What does déjà vu all over again mean...

[bosod...@gmail.com]

What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?

[soup]

On 21/06/2018 09:09, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?
>

Possibly because déjà vu is French for "already seen"
which makes 'déjà vu all over again' a sort of tautology.

[Richard Yates]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:31:03 +0100, soup <cheeses...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, and portraying a faux ignorance of the literal meaning of "déjà
vu". Compare it to "Beef au jus with juice", or "ice cream in the
style of a la mode".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:58:05 AM UTC-4, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:31:03 +0100, soup <cheeses...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 21/06/2018 09:09, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?
> > Possibly because déjà vu is French for "already seen"
> >which makes 'déjà vu all over again' a sort of tautology.

A well-known Yogiism, whether or not he actually said it.

> Yes, and portraying a faux ignorance of the literal meaning of "déjà
> vu". Compare it to "Beef au jus with juice", or "ice cream in the
> style of a la mode".

What would that be, ice cream with ice cream on it? That's usually called
"two scoops."

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On the occasions I've met "déjà vu all over again" it was being used
apparently with a full understanding of the meaning of "déjà vu".
"all over again" was being used jocularly as an intensifier and perhaps
to indicate excessiveness.

A similar duplication expressing excess might be:
"it was repeated repeatedly".

Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
has a different name now.
Dave is a commercial operation partly owned by the BBC. As well as
original and imported material it broadcasts repeats of some BBC shows.
One such is the comedy panel show QI. In an early episode of QI the
regular panelist Alan Davies said that he had a friend named Dave who
was always repeating things. He acquired the nickname "Dave ja vu".

It was some time after that episode had been aired on Dave and Dave+1
that Dave+1 was officially renamed and is now "Dave ja vu".

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <qe8nid5s25pb8v10l...@4ax.com>,

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
>other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
>hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
>named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
>has a different name now.

I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put? Who is the
audience?

-GAWollman
(who has a DVR *and* a computer)
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Richard Yates]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:50:32 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 05:59:00 -0700, Richard Yates
><ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:31:03 +0100, soup <cheeses...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/06/2018 09:09, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly because déjà vu is French for "already seen"
>>>which makes 'déjà vu all over again' a sort of tautology.
>>
>>Yes, and portraying a faux ignorance of the literal meaning of "déjà
>>vu". Compare it to "Beef au jus with juice", or "ice cream in the
>>style of a la mode".
>
>On the occasions I've met "déjà vu all over again" it was being used
>apparently with a full understanding of the meaning of "déjà vu".
>"all over again" was being used jocularly as an intensifier and perhaps
>to indicate excessiveness.

Yes, that's what I meant by "faux ignorance" (and trying for a term
that would be self-referential as its own joke).

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:54:24 UTC+1, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <qe8nid5s25pb8v10l...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
> >other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
> >hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
> >named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
> >has a different name now.
>
> I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
> use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put? Who is the
> audience?
>

People who watch TV only as broadcast and would otherwise be forced
to miss some shows because of clashes. It obviously comes as a shock
to you but not everybody has or wishes to be bothered with Smart TVs,
DVR equipment, and computers. They just want to sit down of an
evening in front of the box and watch the telly. Their choices are
considerably extended by the option of watching both of two shows
that are on at the same time by having them not on at the same time.

Meanwhile I'd hardly call over 200 channels available to conventional
broadcasters 'scarce bandwidth'!

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

On 6/21/2018 1:09 AM, bosod...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?
>

I get that every morning perched upon my porcelain throne.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:09:11 -0700 (PDT), bosod...@gmail.com wrote:

>What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?

"Déjà vu all over again" is a phrase taken from a famous quotation
attributed to Yogi Berra: "It's déjà vu all over again."

(Berra explained that this quote originated when he witnessed Mickey
Mantle and Roger Maris repeatedly hitting back-to-back home runs in
the Yankees' seasons in the early 1960s.)

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:53:09 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:50:32 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:


>On the occasions I've met "déjà vu all over again" it was being used
>apparently with a full understanding of the meaning of "déjà vu".
>"all over again" was being used jocularly as an intensifier and perhaps
>to indicate excessiveness.

