Money making racket

[ad47uk]

Don't anyone else think that this digital switch over is just a money making swiz?
Who is going to gain from it? the government for a start when it sells the old frequencies, then you got the manufactures of set top boxes, pvr and digital T.V sets. Then the broadcasters and of cause aerial riggers, as the time comes closer they will start charging what they like.


I still don't think this digital thing is all it is cracked up to be, sure we can get more channels, just a shame most of them are rubbish and we now have more repeats than ever before. We can get PVR's, but then we could have them with analogue. the picture quality is worse than analogue, but that don't matter because we got lots more channels.

We should have stayed as we was, just 5 channels.

[planetse]

Errr NO:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/17/bbc-switches-analogue-tv

[mattclarkie]

The digital system is much better than analogue, but the UK implementation is not very good. For starters why isn't it nationwide already, I have a transmitter which is claimed to be digital less than 10 miles away, but I get my freeview from a transmitter 50miles away and it is awfully unreliable.


The problem with quality is nothing to do with the system of digital, but just a system starved of bandwidth and an out-dated technology used in the UK.

Analogue should have gone around 10years ago, instead it has been crammed into a system much like DAB which has resulted in a poor service.

Back to the question, it is not a scam, but I don't think freeview is worth the hassle in my area and I will stick with my Sky which has a 98% up time instead of a 50% downtime.

[N.Dean]

ad47uk, if your money is making a racket, try carrying it in a purse rather than your pocket.

[Sonic67]

Why do you think analogue is better? My analogue picture is poor but my digital is fine. Some people in fringe areas get a good digital image until the information gets too low and then the picture is poor. Analogue gets progressively worse.

Go back to five channels? No way. Lots of channels, radio channels, EPG, digital teletext. Freeview isn't perfect but I couldn't go back to analogue.

[eddgreen25]

Don't anyone else think that this digital switch over is just a money making swiz?
Who is going to gain from it? the government for a start when it sells the old frequencies, then you got the manufactures of set top boxes, pvr and digital T.V sets. Then the broadcasters and of cause aerial riggers, as the time comes closer they will start charging what they like.


I still don't think this digital thing is all it is cracked up to be, sure we can get more channels, just a shame most of them are rubbish and we now have more repeats than ever before. We can get PVR's, but then we could have them with analogue. the picture quality is worse than analogue, but that don't matter because we got lots more channels.

We should have stayed as we was, just 5 channels.
I agree.
Ariel riggers will make a lot of money at £80 a home
Thats to install a freesat setup
Thr goverment are taking your tv picture away then charging you it view it again
Digital tv is ok for poor reception areas
But HD makes a huge inpact
But some dont care as long as the pictures there on the tv
The older peaple depend on there tv
They will get it free. But they will only get it if they claim benifits. They will be informed 9 months before changeover

[jeepjunkie]

If it's not a money making racket then what is it... Like most people I couldn't care less about HD, fancy sound quality etc Again change for changes sake... And this rubbish that the rest of the world is going digital is nonsense as most of the world is third world... A TV is a TV yet nowadays they go out of date so quickly cos of the constant changes in technology. Personally I'm sticking with my crt cos LCD/Plasma seem to be changing so quickly rendering them out of date when you decide on a new way to receive TV... Just to add to my rant I use DVD and VHS and both work just fine so this BlueRay/HD-DVD is just yet more change, aaaggghhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know this forum is populated by single tech nerds with nothing better to do so will probably get flamed :-)

Freeview - crap in always possible, pixelated picture, no picture when it rains, all the channels except the usual five are rubbish, who wants to listen to radio through a TV, slow to change channel!!!!????

Freesat - no I don't want an ugly dish on the side of my house thank you...

Sky - total rip off, way to expensive for what you get. Again 99% of the channels are pointless...

Virgin - this is what I have and despite the constant issues it is cheaper than getting sky, a new digital aerial + stb for freeview etc

[Sonic67]

When the analogue channels are switched off the digital freeview signals will be boosted. Any problems you have with pixellation etc should disappear then.

A freeview box now starts from about £15 and will work with your CRT TV though personally I'd get a PVR as they are so much easier than VHS.

[ba' heid]

If it's not a money making racket then what is it... Like most people I couldn't care less about HD, fancy sound quality etc Again change for changes sake... And this rubbish that the rest of the world is going digital is nonsense as most of the world is third world... A TV is a TV yet nowadays they go out of date so quickly cos of the constant changes in technology. Personally I'm sticking with my crt cos LCD/Plasma seem to be changing so quickly rendering them out of date when you decide on a new way to receive TV... Just to add to my rant I use DVD and VHS and both work just fine so this BlueRay/HD-DVD is just yet more change, aaaggghhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know this forum is populated by single tech nerds with nothing better to do so will probably get flamed :-)

Freeview - crap in always possible, pixelated picture, no picture when it rains, all the channels except the usual five are rubbish, who wants to listen to radio through a TV, slow to change channel!!!!????

Freesat - no I don't want an ugly dish on the side of my house thank you...

Sky - total rip off, way to expensive for what you get. Again 99% of the channels are pointless...

Virgin - this is what I have and despite the constant issues it is cheaper than getting sky, a new digital aerial + stb for freeview etc


From your avatar I suppose you have no problem stumping up megabucks for the latest in automobile design when really a horse and cart is quite sufficient.

