time to ditch yer analogue tv

[poet]

Well, if radio spectrum wasn't government controlled then the swichover would be 'when people don't want analog' rather than 'when we say so'. Require 'good neigbour' rules like on the unlicensed bands (2.4ghz, 27 & 49mhz etc) but let anyone use any bit of free spectrum. Look at the extraordinary rate of development in 2.4ghz devices - video senders, cordless phones, wifi and god knows what else all working together with no bureocratic allocation of spectrum.

Oh, and the title of this thread is very misleading - you don't have to ditch your TV, a 50 year old black and white set will still work with a freeview box hooked up to it.

 

[TeeJay]

what i don't get is, i really really don't understand WHY the government considers it its job to prescribe what kind of tv reception people can have. i mean, yes there quite possibly are benefits to digital tv (i don't know enough about it to say) but is there a problem with analogue which justifies the government doing this?
i can't see that there is.

IIRC the switch to digital allows far more channels to be broadcast, without interfering with each other.

 

[kea]

do we need more channels, teejay?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

do we need more channels, teejay?

They could be put to good use, think of the scope of each area having it's own community channel about local life etc...

 

[newbie]

What's need? Surely if a channel can attract sufficient audience to pay for itself, need is proven? Analogue is limited to 4 channels with patchy coverage for ch5. That's it, unless you want to take spectrum from other applications to have more channels.

 

[mangakitten]

we don't have a roof top ariel where we live, so when I bought the freeview box, I shelled out for a decent box top ariel too, and we still don't get any of the itv channels, rarely get chan 4 or e4.

I hope they manage to sort those sorts of problems out before analogue's phased out.

Tank Girl, we had a similar problem, which we've fixed by getting a loft aerial... way cheaper than a roof aerial, which are around £150... the loft aerial was £15 and works fine. Might be worth you looking into?

I tend to agree with kea that forcing people into this before they're ready is going to cause a lot of hoo-ha... but then again, even in the last 6 months loads of people I know have got freeview boxes that didn't have them before (mainly because you can get E4 on it now, though my dad got one to watch the Tour de France!) so perhaps by 2008 so many people will have them it won't be much of an issue anymore?

Certainly they'd need to sort the reception thing by the time this happens, though...

 

[kea]

What's need? Surely if a channel can attract sufficient audience to pay for itself, need is proven? Analogue is limited to 4 channels with patchy coverage for ch5. That's it, unless you want to take spectrum from other applications to have more channels.

yes and that's fair enough - i've already said i'm not opposed to digital per se - but in what way does it justify pushing everyone into digital in what i consider to be an unreasonably short timescale? what's wrong with running analogue for a few more years? other than that it will stop the government from cashing in on it for a few more years, that is.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

yes and that's fair enough - i've already said i'm not opposed to digital per se - but in what way does it justify pushing everyone into digital in what i consider to be an unreasonably short timescale? what's wrong with running analogue for a few more years? other than that it will stop the government from cashing in on it for a few more years, that is.

How do you mean "cashing in on it"?

 

[newbie]

Well, if radio spectrum wasn't government controlled then the swichover would be 'when people don't want analog' rather than 'when we say so'.

any other use of that spectrum will result in interference, so which people, how many, should determine when the switch-off happens? This has been trailed for a good few years, settop boxes are cheap.

Require 'good neigbour' rules like on the unlicensed bands (2.4ghz, 27 & 49mhz etc) but let anyone use any bit of free spectrum. Look at the extraordinary rate of development in 2.4ghz devices - video senders, cordless phones, wifi and god knows what else all working together with no bureocratic allocation of spectrum.

That actually makes the spectrum freely available for market forces to compete within, with no social gain to government (=taxpayer/community). 'We' made billions out of the 3G licence auctions.

Spectrum is already being demanded for WiMax, yet before we can all have ridiculously fast wireless internet everywhere something else has to give. There will be plenty of uses for the released spectrum when the time comes, uses which will probably suit our needs better than the wasteful use of spectrum which analogue is.

 

[Belushi]

How do you mean "cashing in on it"?

They're going to auction the freed up bandwidth, like they did to the mobile companies a few years back.