Supposedly it was originally said by Yogi Berra, and like most of his
yogi-isms, was said by him in error. But personally, I believe that
few or any of them were errors. He was smarter than he pretended to
be.


My favorite is "Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice-versa."

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Also people with a typical DVR (BrE: PVR) can record only two programmes
at a time. If there are 4 simultaneous (hour-long) shows that they want
to record they can use the +1 channels for 2 of them.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Except that he didn't say most of the things he said.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <fb35da1e-f1f2-44c6...@googlegroups.com>,

Or so they say.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <ojinidhglppn65grm...@4ax.com>,

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>Also people with a typical DVR (BrE: PVR) can record only two programmes
>at a time. If there are 4 simultaneous (hour-long) shows that they want
>to record they can use the +1 channels for 2 of them.

Really? They're that limited where you are? I think the standard one
over here -- certainly the standard TiVo box -- have six tuners.
(Unfortunately, most people who still subscribe to a traditional video
distribution service and have a DVR rent it from their cable or
satellite provider, so there are ample incentives for the provider to
exercise "price discrimination". More and more people have ditched
the video service entirely and gone to a basket of "over-the-top"
streaming services, most of which can be accessed using all of the
popular dedicated streaming appliances like Apple TV, etc. The video
providers hate this, which is why they bought the FCC and gutted net
neutrality.)

-GAWollman

[Peter T. Daniels]

So _he_ said. It was the title of one of his memoirs.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:08:09 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <ojinidhglppn65grm...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>Also people with a typical DVR (BrE: PVR) can record only two programmes
>>at a time. If there are 4 simultaneous (hour-long) shows that they want
>>to record they can use the +1 channels for 2 of them.
>
>Really? They're that limited where you are? I think the standard one
>over here -- certainly the standard TiVo box -- have six tuners.

The position in the UK is that the providers of satellite and cable
subscription TV services supply boxes that have six or seven tuners and
can record that number of channels simultaneously.

The recorders for free-to-air non-subscription terrestrial and satellite
have two tuners. That is not as restrictive as it might sound. You can
have as many recorders as you like in a home. You just buy them over the
counter. I have five, in various rooms. Three are for terrestrial TV and
two are for satellite. So I can record 10 channels simultaneously.

Tivo boxes used to be available for purchase here, but now I believe the
company has a contract to supply the cable company Virgin Media with
Tivo boxes and they are not otherwise available.

>(Unfortunately, most people who still subscribe to a traditional video
>distribution service and have a DVR rent it from their cable or
>satellite provider, so there are ample incentives for the provider to
>exercise "price discrimination". More and more people have ditched
>the video service entirely and gone to a basket of "over-the-top"
>streaming services, most of which can be accessed using all of the
>popular dedicated streaming appliances like Apple TV, etc. The video
>providers hate this, which is why they bought the FCC and gutted net
>neutrality.)
>
>-GAWollman

--

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <52768530-2c93-4272...@googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:03:03 PM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> > In article <fb35da1e-f1f2-44c6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:04:36 PM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:53:09 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:50:32 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> > > > <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >On the occasions I've met "déjà vu all over again" it was being used
> > > > >apparently with a full understanding of the meaning of "déjà vu".
> > > > >"all over again" was being used jocularly as an intensifier and perhaps
> > > > >to indicate excessiveness.
> > > > Supposedly it was originally said by Yogi Berra, and like most of his
> > > > yogi-isms, was said by him in error. But personally, I believe that
> > > > few or any of them were errors. He was smarter than he pretended to
> > > > be.
> > > Except that he didn't say most of the things he said.
> >
> > Or so they say.
>

> So he said. It was the title of one of his memoirs.

His memory might have been faulty.

[Neill Massello]

<bosod...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does déjà vu all over again mean, and why is it supposed to be Funny?

I have the strange feeling that you asked this question before.

[bill van]

There is a changing variety of PVR-type boxes available in Canada. It varies
between cable companies, and also within cable companies. Our previous
system would
record two channels at a time, but you couldn't watch a third one. The
system that
followed it would record five at a time. We skipped that one and are
using the next generation,
which has a "gateway" box attached to our main TV and a "portal" box to
our secondary
TV. The boxes talk to each other, and the recordings made by both show up on
the same menu and can be viewed on either box.

bill

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <l3aoidtg9q6hiul83...@4ax.com>,

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>Tivo boxes used to be available for purchase here, but now I believe the
>company has a contract to supply the cable company Virgin Media with
>Tivo boxes and they are not otherwise available.