Consider yourself "flamed" ( if politely ) ;)

[STdrez625]

Who are the GOV? You and me.. They want to spend money which is either got thru taxes or thru the sale of spectrum. Get it thru ssales I say.. and by the way.. even in this day and age we dont all get 5 analogs.. I get 4, three of which get "glitched" on passing buses. No freeView, No Cable and Sat not allowed. I did used to get out more tho!!

[vex]

Freeview - crap in always possible, pixelated picture, no picture when it rains, all the channels except the usual five are rubbish, who wants to listen to radio through a TV, slow to change channel!!!!????

If that is what you are seeing when you try to watch freeview then I am not surprised you are disappointed. Cables and Aerials do degrade over time so something that worked well 20, even 10 years may not now, Just like your jeep, So you may need to update your system to keep it working well, which should (as a by product) dramatically improve your freeview pictures.

V.

[baw_heed]

I think I had a go at answering this on another thread recently but I'll have another go. With the greatest of resepct this thread is peppered with paranoid ramblings and falsehoods so let's go back to basics.

Try the following.................. Imagine that there is no money for the government involved in the switch to digital television. Now ask yourself - would the government still go through with it under those circumstances?

The answer is - of course they would. The government would turn off analogue and switch to digital even if there was no money in it because if they didn't the electorate would ask why the rest of the developed world had a terrestrial television system that offered more channels, better quality, radio, data etc while the UK struggeld along with 25% of the population forced to watch 4 poor quality analogue terrestrial channels.

It's a no brainer and that's why there are around 40 other countries going through the same process at present (see link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover

Alternatively, some of the posters on this thread may be right - the majority of the developed world's governments and broadcasting engineers may be wrong and switchover may really about aerial installer in the UK getting £80 an installation (which incidentally I think is great value and I'm no fan of installers).

It's easier to moan though. :thumbsup:

[baw_heed]

I think I had a go at answering this on another thread recently but I'll have another go. With the greatest of resepct this thread is peppered with paranoid ramblings and falsehoods so let's go back to basics.

Try the following.................. Imagine that there is no money for the government involved in the switch to digital television. Now ask yourself - would the government still go through with it under those circumstances?

The answer is - of course they would. The government would turn off analogue and switch to digital even if there was no money in it because if they didn't the electorate would ask why the rest of the developed world had a terrestrial television system that offered more channels, better quality, radio, data etc while the UK struggeld along with 25% of the population forced to watch 4 poor quality analogue terrestrial channels.

It's a no brainer and that's why there are around 40 other countries going through the same process at present (see link below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_switchover

Alternatively, some of the posters on this thread may be right - the majority of the developed world's governments and broadcasting engineers may be wrong and switchover may really about aerial installer in the UK getting £80 an installation (which incidentally I think is great value and I'm no fan of installers).

It's easier to moan though. :thumbsup:

[jeepjunkie]

If that is what you are seeing when you try to watch freeview then I am not surprised you are disappointed. Cables and Aerials do degrade over time so something that worked well 20, even 10 years may not now...

That was after spending £100 on a new aerial prof. installed with clear line of sight to the transmitter... better pic on analogue though :thumbsup:

Anyway I guess when there is change there will be unhappy customers...

What really makes me laugh was when we first got cable from United Artists (many moons ago at my parents) it was called 'digital' then it got called 'analogue' when there was a new digital system... :confused:

Anyway happy customer now on Virgin Media 2 for £20 package at my new house...

[jeepjunkie]

Just like your jeep, So you may need to update your system to keep it working well, which should (as a by product) dramatically improve your freeview pictures.


Poor old jeep sold on cos no room for baby... :(

The ride on the mud tyres was pretty rough to say the least with a top speed of 60 :god:

Good in the mud though :thumbsup:

[flying haggis]

when britian changed from town gas to natural, british gas picked up the bill for all the work that was involved. so if the government demand that we all change to digital, by switching off the analogue signal that is demanding in my book, shouldnt the broadcasters have to pay for all the new equipment or at least a digibox with rf out for every home that is listed by tv licensing.

[Sonic67]

They are broadcasters nothing more. They output a lot on the Internet but don't provide PCs, neither did they provide DAB sets or colour TVs or any of the other new technologies over the years.

You could continue to watch analogue now. When the analogue signal is switched off the freeview signal will be boosted to about the same level so you probably won't need a new aerial then. Cost of a box now seems to start from about £15 so if you can afford a TV and a TV license you should be able to afford a box.

[mattclarkie]

4 nights ago I completely lost my freeview except for BBC4.
The next morning every channel works fine and has since.

It gets very irritating how my freeview signal can just disappear sometimes for weeks at a time with no apparant reason.:eek:

I have a 2year old aerial installed specifically for freeview, and for the first year had very little issues with signal.

[scribbler101]

They are broadcasters nothing more. They output a lot on the Internet but don't provide PCs, neither did they provide DAB sets or colour TVs or any of the other new technologies over the years.

You could continue to watch analogue now. When the analogue signal is switched off the freeview signal will be boosted to about the same level so you probably won't need a new aerial then. Cost of a box now seems to start from about £15 so if you can afford a TV and a TV license you should be able to afford a box.
I think no-one knows about the power increase unless they come here. Surely millions must be being wasted on aerials that will not in fact be required?

