner metro areas be switched to a EU region) then have two HD transports to cater to all HD broadcasters on UHF, have two transports (for inner metro on VHF 7 MHz) for all broadcasters primary channels with two transports for secondary ones (also on VHF for inner metro).  Multiplexing the already encoded channels and DVB-SI table interleaving of EIT and SDT data would would done by the transmission operators.  Also radio should be dumped from TV bands and left to analog terrestrial and satellite.  As for MHEG, that should be left to non-broadcast interactive IP streaming and informational services as it is used for with terrestrial in the UK.  Following NZ's lead and using it for the guide was short sighted due to the extra encoding overhead, administration and overseas outsourced UI framework required.   As I see it, WIN was the smart one for pulling out of the bloated and expensive Freeview concept.Helmboy (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Southern Cross Television
1- Available on Viewer Access Satellite Television. 2- Available on satellite subscription television. 3- Available in selected areas.

Latest changes (Dec 2013)
Definitely need to take Nine Darwin and Nine Gold Coast out of the NBN Television sub-section. Same with 7 Sunshine/Qld from the Prime7 sub-section. Way too misleading, and deserved of their own sub-sections as much as Imparja is, plus would reduce confusion as list is quite large. Also think the (Primary [Nine/Seven/Ten] affiliate) needs to be removed from each sub-section. Some of the regionals are affiliated with all three metro's, and I think readers can make the connection with the list directly below. Is NorDig reference really necessary? LCN is the term that's widely used and any additional reference to its technical terms or origins should be left for the Virtual channel article. From an outsider's perspective into the broadcasting industry (certainly not conflicting interest here), and having debated and followed the digital rollout progression in Australia in the last 12 years, I have never heard the term used in any official paper, manufacturer technical manifest or even in a verbal manner. While it may be a true link to LCN, it's not necessary here in my opinion. -- Smacca | Talk 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

HEEEEEELP!
I made the WIN channels badder! SOMEBODY FIX IT!

If anyone knows, 9Life, Gold and Extra are all MPEG-4 in WIN areas. 180.200.152.87 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016
110.32.228.45 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 55. To Be Advised 83. WIN Network Channel
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Soon, Your Money and SBS Viceland SD will be on the discontinued channels list

Monaural vs Stereophonic
I have seen that ABC Local Radio & ABC RN are in Mono (this is what my TV set says) and the rest are in Stereo. I cannot work out the class to adjust the Format. Can any one help? TheGiantHogweed (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Someone here add the latest discontinued channels in my country Australia
Can someone do it for me Bassie f (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ABC TV Plus was removed
ABC Kids only broadcasts till 19:30 or 7:30 PM then ABC TV Plus takes over, that’s my reason I want ABC TV Plus back in the list after it was removed from the list. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, ABC TV Plus is now back in the list Bassie f (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

More needed on audio-only channels
Additional audio-only channels exist in at least some country areas: 25, 26 and 27 for capital city ABC radio, RN and Classic respectively, plus 200, 201, 202, 203, 204 for JJ, Jazz, Kids, Country, and News; then 301 to 307 for the various SBS audio streams. Are these available in capital cities or just areas where DAB+ is not available? Doug butler (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)