TiVo, the company, was sold to Rovi in 2016, which then renamed itself
TiVo after the more famous brand. Rovi itself is the old Macrovision
of ill repute, which acquired numerous companies in the television and
digital media metadata business before acquiring TiVo -- mainly for
its patent portfolio and brand name. (Among the other companies
acquired by Macrovision/Rovi were Gemstar-TV Guide and Muze.) They
announced that they intended to discontinue the TiVo DVR business and
license the TiVo name and patents to third-party equipment makers.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<purpl...@googlemail.com> wrote:

And the broadcasters who pay for +1 channels do so out of their
advertising income, so there must be enough viewers of the +1 channels
to attract enough advertising income to make them worthwhile.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Useful.
My boxes have ethernet capabilities and can be connect to a LAN. Three
of mine are. The boxes can see one another and can play recordings from
one another. The can also see any computers on the LAN and play
video/audio items from their public folders.

[bosod...@gmail.com]

PFF is "Pretty Effing Funny" but "Dave ja vu" may just be two effing funny to repeat

[Peter Moylan]

On 22/06/18 19:09, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> Useful. My boxes have ethernet capabilities and can be connect to a
> LAN. Three of mine are. The boxes can see one another and can play
> recordings from one another. The can also see any computers on the
> LAN and play video/audio items from their public folders.

We have two TV sets, in different rooms, and each of those has an
attached video recorder. I suspect that the video recorders have only
two tuners. The reason I'm not sure is that I've just realised that we
almost never use the recorders. The ability to connect a TV set to "on
demand" internet sources has made recording almost obsolete. Thus, there
is no motivation to purchase a more sophisticated recording device.

Back when I did a lot of recording -- mostly to watch time-delayed news
broadcasts -- the recorder we had used one tuner to record to disk and
another to record to videotape. That too is now obsolete technology.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Richard Yates]

It seems like I saved a similar reply the last time this came up so
that I could repost it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 4:59:00 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:42:20 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <purpl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:54:24 UTC+1, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> >> In article <qe8nid5s25pb8v10l...@4ax.com>,
> >> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> >> >Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
> >> >other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
> >> >hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
> >> >named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
> >> >has a different name now.
> >> I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
> >> use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put? Who is the
> >> audience?
> >People who watch TV only as broadcast and would otherwise be forced
> >to miss some shows because of clashes. It obviously comes as a shock
> >to you but not everybody has or wishes to be bothered with Smart TVs,
> >DVR equipment, and computers. They just want to sit down of an
> >evening in front of the box and watch the telly. Their choices are
> >considerably extended by the option of watching both of two shows
> >that are on at the same time by having them not on at the same time.

> And the broadcasters who pay for +1 channels do so out of their
> advertising income, so there must be enough viewers of the +1 channels
> to attract enough advertising income to make them worthwhile.

Do the two airings carry different commercials?

For a while, the FCC required radio stations that have both AM and FM
broadcasts to provide different programming at all times. One way they
did that was to repeat the whole day an hour later.

The rule must have changed, because WNYC-AM and -FM provide the same
program simultaneously most of the day, with different offerings at
certain hours.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I don't know but my guess is, No.

I'll record a popular programme this evening on both the normal and the
+1 channels and see if the same adverts are shown.

I suspect that advertisers will choose, and pay, to have their ads shown
during a particular show because of the demographic it attracts. Having
paid for their ads to be shown during a particular show they would want
them to also appear during that show on the +1 channel.

Apart from that, it is much simpler for the broadcaster to record the
original as it is broadcast and to play it on the +1 channel an hour
later without making any changes.

>
>For a while, the FCC required radio stations that have both AM and FM
>broadcasts to provide different programming at all times. One way they
>did that was to repeat the whole day an hour later.
>
>The rule must have changed, because WNYC-AM and -FM provide the same
>program simultaneously most of the day, with different offerings at
>certain hours.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <orfqidhmeqd0c8cj2...@4ax.com>,

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>Apart from that, it is much simpler for the broadcaster to record the
>original as it is broadcast and to play it on the +1 channel an hour
>later without making any changes.