[baw_heed]

The point about millions being wasted on aerials a) isn't true b) pre supposes that viewers have no responsibility to keep on top of things themselves.

The method of receiving in this country has always been the same............

The viewer has always been responsible for their kit.
If the viewer wishes to watch they buy and maintain that kit.
If they can't do it themselves they call in a professional and pay for it.
Finally, there is no right to TV in this country. Not even if you pay the licence fee. It is the responsibility of the viewer to make their own provisions and that includes system upgrades, aerials etc.

I can't believe people are going so nuts over a change that benefits TV viewers and only costs £15-£100 one-off payment yet nobody bats an eye lid when Microsoft make a seemingly pointless switch from from XP to Vista that really is expensive and means a lot of kit and software no longer works. In fact they do it all the time - Windows 95, 97, 2000, XP, SP2, SP3, Vista etc etc at least five platforms in just over a decade. Telly is changing for the first time since the 70s.

So why is TV different? The reason seems to be that many people are under the misconception that they have some inalienable right to free TV from the state. It's simply not the case.


I think no-one knows about the power increase unless they come here. Surely millions must be being wasted on aerials that will not in fact be required?

[scribbler101]

The point about millions being wasted on aerials a) isn't true b) pre supposes that viewers have no responsibility to keep on top of things themselves.

The method of receiving in this country has always been the same............

The viewer has always been responsible for their kit.
If the viewer wishes to watch they buy and maintain that kit.
If they can't do it themselves they call in a professional and pay for it.
Finally, there is no right to TV in this country. Not even if you pay the licence fee. It is the responsibility of the viewer to make their own provisions and that includes system upgrades, aerials etc.

I can't believe people are going so nuts over a change that benefits TV viewers and only costs £15-£100 one-off payment yet nobody bats an eye lid when Microsoft make a seemingly pointless switch from from XP to Vista that really is expensive and means a lot of kit and software no longer works. In fact they do it all the time - Windows 95, 97, 2000, XP, SP2, SP3, Vista etc etc at least five platforms in just over a decade. Telly is changing for the first time since the 70s.

So why is TV different? The reason seems to be that many people are under the misconception that they have some inalienable right to free TV from the state. It's simply not the case.
Baw head - I think you are missing my point, which is that people are now spending money on aerials that work with the very weak digital signal, but if they wait until analogue switchoff the digital power increase means that their present aerials - or lack of aerials - will probably work fine.

Lets say 10 million households spend £100 each that is not needed. That's £1,000,000,000.00 revenue for the antenna industry. Of which maybe half goes to HMG one way or the other.

[Sonic67]

Windows 95, 97, 2000, XP, SP2, SP3, Vista etc etc at least five platforms in just over a decade. Telly is changing for the first time since the 70s.

XP came out in 2001. The Service packs were free downloads. So if you bought XP in 2001 you wouldn't have needed to fork out again till Vista in 2007. Not bad, a six year life for one OS and one outlay.

Have a go at Apple instead.

Since Mac OS X was launched in 2001, there have been five "new versions" of the operating system - Puma, Jaguar, Panther and Tiger and Leopard.

That's almost one a year, each costing a princely £90-£100 - racking up a total bill of nigh-on £500 for anyone who's bought every version. And they say Windows is expensive.

Also many people tend to miss an operating system and buy the one after anyway.

[scribbler101]

I'm still running XP - and plan to do so until it stops being maintained. If not longer.

I have never moved to a new o/s except when replacing hardware. Which I usually do when it no longer has room for ever fatter programmes.

[Geofbob]

This thread seems to have gone a little astray! Leaving Windows XP etc aside, and returning to scribbler's point that some people have spent money on upgraded aerials, which won't be needed after the switchover, surely that is their choice if they want to receive Freeview NOW and not wait until 2012. In fact, there are probably many people who are content with the current 5 terrestrial channels, who will wait until analogue is switched off before buying new equipment.

The situation is not too different from someone who's promised a bus or train service to a nearby town in several years, but chooses not to wait and until then uses a car or bike. In any case, many viewers who live fairly near a transmitter do not need a new aerial in order to receive Freeview, so aerial manufacturers/erectors are probably not making as much money as scribbler calculates.

[scribbler101]

This thread seems to have gone a little astray! Leaving Windows XP etc aside, and returning to scribbler's point that some people have spent money on upgraded aerials, which won't be needed after the switchover, surely that is their choice if they want to receive Freeview NOW and not wait until 2012. In fact, there are probably many people who are content with the current 5 terrestrial channels, who will wait until analogue is switched off before buying new equipment.

The situation is not too different from someone who's promised a bus or train service to a nearby town in several years, but chooses not to wait and until then uses a car or bike. In any case, many viewers who live fairly near a transmitter do not need a new aerial in order to receive Freeview, so aerial manufacturers/erectors are probably not making as much money as scribbler calculates.
I have no problem with people now making INFORMED decisions to pay to get freeview now.

My objection is to people being deceived into spending money that they do not need to spend if they wait. When I paid for our "digital" ae I did not know this myself.

Where in the government propaganda is it stated "your wisest choice may well be to do nothing involving new antennae until after switchover"?

Why are there not trial periods with analogue off and digital at full strength, to allow people to know their true position?

[Sonic67]

I have no problem with people now making INFORMED decisions to pay to get freeview now.