 

[Belushi]

settop boxes are cheap.

A very large number of people will also need boosters and new aerials, which can cost hundreds.

 

[newbie]

They're going to auction the freed up bandwidth, like they did to the mobile companies a few years back.

should 'they' give it away? It belongs to all of us, yet some chunks of the spectrum can only be used for one application at a time. How would you propose to allocate that?

 

[chio]

1. they're not switching off analogue radio in the foreseeable future, DAB is problematic in the extreme - and indeed, they're still licensing new FM stations

2. there's a new digital shortwave / mediumwave mode coming into use called DRM which is probably going to replace the crackly transmissions of the World Service etc. in the next 10 years or so

 

[Belushi]

should 'they' give it away? It belongs to all of us, yet some chunks of the spectrum can only be used for one application at a time. How would you propose to allocate that?

Youre right, it belongs to all of us, and we should have the choice about what we do with it, I know how I would vote.

I'd keep broadcasting analogue television on it rather than force millions of people to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading to a digital service they dont want.

 

[newbie]

A very large number of people will also need boosters and new aerials, which can cost hundreds.

As I've said on other threads, I get a better reception with a settop loop aerial than from the roof. In principle (though not currently in practice) I think it might be possible to get rid of unsightly rooftop aerials completely, but probably not until they can ramp up the power without interfering with analogue signals.

But you're right though, some people will have problems. The released spectrum will have other uses. How many people having problems changing over should prevent the rest of us taking advantage of those uses?

 

[chio]

They could be put to good use, think of the scope of each area having it's own community channel about local life etc...

But that's technically impossible - London is covered by a single transmitter, as is the North West and almost every other region. There's just not the room on these regional transmitters for Stoke Newington TV or The Fleetwood Channel, nor are the big businesses controlling the multiplexes likely to want to give space away to small organisations.

(A few areas such as Manchester and Oxford already have local analogue TV channels, which have had - shall we say - varying degrees of success. The Manc one relays Sky News and QVC most of the time)

 

[kea]

How many people having problems changing over should prevent the rest of us taking advantage of those uses?

1) people with problems should get financial help with the technology needed to sort them out
2) all possible effort to get the reception problems sorted should be made and analogue shoudn't be shut down til this is sorted
3) people should be given another few years to make the switch-over

that's my position.

 

[Belushi]

But you're right though, some people will have problems. The released spectrum will have other uses. How many people having problems changing over should prevent the rest of us taking advantage of those uses?

As I said we should have a vote on it.

 

[chio]

2) all possible effort to get the reception problems sorted should be made and analogue shoudn't be shut down til this is sorted

The problem with that is that there's not enough space in the spectrum to have both analogue and digital services running from all the tiny relay transmitters. My town has one; currently it's analogue-only, and on switchover day in 2010 it's going to be changed over to digital overnight, with no overlap period.

 

[newbie]

Youre right, it belongs to all of us, and we should have the choice about what we do with it, I know how I would vote.

I'd keep broadcasting analogue television on it rather than force millions of people to spend hundreds of pounds upgrading to a digital service they dont want.

You have an option to read all the Ofcom stuff and try to influence what happens. Not quite voting, I agree.

Currently digital tv reaches 60% of households. that's voting.

I'm not sure about your millions figure. I believe they hope that the experiment in the borders will show that once analogue has been switched off the digital reception will improve. Prior to that, well we only really hear about the people who have problems, and who have expense. I think generally reception is quote good. Not much help to those who do have problems of course, but exaggerating the scale doesn't really help.

 

[TeeJay]

do we need more channels, teejay?

Arguably we don't *need* more than one - in case of public emergencies and stuff. The point is that more channels mean more choice - and then you can decide if you "need" them or not. One person might want to watch UK History, another one the Hits channel, someone else BBC News24 and someone else might only watch the standard 5 channels. Wouldn't you rather decide for yourself what you want to watch?

 

[Belushi]

You have an option to read all the Ofcom stuff and try to influence what happens. Not quite voting, I agree.

Currently digital tv reaches 60% of households. that's voting.