It is far simpler for the broadcaster *not* to record the original as
it is broadcast and simply run the same script on the +1 system's
playout server an hour later. Whether you'd get the same spot load
depends on how the commercial inventory is played out -- many
broadcasters use separate systems for advertisting and programming
playout, so the rundown for 8 PM "live" might not actually refer to
the exact commercials to be played, it might just say something to the
effect of "transfer control to commercial playout and trigger break
no. 1".

[Bozo_D...@37.com]

Now that's PFF!

[Peter T. Daniels]

But see "the broadcasters who pay for +1 channels do so out of their

advertising income, so there must be enough viewers of the +1 channels

to attract enough advertising income to make them worthwhile," which
suggests a decision by advertisers to advertise to the two different
audiences, the live and the delayed.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:35:33 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <orfqidhmeqd0c8cj2...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>Apart from that, it is much simpler for the broadcaster to record the
>>original as it is broadcast and to play it on the +1 channel an hour
>>later without making any changes.
>
>It is far simpler for the broadcaster *not* to record the original as
>it is broadcast and simply run the same script on the +1 system's
>playout server an hour later. Whether you'd get the same spot load
>depends on how the commercial inventory is played out -- many
>broadcasters use separate systems for advertisting and programming
>playout, so the rundown for 8 PM "live" might not actually refer to
>the exact commercials to be played, it might just say something to the
>effect of "transfer control to commercial playout and trigger break
>no. 1".
>

What was in the back of my mind was that some of these "double channels"
have live material on the original which will be recorded "live" before
being played out on the +1 channel..

>-GAWollman

[Lewis]

In message <pggamd$2oql$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <qe8nid5s25pb8v10l...@4ax.com>,

> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>>Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
>>other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
>>hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
>>named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
>>has a different name now.

> I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
> use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put? Who is the
> audience?

Scarce?

--
I have a cunning plan.

[Lewis]

In message <pgijr5$ogb$1...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/06/18 19:09, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

>> Useful. My boxes have ethernet capabilities and can be connect to a
>> LAN. Three of mine are. The boxes can see one another and can play
>> recordings from one another. The can also see any computers on the
>> LAN and play video/audio items from their public folders.

> We have two TV sets, in different rooms, and each of those has an
> attached video recorder. I suspect that the video recorders have only
> two tuners. The reason I'm not sure is that I've just realised that we
> almost never use the recorders. The ability to connect a TV set to "on
> demand" internet sources has made recording almost obsolete. Thus, there
> is no motivation to purchase a more sophisticated recording device.

We have two "TVs" in that they are technically televisions (legally) but
neither is hooked up to any sort of antenna or cable that provides TV
channels. Both are connected to Apple TVs, and one also has a Roku
because I happened to have one lying around and I might as well plug it
in somewhere. the other TV has a Roku built in, but that is also never
used.

We have another "TV" that is technically not a television (it has no
tuner), that is used only for the gaming consoles, and we have a
projector we use for watching movies on a large screen (10 feet) in the
basement, which is on a third AppleTV.

I dropped all forms of broadcast TV in 2008 after using TiVo for a
decade. I recently tried an "over the top" service (DirecTV Now) and was
horrified at ho horrible commercials have gotten. I used the trial
period for maybe a total of 15 minutes.

Netflix and HBO are all we need. We subscribe to Hulu because we get
Netflix for free, and I subscribe to VRV because both the kids like the
anime on there and I sometimes will watch DramaFever shows on it.

There is very little I am interested in seeing that I don't get with
these choices which cost me less than the most basic cable service
would. ($12 Hulu $10 VRV $15 HBO versus $60+ for cable that would include
nothing but some of stuff I get on Hulu). If I wanted SciFi and BBC
America and AMC it would be pretty close to $100/month. We also have
Amazon Prime Video because we use Amazon Prime a lot, but would not pay
for it on its own.

The kids don't watch TV at all (not even Netflix), they watch YouTube
and some anime on VRV and that's all.

Somewhere in the house I have a box connected to an antenna that can
stream or record broadcast channels. I keep intending to configure it
sometime to record Jeopary! but then I never do.