Most websites etc have done something along these lines.

At present, around 74% of households are in areas where this is possible. Digital signals for the rest of the country can only be switched on when the existing analogue ones are switched off. After switchover almost everyone (at least 98.5%) will be able to receive digital TV through an aerial.



My objection is to people being deceived into spending money that they do not need to spend if they wait. When I paid for our "digital" ae I did not know this myself. It's usually best to do a bit of investigating before parting with money. I don't see it as 'wasting money' I've actually had several years of multichannel TV/Radio so far. Still have a few more years to wait for my region to switch as well.


Where in the government propaganda is it stated "your wisest choice may well be to do nothing involving new antennae until after switchover"? I don't agree it's the wisest choice to wait. Switch now and you can have a few years of multiple TV channels, radio channels, digital teletext, interactive TV. I find it difficult to go back to just five if I'm away on a course somewhere and have to watch a small pocket analogue TV I have.

Why are there not trial periods with analogue off and digital at full strength, to allow people to know their true position?

98.5% will be able to watch after switch over. You'd have to live in a very rural area to not benefit. A full strength digital TV signal is not transmitted now as it would interfere with the analogue signal. How many would be complaining about that?

Did people complain when the 78's were scrapped for microgroove records? When colour TV started?

[scribbler101]

Hi Sonic

"98.5% will be able to watch after switch over. You'd have to live in a very rural area to not benefit. A full strength digital TV signal is not transmitted now as it would interfere with the analogue signal. How many would be complaining about that?"

I'm suggesting TEST periods - say morning 10-12 - without analogue.

"Did people complain when the 78's were scrapped for microgroove records? When colour TV started?"

But 78s WERE NOT scrapped. Record players for 45s and LPs also played 78s.

And the Colour TV signal was receivable on monochrome equipment. Indeed it still is.

People may well CHOOSE to pay to get digital now. My objection is that they do not realise that they may not need to pay later. I did not know this myself until I found this website to try to solve a problem with the stb I bought whenever the tsunami was.

[Sonic67]

"Did people complain when the 78's were scrapped for microgroove records? When colour TV started?"

But 78s WERE NOT scrapped. Record players for 45s and LPs also played 78s.
Okay well some of the new record players could play 78's. Sometimes they had a flip over needle so the 78's wouldn't be damaged.

Freeview TVs also tend to have built in analogue tuners as well.


And the Colour TV signal was receivable on monochrome equipment. Indeed it still is.


Actually we've been here before with a switchover and the newer 625 line TVs actually couldn't handle the old 405 line system. So if you had an old 405 line TV you were forced into an upgrade.:

In 1964 the BBC launched its BBC Two service on UHF using only a 625-line (576i) system, which older sets could not receive. PAL colour was introduced in 1967.

In November 1969 BBC One and ITV also started broadcasting in 625-line PAL colour in UHF. As their programming was now entirely produced using the new standard, the 405-line broadcasts served only as a rebroadcast in monochrome for people who did not have the newer receivers.

One reason for the long switchover period was the difficulty in matching the coverage level of the new UHF 625 line service with the very high level of geographic coverage achieved with the 405-line VHF service.

The last 405-line transmissions were seen on January 3, 1985, in Scotland, having been shut down one day earlier in the rest of the UK. This left only the UHF PAL system in operation in the UK. The frequencies used by the 405-line system were initially left empty, but were later sold off, used now for other purposes including DAB and trunked PMR commercial two way radio systems.

[scribbler101]

Sonic - You seem to have made my points. The records are a poor analogy as the change did not stop existing stuff working.

And I am old enough to have been around for the 405/625 switchover - which, as you explain, was done over almost 20 years. During which, IIRC, dual standard sets were the norm.

Indeed I can just recall the set-top box for ITV - and clearly recall dismantling it for parts in the 60s when I was into radio.

[mrbleu]

When the analogue channels are switched off the digital freeview signals will be boosted. Any problems you have with pixellation etc should disappear then.

On the contrary, due to the addition of 4 HD channels to freeview, without freeing up some additional frequencies means that the bandwidth available to the main channels will be drastically reduced.

If you live in the Guildford area you can see the impact of this change as they are testing the HD service there.

[mike7]

I really think that this 'switchover' business is taking far too long. Once the decision had been taken and specifications decided upon then there should have been a one year period when people could be advised what was required. They could then decide whether to buy a new set or use a freeview box of some kind. Then 'bingo' off with analogue and on with digital. I believe Austria did something like this and their transmission system is far more complex than the UK due to the terrain. People in real fringe areas could use the FreeSat service. This is what the system was originally devised for. It was to save the cost of hundreds of small transmitters to fill in gaps.

This way there would have been no need for people to spend money on new aerials which might not be necessary. We also would not have to be buying the sets we currently have which have analogue tuners which we never use. They could have decided on a scheme to help older consumers with a free or subsidised box supplied to them. I know of some people in that catagory who are totally confused having the two services running side by side.

The confusion that has been caused to your average punter is understandable. There has been the introduction of HD. There still seems some doubt as to whether a terrestial HD service will come about,how and when. Add to that the launch of the Freesat service which most potential customers have never heard of or don't really understand. Now manufacturers are offering sets with built in Freesat. Is is any wonder there are frequent queries from people who want to plug dishes into Freeview boxes or aerials into Freesat decoders. Then add to that the aspect of PVRs, what they do and how to use them. From two of the major suppliers of these we seem to see endless firmware upgrades. Your average consumer cannot be expected to cope with all this. Keep it simple should have been the order of the day. I am talking about free to air stuff here and have deliberately kept Sky and Virgin out of my arguement.

We now seem to be entering into a period when once the Digital service is fully running then people might have to consider yet another add-on to get Freeview HD.

On the subject of the change from 405 to 625 tv I was working in the industry at the time. We had to make sets that worked on both systems. TVs already had two tuners in them, Band 1 for BBC and Band 3 for ITV. Switching the line system was usually done physically with switches which invariably failed. Customers had to have 2, sometimes 3 different aerials. It was a nightmare. At first you could only get BBC2 in 625 (UHF). This was followed by the other two channels and there was a period when the two services ran side by side until eventually 405 was switched off. Once it had settled down colour came along and punters had to shell out again ditching a load of expensive monochrome kit. It seems we never learn in the UK.

[ad47uk]

As i said it is a money making racket. the government will make millions from this. Would it happen if the government was not involved? Maybe, but I think it would be at least another 15 years before it happened.

Aerial riggers will make money out of this or the bent ones anyway, because they will charge more and the closer each part of the country gets to switch off, the more con artists will charge to put a aerial up. In fact I know someone whose mother had someone knock on her down, offered to put a new aerial up telling her that she would need one because the system is changing and that her old aerial would not cope. they offered to put one up at a special discount at a price of £200. As luck had it, she is pretty well up to the mark and did not go for it.


As for quality, it is worse than analogue, you get a good analogue signal and the picture is great, I watched Mock the Week on BBC2 analogue yesterday and it was so much better. Ok, so it is not in wide screen adn I had to get set the T.v so it did not look stretched. I only use digital for channels that is not on analogue.

The quality problem is nothing to do with signal, my digital signal is pretty good, I don't have any break up. the problem is the compression, there is two many channels on the system and not enough space, so what we get is a very compressed picture. Ch5 is the worse, in fact if i record anything from ch 5, I use my DVD recorder and not the PVR as it have a analogue tuner.

What we need to do is to either make more space on the system and give more bandwidth to each channel or take off some of the rubbish that is now on the system. If we make more space, then we will have more rubbish.

It seems like people have no idea what quality is these days. You have teenagers going around listening to their music ( well they call it music) though the tiny poor quality speaker of their phones. You get people using MP3 and think the quality is great, where to be honest MP3 is a bit naff, but then all compression is. Then you get DAB radio which people think is great quality.

I am just glad that FM will be with us for many years. We got this thing that if something is digital then it is better. Not always true.

I am hoping to get freesat before the end of the year, mainly because hopefully the quality will be better than Freeview as the bandwidth is there.


The other money making racket is that Sky installers will start trying to scare people into getting sky, when in fact they will not have to have sky, in fact now with Freesat there is a better option. People will have to get a new T.v or freeview boxes. I still know of a few people who still don't have any digital T.V at all and have no interest and yet will be forced to go digital if they still want T.V.

Our digital T.v system is to be honest a load of carp and have had no thought put in.

[Starburst]

I am hoping to get freesat before the end of the year, mainly because hopefully the quality will be better than Freeview as the bandwidth is there.







In reality it isn't though, resolution and bitrates are in many cases higher on DTT than Dsat and of course integrated tuners help out a little but they may change as hopefully there will be more than one Freesat HD telly in the future.

Dsat broadcasts have been squeezed far more than DTT thanks to the need for full regional support (and no legislation) from the BBC and ITV and if they haven't bothered to improve bandwidth in the last decade why would they bother now as HD starts to gain acceptance?

[ShadowTD]

Now I did a lot of things in retail that I regret, but selling Digital TV is one of the biggest. I heavily pushed DVB as the future due to the higher quality. At the time, the BBC channels looked superb. I used to have a few sets tuned to the fledgling SDN channels (remember them?) showing the BBC loops which looked stunning. Same goes for DAB - originally marketed on its 'superb quality'. Now this has all turned out to be lies as the greedy broadcasters fill our airwaves with tat.

Who's to blame?

[Starburst]

Who's to blame?



The BBC for not being the flag waving leader in SD digital and OFCOM and the government for not putting some regulation in place for digital broadcasting specs and perceived picture quality.

[ad47uk]

In reality it isn't though, resolution and bitrates are in many cases higher on DTT than Dsat and of course integrated tuners help out a little but they may change as hopefully there will be more than one Freesat HD telly in the future.

Dsat broadcasts have been squeezed far more than DTT thanks to the need for full regional support (and no legislation) from the BBC and ITV and if they haven't bothered to improve bandwidth in the last decade why would they bother now as HD starts to gain acceptance?

If Dsat is no better, then maybe it is best to give up T.v and just stay with DVD's.

HD is fine if you got a HD T.V, but there are a lot of people out there who don't have a HDTV, in fact most of the people I know don't as they still got a CRT T.V. It is only the odd few people I know whose old T.V have broken down or they decided to have a bigger screen that have got a HDTV. As someone said to me once before, what is the point in changing your T.V for HD, unless you are going to make use of it.

Next door neighbour got a HDTV and got Sky a few months back, but did not get Sky Hd. Anyway not everyone wants a dish stuck on their house just to get HD and HD on Freeview will be awful, because it will be so compressed, it will look no better than analogue does now.

Going backwards not forward we are.

I thought that this digital T.V and radio thing would be great, but it is not, I hope the digital switch off goes belly up and we are left with analogue for a few more years, I can dream

[Starburst]

If Dsat is no better, then maybe it is best to give up T.v and just stay with DVD's.





There are some very good SD channels on Dsat but they don't belong to ITV and CH4, Five and the BBC are pretty good but as always SD isn't meant for HD displays and will always cause issues unless the viewer really doesn't give a damn:)
DVD by extension is still SD but has the advantage of plenty of bandwidth and professional encoding unlike broadcast sources so translates better to HD displays.



HD is fine if you got a HD T.V, but there are a lot of people out there who don't have a HDTV, in fact most of the people I know don't as they still got a CRT T.V. It is only the odd few people I know whose old T.V have broken down or they decided to have a bigger screen that have got a HDTV. As someone said to me once before, what is the point in changing your T.V for HD, unless you are going to make use of it.


Yep, only around 16% of the UK has HD tellies and I suspect a lot of that is two HD telly households.
If you have a CRT then the majority of SD digital broadcasts are fine however start throwing marketing led digital processing functions at them and they tend to do more harm than good and that includes 100hz.



Next door neighbour got a HDTV and got Sky a few months back, but did not get Sky Hd. Anyway not everyone wants a dish stuck on their house just to get HD and HD on Freeview will be awful, because it will be so compressed, it will look no better than analogue does now.




True not everyone does want a dish or can have a dish.
I am reserving my judgment on DTT HD, given what SKY has proved is possible with the latest H,264 encoders they may just pull it off although no question as with SD the HD reality is going to be crippled by a lack of regulation.


Going backwards not forward we are.

I thought that this digital T.V and radio thing would be great, but it is not, I hope the digital switch off goes belly up and we are left with analogue for a few more years, I can dream


I haven't watched an analogue source for about 3 years now and the main telly has been Dsat only since 1998, couldn't imagine going back to analogue with all it's limitations not to mention the simple lack of choice.

[J7MAN]

Shaking my head at some of the comments in here.

[mike7]

Shaking my head at some of the comments in here.

Which ones ?

[J7MAN]

Which ones ?

Yours saying the switchover should be done in a year for one. Its not just individual houses that need changing over. I've been doing housing association stuff for the last year and there is still years left of it, and thats just around Nottinghamshire. They have to be finished by switchover otherwise there is going to be a hell of a lot of people shaking the 'Standard Of Living' laws at the local councils.

[mike7]

Yours saying the switchover should be done in a year for one. Its not just individual houses that need changing over. I've been doing housing association stuff for the last year and there is still years left of it, and thats just around Nottinghamshire. They have to be finished by switchover otherwise there is going to be a hell of a lot of people shaking the 'Standard Of Living' laws at the local councils.

On my estate we have a specific cable systems linked to all houses both public and private which is there because originally outside aerials were banned. It has provided a freeview signal for some time now. Some flats owned by the Council and Housing associations also need updating, but these services should have been revamped years ago.Organisations just couldn't be bothered to spend the money now they are forced to do so. In any case many people have gone over to Virgin Cable or Sky.

[J7MAN]

On my estate we have a specific cable systems linked to all houses both public and private which is there because originally outside aerials were banned. It has provided a freeview signal for some time now. Some flats owned by the Council and Housing associations also need updating, but these services should have been revamped years ago.Organisations just couldn't be bothered to spend the money now they are forced to do so. In any case many people have gone over to Virgin Cable or Sky.

So thats one estate in Norwich that was ready and could of coped with a 1 year turn around? What about the thousands of others? What about the hundreds of thousands of hotels that also need upgrading?

Saying it should have been switched over in a year is as laughable as that other chap saying an analogue picture is better than a DTT one.

[scribbler101]

But surely until switchover no-one knows what aerials are required?

As it is people are spending fortunes to re-equip for very weak signals. To what point, other than enriching ae fitters?

[J7MAN]

But surely until switchover no-one knows what aerials are required?

As it is people are spending fortunes to re-equip for very weak signals. To what point, other than enriching ae fitters?

Now that is one thing I do agree with. Not so much the aerials that are being used, but the signal levels being set. Masthead Amplifiers are being turned right to cope with the low DTT signals but when its switched over and they're turned up everybodies sets will be oversignalling like mad.

[scribbler101]

Now that is one thing I do agree with. Not so much the aerials that are being used, but the signal levels being set. Masthead Amplifiers are being turned right to cope with the low DTT signals but when its switched over and they're turned up everybodies sets will be oversignalling like mad.
Indeed the amps may well be worse than useless.

Why don't they have periods of transmitting at post-switchover power, so that people can find out what the will need - if anything?

[J7MAN]

If I understand it correctly its because whilst they are duel running analagues and DTTs the power isn't there to test the DTTs at the post switchover power.

[scribbler101]

I meant test periods when they don't transmit analogue at all.

[J7MAN]

I'd assume because X amount of millions of people would be pretty miffed that they had no TV.

[scribbler101]

Well, they're going to have no analogue TV soon enough, so why not get used to the idea at off-peak times, and give people chance to try out Freeview without feeding the aerial supply Money Making Racket.

How do they propose to tackle the changeover? Has everyone to pay for equipment they may well not need once digital is at full power?

What about the poor, pensioners, etc? Waste a fortune giving them all satellite?

[J7MAN]

Well, they're going to have no analogue TV soon enough, so why not get used to the idea at off-peak times, and give people chance to try out Freeview without feeding the aerial supply Money Making Racket.

How do they propose to tackle the changeover? Has everyone to pay for equipment they may well not need once digital is at full power?

What about the poor, pensioners, etc? Waste a fortune giving them all satellite?

Once the changover has happened if they still dont have a means of viewing digital its there fault, they've had ample time. Just switching them off to test all the transmitters doesnt give them a choice.

[scribbler101]

Once the changover has happened if they still dont have a means of viewing digital its there fault, they've had ample time. Just switching them off to test all the transmitters doesnt give them a choice.
People can buy a digibox (though set-up will be beyond many people).

But how can they know if they will need a new aerial to receive the full strength digital unless there are trial transmissions of it to allow people to set-up?

[J7MAN]

Its not a case of just being able to recieve it though. Receiving it and having a good quality signal down to your point are 2 different things. I suspect most people will be able to get DTT if they just plugged a box into their existing aerial. You have to look at breakup etc of the picture due to 20 year old downleads. Just turning the signal levels up wont help those issues.

I'm not trying to defend this because I make money from it because I only do commercial installs.

[scribbler101]

Its not a case of just being able to recieve it though. Receiving it and having a good quality signal down to your point are 2 different things. I suspect most people will be able to get DTT if they just plugged a box into their existing aerial. You have to look at breakup etc of the picture due to 20 year old downleads. Just turning the signal levels up wont help those issues.

I'm not trying to defend this because I make money from it because I only do commercial installs.
I'm not aiming at anyone who installs any aerials, but at the system which seems to insist on EVERYONE installing aerials and feeds and distribution which will cope with far weaker signals than will in fact be transmitted.

It's fine for us to install to get digital early, but there seems to be no honest public information. I doubt if 5% of the public knowa that the present signal strength will increase 10 or 20 fold. The man who sold and installed my ae certainly did not tell me.

[J7MAN]

How do you know it will increase 10 or 20 fold? Not having a go, just genuinely interested I havent seen that anyway.

[scribbler101]

How do you know it will increase 10 or 20 fold? Not having a go, just genuinely interested I havent seen that anyway.
Just go to wolfbane, or any other site with transmitter data now and post changeover, and look for your local transmitter. Most will increase 10x or 20x.

Incidentally, if you are in the business, how can you possibly not know this? I only know from coming here and reading posts of the wise ones.

[J7MAN]

I dont use Wolfbane. I find it nonsense. Getting out in the field will give you more of an idea than a website.

[scribbler101]

I dont use Wolfbane. I find it nonsense. Getting out in the field will give you more of an idea than a website.
"There's none so blind as them that will not see".

Obviously wolfbane's ae predictions are estimates only, but do you doubt its accuracy as to which transmitter is how far in what direction? And, in the present context, its data re present power and power post changeover?

If you do, what source do you use for information?

Fingerspitzengefuhl?

[J7MAN]

I dont doubt it knows which way a transmitter lies from position X but it doesnt know theres a bank of trees at the bottom of the garden or pylon etc. Post-changeover levels are irrelevant to me now as they dont exist and for current levels I use my spectrum analyser to see what the levels are there and then.Not what they 'should' be. Or if the batteries low I use my instinct :rolleyes:

So if DTT levels are being increased 10 fold what would that give at a point with a current average of 50dB of signal?

[scribbler101]

IIRC dB are log, so presumably 100.

But this, one hopes, is your area of expertise, not mine?

[mike7]

All good points I agree, but the fact of the matter is that Freeview has been on air for 5+ years. Freeview boxes have got cheaper and cheaper. You cannot buy a Tv without a decoder in, and this goes back to the last of the CRTs. It has also been known from the outset of Freeview that analogue will be switched off. In spite of all this the saga is drawn out over a number of years more changing one part of the country at a time. If landlords and local authorities have not upgraded systems in five years there is no excuse for them panicking at the last minute. Freeview (and Channel 5) signals were boosted where I live several years,not months, ago. The local council is now in the process of installing satellite based systems (Sky) to some of their properties and charging tenants for the system whether they use it or not.

In my humble opinion Sky have taken advantage of the chaotic situation that has evolved. In another thread I pointed out that they have been appointed suppliers to the over 75+ age group in Scotland where satellite systems are being put in for a very nominal sum from the customer. The remainder is paid from the sum set aside from licence payers as a whole. I've no objection to older people being helped in this way, but not at the expense of shelling out licence payers money to Sky!

Nevertheless good luck to anyone who is making money out of all this, but a lot of the expense would have been minimised if there had been a shorter time to 'switch off'. It's just another British ****s -up.

[Starburst]

I've no objection to older people being helped in this way, but not at the expense of shelling out licence payers money to Sky!






Unfortunately or not who else has a nationwide operation and existing supply contracts to do the job at a price that was obviously cheaper than anyone else could do it for?

Give it to another company and they would slap on a healthy profit margin as well and would probably have to subcontract out meaning more license fee money was spent to achieve the same thing.

[J7MAN]

mike7, you dont seem to grasp just how many properties there are that need changing over. The company I work for has just secured another housing association contract and the first roll out is 2 years worth of work. Thats one HA in one city, not counting the other HA's in the city.

[scribbler101]

mike7, you dont seem to grasp just how many properties there are that need changing over. The company I work for has just secured another housing association contract and the first roll out is 2 years worth of work. Thats one HA in one city, not counting the other HA's in the city.
So that is a fortune of public money being spent to give HA tenants access to weak signals now, rather than wait and find out what they actually need later! When the existing aerials will probably receive digital perfectly.

In fact in the public sector, are they even checking if the present aerials need replacingg at all; or just putting in new for ease?

[J7MAN]

So that is a fortune of public money being spent to give HA tenants access to weak signals now, rather than wait and find out what they actually need later! When the existing aerials will probably receive digital perfectly.

In fact in the public sector, are they even checking if the present aerials need replacingg at all; or just putting in new for ease?

Didnt you mention something about my area of expertise?

[scribbler101]

Didnt you mention something about my area of expertise?
Yes - but if your boss gets a contract for new "digital" aerials and cabling throughout he is unlikely to refuse it.

And IIRC your expertise did not extend to even knowing about the transmission power increases post changover?

[J7MAN]

Feel free to find a quote of mine stating I didnt know that powers would increase post changover.

All the contracts we have we have because we have been maintaining the 20-30 year old systems already in place. This includes regular weekly visits to yet more problems on badly failing systems. Are you saying that they dont need a complete refit just because the DTT levels will increase after changover? I'd imagine this reaches to other areas of the country. Infact I know it does because I've also been to sites around the country with equally bad systems.

[scribbler101]

See posts 53 and 54 on this thread



J7MAN
View Public Profile
Send a private message to J7MAN
Send email to J7MAN
Find More Posts by J7MAN
Add J7MAN to Your Contacts

Yesterday, 8:35 PM #53
scribbler101
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 256
iTrader: (0)
Thanks: Gave 4, Got 18 Re: Money making racket

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by J7MAN
Its not a case of just being able to recieve it though. Receiving it and having a good quality signal down to your point are 2 different things. I suspect most people will be able to get DTT if they just plugged a box into their existing aerial. You have to look at breakup etc of the picture due to 20 year old downleads. Just turning the signal levels up wont help those issues.

I'm not trying to defend this because I make money from it because I only do commercial installs.

I'm not aiming at anyone who installs any aerials, but at the system which seems to insist on EVERYONE installing aerials and feeds and distribution which will cope with far weaker signals than will in fact be transmitted.

It's fine for us to install to get digital early, but there seems to be no honest public information. I doubt if 5% of the public knowa that the present signal strength will increase 10 or 20 fold. The man who sold and installed my ae certainly did not tell me.


scribbler101
View Public Profile
Send a private message to scribbler101
Send email to scribbler101
Find More Posts by scribbler101
Add scribbler101 to Your Contacts

Yesterday, 8:43 PM #54
J7MAN
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Mansfield, Notts.
Posts: 186
iTrader: (0)
Thanks: Gave 5, Got 11 Re: Money making racket

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know it will increase 10 or 20 fold? Not having a go, just genuinely interested I havent seen that anyway.
__________________
HP m7480-uk | HP DV9770 | Sky SD | PS3 40gb | Xbox360 | Nintendo Wii | Samsung LE-26R41BDX

[J7MAN]

Now that is one thing I do agree with. Not so much the aerials that are being used, but the signal levels being set. Masthead Amplifiers are being turned right to cope with the low DTT signals but when its switched over and they're turned up everybodies sets will be oversignalling like mad.

And theres me commenting on signal levels after changover....

Because I have no idea they're being increased of course ;)

*edit*

Before you mentioned the 10 and 20 fold too just for good measure.

[mike7]

mike7, you dont seem to grasp just how many properties there are that need changing over. The company I work for has just secured another housing association contract and the first roll out is 2 years worth of work. Thats one HA in one city, not counting the other HA's in the city.

I do grasp what you are saying, but this problem hasn't just arisen overnight. Its been predictable for several years. It is not your company at fault, but the Housing Associations for ignoring a problem and hoping it would go away. Many of these Housing Association set ups were 'buy ups' or transfers of old local authority properties which had been badly maintained in every aspect. A lot of agencies failed to comprehend how much it would cost them to bring property up to scratch, including aerial systems.

[scribbler101]

j7man - So you were only mentioning uncertainly of the multiple not the principle. Fair enough.

[J7MAN]

Exactly, if you reread your original post it comes across as you meaning the current signal levels will be 10 fold. That would make them anywhere between 400 and 600dB ;)

[Sonic67]

This site had a guide to the strength of the digital signal compared to the analogue for the 80 Freeview transmitters:

http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051122

It's no wonder some people think digital is poor.

[scribbler101]

Exactly, if you reread your original post it comes across as you meaning the current signal levels will be 10 fold. That would make them anywhere between 400 and 600dB ;)
J7MAN - IIUC a tenfold increase in emitted power will only double a signal strength in dB coz dB is a logarithmic function. But I have not thought about this stuff for decades, so would appreciate words of wisdom from others!

EDIT: Just found this link to dB change expected. How much difference will it make in practice?

http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051071