I'm not sure about your millions figure. I believe they hope that the experiment in the borders will show that once analogue has been switched off the digital reception will improve. Prior to that, well we only really hear about the people who have problems, and who have expense. I think generally reception is quote good. Not much help to those who do have problems of course, but exaggerating the scale doesn't really help.

From my experience everyone has problems with Freeview (and I live very close to the Crystal Palace transmitter), the experience of people on foums like digital spy tend to reflect that. Im very dubious about believeing the government when they say reception will improve once the analogue signal is switched off, their main concern is revenue.

 

[chio]

I for one live in a really crap area for reception from Winter Hill (NW regional transmitter). The picture used to have little speckly dots on it and Channel 5 was a veritable blizzard. Now I've got Freeview, the picture's perfect and I've not had to replace my roof aerial or anything.

But that's the sort of story that you don't hear, because as always, the most vocal people are those who want a whinge. Why would anyone post on Digital Spy, "my telly's working really well"?

 

[kea]

But that's the sort of story that you don't hear, because as always, the most vocal people are those who want a whinge.

but i LIKE whinging

 

[PacificOcean]

Im very dubious about believeing the government when they say reception will improve once the analogue signal is switched off,

That's true though. Once they turn off the analouge signal, they can turn up the power of the digital signal.

 

[chio]

That's true though. Once they turn off the analouge signal, they can turn up the power of the digital signal.

Plus the small (currently analogue-only) repeater stations for black spots can be switched to digital too.

 

[kyser_soze]

Multiple replies...

Trashpony - it costs me £22 a month. Haven't owned a TV since I was 19 and could rent one from Radio Rentals/box clever. TVs are an obselescent technology and if you like to stay 'current' without falling into the early adopter trap rental is the way forward - aside from the benefits of replacement TV if your's breaks and needs repairing; no need to buy an expensive warranty; upgrade/replacement at least every 18 months should you desire/need it...

kea - the analog switch off was first dicsussed 9 years ago, and the current dates white papered in 1999, so it's hardly an unreasonably short timescale - in fact in terms of public policy this is an extremely long timescale, and ha probably considered the social impact on non-adopting groups more than most PP this govt has legislated on!

Pacific:

But why are the Goverment chosing the Border region as the first to switch off? It's very rural, their demographic are largely those over 65 and conservative (those most likely not to take up digital) It's very hilly for analouge reception and hardly anywhere will be cabled.

Precisely because they are the least likely to take up digital. One of the biggest criticisms to the switch off props was that Border would be disproportianately affected precisely because of this demograph, plus landscape issues that affect transmission.

Reception issues: As the switch off gets closer the broadcast strength of digital will increase, as it has been since ON first launched as a subscriber service and was worse than C5 when it started (incidentally - C5s coverage isn't 'patchy' and hasn't been 'patchy' since 2003...go check on OFCOM for more details...)...Freeview was effectively forced on both the BBC and commercial operators to meet the switch off date and it took digital uptake in non-Sky homes from 25% to it's current level of 55% (or thereabouts)...it's also worth bearing in mind that Sky is in more than 50% of UK households, so by any stretch a clear majority have already moved up to digital TV in one way shape or form. Why should broadcasters and the majority of TV viewers be foreced to continue to pay for a the analogue broadcast of what is ultimately a 'culturally central' but effectively non-essential service?

 

[newbie]

1) people with problems should get financial help with the technology needed to sort them out
2) all possible effort to get the reception problems sorted should be made and analogue shoudn't be shut down til this is sorted
3) people should be given another few years to make the switch-over

that's my position.

1 agree
2 they have been and are being made. I don't agree.
3 How many years? On started in 1998.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

They're going to auction the freed up bandwidth, like they did to the mobile companies a few years back.

Oh right, any idea who would buy it and how much money it would make?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

But that's technically impossible - London is covered by a single transmitter, as is the North West and almost every other region. There's just not the room on these regional transmitters for Stoke Newington TV or The Fleetwood Channel, nor are the big businesses controlling the multiplexes likely to want to give space away to small organisations.

(A few areas such as Manchester and Oxford already have local analogue TV channels, which have had - shall we say - varying degrees of success. The Manc one relays Sky News and QVC most of the time)

Impossible on analogue or digital?