My eldest child will be 21 this year and the only time he ever saw
commercials on TV was at his grandparents house.

--
AUDITORS OF REALITY. THEY THINK OF LIFE AS A STAIN ON THE UNIVERSE. A
PESTILENCE. MESSY. GETTING IN THE WAY. 'In the way of what?' THE
EFFICIENT RUNNING OF THE UNIVERSE.

[Lewis]

In message <pghm3r$3h3$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> In article <l3aoidtg9q6hiul83...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>>Tivo boxes used to be available for purchase here, but now I believe the
>>company has a contract to supply the cable company Virgin Media with
>>Tivo boxes and they are not otherwise available.

> TiVo, the company, was sold to Rovi in 2016, which then renamed itself
> TiVo after the more famous brand. Rovi itself is the old Macrovision
> of ill repute, which acquired numerous companies in the television and
> digital media metadata business before acquiring TiVo -- mainly for
> its patent portfolio and brand name. (Among the other companies
> acquired by Macrovision/Rovi were Gemstar-TV Guide and Muze.) They
> announced that they intended to discontinue the TiVo DVR business and
> license the TiVo name and patents to third-party equipment makers.

But have since released several new models of TiVo.

<https://www.tivo.com/shop>

--
"I have no choice but to believe in free will." - Randy Wayne White

[Richard Tobin]

In article <pggamd$2oql$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,

Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:

>>Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
>>other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
>>hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
>>named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
>>has a different name now.

>I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
>use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put?

No more *profitable* use, apparently.

Though gradually all terrestrial TV bandwidth will be handed over to
mobile phone and similar uses.

>Who is the audience?

People who turn on at the end of a program and think "I'd have
liked to watch that"?

-- Richard

[Lewis]

In message <pgljfq$2rau$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <pggamd$2oql$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:

>>>Tangentially: there is a TV channel in the UK named Dave. As with some
>>>other TV channels it has second channel with the content delayed by one
>>>hour. Channels such as E4, ITV3 and Dave, have their delayed versions
>>>named E4+1, ITV3+1 and Dave+1, except that the delayed version of Dave
>>>has a different name now.

>>I honestly don't understand this. Is there really no more valuable
>>use to which this scarce broadcast bandwidth could be put?

> No more *profitable* use, apparently.

> Though gradually all terrestrial TV bandwidth will be handed over to
> mobile phone and similar uses.

Highly unlikely, as those frequencies are not suitable for cellular
phones. 54-216 MHz is garbage, and the UHF band (450-900MHz) only would
be useful at the upper ends.

--
I can't die, I haven't seen The Jolson Story

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnpiuc5j....@Snow.local>,

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> Though gradually all terrestrial TV bandwidth will be handed over to
>> mobile phone and similar uses.

>Highly unlikely, as those frequencies are not suitable for cellular
>phones. 54-216 MHz is garbage, and the UHF band (450-900MHz) only would
>be useful at the upper ends.

VHF isn't used for broadcast TV here, so I was referring to UHF. They
have already taken over the channels above 60 (783MHz according to
Wikipedia) and I predict they will find ways to use lower ones.

-- Richard

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <pgnpop$10bq$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>VHF isn't used for broadcast TV here, so I was referring to UHF. They
>have already taken over the channels above 60 (783MHz according to
>Wikipedia) and I predict they will find ways to use lower ones.

On this side of the pond, we are in the midst of a "repack" that will
see everything above channel 37 (which is reserved for radio
astronomy) move to longer wavelengths. The spectrum has already been
auctioned off to wireless carriers (some of the proceeds of which went
to compensate broadcasters for having to move).

Although many broadcasters intentionally moved from VHF to UHF in the
digital transition, a good number of them were perfectly willing to
take millions of dollars from the wireless industry to move from UHF
to VHF. (As it is quite clear that VHF spectrum has no higher-value
use.)

Note that we have 6-MHz channels so our channel numbers aren't the
same as yours. (Historically, most of Europe used 7-MHz channels on
VHF and 8-MHz channels on UHF, but the UK was of course an exception
because only system A (405-line black and white) was ever operated on
VHF.)

[charles]

In article <slrnpiuc5j....@Snow.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

and that is already being taken

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle